Appendix G 

State of Alaska Perspective on Potential Transportation and 

Utility System Corridors Identified In and Across the 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges 

by the State of Alaska
Appendix G 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan G-1 

State Perspective on Potential Transportation and Utility System Corridors Identified 

In and Across the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges 

The Bristol Bay Basin has been identified as having good potential for commercial quantities of oil 

and gas deposits. There is also interest in linking communities on the peninsula by roads. 

Management alternatives proposed through the Comprehensive Conservation Plan revision could 

affect the potential to develop transportation or oil and gas corridors across the Alaska Peninsula. 

The five land management classifications contained in Alaska conservation plans influence the type 

and level of development within a national wildlife refuge. For instance, a transportation project 

proposed for construction within designated Wilderness would require Presidential concurrence and 

approval by Congress in addition to meeting permitting requirements contained in regulation. The 

State of Alaska views these additional requirements as major impediments to development of the 

corridors. While development of a corridor through designated Wilderness may be technically 

allowable, the political realities indicate that a Wilderness designation effectively precludes corridor 

development. While this conservation plan identifies and describes Wilderness and river values, none 

of the alternatives recommends rivers for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System or new areas 

for Wilderness designation. The state recognizes and appreciates that the original (1985 and 1987) 

conservation plan removed the identified corridor areas from the Wilderness recommendations; 

however, the State of Alaska is nonetheless generally opposed to new (post-ANILCA) Wilderness 

designations, regardless of location. 

Any proposed development of transportation and utility system (TUS) corridors (within a refuge) must 

undergo Title XI and 43 CFR 36 permitting requirements, a compatibility determination, and 

development of an environmental impact statement. Additionally, the conservation plan would need to 

be amended by changing the land management category to Intensive Management prior to 

development of the transportation or transpeninsula corridors. 

Through two separate processes, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) have identified potential TUS corridors 

within and across the Alaska Peninsula. TUS corridors are defined and addressed in Title XI of the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980. Title XI acknowledges Alaska’s 

largely undeveloped transportation and utility system network and provides a process for application, 

review, and decision-making for construction of a TUS corridor on conservation system units (CSUs) 

in Alaska. Section 102(4) of ANILCA states that CSUs in Alaska include units of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, among other designations. 

Figures G-1 and G-2 (in this appendix) illustrate the combined TUS corridors on the peninsula that 

are identified by State of Alaska agencies. In the Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP), DNR identified three 

preferred potential transpeninsula corridors that originate on the north side of the peninsula and 

terminate on the south side of the peninsula, in addition to one potential road corridor to link the 

communities of Cold Bay and King Cove. Two of these TUS corridors, as indicated in Figure G-1, lie 

within the boundaries of the conservation plan area for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

DOT/PF identified, in the Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan (SWAK Transportation Plan), 

additional potential transportation corridors across both land and water that would link communities 

within southwest Alaska, including communities on the Alaska Peninsula. DOT/PF transportation 

corridors on the Alaska Peninsula can be seen in Figure G-2. This appendix also describes the 

process that led to the identification of these corridors. 
Appendix G: State Perspective on Potential Transportation and Utility System Corridors 

G-2 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure G-1. Identified TUS and Road Corridors on the Alaska Peninsula

Transpeninsula Corridors (Identified by DNR) 

Should hydrocarbon development occur within the Bristol Bay Basin, transpeninsula corridors may 

become necessary to transport product to deep-water, ice-free ports on the south side of the 

peninsula. The development of pipeline facilities would likely be the preferred method of transporting 

the product (oil and gas) across the Alaska Peninsula. Additionally, port, storage, and associated 

facilities would also be an integral part of the development of transpeninsula corridors. 

The transpeninsula corridors and potential deep-water port facilities were originally identified through 

the Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan (BBCMP), which began public scoping in 1982. 

Although not adopted in its original form, the BBCMP was a cooperative planning effort between state 

and Federal agencies, conducted pursuant to ANILCA Section 1203. Section 1203(b) states one of 

the purposes of this comprehensive cooperative management plan is “to provide for the rational and 

orderly development of economic resources within the region in an environmentally sound manner.” 

Through this cooperative planning effort, three “preferred” corridors were identified as potential oil and 

gas pipeline corridors across the peninsula; two of these corridors are within the area covered by this 

conservation plan. Rather than adopting the BBCMP as a cooperative plan, participating agencies 

chose to incorporate management direction from the BBCMP into subsequent state and Federal 

planning documents including the 1984 Bristol Bay Area Plan for State Lands (BBAP); the 1987 

Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact 

Statement, and Wilderness Review; the 1987 Becharof National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and Wilderness Review; and the 1985 Izembek 

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and 

Wilderness Review.
Appendix G: State Perspective on Potential Transportation and Utility System Corridors 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan G-3 

Figure G-2. Southwest Alaska Area Transportation Plan: Alaska Peninsula Corridor 

The state’s BBAP provides guidance for the management of approximately 12.9 million acres of state 

land and is based primarily on information gathered through the BBCMP planning process. One of the 

BBAP goals is to, “Support resource development and local transportation needs in the region by 

reserving preferred transportation corridors and port sites” (pp. 2–38). The 1987 Alaska Peninsula 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which is also based on information collected through the BBCMP, 

does not preclude the possibility of developing transportation corridors—these areas were not 

included in the Service's Wilderness proposal. The routes identified as potential transpeninsula 

corridors may prove to be critical for the future development of oil and gas resources in the Bristol 

Bay basin. The state indicates in the BBAP that any future development of transpeninsula routes 

should be within one of the preferred corridors identified. Although extensive work initially identified 

the general locations of these corridors, a more detailed route analysis will be needed when, and if, 

future development is proposed. Furthermore, Title XI provides for construction of new TUSs that 

may be necessary to support future economic development not yet have been identified. TUS routes 

on the peninsula are not limited to those identified through previous planning efforts. 
Appendix G: State Perspective on Potential Transportation and Utility System Corridors 

G-4 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

There is growing interest in the region for such development, in part due to disappointing economic 

returns from commercial fishing in recent years. For example, in 2003, DNR and the Bristol Bay 

Native Corporation (BBNC) have taken the initial steps toward making upland areas north of the 

refuge available for exploration and leasing of oil and gas resources. 

In September 2003, the DNR Division of Oil and Gas made a “call for comments” on an Alaska 

Peninsula areawide oil and gas lease sale. The proposed lease sale includes the state-owned, 

onshore areas around the perimeter of Bristol Bay located roughly between Izembek Lagoon and the 

Nushagak Peninsula. If the sale is approved, it could be held as early as September 2005. 

In addition, DNR has proposed a Bristol Bay basin exploration license study area. This area 

encompasses a state-owned, onshore area located east of Wood-Tikchik State Park and west of 

Katmai National Park and Preserve. If the study area is approved, a license could be awarded as 

early as September 2004. 

In July 2003, the BBNC and DNR entered into a memorandum of understanding. The two parties 

agreed to work cooperatively to convince the Federal government to re-open Federal oil and gas 

prospects in the region to exploration. They also agreed to synchronize the timing of their oil and gas 

leasing schedule for their respective lands and to help facilitate the design and construction of a 

transportation network that will make oil, gas, and other mineral prospects more accessible and will 

interconnect communities in the region. 

Transportation Corridors (Identified by DOT/PF) 

Potential transportation corridors in Southwest Alaska were identified through a separate DOT/PF 

transportation planning process initiated in April 1997. The Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan 

(SWAK Transportation Plan), finalized in November 2002, examines multimodal regional 

transportation needs, including facilities or infrastructure necessary to link the communities within the 

region. Through this planning effort, a number of community links were considered in addition to 

airstrip improvements, port facilities improvements, and Alaska Marine Highway System vessel 

routing. The SWAK Transportation Plan “reflects a broad-based public involvement effort that seeks 

to improve year-round mobility and access for residents and visitors, lower the costs of moving 

goods, and remove barriers to regional economic development and coordination” (pp. vi). DOT/PF 

identified these corridors to “establish the validity of a transportation interest” and to ensure that 

current and future land-use decisions would consider the region’s transportation interests (pp. S-1). 

Of the many transportation corridors identified in the SWAK Transportation Plan, two have been 

identified on lands within the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. One of the corridors crosses 

the refuge from Port Heiden south to the village of Chignik; the second route links the Chignik villages 

with Perryville and Ivanof Bay (Figure G-2). The plan also endorses the need for a surface (overland 

and/or marine) transportation connection between King Cove and Cold Bay. One of the purposes of 

the corridors is the transportation of goods and services between villages. Specifically, the Port 

Heiden–to-Chignik route is intended to link the port facilities located at the village of Chignik on the 

southern shore of the Alaska Peninsula to the improved airstrip located at Port Heiden on the 

northern side of the peninsula. Other regional facilities or corridors will provide villages a year-round 

link with other communities on the peninsula. 

Transportation costs on the Alaska Peninsula and throughout Southwest Alaska are high. Large-scale 

commercial air freight service is limited to a few large improved airstrips on the peninsula. Many 

villages in this region are linked only by winter trails, small aircraft, or seasonal water routes. 

Transportation routes will link villages on the Alaska Peninsula and the southwestern region. These 

regional links will allow for greater connectivity among villages within the region and greater access to 

outside markets and may lower transportation costs and the costs of goods and services. 

At the time of the plan’s release, development of many of these corridors was not considered likely 

within the 20-year timeframe of the plan. The plan recommended significant road development at 
Appendix G: State Perspective on Potential Transportation and Utility System Corridors 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan G-5 

Chignik and further study of a Naknek River crossing. However, recent interest in oil and gas 

exploration and leasing on the Bristol Bay lowlands has sparked discussion of the economic potential 

of a transportation route from Chignik to King Salmon 

Summary 

The effects of Service management categories on transportation and transpeninsula corridors have 

the potential to greatly affect future development of resources and infrastructure on the Alaska 

Peninsula. While none of the alternatives in this Conservation Plan would preclude the development 

of the identified corridors through these management- category designations, future planning efforts 

should continue to recognize the importance of these routes. Transpeninsula corridors may prove to 

be vital in the development of oil and gas resources in the Bristol Bay region. In addition, local 

communities can also benefit greatly from the development of transportation corridors between 

communities on the peninsula. 

Reference List 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987, Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and Wilderness Review 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Becharof National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and Wilderness Review. 

Bristol Bay Area Plan for State Lands. 1984. 

Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan. 1982. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Izembek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and Wilderness Review. 

Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan. November 2002.