Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-1 

4. Environmental Consequences 

4.1 Introduction 

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

the significant effects of the four management alternatives on 

biological and socioeconomic resources and on public-use 

opportunities. The current management situation (Alternative 

1) provides the basis for comparing the effects of the three 

action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a). For each 

alternative, we describe the biological effects, followed by the 

effects on human uses, of the proposed actions. 

The analysis of the biological effects is presented for the 

following categories: 

 Caribou 

 Moose 

 Brown bear 

 Wolves 

 Seabirds 

 Marbled godwits 

 Birds in general 

 Fishery resources, which includes an emphasis on sockeye 

salmon and Arctic grayling 

 Fish and wildlife habitat 

Although all species on the Refuges are important, most species 

are not expected to experience any measurable change as a 

result of implementing any of the alternatives and are not 

discussed in this chapter. Species such as marine mammals are 

not discussed because the potential changes described in the 

alternatives are not expected to have a noticeable effect on 

these populations. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons, two of the 

species specifically mentioned in the establishing purposes for 

the Alaska Peninsula Refuge, are also expected to be unaffected 

by any of the management alternatives. Any site-specific 

activity that may occur during the life of the Alaska Peninsula 

and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges (Refuges) 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Plan) and that requires 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation 

would address species present at the location. 

The analysis of effects on the human environment addresses 

expected consequences for three broad areas of human use: 

 Local population and economy 

 Subsistence 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-2 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Recreation opportunities 

The effects on the local population and economy include the 

Refuges’ contribution to the local and regional economy and 

effects on local economic development. None of the alternatives 

could be expected to significantly affect the changes to the 

human population that are already projected to occur in the 

area. The section on subsistence assesses the effects on 

subsistence harvest of caribou and moose on the Refuges and 

any expected changes regarding conflicts between subsistence 

and recreation uses. The section on recreation opportunities 

assesses how opportunities for guided and unguided 

recreational hunting and fishing could be affected and also 

addresses other recreation opportunities and quality of 

recreation experience. Cultural resources are targeted for 

protection under all alternatives through federal regulation, and 

none of the alternatives contains actions that could be expected 

to lead to impacts on cultural resources. For this reason, there 

is not a separate section on cultural resource impacts under 

each alternative. 

Because the three action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a) 

considered in this Plan are programmatic rather than sitespecific, it is important to establish the basis for the analysis 

used in this chapter. For example, without knowing how many 

requests might be received or the specifics of future requests 

for permits to use helicopters for recreation access on the 

Refuges, it is a challenge to evaluate a change in management 

direction. Our approach is to discuss some effects that have 

been shown to occur in other locations, identifying indirect 

effects where possible. This analysis uses the following 

assumptions: 

 Because a comprehensive assessment of sensitive areas on 

the Refuges has not been completed, the evaluation of 

effects under current management (Alternative 1) assumes 

that only well-known sensitive areas (such as seabird 

colonies) would be avoided during the consideration of 

future proposals. 

 The proposed direction under Alternative 2 calls for prior 

identification of sensitive and remote areas, which would be 

excluded from consideration. Furthermore, the 

identification and protection of “remote areas” applies to 

areas that are normally beyond the reach of current means 

of motorized recreation access. 

 The analysis in this chapter under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3a 

assumes that, once an initial helicopter operation in support 

of recreation activities is approved, more proposals are 

likely. It assumes that only a few operators would be 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-3 

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

cumulative use levels compatible with other refuge 

purposes. 

 Alternative 3 would prohibit using helicopters as a means of 

access for recreation activities. 

4.2 Altermative 1— 

Current Management 

This alternative would continue management of the Refuges 

largely as in recent years, recognizing that current management 

is dynamic and can react to new information or changing 

resource conditions. Access would be maintained to all areas of 

the Refuges for subsistence, recreation, and commercial users 

to the maximum extent possible consistent with refuge 

purposes. Potential use of helicopters for recreation purposes 

outside Wilderness areas would be considered case by case and 

would be allowed only when the requested use was determined 

compatible with refuge goals and purposes and the mission of 

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (System). Any permit could be issued 

only after an analysis of potential impacts at the specific landing 

sites proposed by the operator. 

4.2.1 Effects on Biological Resources 

Introduction

Alternative 1 would allow consideration of helicopters in support 

of recreation. This analysis considers the potential effects of the 

current management practice, which allows for consideration of 

helicopter landings without predetermining where all but the 

most noticeable sensitive areas of the Refuges are located. This 

analysis assumes that major impacts to currently identified 

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

under the provisions of any special use permit. However, 

because knowledge of sensitive resources is incomplete, impacts 

from helicopter landings and takeoffs and from public use in 

previously little-disturbed areas could occur. Impacts at any 

given site would vary with frequency of helicopter visits, 

number and activities of visitors, and the sensitive resources 

present. 

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

support of hunting throughout the state and in certain instances 

prohibits the use of helicopters in support of recreational 

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

or recreation-caught fish is prohibited in the Kvichak River 

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

Refuges. The Service has no authority to regulate helicopters 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-4 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

flying over the Refuges; if helicopter landings were permitted, 

overflights of the Refuges would be assumed to increase. The 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates general 

aviation. Although the FAA has not specified a minimum 

altitude for aircraft to maintain over sparsely populated areas, it 

has requested that aircraft maintain a minimum altitude of 

2,000 feet above numerous federal lands, including national 

wildlife refuges. 

Caribou and Moose

Helicopters------Under some conditions, helicopter operations can 

cause significant disturbance to caribou and moose, especially 

those with calves. Helicopter landings, takeoffs, and low 

overflights could reduce survival of young calves by separating 

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

could displace animals from preferred habitat. However, 

because helicopter access for recreation use would occur only 

under special use permits that would require pilots to avoid 

known sensitive areas and because of existing wildlifeharassment regulations, most such disturbances of highly 

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

Temporary disturbance of small groups of moose or caribou 

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

however, should not have long-term consequences to the 

population. 

Conclusions------Short-term effects to caribou and moose 

populations from continuing current management include some 

additional displacement and disturbance if helicopter use for 

recreation were authorized. More significant effects from 

disturbance could occur to individual animals, but the overall 

effect from increased helicopter use would be minor. 

Bears and Wolves 

Helicopters------Special use permits allowing helicopter landings 

for recreation uses would be designed to minimize the 

disturbance to known critical habitats. Nevertheless, some 

temporary displacement of individuals would be inevitable. Also, 

introducing visitors into areas currently inaccessible could 

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

Conclusions------Displacement and disturbance to individual bears 

and wolves could occur if helicopter use for recreation were 

allowed, but the overall effect would be minor. Disturbance 

associated with the new access provided by helicopters could 

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

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

mortality. 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-5 

Seabirds and Other Avian Species

Helicopters------The large colonies of murres and kittiwakes at 

Puale and Dry bays are within the existing Wilderness Area, 

where helicopter landings for recreation activities are 

prohibited. Because of the sensitivity to helicopters of colonially 

nesting seabirds, any helicopter permit issued would not allow 

landings near known seabird colonies. However, not all sensitive 

areas on the Refuges have been identified; therefore, helicopter 

operations could inevitably displace some nesting birds. This 

would potentially cause some loss of eggs or chicks to predation 

or abandonment. The likelihood of cumulative impacts to 

populations would depend on the eventual level of helicopter 

use. 

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

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

helicopter landings were authorized near these nesting areas, 

the likelihood of displacement and nesting failure would 

increase with the frequency and duration of helicopter traffic in 

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

recognized as a sensitive area while the birds are nesting and 

rearing their young; however, no special protection or emphasis 

of the nesting area would occur under this alternative. 

Conclusions------Continued implementation of current 

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

seabird colonies or other large concentrations of breeding birds 

on the Refuges. Displacement and disturbance of solitary 

nesting birds or unknown small colonies would create minor 

effects if helicopter use for recreation purposes were 

authorized. Disturbance resulting in moderate effects to 

breeding birds (disturbance can result in reduced nesting 

success for a variety of reasons) could occur; these effects are 

not anticipated to result in measurable population changes. 

Almost all of the large seabird colonies on the Refuges are 

within the existing Wilderness Area. There would be no special 

recognition or protection of marbled godwits nesting on the 

Refuges. 

Fisheries

Wilderness------Within the Becharof Wilderness Area, which is in 

the Wilderness Management category, temporary restoration 

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

threatened, as long as the facilities would not significantly 

detract from the values for which that area was established. 

Actions designed to artificially increase fish populations would 

be evaluated for implementation within the designated 

Wilderness and would include a minimum-requirements 

analysis. To date, no fisheries enhancement activities have been 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-6 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

conducted within the Becharof Wilderness Area and none is 

anticipated in the near term. All facilities, structures, and 

habitat-manipulation actions that are determined to be 

necessary within a designated Wilderness Area would be 

implemented using the minimum tool required to achieve the 

objective while minimizing effects on wilderness values. 

Helicopters------If helicopter drop-offs of anglers to previously 

inaccessible upper reaches of backcountry streams were to 

become significant, fish populations in those areas should be 

monitored and, if necessary, regulations developed through the 

Alaska Board of Fisheries to protect stocks’ age and size 

composition. 

Conclusions------No short-term effects are expected for fish 

populations on the Refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

Under current management priorities, there is an emphasis on 

conserving naturally diverse ecosystems, including fisheries. 

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

and other partners to restore habitats and populations to 

appropriate, sustainable conditions and to participate in a 

variety of monitoring and research projects. Restoration 

emphasis would focus on strategies that are the least intrusive 

to the ecosystem and that do not compromise the viability or 

genetic characteristics of the depleted population. 

The majority of important fish and wildlife habitat within the 

refuge lands is in the Minimal Management category. 

Significant habitat includes sockeye-spawning habitat and 

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

used by foraging brown bears and perhaps two-thirds of 

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

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

harlequin duck mountain stream habitat; about two-thirds of 

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

Alaska subspecies of marbled godwits. 

Helicopters------Some currently inaccessible areas in Minimal 

Management may be susceptible to some long-term, 

irreversible impacts from helicopter access under this 

alternative. Among these potential impacts would be the 

introduction of invasive species, particularly plants and insects, 

across larger areas than are currently accessible by fixed-wing 

aircraft and boats. The long-term consequences of these 

introductions cannot be predicted, but consequences could be 

significant, as has been demonstrated in Hawaii and the 

contiguous 48 states (e.g., leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, and 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-7 

hydrilla). Detrimental impacts of introduced plants include 

replacing native plants, reducing habitat quality and forage 

availability for fish and wildlife, clogging waterways, increasing 

erosion, and reducing soil nutrients. 

Introduced plant species have many means of dispersal, 

including many animal species (including humans) as seed 

carriers. Seeds and viable plant parts may be transported on 

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

1998). In southeastern Alaska, several exotic plants with 

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

spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), Scotch broom 

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

(Woods 2000). 

Introduced plants are most likely to become established at 

disturbed sites. On the Alaska Peninsula, naturally disturbed 

sites can include riverbanks, gravel bars on braided streams, 

sand blows, wind-blown slopes, and glacial till. Humandisturbed sites include popular public-use sites, off-road-vehicle 

(ORV) trails, and developed areas. Pineapple weed (Matricaria 

matricarioides) has long been established on the Alaska 

Peninsula (Hulten 1968, p. 889) and is established at popular 

public-use sites in the Refuges. At Cold Bay on the Alaska 

Peninsula, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) recently became 

established, presumably from seed carried on heavy equipment 

barged into the community; it now occupies three acres (Talbot 

2001). 

Conclusions------There would be no discernable short-term effects 

on fish and wildlife habitat from continued implementation of 

current management. 

4.2.2 Effects on Human Environment 

The main ways in which continuing current management could 

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

wildlife populations and habitat, the current low level of 

monitoring of public use, and the existing approach of making 

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

recreation. The effects analysis in large part describes the 

current and expected trends in human uses of and benefits 

realized from the Refuges. 

Local Population and Economy

Effects on Local Population and Economy------The region is 

characterized by a mixed cash-subsistence economy. The cash 

economy is well developed, dominated by commercial fishing 

and with substantial support from tourism and government 

employment. Fisheries are a driving force behind the local 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-8 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

How refuge management affects and contributes to the health 

of fish populations is therefore perhaps its most important 

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

Refuges contribute to the local economy annually (1997 

estimate) nearly all come from supporting the commercial 

fishery by providing salmon spawning and rearing habitat 

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

with its participation in fisheries management activities have 

maintained the fish habitat in high-quality condition and are not 

limiting factors for fish populations. Other factors, such as ocean 

cycles or the multitude of regulations governing fishing, have 

likely been much more responsible for the variation in 

commercial, subsistence, and recreation harvest opportunities. 

The Refuges’ contributions to the fishery and its human uses 

will continue under Alternative 1. 

Effects on Economic Development------Economic opportunities in 

the Lake and Peninsula Borough are limited by the relative lack 

of transportation infrastructure in the borough, which reflects 

the dispersed and small population, rugged terrain, land status, 

and severe seasonal weather (HDR Alaska 1999). 

Transportation to communities depends on air and boat access 

because no roads connect the borough with other parts of the 

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

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

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

transportation plan, the one that could affect refuge lands that 

is receiving the most attention is a possible road between Port 

Heiden and Chignik. 

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

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

effort for the southwester region of Alaska, has also been 

endorsed by the Lake and Peninsula Borough (Wrede 2000). 

The road would link the year-round deep-water port at Chignik 

with the longest runway (which, at 6,400 feet, is capable of 

handling 737 jets) in the area at Port Heiden. Local residents 

have also discussed the possibility of a railroad along that route, 

which could mitigate some of the effects of a road while still 

providing benefits. Under existing management, all-weather or 

even unimproved roads are not allowed in Minimal Management 

areas; this could pose a policy barrier to a future road corridor 

between the two villages. Prior to authorization of any road 

through the Refuges, a Plan amendment, including a 

compatibility determination, would be necessary. 

The state has identified two routes across the Refuges for 

potential transportation and utility (TUS) corridors. The state 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-9 

identified these as potential routes for pipelines and associated 

infrastructure to transport petroleum to deepwater ports on the 

Pacific Ocean in the event that petroleum is discovered and 

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

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

authorization, however, environmental studies would have to be 

conducted, and a favorable compatibility determination would 

be needed. 

One important method of estimating effects on local populations 

and economies is to assess the ways that the alternatives could 

affect local abilities to reach social and economic goals, as 

reflected in the borough’s and communities’ Overall Economic 

Development Plan. The Overall Economic Development Plan 

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

strategies, one of which is designed to develop communities as 

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

gateway community plans to be developed for communities that 

serve as access points to the Refuges. The Service would 

willingly participate in such efforts. A related strategy calls for 

expanding the existing tourism industry from hunting and 

fishing activities to ecotourism and cultural tourism and for 

developing the infrastructure (facilities, attractions, 

transportation) necessary to attract and develop these new 

markets. Current management of the Refuges is designed to 

accommodate such new uses, assuming that most facilities 

would be constructed on private lands. 

Under current management (and under the other three 

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

portion of the Refuges. The Wilderness classification applied by 

Congress to the 503,000-acre Becharof Wilderness Area 

withdraws the area permanently from oil and gas leasing. The 

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

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

leasing. An amendment to the Conservation Plan and a 

compatibility determination would be required to change the 

management category to Intensive Management before any 

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

and gas development were to arise, areas with high potential 

could be re-examined. Mineral exploration may be allowed 

within the Refuges if conducted under a special use permit. 

Only exploration conducted by or for the Department of the 

Interior would be authorized within the Becharof Wilderness 

Area. No requests to conduct exploration on the Refuges are 

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

development would be negligible. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-10 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Conclusions------Fisheries are a driving force behind the local 

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

How refuge management affects and contributes to the health 

of fish populations is therefore perhaps the Refuges’ most 

important economic role. Management of the Refuges, coupled 

with its participation in fisheries management activities, has 

maintained fish habitat in high-quality condition and is not a 

limiting factor for fish populations. The Refuges’ contributions 

to the fishery and their support of human uses and economic 

development will continue under current management. 

Subsistence Resources and Use

Residents of villages associated with the Refuges consume 

188--814 pounds of wild foods per capita annually, 

demonstrating the subsistence use present in the region. 

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

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

however, are important to all communities. Current Refuges 

management is designed to maintain and protect fish and 

wildlife habitat. Because commercial, recreational, and 

subsistence fishing regulations are decisions made by entities 

other than the Refuges, continuation of existing management is 

expected to have little effect on use of fish species for 

subsistence. 

Caribou and Moose------Of the two species, caribou has 

traditionally been the most widely used among residents of the 

local villages. These animals have been harvested in large 

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

the mid-1990s, from four percent through nine percent of the 

animals harvested were taken within the boundaries of the 

Refuges; in 1996--1997, none of the five communities with the 

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

Port Heiden, and Pilot Point) harvested any caribou from the 

Refuges. 

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

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

community, but a majority of households in every community 

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

households whose needs were not met, the most common reason 

given (by 42 percent of those responding) was not enough time 

to hunt. 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-11 

Figure 4-1 Percentage of households reporting their caribou needs 

were not met in 1996–1997 (Note that Chignik Bay is a local name 

for the community of Chignik) 

Declines in the Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd 

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

herd prompted the state to shorten seasons, reduce harvest 

limits, and eliminate hunting by nonresidents in game 

management unit (GMU) 9E and part of GMU 9C. The Alaska 

Board of Game enacts caribou hunting regulations, while the 

Federal Subsistence Board (not the Service) determines federal 

regulations, if needed, for rural residents who have customarily 

and traditionally harvested caribou within the Refuges (also see 

Appendix A). It is likely that future caribou population trends 

will continue to be addressed in those forums, rather than by 

Service actions. 

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

another important subsistence species for residents of Alaska 

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

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

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

were taken within Alaska Peninsula Refuge boundaries. The 

number taken within refuge boundaries dropped considerably in 

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

boundaries) or 19 percent of the total number of moose 

harvested. The only communities not harvesting significant 

portions of their moose on the Refuges were King Salmon, 

Naknek, South Naknek, Pilot Point, and Egegik. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-12 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

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

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

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

needs included not enough time to hunt (given by 31 percent of 

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

moose (17 percent), not given enough (22 percent), competition 

(two percent), and regulations or weather (five percent each). 

Conclusions------Section 810 of ANILCA requires an evaluation of 

the effects on subsistence of proposed actions on federal lands 

(see section 4.9). Alternative 1 complements and sustains the 

Refuges’ purpose and objectives of providing subsistence 

opportunity to rural residents. The most important issue for 

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

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

affecting future use and access would likely be Alaska Board of 

Game and Federal Subsistence Board regulations made in 

response to changes in animal populations. The biological 

analyses did not produce any estimate of harvestable surplus of 

caribou within any time frame because future herd size and 

composition cannot be predicted from available information, 

making it impossible to specify any effects on subsistence uses. 

Figure 4-2 Percentage of households reporting their moose needs 

were not met in 1996–1997 (Note that Chignik Bay is a local name 

for the community of Chignik) 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-13 

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

by residents of Egegik during scoping meetings in 1998 and 

1999, the Refuges conducted a monitoring program during 

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

the Becharof Outlet and to identify possible crowding and 

conflict between subsistence and recreation users. In summary, 

public use for the years 1999 and 2000 was almost identical; 

there was little evidence of crowding or conflicts between 

subsistence and recreation uses on the Refuges during the time 

of year when most users visit. The results should be viewed as 

tentative, however, because the coho salmon run arrived several 

weeks later than normal and had below-average numbers in 

both years. 

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

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

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

state road project employing local residents began in Egegik in 

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

this could have also affected the number of local people using 

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

the scope to interviewing people encountered at the site in 

subsequent years to learn more about desired experiences, 

perceptions of crowding and conflict, and levels of concern about 

site characteristics. 

Conclusions------The Refuges plan to continue monitoring at the 

outlet site and at other locations as needed. When it is necessary 

to restrict the taking of fish and wildlife on the Refuges, in 

order to protect the continued viability of fish and wildlife 

populations, the taking of fish and wildlife for nonwasteful 

subsistence uses on the Refuges shall be accorded priority over 

the taking of fish and wildlife for other purposes, in accordance 

the Title VIII of ANILCA. Current management therefore has 

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

a reactive mode because of the lack of systematic monitoring of 

conflicts and related issues across the Refuges. 

Recreation Uses

Under current management, the primary recreation uses of the 

Refuges would continue to be recreational fishing and hunting 

(both guided and unguided). 

Effects on Recreational Hunting------Guided use would continue 

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

and 1997, the number of guiding businesses that reported 

running one or more trips on the Refuges decreased to 17 from 

18. This compares to the 26--36 businesses authorized to operate 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-14 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

recreational hunting guide policy was adopted in 1992. 

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

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

animals, the number of guided hunter days per year ranged 

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

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

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

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

caribou harvested. 

When the herd declined to the point that the estimated 

harvestable surplus was less than the established subsistence 

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

nonresident caribou hunt and instituted a Tier II hunt with only 

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

and southern 9C. The Federal Subsistence Board responded 

similarly by closing federal public lands to nonlocal users and 

issuing an additional 60 permits for qualified residents of local 

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

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

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

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

publication of this Plan, the herd has continue to encounter 

problems with habitat, disease, predation, and illegal harvest. 

Legal harvest, for both subsistence and recreation, is not 

warranted at this time (Fall 2005). The status of the herd will be 

monitored over time, and regulated harvest will resume when 

the herd can sustain it. 

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

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

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

880 through 1,139, and the number of bears harvested varied 

from 61 through 77. This downward trend in number of clients 

and bears harvested continued during 1998 and 1999. In 1999, 

for example, 17 businesses took clients on bear-hunting trips, 

for a total of 68 clients. There were 664 hunter days of guided 

bear-hunting use on the Refuges and 46 bears harvested. 

On the Refuges, use levels for moose hunting during 1996 

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

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

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

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

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

trips There were 298 hunter days of guided moose hunting on 

the Refuges and just 29 moose harvested. 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-15 

Unguided users access the Refuges primarily by air-taxi 

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

air taxis authorized to operate on the Refuges has been steadily 

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

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

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

upward trend, but differs markedly by type of trip. 

Unguided recreational hunting-use levels appear to be stable or 

declining, and there is little evidence that current refuge 

management would change this trend. This mirrors the trend in 

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

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

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

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

from the previous several years (the ban on recreational 

hunting of caribou in 1999 eliminated what was traditionally the 

most popular hunting opportunity on the Refuges). 

Conclusions------The existing opportunities for recreational 

hunting would remain. Alaska Board of Game and Federal 

Subsistence Board regulations made in response to changes in 

animal populations would likely be the primary variables 

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

Refuges under the Plan. 

Effects on Recreational Fishing------Most recreation anglers on 

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

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

salmon and lake trout. Under current management, the nine 

most popular streams on the Refuges show somewhat different 

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

Bay; Gertrude, Featherly, Egegik, and Ruth rivers and at 

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

limited overnight facilities) appears to be decreasing. Levels of 

guided use at the King Salmon River and Painter Creek are 

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

since 1995, possibly because of changes in state regulations that 

went into effect in that year. 

Together, the Becharof and Ugashik systems account for a 

relatively small proportion of freshwater recreational fishing 

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

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

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

drainages account for about one percent or two percent of the 

recreational fishing use of the overall Bristol Bay recreational 

fishery (Walker et al. 2003). Area R data show fluctuations in 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-16 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

trends present. 

One source of refuge-specific data for unguided recreational 

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

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

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

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

which the number of angler trips by air taxi exceeded the 

number of hunter trips. Without regulation or consistent 

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

is possible that quality could deteriorate at popular locations. 

Conclusions------Recreation use at more popular sites appears to 

be maintained by voluntary efforts of guides and air taxi 

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

another location. This arrangement is not guaranteed to 

continue to be effective, especially if use levels increase and 

guided and unguided anglers compete for prime opportunities. 

Increases in unguided recreational fishing levels are likely, 

which could lead to crowding at some popular areas that are 

probably the same areas that are frequented by guided 

recreation anglers. The increased use of air taxis for unguided 

fishing trips mirrors general trends; anglers appear to learn 

about locations and techniques by taking a guided trip, and then 

save money yet have a similar experience by arranging a private 

trip in the future. 

Although air-taxi reports will continue to provide the Refuges 

with good information about unguided use patterns, information 

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

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

be able to detect it or address it systematically and effectively 

with the present level and type of monitoring recreational 

fishing. These declines are most likely to happen at popular 

locations for recreational fishing such as Ugashik Narrows. 

Effects on Other Recreation Opportunities and Recreation 

Quality------There is no evidence that the increase in ecotourism 

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

occurring. Use of air taxis for opportunities not related to 

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

demand for increased wildlife viewing in Alaska, especially bear 

viewing, other, better-known settings adjacent to Katmai 

National Park and Preserve, Denali National Park and 

Preserve, Lake Clark National Park, Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge, and areas managed by the USDA Forest Service in 

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

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

is also no evidence of use of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-17 

Refuges as an overflow area as other, more popular wildlifeviewing areas reach their capacity. 

Helicopter landings for recreation access are prohibited except 

by special use permit. Very few applications have been 

submitted, and none has been approved. Without a specific 

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

recreation quality of allowing helicopter access for recreation 

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

existing recreation use of the Refuges may well outweigh the 

benefits to those who would travel by helicopter. Helicopter use 

can diminish opportunities for challenge and risk, remoteness, 

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

values attributed to a wilderness experience. 

The Service has not collected data about recreation experiences, 

satisfaction with guides, or other information that would provide 

a more complete profile of recreation opportunities on the 

Refuges; thus, aspects of recreation such as changes in the 

quality of the experience would not be detectable. Although the 

Refuges have conducted some use studies------such as the 

Becharof Outlet conflict study------and ADF&G occasionally 

conducts creel censuses as well as mails out an annual survey to 

all anglers in the state, there is no systematic program of 

monitoring recreation uses other than aerial surveys. 

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

a more rigorous program to monitor recreation opportunities 

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

management objectives in general, does not appear to have 

resulted in significant impacts on recreation opportunities. 

However, without such a monitoring program in place over 

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

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

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

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

to respond before degradations occur. 

If monitoring of use does find evidence of conflict among user 

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

management the Refuges would work with visitors to address 

the problems. It appears likely that issues would initially be 

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

Refuges could take actions to address issues such as crowding 

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

The Refuges would try to address the problem in partnership 

with the state and others, without regulating recreation access 

to refuge lands or waters, but such regulation could occur if 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-18 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

effective. 

Conclusions------The Refuges do not currently plan to place any 

limits on recreation access or take other actions to regulate 

recreation use in order to reduce conflict or to protect 

recreation quality, but could do so under current management if 

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

maximizing recreation (and other) uses to the extent compatible 

with refuge purposes, higher use levels and greater effects on 

social and resource conditions would probably be more likely 

under this alternative than they would be under Alternative 3. 

4.2.3 Effects on Wilderness Values and Character of the 

Becharof Wilderness Area 

Alternative 1 contains no actions that, directly or indirectly, 

would change biological or social conditions in the Becharof 

Wilderness Area. The management direction contained in 

Chapter 2 is designed to maintain the values and natural 

character of the Wilderness. 

4.2.4 Cumulative Effects 

No major development actions have been identified on or off the 

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

resources. 

Although two road corridors have been identified that could 

bisect the Refuges, any plans for development are outside the 

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

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

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

road structure itself and from its use. Consequences could 

include destruction of habitat along the road corridor, potential 

spills of fuels and other pollutants, changes in drainage patterns 

with resulting changes in vegetation, siltation of adjacent 

streams and wetlands with resulting changes in aquatic 

ecosystems, and possible introduction of invasive species. 

Further, the Alaska Marine Highway could provide nonlocal 

hunters and anglers access to the new road corridor. Adjacent 

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

and taken to streams crossing the roadway. Additional 

pressures on local fish and game populations could result. 

Traffic along the road could also disturb wildlife such as nesting 

birds and migrating caribou. 

The potential development of roads across the Refuges could 

decrease bear and wolf populations through a variety of 

mechanisms. Some of the well-documented effects of roads on 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-19 

bears and wolves include displacement of the animals from 

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

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

in increased risk of DLP incidents (Herrero 1985), and 

increased hunting and trapping pressure in areas near the road 

corridor. It is generally accepted that brown bears require vast 

areas of undeveloped lands to prosper and that they are 

basically incompatible with concentrated human activity except 

in highly controlled circumstances such as Brooks Camp, 

McNeil River, and Pack Creek viewing areas in Alaska 

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

Possible cumulative effects on the Refuges include an increased 

risk of introducing invasive species through new human activity 

in locations previously inaccessible to people. Should invasive 

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

habitat quality could be reduced as invasive species may change 

the species composition of the habitat. Although such effects are 

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

during the life of this Plan. 

New fishing pressure to remote reaches of streams could occur 

if helicopter access for recreation activities were permitted. 

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

Refuges. Streams not now receiving any fishing pressure or 

those streams receiving some fishing pressure by boat, 

floatplane, or foot access could see increased pressure if 

helicopter access were permitted. Although this increased 

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

assumed state fishing regulations would be sufficient to manage 

any increased fishing activities. 

4.3 Alternative 2 

Under this alternative, the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges would continue to be managed largely as they have 

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

helicopters for recreation landings outside Wilderness areas 

could be considered case by case in areas without sensitive 

resources or for remote recreation opportunities; this would be 

done after the Service had developed criteria and identified 

areas and seasons with resources or opportunities sensitive to 

helicopter operations. These sensitive areas would probably 

include a large part of the Refuges landbase. Monitoring of 

recreation use patterns and their effects on subsistence uses 

and biological resources would be increased. Monitoring of fish 

and wildlife resources also would increase significantly. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-20 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4.3.1 Effects on Biological Resources 

Introduction

Fish and wildlife management under Alternative 2 would be 

very similar to that under the current management direction 

(see section 4.2.1). Regarding helicopter landings for recreation 

uses, Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 would not necessarily 

differ in the potential level of use nor in the potential areas and 

dates where landings would be permitted. Rather, these 

alternatives differ in the manner in which the Service would go 

about determining (1) the areas and dates within which landings 

could be permitted and (2) the acceptable levels of use. 

Under Alternative 2, an evaluation of the Refuges would be 

done in advance of any permit requests to determine areas 

containing sensitive resources where helicopter landings would 

not be considered. The evaluation might also include 

consideration of the impacts of increased visitor use to currently 

inaccessible areas. As a result of this advance evaluation, 

Refuges staff would have knowledge with which to evaluate the 

potential impacts of any requests for helicopter landings. 

Requests could still be considered on a case-by-case basis, but 

with a better information base from which to estimate potential 

impacts. The same compatibility and other determinations 

would be required as under Alternative 1. This advance 

evaluation would be applied, as would a compatibility 

determination and other determinations, to all new forms of 

motorized access that might be developed during the life of this 

Plan. 

The effects on the Refuges’ fish and wildlife of management 

direction described in this alternative are more subtle. With 

Alternative 2, the revised objectives for fish and wildlife 

management on the Refuges are more clearly defined than they 

are under current management and include new objectives to 

increase knowledge and management capabilities for several 

species and their habitats. 

Caribou and Moose

Helicopters------This alternative would consider, case by case, 

helicopter landings for recreation purposes on Refuges areas 

outside the designated Wilderness, but would prohibit this use 

in fish and wildlife habitats identified as sensitive. Helicopter 

landings, takeoffs, and low overflights could reduce survival of 

young calves by separating them from cows, thus increasing 

stress and exposure to predators. Also, frequent helicopter use 

in a local area could displace animals from preferred habitat. 

Special use permits would require pilots to avoid known 

sensitive areas, and existing wildlife harassment regulations 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-21 

would discourage disturbances of animals. Nevertheless, some 

temporary disturbance and displacement of small groups of 

moose or caribou might be unavoidable. Such disturbance, 

however, should not have long-term consequences to individuals 

or to the population. 

Conclusions------Short-term effects to caribou and moose 

populations from implementing Alternative 2 could include 

some displacement and disturbance if helicopter landings for 

recreation uses were permitted, but significant population 

impacts would not occur. The advance evaluation to identify 

sensitive habitats and seasons should result in better protection 

of critical habitats. Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts 

to resources should be less under Alternative 2. These 

differences may be negligible, however, unless helicopter use 

were to increase to moderate or high levels. Current population 

trends are expected to continue for both species. Moose 

populations would remain stable or potentially increase. 

Bears and Wolves 

Helicopters------Alternative 2 includes the opportunity for the use 

of helicopters for recreation access on the Refuges. Although 

this alternative would limit the area and extent of helicopter 

activity on the Refuges, some disturbance could still occur in the 

limited areas where access was permitted. Also, introducing 

visitors into areas currently inaccessible could habituate more 

bears to humans and possibly lead to some food-conditioning 

(Herrero 1985). 

Conclusions------Displacement and disturbance to individual 

animals could occur if helicopter use for recreation activities 

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

such as habituation, food-conditioning, and DLP mortality could 

occur if helicopter access were permitted into remote areas. The 

advance evaluation to identify sensitive habitats and seasons 

should result in better protection of critical habitats. Therefore, 

the potential for adverse impacts to resources should be lower 

under Alternative 2 than under the current management 

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

unless helicopter use were to increase to moderate or high 

levels. 

Seabirds and Other Avian Species

Helicopters------The large colonies of murres and kittiwakes at 

Puale and Dry bays are within the existing Becharof Wilderness 

Area, where helicopter landings for recreation activities are 

prohibited. Because of the sensitivity of nesting seabirds to 

helicopters, any helicopter permit issued would not allow 

landings near known seabird colonies. Under this alternative, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-22 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

the refuge staff would develop criteria and identify sensitive 

habitats, time periods, and areas where helicopter landings for 

recreation purposes would be prohibited. These criteria would 

be applied, in addition to compatibility determinations, to all 

new forms of motorized access that may be developed during 

the life of this Plan. 

Nevertheless, some disturbance of dispersed nesting birds or 

unknown small colonies could inevitably result if helicopter 

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

within the Refuges on islands in lakes and along the Pacific 

coast. If helicopter landings were permitted near these nesting 

areas, the likelihood of displacement and nesting failure could 

increase with the frequency and duration of helicopter traffic in 

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

Conclusions------Implementation of this alternative would have no 

short- or long-term effects on seabird colonies or other large 

concentrations of breeding birds on the Refuges. Displacement 

and disturbance of solitary nesting birds or unknown small 

colonies could create minor effects if helicopter use for 

recreation purposes were allowed. Disturbance could result in 

moderate effects on breeding birds (disturbance can result in 

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

are not anticipated to result in measurable population changes, 

however, particularly because sensitive areas and seasons would 

be identified in advance and excluded from permitted helicopter 

landing areas under this alternative. Therefore, the potential for 

adverse impacts to resources should be lower under Alternative 

2; these differences may be negligible, unless helicopter use 

were to increase to moderate or high levels. 

Fisheries

Wilderness------Within the Becharof Wilderness Area, which is in 

the Wilderness Management category, temporary restoration 

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

threatened, as long as the facilities would not significantly 

detract from the values for which that area was established. 

Actions designed to artificially increase fish populations would 

be evaluated for implementation within the designated 

Wilderness and would include a minimum-requirements 

analysis. To date, no fisheries enhancement activities have been 

conducted within the Becharof Wilderness Area and none is 

anticipated in the near term. All facilities, structures, and 

habitat-manipulation actions that are determined to be 

necessary within a designated Wilderness Area would be 

implemented using the minimum tool required to achieve the 

objective while minimizing impacts on wilderness values. 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-23 

Helicopters------With Alternative 2, potential effects on fisheries 

populations are essentially the same as under current 

management (Alternative 1; section 4.2.1). Sensitive areas and 

seasons identified during the implementation of this alternative 

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

streams) would be excluded from helicopter landings. 

Consequently, helicopters would be restricted from landing 

near some upper reaches of streams during some seasons. 

Nevertheless, angler access to previously inaccessible stream 

reaches could be greatly increased. If angling on previously 

inaccessible streams were to increase significantly, fish 

populations in those areas would be monitored. If necessary, 

regulations would be developed through the Alaska Board of 

Fisheries to protect the historical size and age composition and 

abundance of the fish populations. 

Conclusions------No short-term effects from Alternative 2 are 

expected for fish populations on the Refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

As under current management priorities, with Alternative 2 

there is an emphasis on conserving naturally diverse 

ecosystems, including fisheries. The Refuges will work with the 

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

habitats and populations to appropriate sustainable conditions 

and to participate in a variety of monitoring and research 

projects. Restoration emphasis would focus on strategies that 

are the least intrusive to the ecosystem and that do not 

compromise the viability or genetic characteristics of the 

depleted population. 

The majority of important fish and wildlife habitat within the 

refuge lands is in the Minimal Management category. 

Significant habitat in this management category includes the 

following: 

 About half the sockeye-spawning habitat and almost all 

spawning habitat of other salmon species 

 Almost all rainbow trout habitat and most Arctic grayling 

habitat 

 Most brown bear salmon-fishing streams and denning 

habitat 

 Almost all moose winter range 

 Most caribou summer range within the Refuges 

 Most mountain stream habitat for harlequin ducks 

 Most non–cliff-nesting seabird habitat 

 All nesting habitat of the Alaska subpopulation of marbled 

godwits 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-24 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

These habitats would continue to be managed to maintain their 

natural ecological processes in an undeveloped condition. 

Because the majority of these lands are managed under the 

Minimal Management category (see Chapter 2, section 2.24.2, 

for a detailed description), management policy prohibits largescale development activities from occurring on these lands. 

Activities such as road construction or oil and gas leasing would 

require a revision of the Refuges’ Conservation Plan and a 

change from Minimal to Intensive Management for the areas in 

question. 

Helicopters------Under Alternative 2, criteria would be developed 

to identify sensitive habitats, time periods, and areas where 

helicopter landings for recreation activities would be prohibited 

in order to minimize adverse effects to resources. These criteria 

would be applied, as would compatibility and other 

determinations, to all new forms of motorized access that might 

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

prohibit helicopter landings in areas with identified sensitive 

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

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

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

to predict the difference in potential impacts between 

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

only one or two helicopters operating infrequently on the 

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

difference in consequences between Alternatives 1 and 2 might 

be negligible, depending on the specific areas requested. 

However, if helicopters were to become a common means of 

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

impacts to resources could be expected to be less under 

Alternative 2. 

Conclusions------There would be no discernable short-term effects 

on fish and wildlife habitat from implementation of Alternative 

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

majority of the Refuges’ lands 

4.3.2 Effects on Human Environment 

The primary changes from current management that could 

affect human uses of the Refuges would be an increase in 

monitoring of public use and identification of sensitive areas 

where helicopter landings for recreation access would not be 

allowed. The effects of implementing Alternative 2 are 

described in terms of the level and type of departure expected 

from baseline effects (i.e., those estimated to result from 

implementing Alternative 1). 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-25 

Local Population and Economy

The region is characterized by a mixed cash-subsistence 

economy. The cash economy is well developed, dominated by 

commercial fishing, with substantial support from tourism and 

government employment. Fisheries are a driving force behind 

the local economy, village lifestyles, and visitors attraction to 

the region. Therefore, how refuge management affects and 

contributes to the health of fish populations is perhaps its most 

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

income the Refuges contribute annually (1997 estimate) to the 

local economy nearly all stem from supporting the commercial 

fishery by ensuring the continued health of salmon-spawning 

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

Management of the Refuges coupled with the Refuges’ 

participation in fisheries management activities, has maintained 

the fish habitat in high-quality condition; neither refuge habitat 

nor fishing pressure is a limiting factor for the health of fish 

populations. Other factors------such as ocean cycles or the 

multitude of regulations governing fishing------have likely been 

much more responsible for the variation in commercial, 

subsistence, and recreation harvest and opportunities. The 

Refuges’ contributions to the fishery and support of human uses 

would continue under current management. 

Effects on Economic Development------These effects of 

Alternative 2 are very similar to those expected under 

Alternative 1. 

One important method of estimating effects on local populations 

and economies is to assess the ways that the alternatives would 

affect local abilities to reach social and economic goals, as 

reflected in the borough’s and communities’ Overall Economic 

Development Plan. The Overall Economic Development Plan 

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

strategies, one of which is designed to develop communities as 

gateways to parks and refuges within the borough. 

This alternative would not preclude development of either of the 

cross-peninsula transportation and utility system (TUS) 

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

environmental studies would be conducted, and a favorable 

compatibility determination and a Plan amendment revising 

management of the route from Minimal to Intensive 

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

discussion of TUS corridors.) 

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

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

The Wilderness classification applied by Congress to the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-26 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

503,000-acre Becharof Wilderness Area withdraws the area 

permanently from oil and gas leasing. The other management 

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

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

any leasing program could be implemented, an amendment to 

the Plan and a positive compatibility determination would be 

required to change the management category to Intensive 

Management. If a national need for oil and gas development 

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

Mineral exploration may be allowed within the Refuges if 

conducted under a special use permit. Only exploration 

conducted by or for the Department of the Interior would be 

authorized within the Becharof Wilderness Area. No requests to 

conduct exploration on the Refuges are anticipated, so effects 

on economic development would be negligible. 

Effects on Subsistence Uses

Residents of villages associated with the Refuges consume 

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

thus demonstrating the subsistence use present in the region 

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

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

of food are important to all communities. 

Fish------Refuge management is designed to maintain and protect 

fish habitat. Because commercial, recreational, and subsistence 

fishing regulations are decisions made by entities other than the 

Service, refuge management is expected to have little effect on 

use of fish species for subsistence. Section 810 of ANILCA 

requires an evaluation of the effects proposed actions on federal 

lands would have on subsistence (see section 4.9). This 

alternative would not result in a significant restriction on 

subsistence uses. 

Caribou and Moose------Effects of Alternative 2 on these 

subsistence species would be very similar to those described 

under Alternative 1. 

Conflict with Recreation Uses------The Refuges plan to continue 

monitoring at the Becharof Outlet site and to increase the level 

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

needed. This more proactive, systematic approach to monitoring 

would allow the Refuges to detect and fully understand threats 

to subsistence uses before they became substantial impacts. 

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

given priority over recreation uses if conflicts were identified 

and regulatory actions warranted. 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-27 

Effects on Recreation Uses

Under Alternative 2, the primary recreation uses of the Refuges 

would continue, for the foreseeable future, to be fishing and 

hunting (both guided and unguided). 

Effects on Recreational Hunting------Guided use would continue 

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

existing policies would remain, and existing trends would be 

expected to continue. Unguided users access the Refuges 

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

Refuges. Levels of unguided recreational hunting use appear to 

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

this trend would change under Alternative 2. 

The existing opportunities for unguided recreational hunting 

would remain. The main variable affecting future use and access 

would likely be management by the Alaska Board of Game and 

by the Federal Subsistence Board rather than actions taken by 

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

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

slight decline. The exception could be if the caribou herd 

recovers, in which case recreational hunting could be allowed 

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

present in the mid-1990s. 

Effects on Recreational Fishing------Recreation use at more 

popular sites appears to be maintained by voluntary efforts of 

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

anglers can try another location. This arrangement is not 

guaranteed to continue to be effective, especially if use levels 

increase and guided and unguided anglers compete more for 

prime opportunities. 

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

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

recreation anglers, increases in unguided recreational fishing 

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

some popular areas that are most likely the same areas being 

frequented by guided recreation anglers. 

Increased monitoring of guided and unguided recreational 

fishing use will allow the Refuges to identify, before crowding 

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

patterns may be contributing to lower-quality recreationalangling experiences. Collecting additional information from 

visitors will allow the Refuges to measure indicators of quality 

and trends in resource and social conditions that visitors value. 

This information would help managers develop site-specific 

objectives to maintain recreation quality. If necessary, 

educational efforts and regulations could be developed or 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-28 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

special use permits could be modified as needed to address the 

issue. 

Effects on Other Recreation Opportunities and Recreation 

Quality------Other opportunities for recreation would not be 

affected under Alternative 2 except for restrictions on where 

helicopter landings for recreation use could take place. The 

Refuges would identify sensitive and remote areas where 

landings would not be allowed and would only consider allowing 

landings in the remaining portions of the Refuges through 

special use permits. 

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

conditions, in which special use permits are required and the 

activity must be determined compatible with refuge goals and 

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

unlikely permits would have been granted under current 

management; few applications have been submitted, and none 

has been approved. There is no evidence that demand for 

helicopter use is increasing; thus, the social and economic 

effects would be negligible. 

Under this alternative, the Service would collect additional data 

about recreation experiences, satisfaction with guides, and other 

information that provide a more complete profile of recreation 

opportunities on the Refuges, thus making it possible to detect 

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

experience. Although the Refuges have conducted some studies 

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

the state’s sporadic creel censuses in which the Refuges are 

typically a partner------there has been no systematic program of 

monitoring use other than aerial surveys similar to those used 

to estimate wildlife populations. The absence of a more rigorous 

program to monitor recreation opportunities and quality, or the 

use of site-specific management objectives in general, does not 

appear to have resulted in significant impacts on recreation 

opportunities, given the generally stable trends in use patterns. 

However, increased monitoring would expand the Refuges’ 

ability to know when more site-specific management goals and 

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

opportunities on the Refuges appears to be declining or has the 

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

effects of changes and be able to respond before degradation 

occurs. Keeping track of the quality of recreation experiences 

and use patterns could be especially important at popular 

locations for recreational fishing such as the Ugashik Narrows. 

Increased law-enforcement presence in the field could enhance 

this monitoring and could increase the effectiveness of existing 

management. 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-29 

If monitoring finds evidence of significant crowding or conflict 

among user groups, the Refuges would work with visitors to 

address the problems. It appears more likely that issues would 

initially be social rather than from impacts to fish or wildlife 

populations. The Refuges could take actions to address issues 

such as crowding and resulting declines in the quality of 

recreation at the site. The increased monitoring effort would 

allow the Refuges to deal with the issues effectively and 

efficiently, rather than passing regulations or imposing limits 

based on limited information. The Refuges would try to address 

the problem, in partnership with the state and other entities, 

without regulating recreation access to refuge lands or waters, 

but such regulation could be considered if other methods such 

as public education were not effective. 

4.3.3 Effects on Wilderness Values and Character of the 

Becharof Wilderness Area 

Alternative 2 contains no actions that would change, directly or 

indirectly, biologic or social conditions in the Becharof 

Wilderness Area. The management direction contained in 

Chapter 2 is designed to maintain the values and natural 

character of the Wilderness. Recreation-use data from guides 

and air taxis do not suggest any consistent increases in 

Wilderness use levels that could pose a concern for 

opportunities for solitude. 

4.3.4 Cumulative Effects 

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

the Refuges that would impact refuge resources within the next 

15 to 20 years, should Alternative 2 be implemented, have been 

identified. While two road corridors have been identified that 

could bisect the Refuges, any plans for development are beyond 

the planning horizon, and their development is speculative at 

this time. If one or more of the transportation corridors were 

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

road structure itself and from its use. Consequences could 

include destruction of habitat along the road corridor, potential 

spills of fuels and other pollutants, changes in drainage patterns 

with resulting changes in vegetation, siltation of adjacent 

streams and wetlands with resulting changes in aquatic 

ecosystems, and possible introduction of invasive species. The 

Alaska Marine Highway could provide nonlocal hunters and 

anglers access to the road corridor and to adjacent areas that 

could be reached by jet boats brought in by trailer, via the ferry, 

to streams crossing the roadway; additional pressures on local 

fish and game populations could result. Traffic along the road 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-30 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

could also disturb wildlife such as nesting birds and migrating 

caribou. 

Possible cumulative effects on the Refuges include an increased 

risk of introducing invasive species through new human activity 

in locations previously inaccessible to people. Should invasive 

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

habitat quality could be reduced because invasive species may 

change the species composition of the habitat. While such 

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

instances during the life of this Plan. 

New fishing pressure to remote reaches of streams could occur 

if helicopter use for recreation activities were permitted. Except 

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

Streams not now receiving any fishing pressure or those 

streams receiving some fishing pressure by boat, floatplane, or 

foot access could see increased pressure if helicopter access 

were permitted. Although this increased pressure could result 

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

regulations would be sufficient to manage any increase in 

fishing activities. 

4.4 Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would also continue management of the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges largely as they have been 

managed in recent years, recognizing that current management 

is dynamic and can react to new information or changing 

resource conditions. Access would be maintained to all areas of 

the Refuges for subsistence, recreation, and commercial users 

to the maximum extent possible consistent with refuge 

purposes. The Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area would 

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

of the Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area is not 

anticipated to affect habitat quality or wildlife populations in the 

area. With this alternative, the use of helicopters for recreation 

purposes would not be allowed on the Refuges. 

4.4.1 Effects on Biological Resources 

Introduction

As with all the alternatives, fish and wildlife management under 

Alternative 3 would be very similar to the current management 

direction. The primary difference could come from prohibiting 

the use of helicopters for recreation activities on the Refuges. 

The revised objectives for fish and wildlife management on the 

Refuges would be more clearly defined than under current 

management (Alternative 1) and would include new objectives 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-31 

to increase knowledge and management capabilities for several 

species and their habitats. 

Caribou and Moose

The effects of management under Alternative 3 on caribou and 

moose populations would be very similar to those described 

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

The important difference is that there would be no potential 

disturbance from recreation associated with helicopter use on 

the Refuges. Current hunting pressure on caribou under Tier II 

regulations will not change until the population has recovered 

sufficiently for the Board of Game to determine that the herd 

could support greater harvest. Hunting pressure on moose 

would likely increase over time because of increased demand 

from nonlocal hunters. 

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

and moose on the Refuges; current population trends are 

expected to continue for both species. Disturbance associated 

with helicopter landings for recreational purposes would not 

occur. 

Bears and Wolves

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

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

Wilderness Area. Nearly all these areas are located in the 

Refuges’ Minimal Management areas, which are managed to 

maintain the natural environment with very little evidence of 

human-caused change. 

Conclusions------Short- and long-term effects on bears and wolves 

of Alternative 3 will be negligible. Disturbance to bear and 

wolves associated with helicopter landings for recreation 

purposes would not occur. 

Seabirds and Other Avian Species 

Approximately half of the major seabird colonies on the Refuges 

are included in designated Wilderness. Without the potential 

disturbance from helicopters, the potential for human-caused 

disturbance to bird populations would be limited to currently 

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

fixed-wing aircraft. The Alaska subpopulation of the marbled 

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

Although there are no known short-term threats, this 

alternative does not include additional long-term protection for 

the marbled godwit population. 

Conclusions------Implementation of this alternative would have no 

short-term effects on seabird colonies or other large 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-32 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

concentrations of breeding birds on the Refuges. There would 

be no special recognition of or protection for marbled godwits 

nesting on the Refuges. 

Fisheries

In the short term, the potential effects on fisheries populations 

for Alternative 3 are essentially the same as those under 

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

the restriction on helicopter access could protect sensitive areas 

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

streams) and populations. Because helicopter landings would be 

restricted, stream reaches that are currently inaccessible would 

remain so. 

Conclusions------Short-term effects from this alternative are 

expected to be negligible for fish populations on the Refuges. 

This alternative could help maintain populations at current 

levels in the long term because recreation access by helicopter 

would not be allowed. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

As is true under current management priorities, Alternative 3 

management direction emphasizes conserving naturally diverse 

ecosystems, including fisheries. The Refuges will work with the 

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

habitats and populations to appropriate sustainable conditions 

and to participate in a variety of monitoring and research 

projects. Restoration emphasis would focus on strategies that 

are the least intrusive to the ecosystem and that do not 

compromise the viability or genetic characteristics of the 

depleted population. 

The majority of important fish and wildlife habitat within the 

refuge lands is in the Minimal Management category. 

Significant habitat in this management category includes the 

following: 

 About half the sockeye-spawning habitat and almost all 

spawning habitat of other salmon species 

 Almost all rainbow trout habitat and most Arctic grayling 

habitat 

 Most brown bear salmon-fishing streams and denning 

habitat 

 Almost all moose winter range 

 Most caribou summer range within the Refuges 

 Most mountain stream habitat for harlequin ducks 

 Most non–cliff-nesting seabird habitat 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-33 

 All nesting habitat of the Alaska subpopulation of marbled 

godwits 

These habitats would continue to be managed to maintain their 

natural ecological processes in an undeveloped condition. 

Because the majority of these lands are managed under the 

Minimal Management category (see Chapter 2, section 2.24.2, 

for a detailed description), management policy prohibits largescale development activities from occurring on these lands. 

Activities such as road construction or oil and gas leasing would 

require a revision of the Refuges’ Conservation Plan and a 

change from Minimal to Intensive Management for the areas in 

question. 

The reduction in size of the Yantarni Bay Moderate 

Management Area is not anticipated to affect habitat quality in 

the area. 

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

does not allow helicopter access for recreation proposes, no 

additional actions that could bring additional people into the 

more inaccessible areas of the Refuges would occur. With this 

alternative, there is less risk of introducing invasive species. 

4.4.2 Effects on Human Environment 

The primary changes from current management that could 

affect human uses of the Refuges would be estimated effects on 

wildlife populations and habitat, an increase in monitoring of 

public use, and prohibition of helicopter landings for recreation 

access. Because the change to the Yantarni Bay Moderate 

Management Area is to adjust the boundaries to geographically 

identifiable features while retaining all existing off-road trails, it 

is not anticipated to affect human uses. 

The effects of implementing Alternative 3 are described in 

terms of the level and type of departure expected from baseline 

effects (those estimated to result from implementing 

Alternative 1). 

Local Population and Economy

The region is characterized by a mixed cash-subsistence 

economy. The well-developed cash economy is dominated by 

commercial fishing with substantial support from tourism and 

government employment. Fisheries are a driving force behind 

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

region. How refuge management affects and contributes to the 

health of fish populations is therefore perhaps its most 

important economic role. The 1,433 local jobs and $70 million in 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-34 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

income the Refuges contribute annually (1997 estimate) to the 

local economy nearly all stem from supporting the commercial 

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

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

Management of the Refuges, coupled with its participation in 

fisheries management activities, has maintained the fish habitat 

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

populations. Other factors------such as ocean cycles or the 

multitude of regulations governing fishing------have likely been 

much more responsible for the variation in commercial, 

subsistence, and recreation harvest opportunities. The Refuges’ 

contributions to the fishery and its human uses will continue 

under Alternative 3. 

Effects on Economic Development------Economic opportunities 

are limited by the relative lack of transportation infrastructure 

in the borough, which reflects the dispersed and small 

population, rugged terrain, land status, and severe seasonal 

weather (HDR Alaska 1999). Because no roads connect the 

borough with other parts of the state, transportation to 

communities depends on air and boat access. There are no longdistance roads or power lines, and few of the communities are 

connected by all-season land routes. 

One important method of estimating effects on local populations 

and economies is to assess the ways the alternatives could affect 

local abilities to reach social and economic goals, as reflected in 

the borough’s and communities’ Overall Economic Development 

Plan. The Overall Economic Development Plan lists the Service 

as a lead organization in most of the tourism strategies, one of 

which is designed to develop communities as gateways to the 

parks and refuges within the borough. The plan calls for 

gateway community plans to be developed for communities that 

serve as access points to the Refuges. The Service would 

willingly participate in such efforts. A related strategy calls for 

expanding the existing tourism industry from hunting and 

fishing activities to ecotourism and cultural tourism and for 

developing the infrastructure (facilities, attractions, 

transportation) necessary to attract and develop these new 

markets. Current management of the Refuges is designed to 

accommodate such new uses, assuming that most facilities are 

constructed on private lands. 

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

Refuges. The Wilderness classification applied by Congress to 

the 503,000-acre Becharof Wilderness withdrew the area 

permanently from oil and gas leasing. The other management 

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

Moderate Management------preclude oil and gas leasing. An 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-35 

amendment to the Conservation Plan and a compatibility 

determination would be required prior to changing the 

management category to Intensive Management, which would 

be necessary before any leasing program could be implemented. 

Although there are no indications that economically recoverable 

volumes of oil and gas will be discovered on the Alaska 

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

development were to arise, areas with high potential could be 

re-examined. 

Mineral exploration could be allowed within the Refuges if 

conducted under a special use permit. Only exploration 

conducted by or for the Department of the Interior would be 

authorized within the Becharof Wilderness Area. No requests to 

conduct exploration on the Refuges are anticipated; thus, effects 

on economic development would be negligible. 

Conclusions------Fisheries are a driving force behind the local 

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

Therefore, how Refuges management affects and contributes to 

the health of fish populations is perhaps its most important 

economic role. Management of the Refuges, coupled with its 

participation in fisheries management activities, has maintained 

fish habitat in high-quality condition and is not a limiting factor 

for fish populations. The Refuges’ contributions to the fishery 

and support of human uses and economic development would 

continue refuge management described in Alternative 3. 

Subsistence Uses

Residents of villages associated with the Refuges consume 

between 188 and 814 pounds of wild foods per capita annually 

(Fall and Morris 1987), which demonstrates the subsistence use 

present in the region. 

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

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

important to all communities. Current refuge management is 

designed to maintain and protect fish habitat. Because 

commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing regulations 

are decisions made by entities other than the Refuges, refuge 

management is expected to have little effect on use of fish 

species for subsistence. 

Caribou and Moose------As suggested by the biological effects 

analyses, the Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd would be 

expected to continue to decline at least to carrying capacity of 

available habitat. The biological analyses did not, however, 

produce any estimate of harvestable surplus within any time 

frame, making it impossible to specify any effects on 

subsistence uses. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-36 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Conflict with Recreation Uses------The Refuges plan to continue 

monitoring at Becharof Outlet and to increase the level of 

public-use monitoring at other locations on the Refuges as 

needed. This more proactive, systematic approach to monitoring 

would allow the Refuges to detect and fully understand threats 

to subsistence uses before they became substantial impacts. 

(See also page 4-13 ‘‘Conflicts with Recreation Uses------

Conclusions.’’) 

Conclusions------Section 810 of ANILCA requires an evaluation of 

the effects on subsistence that proposed actions on federal lands 

would have (see section 4.9). Alternative 3 complements and 

sustains the Refuges’ purpose and objectives of providing 

subsistence opportunities to rural residents. The most 

important issue for subsistence users is the decline of the 

caribou herd. The main variable affecting future use and access 

would likely be Alaska Board of Game and Federal Subsistence 

Board regulations made in response to changes in animal 

populations, rather than actions taken by the Refuges under the 

Plan. The biological analyses did not produce any estimate of 

harvestable surplus of caribou within any time frame because 

future herd size and composition cannot be predicted from 

available information, thus making it impossible to specify any 

effects on subsistence uses. 

Recreation Uses

Under Alternative 3, the primary recreation uses of the Refuges 

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

unguided recreational fishing and hunting. 

Effects on Recreational Hunting------Guided use would continue 

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

Existing policies would remain, and existing trends would be 

expected to continue. The existing opportunities for guided 

recreational hunting would remain. 

Effects on Recreational Fishing------Recreation quality at more 

popular sites appears to be maintained by voluntary efforts of 

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

transporter can try another location. This arrangement is not 

guaranteed to continue to be effective, especially if use levels 

increase and guided and unguided anglers compete more for 

prime locations and opportunities. 

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

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

recreation anglers, increases in unguided recreational fishing 

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

some popular areas that are most likely the same areas 

frequented by guided recreation anglers. Increased monitoring 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-37 

of recreational fishing, both guided and unguided, will allow the 

Refuges to identify, before crowding and on-the-ground 

conflicts occur, times and areas where use patterns may be 

reducing quality of the angling experience. If necessary, special 

use permits could be modified and educational efforts and 

regulations could be developed to address these issues. Limits 

on access to refuge recreation opportunities would be 

undertaken only as a last resort. 

Effects on Other Recreation Opportunities and on Recreation 

Quality------Other opportunities for recreation would not be 

affected, except for prohibition of helicopter access for 

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

from current conditions in which special use permits are 

required and the activity must be determined compatible with 

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

for special use permits for helicopter landings for recreation 

uses have been approved on the Refuges. Prohibition of 

helicopters would eliminate the risks of impacts from helicopter 

use described under Alternative 1 (section 4.2.2). 

Under Alternative 3, the Service would alter the boundaries of 

the area in the Moderate Management Category at Yantarni. 

The redefined area would still encompass all of the trails where 

ORV use is permitted. Thus, there would be no change in 

permitted ORV access or use on the Refuges. 

Under Alternative 3, the Service would collect additional data 

about recreation experiences, satisfaction with guides, and other 

information that provides a more complete profile of recreation 

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

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

detectable in a systematic manner. 

Although the Refuges have conducted some studies of use------

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

the state’s sporadic creel censuses------there has been no 

systematic program, other than aerial surveys, for monitoring 

use. Given the generally stable trends in use patterns, the 

absence of a more rigorous program to monitor recreation 

opportunities and quality or the use of site-specific management 

objectives in general, does not appear to have resulted in 

significant impacts to recreation opportunities. 

Increased monitoring will expand the Refuges’ ability to know 

when more site-specific management goals and management 

are needed. If, over the long term, the quality of opportunities 

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

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

changes to thus facilitate responding before losses occur. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-38 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Keeping track of recreation quality and use patterns will be 

especially important at popular locations for recreational fishing 

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

law-enforcement presence in the field could enhance this 

monitoring and increase the effectiveness of existing 

management. 

If such monitoring of use does find evidence of significant 

conflict among user groups and/or crowding within the Refuges, 

the Refuges would work with visitors to address the problems. 

It appears more likely that issues would initially be social, 

rather than related to impacts to fish or wildlife populations. 

The Refuges could take actions to address issues such as 

crowding and resulting declines in the quality of recreation at 

the site. The increased monitoring effort could allow the 

Refuges to deal with the issues effectively and efficiently, rather 

than passing regulations or imposing limits based on limited 

information. The Refuges could try to address the problem in 

partnership with the state and other entities, without regulating 

recreation access to Refuges lands or waters; such regulation 

could be considered, however, if other methods (e.g., public 

education) were not effective. 

4.4.3 Effects on Wilderness Values and Character of the 

Becharof Wilderness Area 

This alternative contains no actions that could change, directly 

or indirectly, biological or social conditions in the Becharof 

Wilderness Area. The management direction contained in 

Chapter 2 is designed to maintain the values and natural 

character of the Wilderness. Recreation-use data from guides 

and air taxis do not suggest any consistent increases in levels of 

Wilderness use that could pose a concern for opportunities for 

solitude. 

4.4.4 Cumulative Effects 

As mentioned in Alternative 1, no major development actions 

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

been identified as having potential to impact refuge resources. 

While two road corridors have been identified that could bisect 

the Refuges, any plans for development are beyond the 

planning horizon, and their development is speculative at this 

time. If one or more of the transportation corridors were 

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

road structure itself and from its use. Consequences could 

include the following: 

 Destruction of habitat along the road corridor 

 Potential spills of fuels and other pollutants 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-39 

 Changes in drainage patterns with resulting changes in 

vegetation 

 Siltation of adjacent streams and wetlands with resulting 

changes in aquatic ecosystems 

 Possible introduction of invasive species 

The Alaska Marine Highway could provide nonlocal hunters and 

anglers access to the road corridor and to adjacent areas that 

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

streams crossing the roadway. Additional pressures on local fish 

and game populations could result. Traffic along the road could 

also disturb wildlife such as nesting birds and migrating 

caribou. 

4.5 Alternative 3a— 

Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 3a would also continue management of the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges largely as they have been 

managed in recent years, recognizing that current management 

is dynamic and can react to new information or changing 

resource conditions. Access would be maintained to all areas of 

the Refuges for subsistence, recreation, and commercial users 

to the maximum extent possible consistent with refuge 

purposes. The Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area would 

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

of the Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area is not 

anticipated to affect habitat quality or wildlife populations in the 

area. With this alternative, the potential use of helicopters for 

recreation access outside of Wilderness areas would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis and would be allowed only 

when the requested use was determined compatible with refuge 

goals and purposes and the mission of Service and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Any permit would be issued only after 

an analysis of potential impacts at the specific landing sites 

proposed by the operator. 

4.5.1 Effects on Biological Resources 

Introduction

As with all the alternatives, fish and wildlife management under 

Alternative 3a would be very similar to the current management 

direction. The primary difference could come from objectives 

for fish and wildlife management on the Refuges, which would 

be more clearly defined than they are under current 

management (Alternative 1) and which would include new 

objectives to increase knowledge and management capabilities 

for several species and their habitats. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-40 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Alternative 3a would make possible consideration of allowing 

helicopters to be used in support of recreation. This analysis 

considers the potential effects of the current management 

practice, which allows for consideration of helicopter landings 

without predetermining where all the sensitive areas of the 

Refuges are located. This analysis assumes that major impacts 

to currently identified sensitive areas (e.g., major seabird 

colonies) would be precluded under the provisions of any special 

use permit. However, because knowledge of sensitive resources 

is incomplete, impacts from helicopter landings and takeoffs and 

from public use in previously little-disturbed areas could occur. 

Impacts at any given site would vary with frequency of 

helicopter visits, number and activities of visitors, and the 

sensitive resources present. 

State law prohibits the use of helicopters for or in support of 

hunting throughout the state and in certain instances prohibits 

the use of helicopters in support of recreational fishing. For 

example, the use of helicopters to transport anglers or 

recreation-caught fish is prohibited in the Kvichak River 

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

Refuges. The Service has no authority to regulate helicopters 

flying over the Refuges; if helicopter landings were permitted, 

overflights of the Refuges would be assumed to increase. The 

FAA regulates general aviation. Although the FAA has not 

specified a minimum altitude for aircraft to maintain over 

sparsely populated areas, it has requested that aircraft maintain 

a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above numerous federal lands, 

including national wildlife refuges. 

Caribou and Moose

Helicopters------Under some conditions, helicopter operations can 

cause significant disturbance to caribou and moose, especially 

those with calves. Helicopter landings, takeoffs, and low 

overflights could reduce survival of young calves by separating 

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

could displace animals from preferred habitat. However, 

because helicopter access for recreation use would occur only 

under special use permits that would require pilots to avoid 

known sensitive areas and because of existing wildlifeharassment regulations, most such disturbances of highly 

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

Temporary disturbance of small groups of moose or caribou 

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

however, should not have long-term consequences to the 

population. 

Current hunting pressure on caribou under Tier II regulations 

will not change until the population has recovered sufficiently 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-41 

for the Board of Game to determine that the herd could support 

greater harvest. Hunting pressure on moose would likely 

increase over time because of increased demand from nonlocal 

hunters. 

Conclusions------Short-term effects to caribou and moose 

populations from continuing current management include some 

additional displacement and disturbance if helicopter use for 

recreation is permitted. More significant effects from 

disturbance could occur to individual animals, but the overall 

effect from increased helicopter use would be minor. 

Bears and Wolves 

Helicopters------Special use permits allowing helicopter landings 

for recreation uses would be designed to minimize the 

disturbance to known critical habitats. Nevertheless, some 

temporary displacement of individuals would be inevitable. Also, 

introducing visitors into areas currently inaccessible could 

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

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

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

Wilderness Area. Nearly all these areas are located in the 

Refuges’ Minimal Management areas, which are managed to 

maintain the natural environment with very little evidence of 

human-caused change. 

Conclusions------Displacement and disturbance to individual bears 

and wolves could occur if helicopter use for recreation were 

allowed, but the overall effect would be minor. Disturbance 

associated with the new access provided by helicopters could 

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

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

mortality. 

Seabirds and Other Avian Species

Approximately half of the major seabird colonies on the Refuges 

are included in the designated Wilderness. The Alaska 

subpopulation of the marbled godwit is very poorly known and 

is believed to be small. Although there are no known short-term 

threats, this alternative does not include additional long-term 

protection for the marbled godwit population. 

Helicopters------The large colonies of murres and kittiwakes at 

Puale and Dry bays are within the existing Wilderness Area, 

where helicopter landings for recreation activities are 

prohibited. Because of the sensitivity to helicopters of colonially 

nesting seabirds, any helicopter permit issued would not allow 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-42 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

landings near known seabird colonies. However, not all sensitive 

areas on the Refuges have been identified; therefore, helicopter 

operations could inevitably displace some nesting birds. This 

would potentially cause some loss of eggs or chicks to predation 

or abandonment. The likelihood of cumulative impacts to 

populations would depend on the eventual level of helicopter 

use. 

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

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

helicopter landings were permitted near these nesting areas, 

the likelihood of displacement and nesting failure would 

increase with the frequency and duration of helicopter traffic in 

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

recognized as a sensitive area while the birds are nesting and 

rearing their young; however, no special protection or emphasis 

of the nesting area would occur under this alternative. 

Conclusions------Continued implementation of current 

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

seabird colonies or other large concentrations of breeding birds 

on the Refuges. Helicopter use for recreation purposes could 

displace or disturb solitary nesting birds or unknown small 

colonies thus creating minor effects. Disturbance resulting in 

moderate effects to breeding birds (disturbance can result in 

reduced nesting success for a variety of reasons) could occur; 

these effects are not anticipated to result in measurable 

population changes. Almost all of the large seabird colonies on 

the Refuges are within the existing Wilderness Area where 

helicopter landings would not be allowed. There would be no 

special recognition or protection of marbled godwits nesting on 

the Refuges. The effects of management under Alternative 3a 

on caribou and moose populations would be very similar to those 

described under current management, Alternative 1 (see section 

4.2.1). Current hunting pressure on caribou under Tier II 

regulations will not change until the population has recovered 

sufficiently for the Board of Game to determine that the herd 

could support greater harvest. Hunting pressure on moose 

would likely increase over time because of increased demand 

from nonlocal hunters. 

Fisheries

The potential effects on fisheries populations under Alternative 

3a are essentially the same as those under current management 

(Alternative 1). 

Wilderness------Within the Becharof Wilderness Area (Wilderness 

Management category), temporary restoration facilities may be 

allowed if fish stocks have been reduced or are threatened, as 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-43 

long as the facilities would not significantly detract from the 

values for which that area was established. Actions designed to 

artificially increase fish populations would be evaluated for 

implementation within the designated Wilderness and would 

include a minimum-requirements analysis. To date, no fisheries 

enhancement activities have been conducted within the 

Becharof Wilderness Area and none is anticipated in the near 

term. All facilities, structures, and habitat-manipulation actions 

that are determined to be necessary within a designated 

Wilderness area would be implemented using the minimum tool 

required to achieve the objective while minimizing effects on 

wilderness values. 

Helicopters------If helicopter drop-offs of anglers to previously 

inaccessible upper reaches of backcountry streams were to 

become significant, fish populations in those areas should be 

monitored and, if necessary, regulations should be developed 

through the Alaska Board of Fisheries to protect stock age and 

size composition. 

Conclusions------No short-term effects are expected for fish 

populations on the Refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

As is true under current management priorities, Alternative 3a 

management direction emphasizes conserving naturally diverse 

ecosystems, including fisheries. The Refuges will work with the 

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

habitats and populations to appropriate sustainable conditions 

and to participate in a variety of monitoring and research 

projects. Restoration emphasis would focus on strategies that 

are the least intrusive to the ecosystem and that do not 

compromise the viability or genetic characteristics of the 

depleted population. 

The majority of important fish and wildlife habitat within the 

refuge lands is in the Minimal Management category. 

Significant habitat in this management category includes the 

following: 

 About half the sockeye-spawning habitat and almost all 

spawning habitat of other salmon species 

 Almost all rainbow trout habitat and most Arctic grayling 

habitat 

 Most brown bear salmon-fishing streams and denning 

habitat 

 Almost all moose winter range 

 Most caribou summer range within the Refuges 

 Most mountain stream habitat for harlequin ducks 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-44 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Most non–cliff-nesting seabird habitat 

 All nesting habitat of the Alaska subpopulation of marbled 

godwits 

These habitats would continue to be managed to maintain their 

natural ecological processes in an undeveloped condition. 

Because the majority of these lands are managed under the 

Minimal Management category (see Chapter 2, section 2.24.2, 

for a detailed description), management policy prohibits largescale development activities from occurring on these lands. 

Activities such as road construction or oil and gas leasing would 

require a revision of the Refuges’ Conservation Plan and a 

change from Minimal to Intensive Management for the areas in 

question. 

The reduction in size of the Yantarni Bay Moderate 

Management Area is not anticipated to affect habitat quality in 

the area. 

Helicopters------Some currently inaccessible areas in Minimal 

Management may be susceptible to some long-term, 

irreversible impacts from helicopter access under this 

alternative. Among these potential impacts would be the 

introduction of invasive species, particularly plants and insects, 

across larger areas than are currently accessible by fixed-wing 

aircraft and boats. The long-term consequences of these 

introductions cannot be predicted, but consequences could be 

significant, as has been demonstrated in Hawaii and the 

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

hydrilla). Detrimental impacts of introduced plants include 

replacing native plants, reducing habitat quality and forage 

availability for fish and wildlife, clogging waterways, increasing 

erosion, and reducing soil nutrients. 

Introduced plant species have many means of dispersal, 

including many animal species (including humans) as seed 

carriers. Seeds and viable plant parts may be transported on 

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

1998). In southeastern Alaska, several exotic plants with 

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

spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), Scotch broom 

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

(Woods 2000). 

Introduced plants are most likely to become established at 

disturbed sites. On the Alaska Peninsula, naturally disturbed 

sites can include riverbanks, gravel bars on braided streams, 

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

developed areas. Pineapple weed (Matricaria matricarioides) 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-45 

has long been established on the Alaska Peninsula (Hulten 1968, 

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

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

(Cirsium arvense) recently became established, presumably 

from seed carried on heavy equipment barged into the 

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

Conclusions------Alternative 3a would create no discernable shortterm effects on fish and wildlife habitat. 

Under current management priorities, which are the 

management direction under Alternative 3a, there is an 

emphasis on conserving naturally diverse ecosystems, including 

fisheries. The Refuges will work with the State of Alaska, local 

Natives, and other partners to restore habitats and populations 

as appropriate, sustainable conditions, and to participate in a 

variety of monitoring and research projects. Restoration 

emphasis would focus on strategies that are the least intrusive 

to the ecosystem and that do not compromise the viability or 

genetic characteristics of the depleted population. 

4.5.2 Effects on Human Environment 

The primary changes from current management that could 

affect human uses of the Refuges would be estimated effects on 

wildlife populations and habitat and an increase in monitoring of 

public use. Because the change to the Yantarni Bay Moderate 

Management Area is to adjust the boundaries to geographically 

identifiable features while retaining all existing off-road trails, it 

is not anticipated to affect human uses. The existing approach of 

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

for recreation would be continued. 

The effects of implementing Alternative 3a are described in 

terms of the level and type of departure expected from baseline 

effects (those estimated to result from implementing 

Alternative 1). 

Local Population and Economy

The region is characterized by a mixed cash-subsistence 

economy. The cash economy is well developed and dominated by 

commercial fishing, with substantial support from tourism and 

government employment. Fisheries are a driving force behind 

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

region. How refuge management affects and contributes to the 

health of fish populations is therefore perhaps its most 

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

income the Refuges contribute annually (1997 estimate) to the 

local economy nearly all stem from supporting the commercial 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-46 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

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

Management of the Refuges, coupled with its participation in 

fisheries management activities, has maintained the fish habitat 

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

populations. Other factors------such as ocean cycles or the 

multitude of regulations governing fishing------have likely been 

much more responsible for the variation in commercial, 

subsistence, and sport harvest opportunities. The Refuges’ 

contributions to the fishery and its human uses will continue 

under Alternative 3a. 

Effects on Economic Development------Economic opportunities 

are limited by the relative lack of transportation infrastructure 

in the borough, which reflects the dispersed and small 

population, rugged terrain, land status, and severe seasonal 

weather (HDR Alaska 1999). Because no roads connect the 

borough with other parts of the state, transportation to 

communities depends on air and boat access. There are no longdistance roads or power lines, and few of the communities are 

connected by all-season land routes. 

One important method of estimating effects on local populations 

and economies is to assess the ways the alternatives could affect 

local abilities to reach social and economic goals, as reflected in 

the borough’s and communities’ Overall Economic Development 

Plan. The Overall Economic Development Plan lists the Service 

as a lead organization in most of the tourism strategies, one of 

which is designed to develop communities as gateways to the 

borough’s parks and refuges. The plan calls for gateway 

community plans to be developed for communities that serve as 

access points to the Refuges. The Service would willingly 

participate in such efforts. A related strategy calls for 

expanding the existing tourism industry from hunting and 

fishing activities to ecotourism and cultural tourism and for 

developing the infrastructure (facilities, attractions, 

transportation) necessary to attract and develop these new 

markets. Current management of the Refuges is designed to 

accommodate such new uses, assuming that most facilities are 

constructed on private lands. 

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

Refuges. The Wilderness classification applied by Congress to 

the 503,000-acre Becharof Wilderness withdrew the area 

permanently from oil and gas leasing. The other management 

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

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

amendment to the Conservation Plan and a favorable 

compatibility determination would be required prior to 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-47 

changing the management category to Intensive Management, 

which would be necessary before any leasing program could be 

implemented. Although there are no indications that 

economically recoverable volumes of oil and gas will be 

discovered on the Alaska Peninsula (Banet 2000), if a national 

need for oil and gas development were to arise, areas with high 

potential could be reexamined. 

Mineral exploration could be allowed within the Refuges if 

conducted under a special use permit. Only exploration 

conducted by or for the Department of the Interior would be 

authorized within the Becharof Wilderness Area. No requests to 

conduct exploration on the Refuges are anticipated; thus, effects 

on economic development would be negligible. 

Conclusions------Fisheries are a driving force behind the local 

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

Therefore, how Refuges management affects and contributes to 

the health of fish populations is perhaps its most important 

economic role. Management of the Refuges, coupled with its 

participation in fisheries management activities, has maintained 

fish habitat in high-quality condition and is not a limiting factor 

for fish populations. The Refuges’ contributions to the fishery 

and support of human uses and economic development will 

continue under the management direction outlined in 

Alternative 3a. 

Subsistence Uses

Residents of villages associated with the Refuges consume 

between 188 and 814 pounds of wild foods per capita annually 

(Fall and Morris 1987), which demonstrates the subsistence use 

present in the region. 

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

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

important to all communities. Refuge management is designed 

to maintain and protect fish habitat. Because commercial, 

recreational, and subsistence fishing regulations are decisions 

made by entities other than the Refuges, management direction 

under Alternative 3a is expected to have little effect on use of 

fish species for subsistence. 

Caribou and Moose------As suggested by the biological effects 

analyses, the Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd would be 

expected to continue to decline at least to carrying capacity of 

available habitat. The biological analyses did not, however, 

produce any estimate of harvestable surplus within any time 

frame, making it impossible to specify any effects on 

subsistence uses. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-48 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Conflict with Recreation Uses------The Refuges plan to continue 

monitoring at Becharof Outlet and to increase the level of 

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

needed. This more proactive, systematic approach to monitoring 

would allow the Refuges to detect and fully understand threats 

to subsistence uses before they became substantial impacts. 

(See also page 4-13 ‘‘Conflicts with Recreation Uses------

Conclusions.’’) 

Conclusions------Section 810 of ANILCA requires an evaluation of 

the effects on subsistence that proposed actions on federal lands 

would have (see section 4.9). Alternative 3a complements and 

sustains the Refuges’ purpose and objectives of providing 

subsistence opportunities to rural residents. The most 

important issue for subsistence users is the decline of the 

caribou herd. The main variable affecting future use and access 

would likely be Alaska Board of Game and Federal Subsistence 

Board regulations made in response to changes in animal 

populations, rather than actions taken by the Refuges under the 

Plan. The biological analyses did not produce any estimate of 

harvestable surplus of caribou within any time frame because 

future herd size and composition cannot be predicted from 

available information, thus making it impossible to specify any 

effects on subsistence uses. 

Recreation Uses

Under Alternative 3a, the primary recreation uses of the 

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

and unguided recreational fishing and hunting. 

Effects on Recreational Hunting------Guided use would continue 

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

Existing policies would remain, and existing trends would be 

expected to continue. The existing opportunities for guided 

recreational hunting would remain. 

Effects on Recreational Fishing------Recreation quality at more 

popular sites appears to be maintained by voluntary efforts of 

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

transporter can try another location. This arrangement is not 

guaranteed to continue to be effective, especially if use levels 

increase and guided and unguided anglers compete more for 

prime locations and opportunities. 

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

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

recreation anglers, increases in unguided recreational fishing 

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

some popular areas that are most likely the same areas 

frequented by guided recreation anglers. Increased monitoring 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-49 

of recreational fishing, both guided and unguided, will allow the 

Refuges to identify, before crowding and on-the-ground 

conflicts occur, times and areas where use patterns may be 

reducing quality of the angling experience. If necessary, special 

use permits could be modified, and educational efforts and 

regulations could be developed to address these issues. Limits 

on access to refuge recreation opportunities would be 

undertaken only as a last resort. 

Effects on Other Recreation Opportunities and Recreation 

Quality------Other opportunities for recreation would not be 

affected. All forms of transportation currently allowed on the 

refuges would continue to be allowed. 

Under Alternative 3a, the Service would alter the boundaries of 

the area in the Moderate Management Category at Yantarni. 

The redefined area would still encompass all of the trails where 

ORV use is permitted. Thus, there would be no change in 

permitted ORV access or use on the Refuges. 

Under Alternative 3a, the Service would collect additional data 

about recreation experiences, satisfaction with guides, and other 

information that provides a more complete profile of recreation 

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

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

detectable in a systematic manner. 

Although the Refuges have conducted some studies of use------

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

the state’s sporadic creel censuses------there has been no 

systematic program, other than aerial surveys, for monitoring 

use. Given the generally stable trends in use patterns, the 

absence of a more rigorous program to monitor recreation 

opportunities and quality, or the use of site-specific 

management objectives in general, does not appear to have 

resulted in significant impacts to recreation opportunities. 

Increased monitoring will expand the Refuges’ ability to know 

when more site-specific management goals and management 

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

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

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

changes to thus facilitate responding before losses occur. 

Keeping track of recreation quality and use patterns will be 

especially important at popular locations for recreational fishing 

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

increased law-enforcement presence in the field could enhance 

this monitoring and increase the effectiveness of existing 

management. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-50 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

If such monitoring of use does find evidence of significant 

conflict among user groups and/or crowding, the Refuges would 

work with visitors to address the problems. It appears more 

likely that issues would initially be social, rather than related to 

impacts to fish or wildlife populations. The Refuges could take 

actions to address issues such as crowding and resulting 

declines in the quality of recreation at the site. The increased 

monitoring effort could allow the Refuges to deal with the issues 

effectively and efficiently, rather than passing regulations or 

imposing limits based on limited information. The Refuges could 

try to address the problem in partnership with the state and 

other entities, without regulating recreation access to refuge 

lands or waters; such regulation could be considered, however, 

if other methods (e.g., public education) were not effective. 

4.5.3 Effects on Wilderness Values and Character of the 

Becharof Wilderness Area 

Alternative 3a contains no actions that could change, directly or 

indirectly, biological or social conditions in the Becharof 

Wilderness Area. The management direction contained in 

Chapter 2 is designed to maintain the values and natural 

character of the Wilderness. Recreation use data from guides 

and air taxis do not suggest any consistent increases in 

Wilderness use levels that could pose a concern for 

opportunities for solitude. 

4.5.4 Cumulative Effects 

As with Alternative 1, no major development actions under 

Alternative 3a, within the next 15 to 20 years located on or off 

the Refuges, have been identified as having potential to impact 

refuge resources. While two road corridors have been identified 

that could bisect the Refuges, any plans for development are 

beyond the planning horizon, and their development is 

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

corridors were developed, there could be cumulative long-term 

effects from the road structure itself and from its use. 

Consequences could include the following: 

 Destruction of habitat along the road corridor 

 Potential spills of fuels and other pollutants 

 Changes in drainage patterns with resulting changes in 

vegetation 

 Siltation of adjacent streams and wetlands with resulting 

changes in aquatic ecosystems 

 Possible introduction of invasive species 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-51 

The Alaska Marine Highway could provide nonlocal hunters and 

anglers access to the road corridor and to adjacent areas that 

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

streams crossing the roadway. Additional pressures on local fish 

and game populations could result. Traffic along the road could 

also disturb wildlife such as nesting birds and migrating 

caribou. 

Possible cumulative effects on the Refuges include an increased 

risk of introducing invasive species through new human activity 

in locations previously inaccessible to people. Should invasive 

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

habitat quality could be reduced as invasive species may change 

the species composition of the habitat. Although such effects are 

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

during the life of this Plan. 

New fishing pressure to remote reaches of streams could occur 

if helicopter access for recreation activities were permitted. 

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

Refuges. Streams not now receiving any fishing pressure or 

those streams receiving some fishing pressure by boat, 

floatplane, or foot access could see increased pressure if 

helicopter access were permitted. Although this increased 

pressure could result in some shift in the age structure of fish 

stocks, it is assumed state fishing regulations would be 

sufficient to manage any increased fishing activities. 

4.6 Relationship Between 

Short-Term Uses of the 

Environment and Long-Term 

Productivity 

Under all alternatives, including the Service’s preferred 

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

be subsistence and recreation. Monitoring and regulation of 

harvested fish and wildlife populations by ADF&G and the 

Service will ensure the long-term productivity of fish and 

wildlife populations. None of the short-term uses described in 

any of the alternatives would affect the long-term productivity 

of the ecosystem. 

4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources 

The irreversible commitment of resources means that 

nonrenewable resources are consumed or destroyed. Examples 

include the destruction of cultural resources by other 

management activities and mineral extraction that consumes 

nonrenewable minerals. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-52 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The irretrievable commitment of resources represents tradeoffs (opportunities forgone) in the use and management of 

natural resources. Irretrievable commitment of resources can 

include the expenditure of funds, loss of production, or 

restrictions on resource use. 

Decisions made in a comprehensive conservation plan do not 

represent actual irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources. A conservation plan determines the kinds and levels 

of activities appropriate within the laws establishing the refuge. 

A decision to irreversibly or irretrievable commit resources 

occurs in the following circumstances: 

 When the Service makes a project- or site-specific decision 

 At the time Congress acts on a recommendation to establish 

a new conservation system unit such as Wilderness or to 

include a river in the Wild and Scenic River System 

Mineral leasing development would not be allowed within the 

Refuges under any of the management categories used within 

the Refuge. Therefore these resources could not be irreversibly 

committed unless the Plan was amended. Future decisions on 

the location or development of any road within the Refuges 

would take into account the cultural resources and could 

minimize or eliminate the possibility of losing those resources. 

Wilderness and river-related values are protected by the 

management categories applied to the Refuges and would not 

be irreversibly lost or irreversibly committed under any of the 

alternatives. 

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

example of an irretrievable commitment of resources. None of 

the alternatives proposes any change in the level of guided use 

being provided on the Refuges. 

4.8 Environmental Justice 

Federal agencies are required to identify and address, as 

appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations 

(Executive Order 12898; 1994, amended 1995). This includes 

health risks and other impacts for people who rely principally 

on fish or wildlife for subsistence. 

As described in Chapter 3, communities associated with the 

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

engage in subsistence uses. The nature of the proposed action------

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

different from proposals often associated with environmental 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-53 

justice issues (e.g., siting of polluting facilities). None of the 

alternatives proposed in the Environmental Impact Statement 

would place a disproportionate weight of any adverse effects on 

low-income or minority populations. 

Maintaining high-quality habitat and healthy populations of fish 

and wildlife, maintaining water quality, and providing 

opportunities for subsistence are legislated purposes of the 

Refuges. Thus, the Service cannot compromise these values and 

their associated uses under any management alternative. While 

the alternatives contain slightly different approaches to meeting 

the purposes, none would favor activities or projects that could 

direct negative impacts toward low-income or minority 

populations. 

4.9 Section 810 Evaluation 

Section 810 of ANILCA requires an evaluation of the effects on 

subsistence uses for any action to withdraw, reserve, lease, or 

otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public 

lands. The evaluation consists of three parts: 

 A finding of whether or not a proposed action will have a 

significant restriction on subsistence uses 

 A notice and hearing if an action is found to have a 

significant restriction on subsistence uses 

 A three-part determination prior to authorization of any 

action if there is a significant restriction on subsistence uses 

Chapter 3 of this document describes current uses of the 

Refuges for subsistence, and Chapter 4 describes anticipated 

effects of each alternative on those subsistence uses. Because 

this is a long-range programmatic plan that describes possible 

changes in management direction for the Refuges, it does not 

propose any site-specific development nor allowing of any new 

types of uses or development that could pose risks to 

subsistence uses of the Refuges. 

None of the alternatives contains actions that would reduce 

subsistence uses because of direct impacts on the resource or of 

adverse impacts on habitat or that would increase competition 

for resources. None of the alternatives would change the 

availability of resources by altering their distribution, 

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

restore habitat and maintain populations in their natural 

diversity. 

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

legal barriers, subsistence uses because of limitations on access 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-54 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

to harvestable resources. Adoption of any of the alternatives 

would not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses. 

4.10 Summary Comparison of 

Environmental Effects 

Table 4-1 provides a summary of the environmental effects 

described in this chapter. 

4.10.1 Definition of Terms 

The following definitions (as they relate to biological 

resources) are important to understand the categories 

described in Table 4-1: 

Short-term effects-----Anticipated to occur within five years 

from implementation of this Plan 

Long-term effects-----Anticipated to occur after or last longer 

than five years after this Plan has been implemented 

Negligible effects-----Temporary effects that do not result in a 

change in survival, reproduction, distribution, or behavior for 

individuals; the ability of the habitat to support populations 

would remain unchanged (e.g., temporary disturbance of a 

specific group of individuals that does not result in a change in 

use of an area). 

Minor effects-----Affecting the survival, reproduction, 

distribution, or behavior of a specific group of individuals of a 

population in a localized area for one generation or less without 

affecting the regional population; habitat composition and 

structure remain unchanged; however, habitat quality may be 

affected by indirect actions (e.g., disturbance or displacement 

affecting a specific group of individuals that may result in 

altered use of an area). 

Moderate effects-----Affecting a local population, or habitat 

quality and composition in a localized area, sufficiently to cause 

a change in abundance or distribution for more than one 

generation, but unlikely to affect the integrity of the regional 

population over the long term 

Major effects-----Affecting a regional or local population of a 

species, or its habitat, sufficiently to cause a change in 

abundance or a change in distribution beyond which natural 

recruitment is not likely to return the population to its former 

abundance within several generations 

Likelihood-----Some discussion about the likelihood of a 

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

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

that effect occurring is low) 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-55 

Low-----Effects are typically not expected, but could 

occur under unusual conditions. 

Medium-----Effects are not expected to occur in the 

majority of instances. 

High-----Effects are anticipated to occur as a result of 

implementing the action.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-56 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Compre

Table 4-1 Summary of environmental consequences by alternative 

 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Caribou and Moose 

short term = Minor effects from disturbance associated with helicopters (low likelihood) 

short term = Same as Alternative 1 short term = 

Negligible; use of helicopters for recreation access not allowed

 long term = Existing Wilderness 

designation provides legislative protection for about one-eighth of caribou summer grounds on the Refuges.

long term = Same as Alternative 1 long term = Same as 

Alternative 1 with the addition that restrictioof helicopter access could decrease disturbance 

Bears short term = Minor effects from 

disturbance associated with helicopters (low likelihood) 

short term = Same as Alternative 1 short term = 

Negligible; recreation use of helicopters for recreation access not allowed

 long term = Risk of habitat 

fragmentation in future remains unchanged.

long term = Same as Alternative 1 long term = Same as 

Alternative 1

Wolves short term = Minor effects from 

disturbance associated with helicopters (medium likelihood) 

short term = Same as Alternative 1 short term = 

Negligible; use of helicopters for recreation access not allowed 

 long term = Negligible long term = Negligible long term = Negligible 
 Chapter 4: Environ

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Bird Colonies short term = Negligible short term = Negligible short term = 

Negligible 

 long term = Negligible long term = Same as Alternative 1 long term = 

Negligible; some additional protection because use of helicopters for recreation access not allowed

Birds in General short term and long term effects = 

Minor effects are likely (high likelihood) associated with disturbance from helicopter access. Moderate effects from helicopter disturbance could be experienced in some instances (medium likelihood) 

short term and long term effects = Minor effects are likely (high likelihood) associated with disturbance from helicopter access. Moderate effects from helicopter disturbance could be experienced in some instances (medium likelihood). 

short term = Negligible 

 

long term = Negligible 

 No additional protection for marbled 

godwits

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Fish short term = Negligible short term = Negligible short term = 

Negligible 

 long term = Minor (high likelihood) 

to moderate effects (medium likelihood) from potential increased fishing pressure associated with new access provided by helicopter use 

long term = Same as Alternative 1 long term = Negligible 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-58 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Compre

 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Habitat short term = Negligible short term = Negligible short term = 

Negligible 

 long term = Moderate if invasive 

species are introduced (low likelihood); other actions would have a negligible effect. 

long term = Same as Alternative 1, except sensitive habitats would be preidentified and excluded from new 

helicopter activity 

long term = Negligible 

Refuges Contribution to the Local Economy 

Refuges contribute 1,433 local jobs and $70 million in income annually to the local economy (1997 estimate), nearly all of which is support of the commercial fishery by ensuring the health of salmon-spawning and -rearing habitat.

Negligible change from Alternative 1 because fish habitat would continue to be protected.

Same as Alternative 2 

Economic Development 

Refuges are willing partners in gateway community projects. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Subsistence Resources and Habitat 

No actions proposed that would lead to any significant restrictions. Sporadic nature of monitoring of conflicts between recreation use and subsistence use and competition could increase risk of impacts in the future. 

No actions proposed that would lead to any significant restrictions. Increase in monitoring would reduce risk of conflicts and competition from recreation uses over the long term. 

Same as Alternative 2 

Availability of Subsistence Resources 

No actions proposed that would lead to any significant restrictions. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Access to Subsistence Resources 

No actions proposed that would lead to any significant restrictions. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 
 Chapter 4: Environ

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Recreation Hunting 

The existing opportunities for recreational hunting would remain. Rather than actions taken by the Refuges under the Plan, the main variable affecting future use and access would be Alaska Board of Game and Federal Subsistence Board regulations made in response to changes in animal populations. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Recreational Fishing 

Existing opportunities for recreational fishing would remain. Without regulation of unguided use or consistent monitoring of resource and social conditions and the quality of the experience, it is possible that existing high-quality opportunities may decline over time at popular locations. 

Existing opportunities for recreational fishing would remain. Increased monitoring of guided and unguided recreational fishing use would allow the Refuges to identify—before crowding, on-the-ground conflicts, or resource damage lower recreation quality—times and areas where use patterns may be reducing quality. 

Same as Alternative 2 

Wilderness Values and Character 

Current social and biological conditions would be maintained in the Becharof Wilderness Area. Guidelines for Minimal Management (which could be changed in subsequent Plan revisions) would maintain the natural values and wild character of nearly all of the remainder of the Refuges. Opportunities for solitude could be compromised in some areas over time. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

with the additional protection, because of restriction of helicopteuse, to opportunities to experience wilderness values and character in areas not officially designated as Wilderness. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4-60 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4.11 References Cited 

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

grizzly bears to logging truck traffic in the 

Kimsquit River valley, British Columbia. In 

proceedings from International Conference on 

Bear Research and Management. 7:251–257. 

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

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

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

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

Northern Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd by 

communities of game management units 9C and 

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

Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 

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

Pilot Point, Ugashik, Port Heiden, Alaska 

Peninsula, Southwest Alaska, 1986–1987.” 

Technical Paper. No. 158. Juneau, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 

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

Unsworth. 1998a. “Economic assessment of 

Bristol Bay area National Wildlife Refuges: 

Alaska Peninsula/Becharof, Izembek, Togiak.” 

Final Draft report prepared for the Division of 

Economics, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

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

December 3, 1998) 

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

Assessment of Bristol Bay area national wildlife 

refuges: Alaska Peninsula/Becharof, Izembek, 

and Togiak.” Final draft report prepared for the 

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

December 3, 1998. Institute of Social and 

Economic Research, University of Alaska 

Anchorage; Marla Markowski and Robert 

Unsworth, Industrial Economics, Inc., 

Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Contract #14-

48009-95-005) 

HDR Alaska. 1999. “Lake and Peninsula Borough overall 

economic development plan.” Final. Anchorage, 

Alaska: HDR Alaska, Inc. 

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

Piscataway, New Jersey: Winchester Press. 
 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4-61 

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

Barker. 1992. “Examination of the effects of 

disturbance on birds with reference to its 

importance in ecological assessments.” Journal 

of Environmental Management 36: 253–286. 

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

Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 

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

“Subsistence harvests and uses of caribou, 

moose, and brown bear in 12 Alaska Peninsula 

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

Paper. No. 244. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 

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

nonsport brown bear deaths in Alaska.” 

International Conference of Bear Research and 

Management 7: 51–58. 

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

shorebirds: a summary of existing knowledge 

from Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta areas.” 

Wader Study Group Bulletin 68: 6–19. 

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

2001. Personal communication, to C. Ardizzone, 

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

Resources Division. October 14, 2001. 

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

Thomasma. 1994. “Gray wolf response to refuge 

boundaries and roads in Alaska.” Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 22: 61–68. 

USDA FS. 1996. “Helicopter landings in wilderness draft 

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

April 1996. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, 

Alaska. 

USFWS. 1994. “Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Final Public Use Management 

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

Service. 

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

2003. “Participation, Catch, and Harvest in 

Alaska Sport Fisheries During 2000.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish 

& Game. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4-62 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

Landscape of America: Fact Book. Washington, 

D.C: Federal Interagency Committee for the 

Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. 

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

Memorandum, to ARD ES/Fisheries, Juneau, 

Alaska, Fish and Wildlife Service Office. Subject: 

“Invasive species.” 

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

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

and Peninsula Borough Manager.