Chapter 3 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-1 

3. Affected Environment 

This chapter describes the biological, physical, and social 

components of the ecosystem that could be affected by actions 

associated with management of the Refuges. The chapter is 

divided into six major sections: 3.1, Geographic and Ecosystem 

Setting; 3.2, Biological Environment; 3.3, Human Environment; 

and 3.6, Refuge Infrastructure and Administration. Sections 3.4 

and 3.53 discuss wilderness and river values, respectively. 

Chapter 4 describes the possible potential effects of the 

alternatives on these resources. 

3.1 Geographic and Ecosystem 

Setting 

3.1.1 Land Status 

Existing 

Major legislation affecting land ownership in the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges includes the Native Allotment 

Act of 1906, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 

(ANCSA), and the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). These laws directed the 

transfer of lands from Federal to Native ownership. 

Becharof National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), the Ugashik and 

Chignik units of Alaska Peninsula NWR, and the Seal Cape 

portion of Alaska Maritime NWR are managed by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) office in King Salmon. The Pavlof and 

North Creek units of Alaska Peninsula NWR are managed with 

Izembek NWR from the Service office in Cold Bay. The Alaska 

Maritime NWR office in Homer manages all other refuge lands 

off the south shore of the Alaska Peninsula. 

The land status of Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges 

(Refuges) is constantly changing because refuge lands selected 

by individual Natives and by Alaska Native corporations are 

being adjudicated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

Proposed land exchanges and purchases may cause additional 

changes in the land status (see discussion of land exchanges and 

cooperative agreements in the Section 2.3.13). 

Of the 4,932,6001

 acres within the Refuges boundaries, 1,337,980 

acres are either selected by or conveyed to individual Natives, 

Alaska Native corporations, the State of Alaska, or other 

private individuals. The remaining land is under the jurisdiction 

of the Service. The State of Alaska maintains jurisdiction over 

 

1

 Refuge acreage listed in this document reflects recently completed computer mapping work and may 

vary from the refuge acreages listed in other sources. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-2 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

navigable waters and marine bays and inlets within the Refuges 

boundaries. Table 3-1 presents a breakdown of the land status 

within the Refuges. 

Table 3-1. Land status with the Refugesa

Category Conveyed Lands Selected Lands Total 

Native corporations 527,690 370,840 898,530 

Native allotments 5,990 1,820 7,810 

State of Alaska 1,260 0 1,260 

University of Alaska 1,100 0 1,100 

Other private lands 1,350 0 1,350 

Regional corporation in lieu of subsurface 0 427,930 427,930 

Total 537,390 800,590 1,337,980b

a Refuge acreages listed in this document reflect recently completed computer mapping and may vary from the 

refuge acreages listed in other sources. 

b All acreage figures reported were calculated from the Service’s Division of Realty’s land status Geographic 

Information System database and are subject to change because of future land status adjudication, surveying of 

parcels, or the acquisition of more accurate data sources. The GIS database was compiled using BLM master 

title plats as the source documents. Any minor errors inherent in the drafting of the master title plats and 

subsequent scanning and digitizing of them are included in the acreage estimates. 

Ten ANCSA village corporations, representing 12 villages, have 

selected and/or have been conveyed lands within the Refuges. 

Seven of the villages represented by these corporations are 

clustered around the Chignik unit, with five villages being 

physically located within the unit. Four villages are located 

outside the boundaries of the Ugashik Unit and Becharof NWR. 

The remaining village, Sand Point, is located on Popof Island 

within Alaska Maritime NWR. As a result, the majority of the 

surface estate that is either selected or conveyed, pursuant to 

Sections 12(a) and 12(b) of ANCSA—some 797,260 acres (85 

percent)—lies within the Chignik Unit in the vicinity of the 

villages of Ivanof Bay, Perryville, Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, 

Chignik Lake, and Port Heiden. Selected or conveyed surface 

estate within the Ugashik Unit makes up 12 percent of the total 

acreage on the Refuges; the remaining 3 percent of the selected 

acreage is within Becharof NWR. 

The home villages of two of the village corporations holding 

selections or conveyances within the Ugashik Unit are located 

on Kodiak Island. lists the village corporations and their 

associated home villages. Figure 3-1 depicts locations of Native 

corporation lands within the Refuges boundaries. At the time 

this Plan was written, approximately 90 percent of ANCSA 

12(a) and 12(b) land selections had been conveyed to the village 

corporations. The BLM anticipates that the remaining 10 

percent will be adjudicated by 2007. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-3 

Table 3–2. ANCSA village corporations within the Refuges 

ANCSA Native Corporation Village Selections and Conveyances 

Within 

Alaska Peninsula Corp. Port Heiden, South Naknek, 

Ugashik 

Becharof NWR, Chignik and 

Ugashik units of Alaska Peninsula 

Bay View, Inc. Ivanof Bay Chignik Unit 

Chignik Lagoon Native Corp. Chignik Lagoon Chignik Unit 

Chignik River, Ltd. Chignik Lake Chignik Unit 

Far West, Inc. Chignik Chignik Unit 

Native Village of Akhiok, Inc. Akhiok Ugashik Unit 

Leisnoi, Inc. Woody Island Ugashik Unit 

Oceanside Corp. Perryville Chignik Unit 

Pilot Point Native Corp. Pilot Point Ugashik Unit 

Shumagin Corp. Sand Point Chignik Unit 

In addition to the village corporations, three ANCSA regional 

corporations hold selections and/or conveyances within the 

Refuges. Together, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Koniag, 

Inc., and the Aleut Corporation hold some 1,173,500 acres of 

selected and conveyed land. Of this total, approximately 457,850 

acres of subsurface estate has been conveyed to the regional 

corporations pursuant to Section 14(f) of ANCSA. Another 1,910 

acres of surface and subsurface estate have been selected as 

cemetery sites and historical places under Section 14(h)(1) of 

ANCSA. 

ANCSA 14(h)(8) selections comprise 242,750 acres of surface 

and subsurface estate, while 14(h)(8) surface and subsurface 

conveyances total approximately 10,130 acres. Regional in-lieu 

subsurface selections total 427,930 acres, of which Koniag, Inc. 

has selected 408,220 acres. These in-lieu subsurface selections 

were made because Koniag could not select the subsurface 

estate from within Kodiak NWR. The Service is currently 

negotiating with Koniag to complete a land exchange, under 

Section 303 of PL 104-333, for the subsurface estate. 

The Aleut Corporation is currently approximately two million 

acres overselected under Section 14(h)(8) of ANCSA, with only 

55,000 acres remaining in its entitlement. The majority of this 

entitlement may be satisfied in the proposed Adak Land 

Exchange. Of the two-million-acre overselection, some 198,600 

acres are within the southwestern corner of the Chignik Unit of 

the Refuges. There are no Koniag, Inc. 14(h)(8) selections 

within the Refuges. The BLM expects that all remaining Native 

regional corporation selections will be adjudicated by 2007. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-7 

As of December 2002, there were 122 Native allotments within 

the Refuges, totaling approximately 7,810 acres. Of these, 91 

conveyed Native allotments comprise 5,990 acres. The 

remaining 31 unconveyed allotments total some 1,820 acres. The 

BLM has made steady progress adjudicating Native allotments 

within the Refuges. As a result, it is likely that the 31 Native 

allotments that remain selected, if valid, will be conveyed in the 

near future. The majority of Native allotments are located along 

rivers, on lakeshores, and along the coastline. Other 

miscellaneous and privately patented parcels (approximately 

1,350 acres) are concentrated mainly in the vicinity of the 

villages within the Chignik Unit. Compared to the acreage of 

land selected by and/or conveyed to village and regional 

corporations, the total acreage selected or conveyed to 

individual Natives and other private parties is small. 

The State of Alaska has received, via tentative approval2

, title to 

the surface and subsurface of approximately 1,260 acres in the 

Wide Bay area. These lands are near those conveyed to the 

University of Alaska. In addition to receiving the lands at Wide 

Bay, the University of Alaska has also received title to lands on 

the eastern shore of Upper Ugashik Lake, for a total of some 

1,100 acres. There is no state-selected land within the Refuges. 

Multiple, conflicting claims comprise approximately 52,460 

acres, primarily around Mother Goose Lake in the Ugashik 

Unit and west of Ivanof Bay in the southern end of the Chignik 

Unit. Other conflicting claims exist between Native allotments 

and privately patented lands. All conflicting claims will be 

adjudicated by the BLM by 2007. 

Acquisitions or Exchanges 

Scattered throughout the Refuges are numerous inholdings 

owned by Native corporations, private individuals, and the 

state. Many of these lands are large blocks surrounding Native 

villages or are areas selected by Native corporations for future 

resource development. There are also, however, numerous small 

parcels. This intermingled land ownership pattern makes 

management of the Refuges complex. In certain situations, the 

acquisition or exchange of key lands may be crucial to 

protecting important natural resources. 

Section 1427 of ANILCA provides a mechanism by which lands 

previously conveyed to Native organizations could be 

reconveyed to the Federal government. Using these 

procedures, in 1996 approximately 68,000 acres of subsurface in-

 

2

 Tentative approval or TA—land approved for conveyance to the state subject to a survey. When the 

survey has been completed and approved, a patent will be issued to the state. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-8 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

lieu selection in the Yantarni Bay area, which had been 

conveyed to the Afognak Native Corporation and to Koniag, 

Inc. in 1980, were reconveyed to the Federal government. 

In 1993, in the legislatively directed Yantarni Bay Exchange 

with the Afognak Joint Venture and Koniag, Inc., the Service 

acquired approximately 43,000 acres of the surface estate. The 

majority of these Yantarni Bay lands conveyed to the Service 

were placed in the Minimal Management category because their 

character was the same as that of the adjoining refuge lands in 

that management category. The remaining 9,100 acres was 

placed in the Moderate Management category in recognition 

that the character of this acreage was different from that of the 

surrounding area because of the presence of an airstrip, a road, 

and a drilling platform and because commercial services using 

base camps and off-road vehicles had become established. 

Although providing overall management guidance for the 

Refuges, this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Plan) does not 

address the details needed for evaluating proposed acquisition 

or exchange of lands within the Refuges. The Land 

Conservation Plan (LCP) is a step-down plan that looks in detail 

at the existing land status, important fish and wildlife resources, 

and potential threats to refuge resources. These factors are 

evaluated, and a set of priorities and recommendations is 

developed to help guide land conservation efforts on private 

lands within the refuge boundaries. These plans offer 

recommendations that provide a framework for refuge and 

landowner conservation efforts. Under Service policy, the 

Service cannot consider exchange and acquisition of lands until 

the refuge LCP is complete, except under extenuating 

circumstances. In Alaska, the Service will work to acquire land 

only from willing sellers. The Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

LCP was completed in 2002. 

Navigability 

Title based on navigability, or the issue of ownership of 

submerged lands beneath inland waters, is unresolved for many 

waterbodies in Alaska. Regarding the Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges, the State of Alaska claims title to submerged 

lands of the Alec River, Black Lake, Clark River, Dog Salmon 

River, Chignik River (mouth of river to Black Lake, including 

Chignik Lake), Ugashik River (mouth of river to Lower and 

Upper Ugashik lakes), Ruth Lake and its outlet (Ruth River), 

Egegik River, and Becharof Lake. The state considers 

numerous other waterbodies, in addition to those rivers and 

lakes just listed, within the Refuge boundaries to be navigable 

(DNR 1990). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-9 

Environmental Contaminants 

The Refuges have a number of known and potential 

contaminant issues. Although some of these issues have been 

addressed, others still need further investigation. Some of the 

contaminant sources for the Refuges include oil and gas 

exploration, cabin sites, mining, and residual contamination 

from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. 

Fairly intensive oil and gas exploration was conducted on the 

Refuges beginning in the early 1900s, and some traces from 

these activities remain. In 1988, several abandoned oil well sites 

were inspected, and these investigations prompted some 

extensive cleanup efforts, including the removal of 

approximately 1,500 barrels (some with contents) from Island 

Bay in 1992 (de Vries and Giger 1998a, 1998b; Jackson 1991). 

Although some of these historic sites have been investigated 

and cleanups have occurred, some sites may warrant further 

inspection and/or site remediation. 

Trash and abandoned fuel containers at cabin sites and camps 

have been a large problem for the Refuges. However, during 

the “Take Pride in America” program in the late 1980s and 

early 1990s, most of the trash and fuel containers were removed 

from these sites. Another removal effort occurred at several 

sites in 1998 and 1999 (Bristol Environmental and Engineering 

Services Corp. 2000). Although these removal efforts were 

extensive, debris and fuel containers still exist at some locations. 

The remoteness of some of these cabin and campsites makes for 

challenging cleanup and logistics. 

In 1989, the Refuges were significantly affected by the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill. Puale Bay was especially affected by the spill. 

Although cleanup and monitoring programs were implemented, 

residual contamination from the spill may still be an issue. 

During 2001, a contaminant assessment was conducted for the 

Refuges. This assessment further explored all potential 

contamination issues for the Refuges, and a list was generated 

of areas requiring potential cleanup actions or additional 

contaminant sampling. 

3.1.2 Physical Environment 

Area of Influence 

The Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges are located on the 

Alaska Peninsula in southwestern Alaska. The Alaska Peninsula 

extends approximately 450 miles from near Lake Iliamna to 

Isanotski Strait at the beginning of the Aleutian Islands. The 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-10 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

peninsula’s width varies from about 100 miles at its base to 

3 miles near the southwestern tip. 

The Alaska Peninsula Refuge extends for most of the length of 

the Pacific side of the peninsula; the Becharof Refuge is in the 

northeastern part of the peninsula. The northern boundary of 

the Becharof Refuge lies approximately 10 miles south of King 

Salmon and extends south past Becharof Lake, where it meets 

the northern boundary of the Ugashik Unit of the Alaska 

Peninsula Refuge. 

The Refuges’ area of influence includes the Bering Sea, north 

Pacific Ocean, coastal lands, and inland waters—including 

Alaska’s second largest lake, Becharof Lake. The surrounding 

oceans affect the climate and weather as well as provide habitat 

and migrational pathways for fish, birds, and mammals. Events 

that occur on the Refuges and on the adjacent lands and waters 

are likely to affect each other. 

Climate—The Alaska Peninsula has a moderate polar maritime 

climate characterized by high winds, mild temperatures, cloud 

cover, and frequent precipitation. Severe storms can occur yearround, often with intense winds known as williwaws. The Bering 

Sea and Pacific Ocean are the primary factors affecting local 

weather conditions. Sea winds with a high moisture content 

blow constantly across the peninsula from both directions, 

forming fog and clouds. High winds and turbulence are 

especially common in mountain passes. The heaviest rain and 

snowfall occur on the Pacific Ocean side of the peninsula. The 

Bering Sea side enjoys more clear days, but lower average 

temperatures. Cyclonic storms frequently move across the 

peninsula from the Bering Sea, dominating the weather for 

most of the year. 

The skies over the Refuges are usually cloudy. From early fall 

through late spring, they are clear or partly cloudy 40 percent 

of the time; in the summer they are clear or partly cloudy only 

20 percent of the time. Precipitation varies with elevation and 

distance from the coast. The average annual precipitation for 

King Salmon is 17.75 inches each year, although more than 160 

inches of precipitation fall in the vicinity of Chignik and Castle 

Cape on the Pacific coast. 

Temperatures are generally moderate throughout the year, 

with little daily variation. Temperatures at King Salmon 

average 15.9 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in December, the coldest 

month, and 54°F in July, the warmest month. However, 

extremes have ranged from –46° F to 88° F. At Cold Bay, 

average temperatures range from 28° F in February to 51° F in 

August, with extremes of –13° F and 78° F. Low temperatures 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-11 

are aggravated by mean annual wind velocities of 11 and 17 

miles per hour at King Salmon and Cold Bay, respectively. 

Landforms—The Alaska Peninsula splits the Bristol Bay and 

the Bering Sea on the north and west from the Pacific Ocean on 

the south and east. The backbone of the Alaska Peninsula is the 

Aleutian Range. This volcanic mountain range lies along the 

Pacific coast on the southeast side of the peninsula. Numerous 

peaks rise above 6,000 feet. This creates a Pacific coast that is 

rocky and heavily marked with fjords. The Aleutian Range, 

including the Aleutian Islands, contains nearly 50 volcanoes 

known to have erupted or vented steam since 1760. They are 

part of a chain of volcanoes that rims the Pacific Ocean and is 

known as the “Ring of Fire.” The Refuges are superimposed 

over this rugged range of mountains. The Refuges continue to 

be shaped by recurrent earthquakes. Historically active 

volcanoes in or near the Refuges are Mount Peulik, Mount 

Katmai, Mount Aniakchak, Mount Veniaminof, and Mount 

Chiginagak. A geologically active area one mile south of 

Becharof Lake contains the scars of the Ukinrek Maars.3

 These 

volcanic craters were created by an explosive eruption in 1977. 

The Refuges include rugged mountain crests, rounded 

subsummits, U-shaped valleys with sheer walls, sea cliffs, fjords, 

low tundra wetlands, glacial lakes, and moraines. Eleven major 

volcanoes, including seven that are active, are located on the 

peninsula. Their elevations range from 4,400 feet to 8,300 feet. 

Cinder beds radiate from eruptive centers in the volcanic 

systems, and the volcano slopes are covered with glaciers and 

ice fields. Becharof Lake is nestled between the low tundra 

wetlands to the north and west and the Aleutian Range to the 

east and south. The Kejulik River valley, about 6 miles wide at 

Becharof Lake, splits the main trend of the Aleutian Range, 

separating the rugged Kejulik Mountains from the coastal 

range. 

The refuge lands on the Bristol Bay side of the Aleutian Range 

gradually slope toward the Bristol Bay coastal plain northwest 

of the mountains. The coastal plain terrain is flat, with lakes and 

meandering streams. Remnants of glacial moraines provide the 

only local relief. Toward the tip of the peninsula—the 

southwestern half of the Refuges—fewer lakes are found, and 

the peninsula becomes progressively narrower. 

The extremely rugged coastline of Seal Cape is deeply indented 

by Seal Bay, Sweater Bay, and Devils Bay. Cliffs line much of 

 

3

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

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

Maars often fill with water to form lakes. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-12 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

the coastline, although there are sand beaches in Devils Bay. 

The fjordlike bays cut the cape into two principal arms. 

Geology—A summary of information on bedrock geology, 

unconsolidated deposits and soils was provided in the original 

Conservation Plans (USFWS 1985a, 1985b, 1985d). Volcanic and 

seismic activity in the area indicates that mountain-building 

forces are occurring. All the modern mountain-building 

(deformation and volcanism) is attributed to the Pacific Ocean 

plate descending northwest under the platform along the 

Aleutian Trench of the North American continent. This trench 

parallels the Alaska Peninsula off its south shore. The dragging 

of one crustal plate beneath another (subduction) results in 

volcanic activity, making the area one of the most seismically 

active in the world. 

Soils—The soils on the Alaska Peninsula have been fieldmapped at an exploratory 1:500,000 scale. Their distributions, as 

soil subgroups or associations of subgroups, are shown by 

Rieger et al. (1979) at the published 1:1,000,000 scale, and maps 

can be found in the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR 

Comprehensive Plans (USFWS 1985a, 1985b). 

Volcanic ash furnishes most of the parent material for soil 

development on the Refuges. Ash is absent from the bare rock 

slopes and higher elevation peaks along the volcanic chain of 

mountains and on the alluvial flats at the outlet of Becharof 

Lake. 

Ash commonly overlies permeable glacial deposits. A 

characteristic constituent of these soils is thixotropic (gel-like) 

clay. This material responds as a fluid when sudden stress such 

as an earthquake is applied; after the disturbance, it may 

harden quickly to its normal solid state. The best developed 

volcanic ash soils are in the montane uplands of the Refuges. 

Organic soils occur in wet areas along lowland rivers or valley 

bottoms and in depressions of morainal hills. The organic soils 

consist of undecomposed sedge peat and sphagnum often 

containing deposits of volcanic ash. On the east end of Becharof 

Lake, the soil layer consists entirely of deep accumulations of 

fibrous sphagnum and sedge peat with layers of ash. 

Permafrost is generally absent in major drainage areas and 

most other areas of the Refuges. Occasional patches of 

permafrost a few yards thick occur in till deposits of low slopes 

and in gravelly soils of steep, north-facing mountain slopes. The 

depth to which the soil remains frozen depends on the air 

temperature and amount of insulation provided by snow cover. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-13 

Oil and Gas Occurrences and Potential—Petroleum 

exploration on the Alaska Peninsula dates back to the early 

1900s. Early explorers reported numerous oil and gas seeps and 

oil-stained sands throughout the Alaska Peninsula as far south 

as Chignik. Oil and gas seeps occur in the Becharof Lake area in 

three general areas: (1) Dennian Hills, two miles west of 

Becharof Lake Island Arm; (2) Gas Rocks, on the south shore of 

Becharof Lake; and (3) between Becharof Lake and the Pacific 

Ocean. Within the last area, oil seeps occur at the east end of 

Becharof Lake, at Ugashik Creek, Simeon Creek, Bear Creek, 

Salmon Creek, and Oil Creek and on several small creeks 

between Puale Bay and Alinchak Bay near Cape Kekurnoi. In 

addition, the geology of the Alaska Peninsula includes numerous 

anticlinal folds, which exploration experience has shown to be 

potential traps for subsurface hydrocarbon accumulations. 

Twenty-five onshore and one offshore exploration wells have 

been drilled in and around the Refuges (Bascle et al. 1986). 

Shallow exploratory wells were drilled in the Becharof Lake and 

Puale Bay area as early as 1903 and 1904. Additional deeper 

wells, to test more of the stratigraphy, were drilled in the 1920s 

and up through 1983. Most wells reported shows (traces) of oil 

and gas, with a number of drill stem tests producing 

hydrocarbons and cores being recovered. Banet (2000) reported 

that insufficient reservoir rock for economic production was a 

common problem. However, none of these wells was optimally 

sited, drilled, or tested using modern technologies. 

The BLM currently has on file 94 pending oil and gas lease 

applications within the Refuges. Most of these applications were 

filed in the 1960s and predate the establishment of the Refuges. 

These responses to lease offers were “grandfathered in” with 

passage of the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform 

Act (101 Stat. 1330-256, 259). These are only applications to 

obtain leases, not actual leases. Many of the individuals who 

filed these applications (or their estates) would like to have the 

applications rejected in return for their original deposits. The 

BLM has no authority to reject these applications unless their 

issuance is precluded by some other law. 

Oil and gas potential has been re-evaluated and updated by the 

BLM since the original Refuges Plans were published. The 

BLM (Banet 2000) identifies two areas having high potential for 

hydrocarbon accumulations. Banet (2000, Plate 4) shows that 

the Alaska Peninsula lowlands along the Bristol Bay coast, from 

about Egegik Bay to Izembek Lagoon, is an area with high 

potential. This includes the western portions of the Refuges. 

The area of high potential along the Pacific Ocean coast includes 

most of the eastern portions of the Refuges from Katmai 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-14 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

National Park to south of Chignik Bay. Koniag, Inc. has in-lieu 

subsurface selections to almost 123,000 acres from the Refuges 

within this area of high potential. 

The analysis of these two areas indicates that the subsurface 

stratigraphy includes rocks capable of generating oil or gas (i.e., 

source rocks) and reservoir rocks. Surficial seeps and anticlines 

are direct evidence for geological processes such as burial of 

source rocks to generate hydrocarbons and folding or faulting to 

trap potential accumulations. The two areas of high potential 

are separated by areas of no, low, or moderate potential that 

predominantly coincide with the mountains and volcanoes along 

the peninsula. 

Numerous seeps and 25 onshore exploration wells demonstrate 

the presence of hydrocarbons along the Alaska Peninsula. The 

presence of oil and gas seeps across a wide area suggests that 

either a large and extensive petroleum-generating system or 

multiple petroleum systems have been active. To date, most 

activity has centered on only two areas, leaving most of the 

peninsula with no appreciable exploration drilling density or 

seismic coverage. No drilling or seismic exploration has been 

permitted or allowed on the Refuges since the mid-1980s. This 

precludes the use of current geologic modeling based on 

depositional systems tract analyses and more modern methods 

such as high-resolution, two-dimensional and three-dimensional 

seismic formation testing, and light hydrocarbon detection. The 

Alaska Peninsula is a region of complex geology, where surface 

features do not directly explain subsurface environments. 

Previous oil and gas potential determinations have focused on 

large, “stand-alone,” world-class–sized oil developments. The 

evolution of activities on the North Slope shows that recent site 

designs, development, and recovery technologies have reduced 

development costs. 

Current interests show potential for development of 

comparatively small coalbed-methane production to supply 

rural communities and to offset their dependence on barged-in 

diesel fuel. Coalbed methane is natural gas recovered and 

produced from coal beds. It is generally produced from shallow, 

comparatively inexpensive wells, put into pipelines, and burned 

like any other natural gas. The area near Chignik is one of three 

areas within the state that show high potential for rural coalbedmethane exploitation (Banet 2000). It will take drilling to 

identify the volumetric extent of coalbed-methane resources and 

attendant costs for wells and facilities. This would then need to 

be compared to the size and needs of the local population to 

determine the economic feasibility of coalbed-methane 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-15 

development. The area of high potential for coal bed-methane 

accumulations includes some lands on the Refuges. 

The determination of economically recoverable oil and gas 

resources on the Alaska Peninsula would require adequate 

exploration and quantitative resource analyses to compare 

against modern exploration technologies and development costs. 

Current indications of insufficient reservoir rock for large 

volumes of oil and gas and the lack of any infrastructure capable 

of supporting development within hundreds of miles make the 

economics of any oil and gas development extremely 

problematic. Currently there are no indications that 

economically recoverable volumes of oil and gas will be 

discovered on the Alaska Peninsula (Banet 2000). 

As of June 2000, there were no valid mining claims on the 

Refuges. All refuge lands have been withdrawn from all forms 

of appropriation by Section 304(c) of ANILCA (1980). Thus, 

there will be no new mining claims allowed in the future. The 

Refuges are not presently open to material (sand and gravel) 

sales. 

Water Resources—One of the five specific purposes of the 

Alaska Peninsula, Becharof, and Alaska Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuges, as described in ANILCA, is to ensure the 

conservation of water resources, specifically, “to ensure . . . 

water quality and necessary water quantity within the 

refuge[s]” for the conservation of fish and wildlife populations 

and habitats in their natural diversity. The abundant and mostly 

pristine water resources of the Refuges support plentiful 

populations of fish, wildlife, and vegetation as well as resident 

and visiting humans. Alaska’s second-largest lake (Becharof 

Lake), hundreds of smaller lakes, thousands of miles of rivers 

and streams, massive glacial icefields, some thermal springs, 

and large expanses of marine waters are located within the 

Refuges’ boundaries. Although the Refuges’ waters are 

required by all biotic resources and provide essential habitat for 

many species, hydrologic data (both water quantity and quality) 

are remarkably scarce for such a water-rich and waternourished environment (Bertrand et al. 2000; USFWS 1985b, 

1985d, 1994b). 

The coastal mountains of the Aleutian Range that parallel the 

eastern margin of the Alaska Peninsula are the headwaters of 

most of the Refuges rivers and streams. Rain, snowmelt, and 

glacier melt are the sources of the Refuge inland surface 

waters. Heaviest rain and snowfall occur on the windward or 

eastern (Pacific Ocean) side of the peninsula, whereas the 

leeward or western (Bering Sea) side of the peninsula has 

considerably less. In general, mean annual precipitation ranges 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-16 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

from 60 to 120 inches on the eastern side of the peninsula and 

from 20 to 60 inches on the western side. An area of very heavy 

precipitation occurs in the vicinity of Perryville and Mount 

Veniaminof, where the mean annual precipitation exceeds 160 

inches. 

Most volcanoes of the Aleutian Range have glaciers on all sides, 

and some have summit icefields. Although several streams are 

fed by glaciers at high elevations of volcanic peaks, the majority 

are shallow, clear-water streams fed by snowmelt and rain. 

Rivers and streams draining to the eastern side of the coastal 

mountains tend to be short and have steep gradients because of 

the proximity of the mountains to the ocean; the Black Lake, 

Chignik Lake, and Chignik River system is an exception. Many 

of these turbulent mountain streams have numerous falls and 

flow through steep-sided canyons. Many streams draining to the 

western side of the Aleutian Range are born in ice-carved basin 

lakes and become longer, low-gradient streams as they join 

other waterbodies and braid or meander through the coastal 

lowlands. The morainal and outwash-mantled lowlands are 

dotted with morainal and thaw lakes (Gallant et al. 1995; Jones 

and Fahl 1994; Jones et al. 1978; Resource Analysts 1996; 

Wahrhaftig 1965). 

The larger lakes of the Egegik, Ugashik, King Salmon, and 

Chignik river systems moderate storm runoff by storing much 

of the runoff from their watersheds. Streams on the Pacific 

coast and mountains have an estimated mean annual runoff in 

excess of 4 cubic feet per second per square mile (cfs/mi2

). 

Streams on the flat Bristol Bay coastal plain, on the other hand, 

have an estimated mean annual runoff of 2 cfs/mi2

 or less 

(Feulner 1973; Jones et al. 1978; USFWS 1985b, 1985d). 

Water Quantity 

In 1994, the Alaska Region of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

conducted a water resources–threats analysis to identify and 

evaluate water resources threats in the 16 national wildlife 

refuges in Alaska to guide hydrologic investigations and 

instream water–rights protection. The project involved 

developing and defining criteria to evaluate threats to refuge 

water quantity and quality. Each refuge identified high-priority 

rivers and identified and evaluated threats for each of the 

rivers. 

There are many streams on the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges; most are short and originate and end on the Refuges 

and are not judged to be threatened. The threats-analysis 

project identified and evaluated six high-priority rivers on the 

Refuges, including the Meshik River, Braided Creek, Dog 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-17 

Salmon River, and Figure Eight Creek on the Alaska Peninsula 

Refuge and the King Salmon River and Gertrude Creek on the 

Becharof Refuge. (See Figures 1-5, 1-6, and 1-7 for the location 

of these rivers.) Potential threats identified include oil 

exploration and development, transportation corridors, and lode 

and placer mining on private lands upstream of the Refuges. 

Twenty-five exploratory oil wells have been drilled within the 

Refuges, but no commercially exploitable quantities of oil have 

been found. Transportation corridors—which, if developed, 

could impact Figure Eight Creek and Dog Salmon Creek—have 

been identified in the State/Federal Bristol Bay Comprehensive 

Management Plan. Fifty lode and placer mining claims are 

located on private or state lands in the Braided Creek 

watershed, a tributary of the Meshik River (Harle 1994). 

In response to the threats analysis and to a request from the 

Bristol Bay/Kodiak Ecosystem Team, the “Plan of Study for 

Hydrologic Investigation of the Egegik River Watershed” was 

prepared in August 1995. The plan describes the scoping 

process and existing surface-water quantity and quality, 

climate, and fish and wildlife data. It then identifies data needs 

for surface water quantity and quality, climate, wetland 

habitats, and fisheries. The plan identifies 11 potential streamgauging sites within the Egegik River watershed and presents 

estimated budgetary requirements (USFWS 1995). 

The Service’s Bristol Bay/Kodiak Ecosystem Team, as part of 

an investigation into the high sockeye production from the 

Becharof Lake system, requested that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Water Resources Branch of the Alaska Region office 

establish stream-flow–monitoring sites on the Egegik and King 

Salmon rivers. In July 1996, the Water Resources Branch 

installed stream gauges on the King Salmon and Egegik rivers; 

both gauges were monitored through 1998. 

In September 1998, the King Salmon River stream-flow gauge 

was removed because of a radically changing channel crosssection due to unstable stream banks and substrate. No reliable 

stream-flow rating curve could be established at this site. Tide 

effect compromised data at the original Egegik River gauge 

site, so an additional gauge was installed in June 1999 near the 

outlet of Becharof Lake. The lower gauge on the Egegik will be 

removed. Preliminary evaluation of available data indicates that 

discharge in the Egegik River varies from 2,000 to 5,000 cubic 

feet per second (cfs). 

Stream-flow data for streams of the Refuges are scarce. Only 

one gauging station, the Egegik, is currently operational within 

Refuge boundaries. Stream gauges were operational on two 

Chignik area streams (Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek) in 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-18 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

1982 for hydropower-related purposes. Miscellaneous discharge 

measurements were made in 1974 for tributary streams 

(including Cleo, Bear, and Rusty creeks) of Upper Ugashik 

Lake and Becharof Lake. Discharge measurements made 

during a spawning-ground survey were recorded in 1963 and 

1967 for the Chignik River and numerous streams within its 

watershed. Stream flows of 2,840 and 1,280 cfs were reported at 

the mouth of Chignik River in the summer of 1963 (Arctic Slope 

Services 1982; Bertrand et al. 2000; Bishop 1974; Phinney 1970). 

Streams, especially larger ones, flowing through the Bristol Bay 

lowlands that discharge into Bristol Bay are tidally influenced 

for many miles upstream of their mouths. The approximately 

35-mile-long Egegik River is tidally influenced nearly its entire 

length to a point at the foot of the rapids at the Becharof Lake 

outlet (NOAA 1994). Other large, low-gradient rivers with 

similar tidal influences are the King Salmon, Ugashik, Dog 

Salmon, and Meshik rivers. 

Water Quality 

Water quality of the waterbodies on the Refuges is generally 

thought to be excellent; however, data are scarce. Water-quality 

parameters for most streams and lakes are unknown. The data 

that exist typically have been miscellaneous samples collected 

by diverse entities that used varying testing methods to test for 

differing physical and chemical characteristics. Limited waterquality data of varying value exist for Meshik River and 14 

tributary streams, Chignik River, and one hot spring within the 

Refuges (Jones et al. 1978; Mathisen et al. 1996; Motyka et al. 

1981; Russell 1980; USGS 1978; Wagner and Lanigan 1988). A 

detailed limnological study of Becharof and Ugashik lakes was 

completed by Edmundson and Todd (2000). Some Ugashik 

Lake–specific temperature and nitrate and phosphorus waterchemistry data are available (Mathisen et al. 1996; USFWS 

1985b). 

Water quality in the Alaska Peninsula Refuge is generally 

excellent. Some degradation of short duration is caused 

seasonally by the decomposition of dead salmon and by the 

runoff of tannins leached from tundra and wetland vegetation. 

Relatively low concentrations of dissolved solids, ranging from 

25 to 75 milligrams per liter (mg/L) are present in streams. In 

the spring and from late June through early October, these 

concentrations may increase. Suspended sediment 

concentrations vary greatly at different times of the year and 

from stream to stream. In summer, small streams at lower 

elevations may carry sediment loads of less than 100 mg/L, 

while the loads of higher mountain streams may range from 500 

to 2,000 mg/L. Glacial silts and volcanic ash are the primary 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-19 

substances carried as suspended sediments. Surface water 

temperatures on the refuge differ depending on the time of the 

year, elevation, exposure, length of the drainage, presence of 

glaciers, and size of the waterbody. Temperatures are estimated 

to range from 32° F through 56° F, with the highest 

temperatures occurring in shallow lakes and ponds in July. 

Most of the water in Becharof Refuge is of high quality with 

very little human-caused pollution. In the western part of the 

Refuge, water quality is affected by glacial silt, decomposition of 

dead salmon, and runoff from bog vegetation. The runoff 

includes tannin, which adds reddish-brown color to the water 

column. All these conditions are of short duration. Some bodies 

of water are heavily silted with glacial outwash, glacial 

sediments, or volcanic ash. In Pacific coastal streams, water 

temperatures vary from 32° F through 56° F. There was a 

warming trend of surface waters of the Becharof Lake 

watershed, where mean temperatures measured at the lake 

outlet increased from 45.7° F in the 1960s to 47.88° F through 

the 1980s. In Becharof and Ugashik Lakes, Edmundson and 

Todd (2000) indicate an “interannual variability of thermal 

regimes [that] appeared much greater than spatial differences.” 

Water on the western side of the Refuges has also remained 

mostly unaltered by people. The chemical quality of the water 

overall is good, although suspended sediments can be as high as 

500 mg/L during the summer in the mountains. These 

concentrations diminish in winter when they may approach 

10 mg/L. Groundwater near the coast may contain an 

unpalatable amount of sodium chloride, but most spring water is 

of high quality. Surface water temperatures range annually 

from 33° F through 42° F (Mathisen et al. 1996; USFWS 1985b; 

source of data not cited). 

From July 1997 through October 1999, J.A. Edmundson and 

G.L. Todd studied the limnological aspects of Becharof and 

Ugashik lakes (2000). They state that the pH of both Becharof 

and Ugashik lakes is near neutral (pH = 7), alkalinity is very 

low (16 mg/L), and color (4 Pt units) and turbidity (1.0 NTU in 

Becharof and 0.7 NTU in Ugashik) are very low (all values are 

means). Although concentrations of calcium (6.1 and 3.7 mg/L) 

and magnesium (1.6 and 1.2 mg/L) are low in both lakes, they 

were twice as high in Becharof Lake as in Ugashik Lake. 

Edmundson and Todd sampled Becharof Lake in four locations. 

Location 1, representing the “West Basin” (Edmundson and 

Todd 2000, Table 5), can be considered to represent the Egegik 

River at the outlet of Becharof Lake near the Water Resources 

Branch gauging station. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-20 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Annual variation of constituents measured in the Edmundson 

and Todd study are negligible for specific conductivity and total 

phosphorous in both lakes. Total nitrogen, inorganic nitrogen, 

and chlorophyll seem to vary by location but not throughout the 

year in Becharof Lake. In Ugashik Lake, nitrogen appears to 

decrease slightly and locally throughout the year, and 

chlorophyll appears to increase or decrease slightly and locally 

throughout the year. 

Both lakes are highly oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) because of 

low phosphorus and nitrogen content, and chlorophyll 

concentrations are generally low. Neither lake seemed to 

develop consistent thermal stratification, but both lakes had 

temperature regime variations from one year to another 

(Edmundson and Todd 2000). 

Unique Water Resources of the Refuges 

Becharof Lake—The 417–square mile Becharof Lake is the 

central geographic feature of Becharof Refuge. The deep and 

clear-water Becharof Lake is nearly 40 miles long, is about 13 

miles across, and contains more than 54,000,000 acre-feet of 

water. Egegik River drains the lake through the eastern 

lakeshore’s end moraine through boulder-strewn rapids. The 

lake consists of one major basin and a shallow bay to the 

southeast, which together have a 164-mile-long shoreline. The 

shallow bay south of the Severson Peninsula is known locally as 

Island Arm; its tributary streams are particularly rich salmonspawning habitat. Tributaries of the lake lie in a central 

drainage pattern, with larger streams predominant on the 

eastern half of the lake basin. The glacial, silt-laden Kejulik 

River is the largest tributary and discharges into the lake at its 

easternmost point. 

Although more than 100 tributaries discharge into Becharof 

Lake, only eight are longer than 10 miles, with most being 

shorter than 5 miles. Notable features in and around the lake 

include Ukinrek Maars and the nearby Gas Rocks extruding 

from the south shore, the 7-mile-long Severson Peninsula 

separating the main body of the lake from Island Arm, and the 

volcanically active Mount Peulik, whose imposing 5,000-foot 

presence abuts Becharof Lake. The bathymetry of the lake 

bottom reveals a rather deep and complex surface structure 

with several very deep depressions. Becharof Lake’s average 

depth is 186 feet, and its greatest depth exceeds 590 feet near 

the lake’s center (Adams et al. 1962; Edmundson and Todd 

2000; Hurley 1932; McCurdy 1973; UAF 1996; USFWS 1994a). 

Thermal Waters—The seismically active zone and volcanism 

that extend through the Refuges create favorable settings for 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-21 

hydrothermal systems. Thermal spring sites (hot springs and 

warm springs) are one indicator of active volcanic systems, 

shallow rock heated by magma, and deep fracture and fault 

systems. There is one documented thermal spring site located 

within the Refuges, and others have been reported. Mother 

Goose hot springs are located on the northern base of the 

historically active volcano Mount Chiginagak. The 10 springs 

and numerous seeps and pools of Mother Goose hot springs feed 

an unnamed tributary of Volcano Creek that discharges into 

Mother Goose Lake. At one spring, thermal waters of 151° F 

pour through a 1-foot-diameter vent hole. An approximate 

combined total of 3 cfs of thermal waters from all springs and 

seeps discharges into the unnamed Volcano Creek tributary. 

Mother Goose hot springs are distinguished from other Aleutian 

arc thermal spring systems by their relatively high rate of 

discharge and a magnesium- and silicon-rich thermal water 

chemistry. Other thermal waters have been reported in the 

vicinity of Stepovak Bay, on the flanks of Mount Peulik, and at 

Gas Rocks and Ukinrek Maars along Becharof Lake’s south 

shore (Motyka et al. 1994; Motyka et al. 1981). 

Glaciers—Extensive areas of glaciation are present at higher 

elevations of the Aleutian Range at the summits of active and 

inactive volcanoes. Mount Kialagvik, Icy Peak, Mount 

Chiginagak, Mount Veniaminof, and numerous other unnamed 

peaks have icefields. Mount Veniaminof has the most extensive 

ice fields of the Refuges. The historically active Veniaminof has 

a spectacular steep-walled summit caldera measuring 5 by 7 

miles in diameter and is filled by an icefield that ranges in 

elevation from 5,700 to 6,600 feet. Ice obscures the south rim of 

the caldera and covers 85 square miles of the volcano’s south 

flank. Alpine glaciers descend from the caldera through gaps on 

the north side of the rim and other alpine glaciers occupy 

mountain valleys. Named glaciers of Mount Veniaminof include 

Cone, Fog, Island, Outlet, Crab, Harpoon, Finger, and Slim. 

These and other unnamed glaciers radiating from Mount 

Veniaminof are sources of water for streams discharging to both 

sides of the peninsula, including the larger Chignik, 

Kametolook, Sandy, and Muddy rivers (Miller et al. 1998). 

Marine Waters—Extensive areas of marine waters located 

within the boundaries of the Refuges are under State of Alaska 

jurisdiction and management. These waters support abundant 

populations of shorebirds, seabirds, fish, marine mammals, and 

marine vegetation. Marine waters of the Refuges comprise 

numerous bays or portions of bays along the Pacific coast of the 

Alaska Peninsula and, to a lesser extent, on the western (Bering 

Sea) coast. The eastern coast of steep-rising mountains is 

serrated by these bays and fjords, which can have extensive 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-22 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

mudflats at heads of bays and protected estuarine lagoons. The 

most northerly marine bay within the Refuges is the unnamed 

northern arm of Wide Bay; the most southerly is American Bay. 

Other named marine bays on the eastern coast of the Alaska 

Peninsula include Kujulik Bay, Chignik Lagoon (including 

Mallard Duck and Schooner bays), Anchorage Bay, Lake Bay, 

Castle Bay (including Northwest Arm), Warner Bay (including 

Ross Cove), Devils Bay, Kuiutka Bay (including Portage, 

Windy, Foot, and Fishhook bays), Herring Lagoon, Fishrack 

Bay, Ivanof Bay, Boulder Bay, and Fox Bay. Other named 

marine embayments within the Refuges on the western coast of 

the Alaska Peninsula are Port Moller (including Left Head and 

Mud Bay) and Hotsprings Bay (Buck 1979; USGS 1979, 1980). 

The prevailing current through Shelikof Strait and along the 

eastern Alaska Peninsula is known as the Kenai stretch of 

Alaska Coastal Current. Flow through Shelikof Strait is 

predominantly southwesterly at varying velocities that are 

influenced by season and localized meteorological forcing. 

Typical current velocity ranges from 0.7 through 1.0 feet per 

second (fps) but has been measured at velocities greater than 

2.0 fps. The prevailing current on the Bering Sea side of the 

peninsula flows northeasterly along the coastline at typical 

velocities of less than 0.2 fps. These slow-moving, coastal marine 

waters of the west side are warmer and less saline than are 

waters further offshore. A tidal range of 12 feet exists along the 

northernmost Shelikof Strait shores of the Alaska Peninsula, 

diminishing to a tidal range of approximately 8 feet in the 

vicinity of Chignik Bay. The tidal range is at least two times 

higher on the west side of the Alaska Peninsula (Brower et al. 

1988; Jones et al. 1978; Resource Analysts 1984, 1996). 

Impounded Waters—Two communities in the Refuges have 

built dams, on corporation land, to impound reservoirs as 

sources for water supply or hydroelectric power. The water 

supply for the village of Chignik comes from a dam reservoir at 

Indian Creek. The communities of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon 

are considering the feasibility of hydroelectric generation at 

Indian Lake. A small dammed stream provides the supply of 

water for Perryville (DCED 2000). 

3.2 Biological Environment 

3.2.1 Ecosystems 

Alaska Ecosystems 

Ecological units can be viewed at many different scales, ranging 

from the continental to the microscopic. From a refuge-planning 

standpoint, the scale needs to be somewhat larger than the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-23 

refuge while not so large that the land base is so dwarfed by the 

unit that it is impossible to determine its relevance to the 

surrounding land. In a hierarchy of ecosystems, the ecoregion 

level is an appropriate level for refuge planning. 

The Service has identified 10 ecosystems in Alaska. Each of 

these ecosystems is a dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated nonliving 

environment. The Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges are 

part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bristol Bay/Kodiak 

Ecosystem, which encompasses most of the Alaska Peninsula, 

the Togiak Area, and the Kodiak Archipelago (Figure 3-2). 

Figure 3-2. Ecosystem designations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-24 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Figure 3-3. Ecoregion designations (Nowacki et al. 2001) 

Although the Service has identified 10 ecosystems in Alaska, 

during the past 25 years, there have been numerous other 

attempts to classify Alaska’s ecoregions (e.g., Bailey 1980; 

USGS 1973). In the 1990s, two separate ecosystem maps, based 

on different mapping philosophies, were produced (Gallant et al. 

1995; Nowacki and Brock 1995). The resulting maps were, 

however, very similar. Recognizing this, Nowacki et al. (2001) 

attempted to unify ecoregion boundaries to aid users and to 

facilitate interagency work. The final product of their work, 

“Ecoregions of Alaska and Neighboring Territories Map,” 

delineates 31 ecoregions in Alaska. 

The Refuges consist of portions of two of these 31 ecoregions: 

the Alaska Peninsula and the Bristol Bay Lowlands ecoregions. 

Approximately 16 million acres of Alaska are in the Alaska 

Peninsula Ecoregion, and approximately 8 million acres of the 

state are in the Bristol Bay lowlands ecoregion. The Refuges 

encompass approximately 25 percent of the Alaska Peninsula 

Ecoregion or approximately 4 million acres; they encompass 

approximately 9 percent of the Bristol Bay Lowland Ecoregion 

or approximately 700,000 acres (Figure 3-3; Table 3-3). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-25 

A number of other Federal lands contribute to these ecoregions, 

including Katmai National Park and Preserve, Aniakchak 

National Monument and Preserve, Izembek NWR, the Pavlof 

Unit of Alaska Peninsula NWR, Alaska Maritime NWR, Togiak 

NWR, and Kodiak NWR (Figure 3-4). 

Another ecoregion map, produced by the World Wildlife Fund 

(Ricketts et al. 1999) is also based on several past mapping 

efforts (ESWG 1995; Gallant et al. 1995; Omerick 1995) and 

varies slightly from Nowacki et al. (2001), but has additional 

information associated with it that may be of use in the planning 

process. The Refuges fall into the Alaska Peninsula montane 

taiga and the Beringia lowland tundra of the World Wildlife 

Fund ecoregions (Figure 3-5). 

Ricketts et al. (1999) rated the conservation status and 

biological distinctiveness of these ecoregions based on a number 

of factors. These were broken down as follows: relatively intact, 

relatively stable, vulnerable, endangered, and critical. Both 

ecoregions represented by the Refuges were considered 

relatively intact. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-26 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NW

Table 3-3. Acreages of ecoregions found on the Refuges and other conservation system units 

Conservation System Unit Name Approximate Acreage of 

Alaska Peninsula 

Ecoregiona 

Approximate Acreage of 

Alaska Peninsula Montane 

Taiga Ecoregionb 

Acreage of Bristol Bay 

Lowlands Ecoregiona 

A

Low

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuge 

4,031,000 (25.6%) 2,747,000 (23.1%) 735,000 (9.3%) 

Katmai National Park and Preserve 

3,980,000 (25.3%) 2,806,000 (23.6%) 113,000 (1.4%) 

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge — 1,709,000 (14.4%) — Togiak National Wildlife Refuge — — 504,000 (6.4%) Izembek National Wildlife Refuge 

400,000 (2.5%) 108,000 (0.9%) — 

Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve 

603,000 (3.8%) 552,000 (4.6%) — 

Pavlof and North Creek Units of Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge 

1,460,000 (9.3%) 1,080,000 (9.1%) — 

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 

1,545,000 (9.8%) 1,304,000 (11.0%) < 100 (< 0.1%) 

Approximate Statewide Total Acreage 

15,755,000 11,892,000 7,896,000 

a Nowacki et al. (2001) b Ricketts et al. (1999) – Numbers in parentheses are the approximate percentage of the total statewide acreage represented by each conservation system uni
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-27 

Figure 3-4. Map of conservation units in the region of Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges 

Figure 3-5. Map of the World Wildlife Fund ecoregion designations 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-28 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Biological distinctiveness of each ecoregion was also 

determined. The Alaska Peninsula montane taiga was ranked as 

nationally important because the ecoregion provides important 

seasonal staging and migration habitat for many waterfowl as 

well as supports populations of caribou, moose, and brown bear 

and because exceptionally large sea bird colonies exist along its 

coastlines. (Ricketts et al. 1999; Sowls et al. 1978). The Beringia 

lowland tundra was ranked as regionally outstanding because it 

is excellent habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds and many 

other species. Many species depend on the habitats in this 

ecoregion for the majority, if not all, of their nesting habitat 

(Ricketts et al. 1999). The ecoregion also provides important 

habitat for brown bear and caribou, and all five species of North 

American Pacific salmon are native here. The Bristol Bay 

region supports the largest sockeye salmon run in the world. 

Concerns 

Ricketts et al. (1999) compiled a list of the major threats to 

ecoregions throughout the United States. Concerns for the 

Refuges at an ecosystem scale include changes occurring in the 

Bering Sea ecosystem, the risk of introduction of invasive 

species, and impacts associated with construction in road 

corridors identified as part of the “Southwest Alaska 

Transportation Plan” (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2002). 

The Alaska Peninsula sits at the southern edge of the Bering 

Sea Ecoregion. The Bering Sea covers almost a million square 

miles of arctic and subarctic waters between Alaska and the 

Russian Far East. It is considered to be one of the most 

biologically productive marine environments in the world, 

supporting more than 450 species of fish, crustaceans, and 

mollusks; 50 species of birds; and 25 species of marine 

mammals. 

The World Wildlife Fund lists the Bering Sea as one of the most 

outstanding, yet endangered, marine environments. Threats 

include warming ocean temperatures, pollution, large-scale 

commercial harvesting, habitat destruction, and the 

introduction of nonindigenous species. 

The area between the Dog and King Salmon rivers provides an 

important breeding habitat for the Alaska subspecies of the 

marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa beringiae), which is one of three 

known populations of this species and one of the two tundrabreeding populations (Gibson and Kessel 1989). The exact size 

of this population is unknown, but the number of individuals is 

thought to be small. There are concerns that any activity on the 

Refuges may have potential adverse effects on this population. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-29 

Some currently inaccessible areas of the Refuges that are 

outside designated Wilderness may be susceptible to long-term, 

irreversible impacts from helicopter access. Among these 

impacts could be the introduction of invasive species, 

particularly plants and insects, across larger areas than are 

currently accessible by fixed-wing aircraft and boats. The longterm consequences of these introductions cannot be predicted, 

but potential consequences are significant, as has been 

demonstrated by introductions in Hawaii and the contiguous 48 

states (e.g., leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, and hydrilla). 

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 species have many means of 

dispersal, including using many animal species and 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, landslides, wind-blown slopes, and glacial till; 

human-disturbed sites include popular public-use sites, allterrain vehicle (ATV) trails, and developed areas. Pineapple 

weed (Matricaria matricarioides) has long been established on 

the Alaska Peninsula (Hulten 1968, p. 899) 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). 

The Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan identified two initial 

packages of transportation projects that would interconnect 

villages on the Alaska Peninsula in the vicinity of the Refuges 

(Parsons Brinckerhoff 1999b). These two packages of projects, 

along with others mentioned in the report, had not been 

evaluated as of the time of this document’s preparation, yet 

were characterized as having “significant adverse impacts on 

the region’s economic mainstay, the salmon harvest.” The 

Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan’s Description of 

Alternatives Technical Memorandum notes that the high costs 

“make it extremely unlikely that it would be feasible to 

implement packages with multiple elements at once, or even 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-30 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

within the 20-year horizon of this planning effort” (Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 1999a). The prospects of implementing either 

package in the short term were viewed as “remote.” However, 

given the level of interest at the time this document was 

prepared, it is possible that portions of either package could be 

proposed for construction during the 15-year life of this Plan 

and could have long-term effects on Alaska Peninsula 

ecosystems. (Appendix G presents state descriptions of 

corridors and road proposals.) 

These threats can be classified into two categories: those from 

construction of the roads and those from the presence and use 

of the roads once built. The threats of road construction to 

resources along the road corridors could include the following: 

 Destruction of habitat in the construction zone and 

permanently on the roadways 

 Habitat changes along the roads due to changed drainage 

patterns 

 Introduction of invasive species 

 Siltation into adjacent streams and wetlands and 

consequences to aquatic ecosystems 

 Minor, and possibly major, spills of pollutants 

 Disturbance of fish and wildlife including caribou (Hill 1985; 

Northcott 1985) 

 An increase in habituation, food conditioning, and defense of 

life or property (DLP) mortality of bears 

 Impacts to eagles and other birds, which are especially 

vulnerable during nesting (Stalmaster 1987, p. 161; USFWS 

1993). 

The threats from existing roads and their use could include the 

following: 

 Fragmentation of habitat on the Refuges and on the Alaska 

Peninsula 

 An increase in hunting and fishing use of the corridor and 

accessible waterways 

 Introduction of invasive species 

 Minor, possibly major, spills of pollutants 

 Disturbance and possible increased mortality of fish and 

wildlife, particularly of nesting birds (BLM 1997) and 

migrating caribou (Cameron et al. 1992, p. 340; Leptich and 

Zager 1991; Marcum and Edge 1991; Nellemann and 

Cameron 1996; USGS 1973) 

3.2.2 Vegetation 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-31 

The vegetation of the Bristol Bay and Alaska Peninsula region 

remains one of the least understood in the state. Before 1970, 

most vegetation data for the region came from isolated studies 

or from local descriptions developed for military needs. Four 

vegetation studies that included the Alaska Peninsula Refuge 

and surrounding area were done in the 1970s (DOI 1974; 

Evergreen State College 1977; Selkegg 1975; USGS 1973). The 

results of these studies were general and amounted to 

overviews of the vegetation. More studies have been done on the 

lower part of the peninsula than elsewhere on the peninsula; 

thus, vegetation information is more detailed for areas south of 

the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

The Bristol Bay Land Cover Cooperative Mapping Project, a 

data-acquisition and land-cover mapping program supported by 

the state and Federal governments, was initiated in 1981. Using 

Landsat satellite imagery and computer technology, this effort 

provided more accurate and detailed information than 

previously existed on the vegetation of the Refuges and 

surrounding areas (Wibbenmeyer et al. 1982). 

Most recently, the Service has conducted a study of vegetation 

types and caribou habitat on the northern Alaska Peninsula. 

Intensive vegetation surveys were conducted in 12 areas within 

and outside the Refuges during 1998 through 2000. This study 

was initiated, in part, to investigate apparent overgrazing 

during the peak of the Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd 

(NAPCH; see caribou subsection in Section 3.2.3). 

Unfortunately, no prior data of range condition are available. 

Vascular Plant Species 

The flora of the Refuges is generally restricted to low-growing 

species that can resist low summer temperatures, strong winds, 

limited moisture, shallow soils, and a short growing season. 

About 300 terrestrial plant species are known to occur in the 

general area of the Refuges (Appendix D). The grasses, sedges, 

saxifrages, composites, and heaths are some of the most 

common of the approximately 60 higher plant families known on 

and adjacent to the Refuges. Other common families include 

roses, buttercups, mustards, and pinks. 

Cover Types 

The Refuges have been classified into 10 major cover types 

based on Landsat imagery from the early 1980s (Table 3-4 and 

Table 3-5); closed shrub and graminoid (grass) and the barren 

classes were the most prominent cover types on the Refuges, 

with 16 percent of the Refuges classified in each of these 

categories. More than 10 percent of the Refuges was covered by 

snow or was unclassified because of cloud cover. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-32 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

The northern portion of the Refuges lies in a transition zone 

between forest and tundra plant communities to the north and 

the generally treeless grass, sedge, low-shrub tundra typical of 

the peninsula to the south. The transition occurs between the 

Naknek River and the King Salmon River. The edge of the 

spruce forest extends into the Refuges along the Katmai 

National Park boundary north of Granite Peak. 

North of the King Salmon River, the cover is mostly an open 

mixture of low shrub and grasses with small areas of closed 

shrub and grass tundra near the boundary of Katmai National 

Park. In the area encompassed by the King Salmon River, the 

Wilderness boundary, and Becharof Lake, there is an open low 

shrub and grass tundra community interspersed with zones of 

lichen and shrub tundra and closed shrub and grass classes. 

Within the Wilderness, all main cover types occur. One of the 

larger examples of marsh and very wet bog cover type is found 

here. South of Becharof Lake, the area is covered by a mixture 

of open low shrub and grass tundra, barrens, closed shrub and 

grass, snow and light barren, and miscellaneous deciduous 

classes. 

South of the transition zone mentioned previously, the treeless, 

low-profile tundra of the peninsula is nearly continuous from the 

Ugashik Lakes south to False Pass and the end of the 

peninsula. 

No forests with trees taller than 15 feet occur on the Refuges. 

The miscellaneous deciduous category occurs as cottonwood 

mainly in the Mother Goose Lake area and stands of 

cottonwoods found along the upper Kejulik River and in some 

higher drainages. Elsewhere the category generally occurs as 

alder in tall, low, or dwarf shrub growth form on the Refuges. 

Tall and low willow are the dominant deciduous species 

associated with riparian areas. North of the Ugashik Lakes, 

vegetation consists of miscellaneous deciduous; closed shrub 

and graminoid; and barren ground interspersed with lakes. 

Shallow, sedimented water; wet bog and wet meadow; open low 

shrub and graminoid tundra; and open low shrub and ericaceous 

tundra cover types are interspersed throughout the more 

dominant cover types. 

To the west of the Ugashik Lakes, a mixture of small lakes and 

ponds (both shallow and deep) is interspersed with a patchwork 

of closed shrub and grass, miscellaneous deciduous, open low 

shrub and graminoid tundra, and open low shrub and ericaceous 

tundra types. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-33 

Table 3-4. Descriptions of cover types on or near the Refuges 

1 Deep clear water—Waterbodies with a reflective character indicating deep, clear water 

columns, generally occurring at low elevations; predominantly lakes and deep coastal marine 

waters. 

2 Shallow and sedimented water—Waterbodies showing a reflective character indicating a shallow 

water column or a moderate-to-heavy suspended silt load; seen as inland rivers and shallow 

lakes inland and some areas of shallow coastal marine waters. 

3 Snow and light barren—Areas of high alpine elevation with persistent snow cover; areas 

obscured from the air by snow cover; and areas with substrates of generally light-colored, 

highly reflective rocks or gravelly material, with little or no vegetation cover. This class occurs 

primarily at the upper levels in the mountainous areas, particularly near the Pacific coast.

4 Barren—Areas of exposed rock, sand, or gravelly material with darker reflectance values and 

very slight to no vegetation cover at all; occurrence closely follows that of the other barren 

class, along lower slopes.

5 Open low shrub and ericaceous tundra—Areas are considered wetlands if they occur on active 

floodplains of poorly drained soils but not if they occur on slopes; these communities include 

dwarf birch with willows or ericaceous shrubs, ericaceous mats with cushion tundra, and dryas 

mats with cushion tundra and mosses and lichens.

6 Marsh and very wet bog—Areas with cover dominated by grass, along with forbs and mosses; 

also regions with substantial standing water. These occur primarily along the borders of lakes 

and in scattered areas of very wet, slow-draining lowlands.

7 Closed shrub and graminoid—Areas with cover composed of greater that 75 percent shrub 

canopy, frequently forming a mosaic of grass-dominated communities with fern and forb 

components. These occur primarily as bands of moderate-to-dense shrubby cover along the 

slopes of mountains and in well-drained areas at intermediate elevations.

8 Miscellaneous deciduous—Areas with greater than 25 percent deciduous canopy (frequently 

willow, along with alder and cottonwood) and generally associated with grass, fern, and forb 

communities. Frequently, but not exclusively, riparian and composed of less than 10 percent 

conifers. The character of this cover type varies among the lower peninsula and the upper 

peninsula and adjacent mainland. It is scattered extensively throughout the Refuges in the 

lower mesic (moist-soiled) plains and in the drainages flowing from the mountains.

9 Wet bog and wet meadow—Areas with saturated soils and communities dominated by sedges, 

mosses, and miscellaneous water-tolerant shrub species; usually small areas throughout the 

low, wet plains along the interior and near the peninsula’s Bering Sea coast.

10 Open low shrub and graminoid tundra—Areas with canopies of less than 10 percent coniferous 

and less than 75 percent deciduous species and with a composition of greater than 20 percent 

graminoids and forbs. Boggy areas are drier than the open low shrub and heath tundra 

communities that are more common along the lower peninsula and usually have dense shrub 

growth form. This community is one of the more dominant types on the Refuges.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-34 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Table 3-5. Major land cover types on or near the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

National Wildlife Refugesa

Cover Types Approximate Acreage Approximate Percentage of 

Total Cover 

1. Closed shrub and graminoid 970,618 16.0 

2. Barren 966,585 16.0 

3. Snow and light barren 637,799 10.5 

4. Miscellaneous deciduous 628,905 10.4 

5. Deep clear water 772,169 12.8 

6. Open low shrub and graminoid 

tundra 

890,255 14.7 

7. Open low shrub and ericaceous 

tundra 

366,066 6.1 

8. Wet bog and wet meadow 275,363 4.6 

9 Marsh and very wet bog 164,171 2.7 

10. Shallow sedimented water 44,054 0.7 

11. All other types 334,304 5.5 

Total 6,050,286 100.0 

Source: USFWS 1985b, 1987 

Note: Because of the scale of Landsat cover-type mapping, total land cover acreage does not correlate with land 

status acreage. This table also includes the Pavlof and North Creek units of the Alaska Peninsula National 

Wildlife Refuge, which is managed by Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. 

To the south and southwest of the lakes, the terrain is 

mountainous. Cloud cover has prevented classifying the 

vegetation cover type for much of the mountainous areas, but 

much of it is barren or snow-covered at higher elevations. Along 

mid-elevations and slopes, the closed shrub and graminoid type 

borders most of the alpine areas. The lowland areas and 

drainages running out of the mountains are characterized by a 

mixture of open low shrub and grass tundra, wet bog and wet 

meadow, barren, and miscellaneous deciduous types. 

The Ugashik coastal areas are dominated by the shrub and 

graminoid cover type along the lower slopes of the mountains. 

Very small, narrow coastal bands of miscellaneous deciduous, 

barren, wet bog and wet meadow, open low shrub and 

graminoid tundra, and open low shrub and ericaceous tundra 

types are evident. The coastal bays contain small inshore areas 

of shallow sedimented water near the mouths of some 

drainages. 

Around the Chignik area, most of the cover types of the Bristol 

Bay area are represented. Along the Meshik River drainage, a 

broad swath of marsh and very wet bog and wet bog and wet 

meadow types is surrounded by a narrow band of miscellaneous 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-35 

deciduous, open low shrub and graminoid tundra, and open low 

shrub and ericaceous tundra type. Along the coastal mountain 

areas, lower elevations are covered extensively by the closed 

shrub and graminoid cover type, while most of the higher 

elevations are barren or snow-covered. 

The low-lying areas west and south of Black Lake are covered 

with marsh and very wet bog and with wet bog and wet meadow 

types, mixed with closed shrub and graminoid, open low shrub 

and graminoid tundra, open low shrub and ericaceous tundra, 

and miscellaneous deciduous classes. The upper elevations in 

the vicinity of Mount Veniaminof are barren ground or snowcovered. The Pacific coast side, from the mountain southwest to 

American Bay, is characterized predominantly by the closed 

shrub and graminoid cover type. 

Throughout much of this coastal area, closed shrub and 

graminoid is the dominant cover type; small isolated 

communities of miscellaneous deciduous, open low shrub and 

graminoid tundra, and open low shrub and ericaceous tundra 

also are present. A few localized areas along the Pacific coast, 

particularly in the Stepovak Bay area and areas above and 

below Anchor Bay, contain the shallow, sedimented water cover 

type. The barren and snow and the light barren cover types 

prevail in the mountains southwest of Mount Veniaminof and 

south of Port Moller. 

Nonvascular Plants 

At least 100 algal species, 38 mosses and liverworts, and 50 

lichens are known to occur on or near the Refuges. Many 

additional species of aquatic and primitive plants remain to be 

documented. 

3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife 

More than 260 species of resident and migratory wildlife occur 

on or near the Refuges. These include terrestrial mammals, 

marine mammals, birds, fish, and one amphibian species. Many 

of these species range throughout the entire Alaska Peninsula, 

while others occur predominantly on the islands off the Pacific 

coast and on the Bristol Bay lowlands outside the Refuges’ 

boundaries. 

Fish 

Refuge lands have some of the most pristine and productive 

aquatic habitats on the Alaska Peninsula. The watersheds range 

in size from very small tributaries to the 2,740-square-mile 

Egegik River drainage, which includes Becharof Lake. There 

are more than 1,000 salmon-producing streams on the Refuges. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-36 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

A conservative estimate of the total number of adult salmon 

produced annually from waters on the Refuges exceeds 

30 million fish. These habitats support some of the largest and 

most diverse anadromous and resident fish populations in 

Alaska. Beyond their intrinsic and economic values, fish 

transport nutrients and energy throughout the ecosystem. 

Sockeye, chinook, pink, coho, and chum salmon as well as 

rainbow, steelhead, and lake trout, Dolly Varden, Arctic char, 

Arctic grayling, whitefish, northern pike, and burbot inhabit the 

aquatic ecosystem. Many additional species of fish occur 

throughout the Refuges. Most of these are of little subsistence, 

recreational, or commercial interest, but they are ecologically 

important. 

Most of the salmon-spawning habitats on the Alaska Peninsula 

lie within the Refuges’ boundaries. The vast majority are 

unimpaired. Oil exploration in the early 1900s, and more 

recently in the 1960s, has affected some of the freshwater 

habitats; however, the aquatic ecosystems appear to have 

naturally recovered from this disturbance. 

Resident and anadromous fish populations are generally 

healthy. Several studies have been initiated by the Service and 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) in areas with 

perceived declines in fish populations or where the fishing effort 

has intensified. These studies are focused on resident fish 

populations because they are slow-growing, long-lived, and latematuring. Typically, population abundance is relatively low; 

therefore, close monitoring is needed. Arctic grayling and 

rainbow trout have been the focus of most studies. Efforts have 

also focused on coho salmon because they are targeted by the 

commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries, yet 

monitoring of escapement has been sporadic or lacking on some 

streams. 

The resident fish population that has attracted the most interest 

on the Refuges is Arctic grayling in the Ugashik system. 

Studies by the state have shown the population at the outlet of 

Lower Ugashik Lake has declined since the 1970s. Studies 

initiated in the late 1980s (Meyer 1990; Villegas 1993) indicated 

that abundance and length composition were below historic 

levels. The Board of Fisheries closed the recreational fishery for 

Arctic grayling in the Ugashik system in 1990. In the early 

1990s, the population appeared to be stable in the Ugashik 

Narrows, yet the outlet still had few Arctic grayling. The Board 

of Fisheries reopened the Ugashik Narrows to catch-andrelease fishing for Arctic grayling in 1995 and kept the outlet 

closed. Reasons for changes in population abundance are not 

fully understood, but this decline is not attributed to 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-37 

recreational or subsistence fisheries. It appears that the decline 

may be related to increased sockeye salmon escapements or an 

unidentified environmental change. The Ugashik drainage 

delineates the southernmost distribution of Arctic grayling on 

the Alaska Peninsula. Because Arctic grayling are on the edge 

of their historic range, factors that limit their distribution could 

easily affect population abundance. 

During the mid-1980s, recreational fishing effort dramatically 

increased in response to several articles in sportfishing 

magazines. A population assessment of rainbow trout in the 

King Salmon River (Egegik drainage) was finished in 1992. 

After a four-year investigation by the Service, it was concluded 

that the population was stable. In 1997 and 1999, a re-evaluation 

of the rainbow trout population was conducted. Preliminary 

comparison of the data showed the population had not changed. 

Bristol Bay has some of the best-managed salmon populations 

in the world. However, management is focused on sockeye 

salmon. Harvesting of other species not targeted by the 

commercial fishery is incidental to the sockeye salmon catch. 

Monitoring escapement for these other species may occur after 

the season or not at all. Therefore, these other species of Pacific 

salmon are more vulnerable to overfishing. These concerns 

prompted a coho-assessment project in the Egegik River from 

1994 through 1996. Over the three years of the project, the 

tower counts ranged from 7,000 to 25,000 coho salmon. ADF&G 

monitors the coho salmon harvest by commercial and 

subsistence fisheries in the Egegik district. From 1979 through 

1998, commercial harvest of coho salmon in the Egegik district 

averaged approximately 39,000 fish (ADF&G 1999). Records for 

subsistence harvests indicate an average of 475 coho salmon 

taken annually from 1978 through 1998 in the Egegik district 

(ADF&G 1999). In 1994, 205 anglers caught 489 and harvested 

325 coho salmon from July 31 through September 11. In 1995, 

298 anglers caught 694 and harvested 439 coho salmon from 

August 3 through September 24. The ADF&G’s statewide mailout surveys provide a good indication of recreational catch and 

harvest levels in the Egegik River (Medeiros and Larson 1996). 

Because of harvest patterns, the contribution of the Refuges to 

the commercial salmon fishery is very difficult to quantify; 

however, Bristol Bay hosts the largest sockeye salmon fishery 

in the world. Salmon originating from waters within the 

Refuges are caught in four main commercial salmon 

management areas, which are managed by ADF&G: Bristol 

Bay, Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Island, Chignik, and 

Kodiak. Sockeye are by far the most commercially valuable 

species on the Bristol Bay side of the peninsula, with chinook 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-38 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

and coho salmon also targeted. The fishery on the Pacific side is 

more difficult to characterize, although sockeye, coho, chum, 

and pink salmon all contribute significant commercial harvests. 

Sockeye (Red) Salmon—The commercial value and ecological 

importance of sockeye salmon make it the most important fish 

species on the Refuges. The Bristol Bay run is composed in part 

of salmon originating from Becharof and Ugashik drainages. 

Outside Bristol Bay, major runs also occur in the Chignik 

drainage. Sockeye normally start entering refuge freshwater 

systems in late May and are abundant mid-June through 

September. Some populations may continue spawning into 

October and beyond. Spawning habitat consists of gravelbottomed streams and lake beaches. Sockeye fry emerge from 

the gravel in late spring (March through June) and migrate to 

lakes where they remain for one to three years, feeding mainly 

on zooplankton. Sockeye smolt migrate to saltwater late May 

through mid-July, peaking in June. They spend two to three 

years in the northern Pacific Ocean before returning to their 

natal streams to spawn and die. 

ADF&G goals for sockeye salmon escapement into major lake 

systems within the Refuges are given as minimum and 

maximum of the desired range, as follows: 

 Egegik (Becharof Lake): 800,000 to 1,400,000 (ADF&G 

1999, p. 44) 

 Ugashik (Ugashik Lakes): 500,000 to 1,200,000 (ADF&G 

1999, p. 44) 

 Chignik (Chignik and Black Lakes): 600,000 to 675,000 

(ADF&G 2000) 

Chinook (King) Salmon—Big Creek (Naknek) and Cinder, Dog 

Salmon, Meshik, King Salmon (Mother Goose), and King 

Salmon (Egegik) rivers are major spawning and rearing areas 

on the Refuges for chinook salmon. A small run of fish also 

occurs in the Chignik River on the Pacific side of the peninsula. 

Mature fish enter freshwater in June. Spawning takes place in 

July and August in main river channels and near the mouths of 

tributaries in gravel beds. Fry remain in the rivers from three 

months to two years and feed on insect larvae and plankton 

before they migrate out to sea in the spring. Immature fish 

range throughout the Bering Sea and northern Pacific Ocean 

for one to six years before returning to the Refuges to spawn 

and die. 

Pink (Humpy) Salmon—Pink salmon spawn primarily in the 

estuarine reaches of the Egegik and Ugashik rivers and other 

tributaries on the Bering Sea side and in the Chignik Bay 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-39 

tributaries and numerous other streams draining the Pacific 

side of the peninsula. Preferred spawning habitat is small- to 

medium-sized gravel in intertidal streams. When fry emerge 

from the gravel in the spring, they immediately migrate into the 

estuaries where they spend the summer before moving offshore. 

The immature pink salmon range throughout the Bering Sea 

and the northern Pacific for 14–16 months. The majority of 

mature pinks return to their spawning grounds in August of 

even-numbered calendar years. 

Coho (Silver) Salmon—Runs of coho salmon are scattered 

throughout the Refuges, with substantial runs in Big Creek 

(Naknek), Egegik, Ugashik, Chignik, and Meshik river systems. 

Mature coho enter freshwater between late July and October. 

Coho may be present in some systems through December. 

Preferred spawning habitat is small- to medium-sized gravel at 

the head of riffles in shallow tributaries and narrow channels. 

Coho are extremely adaptable, however, and spawn in main 

channels as well. Young coho prey on sockeye salmon fry. 

Juvenile coho spend winter in the deeper waters of spring-fed 

tributary pools before migrating out to sea in the spring of their 

second or third year. Coho salmon spend one to three years in 

the Bering Sea and northern Pacific Ocean before returning to 

spawn and die. 

Chum (Dog) Salmon—Chum salmon probably have a wide 

distribution on the Refuges and use streams on both sides of the 

peninsula for spawning. Mature chums enter freshwater during 

June and July and reach refuge spawning streams between 

June and September. Spawning occurs in riffles with mediumsized gravel in areas ranging from intertidal streams to 

headwaters of major rivers. Chum fry enter the estuary in May 

or June, where they remain until late summer feeding on 

crustaceans, insects, zooplankton, and young herring before 

entering the sea. Chum salmon spend two to four years at sea 

before returning to spawn. 

Steelhead Trout—Our knowledge of steelhead distribution is 

incomplete. Some steelhead are known to occur in four streams 

between Sandy River and Steelhead Creek on the Bering Sea 

side of the peninsula and in Chignik River on the Pacific side. 

Adult steelhead normally enter freshwater systems from 

August through January; peak migration periods are unknown. 

Spawning usually occurs late April through May in riffle areas 

with small-gravel substrates. After spawning, steelhead adults 

return to the ocean. Steelhead fry emerge from the gravel in 

late summer and may spend one to four years in freshwater 

prior to migrating to the sea as smolts. Ocean residence for 

steelhead is two to three years; some fish may return to spawn 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-40 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

as many as three times. Juvenile steelhead feed on insects, 

small fish, salmon eggs and carcasses, crustaceans, and small 

rodents. 

Rainbow Trout—The largest populations of rainbow trout on 

the Refuges occur in tributaries of the King Salmon River 

(Egegik) and in Big Creek (Naknek). Rainbow trout have not 

been documented on the Alaska Peninsula south of the King 

Salmon River drainages. Trout are residents of clear, cold, 

swift-flowing, gravel-bottomed streams. Prime spawning areas 

are Gertrude and Big creeks. Spawning occurs from late April 

through mid-June in clear, gravel-bottomed stretches of 

streams with moderate currents. Rainbows mature at about 

seven years. Their major food source is salmon eggs and flesh 

from salmon carcasses, although they also feed on small fish 

(juvenile salmon), small rodents, insects, and crustaceans. 

Lake Trout—The Becharof, Ugashik, and Mother Goose lakes 

contain the major concentrations of lake trout on the Refuges. 

Lake trout in the Bristol Bay area mature at five to seven years. 

They spawn in late summer or fall over rubble and boulders 

where prevailing winds cause some water movement. Juveniles 

and adults are solitary wanderers between seasonal food 

concentrations and spawning grounds. Lake trout feed on 

sockeye young, whitefish, plankton, and insects. 

Dolly Varden—Nearly all clear lakes, streams, and lagoons on 

the Refuges contain Dolly Varden. Both anadromous and 

resident life histories are found. Anadromous Dolly Varden live 

in freshwater for two to five years before migrating to sea, 

where they spend a few months before returning to spawn. 

Lake Dolly Varden concentrate their activity at the mouths of 

rivers in summer to feed on out-migrating salmon smolt. In the 

fall, they move into their natal streams to spawn. Little is 

known about resident-stream Dolly Varden, except that they 

are most common in headwater streams from spring through 

fall and that they winter in open water in the lower reaches of 

tributary streams, in deep pools, and in mainstream rivers. All 

Dolly Varden spawn between July and December in gravelbottomed areas of lakes, riffles, and springs. Dolly Varden feed 

on salmon carcasses, salmon eggs, small fish, insects, and 

invertebrates. 

Arctic Char—Many of the larger clear lakes on the Refuges 

contain anadromous and resident Arctic char. Arctic char seem 

to exhibit a variety of different body morphologies, primarily 

dictated by feeding ecology. In Becharof Lake, three 

morphologies have been observed: pelagic fish–eating, deep 

benthic fish–eating, and shallow-water invertebrate–eating. 

Anadromous Arctic char live in freshwater for two to five years 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-41 

before migrating to sea, where they spend a few months before 

returning to spawn. Arctic char may concentrate at the mouths 

of rivers or lake outlets to feed on out-migrating salmon smolt. 

They spawn July through December in gravel-bottomed shoal 

areas of lakes. 

Arctic Grayling—The Ugashik drainage is the southern extent 

of Arctic grayling. They do not occur on the Pacific side of the 

peninsula. The Ugashik Narrows has the Alaska record for this 

fish at 4 pounds, 13 ounces, caught in 1981. Arctic grayling 

winter in large rivers and deep lakes. Adult Arctic grayling, 

which are five years of age or older, spawn April through June 

in clear, gravel-bottomed tributaries. They then continue 

upstream to summer feeding areas. Arctic grayling feed on 

insects, salmon eggs, and small fish. 

Northern Pike—Most of the lowland rivers, lakes, and ponds 

north of Port Heiden on the north side of the peninsula contain 

pike. These fish winter in deep lakes and near springs in rivers, 

where the dangers of freezing and oxygen-depletion are 

minimal. In Alaska, pike mature when they are five or six years 

old. After ice breakup, they move to marshes to spawn. Pike 

spend the summer and fall in the warmer, slow-moving waters 

of shallow lakes and meandering rivers. They feed primarily on 

small fish (including sockeye salmon). 

Burbot—Most Bering Sea drainages, as far west as the Ugashik 

Lakes, contain burbot. Burbot prefer cool, deep lakes, but are 

also found in rivers, streams, and ponds. Burbot mature at four 

to seven years and spawn in the winter, usually in January or 

February. Spawning habitat is under the ice in sand or gravel in 

quiet waters. Burbot are omnivorous, with a preference for fish 

and aquatic insects. 

Birds 

More than 200 species of birds have been observed on or near 

the Refuges, of which 15 to 20 species of gallinaceous birds, 

waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, and raptors are year-round 

residents. The cliffs, bays, and poorly drained lowlands of the 

Refuges provide abundant habitat for millions of birds, 

particularly pelagic birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds that use 

the Refuges primarily as a staging area during migration to and 

from nesting grounds in the Arctic. Pelagic birds use the 

Refuges for breeding. Numerous ponds, lakes, streams, and 

wetlands on the peninsula provide ample breeding habitat for a 

number of water birds. In the summer, migratory songbirds 

and raptors make use of the abundant meadow and terrestrial 

environments on the Refuges. (See Appendix D for a 

comprehensive list of species.) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-42 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Waterfowl—Many key waterfowl staging areas for Arctic 

nesting species are located in the bays and lagoons near, but not 

on, the Refuges. These include Cinder, Port Moller, Hook, 

Egegik, Meshik, and Ugashik lagoons. The Refuges provide 

important spring and fall staging areas and moderately good 

breeding habitat for many species. Tundra swans and other 

nesting waterfowl arrive on the major estuaries and rivers of 

the Refuges in late March or early April. As the smaller 

wetlands become ice-free, the birds disperse to nesting 

territories. Waterfowl (swans, bufflehead, mergansers, 

goldeneye, and others) also use open freshwater areas, and 

many sea ducks (long-tailed ducks, eiders, scooters, emperor 

geese) use nearshore marine waters in winter. Swans, dabbling 

ducks, diving ducks, and sea ducks nest in the Bristol Bay 

lowlands west of Becharof and Ugashik lakes and in the Meshik 

and other Bristol Bay river drainages. Mallard, northern pintail, 

green-winged teal, greater scaup, and black scoter are the 

ducks found in the highest densities (Platte and Butler 1995). 

Other species nesting on or near the Refuges include gadwall; 

American widgeon; northern shoveler; canvasback; bufflehead; 

long-tailed duck; common eider; black, white-winged, and surf 

scoter; and common and red-breasted merganser. The 

threatened Steller’s eider may use the Refuges in winter, 

especially along the Pacific coastline. The Aleutian Canada 

goose may also use the Refuges during spring and fall 

migration. Cackling Canada geese use the Refuges during 

migration. White-fronted geese are observed in the Becharof 

drainage in fall. Harlequin ducks breed along swift-flowing 

mountain streams and are very sensitive to disturbance and 

habitat degradation. They may therefore be very important 

indicators of the health of the streams on the Refuges (Cassirer 

et al. 1996). 

Marsh and Water Birds—Loons, grebes, and cranes are 

commonly found on the western portion of the Refuges, 

extending into the Bristol Bay lowlands. These species are also 

found in larger wetland areas on the Pacific side of the Refuges. 

Loons and grebes use the Refuges during migration, breeding, 

and, to a limited extent, winter (mostly in nearshore marine 

waters). Common and red-throated loons and red-necked 

grebes are the more widespread species of these groups. Pacific 

loons may nest in the northeastern portion of the Bristol Bay 

lowlands and use the Refuges during migration. Sandhill cranes 

are also frequently noted breeding in wetland areas throughout 

the Refuges; they flock and migrate south to leave the peninsula 

in fall. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-43 

Shorebirds—Most of the prime shorebird migration–staging 

habitats are found on the Bering Sea side of the Alaska 

Peninsula outside the Refuges. Because of their importance to 

shorebirds, nine lagoons along Bristol Bay from Izembek–

Moffet Lagoon to Nushagak Bay have been nominated as 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network sites. These 

areas are used in April and May during spring migration and in 

July through September for fall migration. The peninsula is the 

major staging area for bar-tailed godwits that nest in the Arctic. 

Many species may also use lagoons on the Pacific side of the 

peninsula. 

Other species commonly found breeding on the Refuges include 

semipalmated plover, greater yellowlegs, spotted sandpiper, 

black turnstone, rock sandpiper, western sandpiper, short-billed 

dowitcher, common snipe, and red-necked phalarope. Rock 

sandpipers and black oystercatchers are the only year-round 

residents. Additionally, the area between the Dog and King 

Salmon rivers provides an important breeding habitat for the 

Alaska subspecies of the marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa 

beringiae), which is one of three known subpopulations of this 

species and one of the two tundra-breeding populations (Gibson 

and Kessel 1989). 

Marine Birds—The Pacific coastline and islands on inland lakes 

host breeding colonies of many marine bird species. A few 

species are dispersed nesters. They nest throughout the 

mountains and limited forests of the Refuges. Many more 

species of marine birds use nearshore waters. During times of 

limited food supply, seabirds may be found using the fresh 

water lakes on the Refuges. Approximately 31 breeding colonies 

are found on the mainland coast of the Refuges. These colonies 

are occupied by an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 individual birds 

(USFWS 1999). The colonies support double-crested, pelagic, 

and red-faced cormorants; glaucous-winged gulls; black-legged 

kittiwakes; common and thick-billed murres; pigeon guillemots; 

and horned and tufted puffins. 

As part of the Exxon Valdez oil spill damage assessment 

program, more intensive studies were undertaken of colonies in 

the Puale Bay area of Becharof Refuge (Dewhurst 1991; 

Dewhurst and Moore 1992). During those studies in the early 

1990s, it was estimated that the Puale Bay area colonies 

supported approximately 35,000 murres and 1,300 black-legged 

kittiwakes. Limited evidence (including a survey conducted in 

1999) suggests the colonies have declined over the past 20 years. 

The Pacific seabird colonies are vulnerable to regional and 

global impacts by spills of oil and hazardous material, 

overfishing, and oceanic changes. Other species that breed on 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-44 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

the islands off the coast and may be found in nearshore waters 

include ancient murrelets and Cassin’s, parakeet, least, and 

rhinoceros auklets (USFWS 1999). Islands in the large 

freshwater lakes (Becharof and Ugashik) also provide nesting 

habitat for double-crested cormorants, glaucous-winged gulls, 

mew gulls, and Arctic and Aleutian terns. 

Raptors-----Predatory birds are attracted by abundant salmon, 

other birds, small mammals, and carrion on the Refuges. Bald 

and golden eagles, gyrfalcons, Peale’s peregrine falcons (Evans 

and Cuccarese 1977), northern harriers, rough-legged hawks, 

short-eared owls, great-horned owls, and saw-whet owls nest on 

the Refuges. Great horned owls may be year-round residents. 

Northern goshawks, sharp-shinned hawks, merlins, and ospreys 

have also been noted during the warmer season. Snowy owls are 

seen occasionally during winter. 

Bald eagles are fairly common and may be found almost 

anywhere on the Refuges. They nest along the rugged Pacific 

Coast and in the major Bristol Bay drainages. A 1987 breeding 

population survey along the Pacific coast of the Refuges 

estimated the number of adult eagles at 212. Because of the vast 

area involved, however, no comprehensive count has ever been 

made of nesting bald eagles over all of the Refuges’ lands. 

Gyrfalcons are considered a priority species for conservation in 

the Western and Southwestern Alaska region, which includes 

the Refuges (Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group 1999). 

Gallinaceous Birds-----Willow ptarmigan and rock ptarmigan 

are found on the Refuges. Willow ptarmigan are usually found 

at lower elevations, and rock ptarmigan inhabit higher 

elevation. Their populations can be quite cyclic. 

Kingfishers, Woodpeckers, Hummingbirds, and Songbirds-----

Fifty to 60 species of near passerines and passerines make up 

the most diverse group of birds using the Refuges. Breeding or 

migrating passerines have been inventoried in many of the 

refuge drainages including Braided Creek (Meshik drainage), 

Dog Salmon River, Becharof Lake drainage, Mother Goose 

Lake area, and Yantarni Bay. Population productivity and 

survivorship studies are conducted at Mother Goose Lake. 

Belted kingfishers inhabit many stream and river banks 

throughout the Refuges in spring, summer, and fall. Rufus 

hummingbirds have been observed on rare occasions during 

migration. Downy woodpeckers, and possibly hairy 

woodpeckers, can be found in the cottonwood copses of the 

Refuges. Resident species include black-billed magpies, 

common ravens, black-capped chickadees, northern shrikes, 

snow buntings, rosy finches, pine grosbeaks, and common 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-45 

redpolls. Fall or winter residents include McKay’s buntings and 

hoary redpolls. 

The abundant summer insect population and shrubby habitat 

provide suitable breeding habitat for many migratory species, 

including flycatchers, larks, swallows, wrens, dippers, thrushes, 

wagtails, pipits, warblers, sparrows, longspurs, buntings, 

blackbirds, and finches. The most common migratory species in 

shrub and deciduous habitats include tree and bank swallows; 

hermit and gray-cheeked thrushes; American robins; Wilson’s, 

yellow, and orange-crowned warblers; and fox, white-crowned, 

and golden-crowned sparrows. Low-shrub, mixed-shrub, and 

tundra areas provide homes for Lapland longspurs, American 

tree sparrows, and Savannah sparrows. Mountains and upland 

tundra support American pipits, snow buntings, and rosy 

finches. 

Several species that breed or may possibly breed on the 

Refuges are considered priority species for conservation in the 

Western and Southwestern Alaska region, which includes the 

Refuges, because of threats to winter or migratory range (or 

because of limited range). These priority species include alder 

flycatcher, American pipit, northern shrike, gray-cheeked 

thrush, varied thrush, blackpoll warbler, golden-crowned 

sparrow, McKay’s bunting, rusty blackbird, hoary redpoll, 

American dipper, and Wilson’s warbler (Boreal Partners in 

Flight Working Group 1999). 

Land Mammals 

Canids, Mustelids, and Beaver-----Small-mammal inventories 

have been conducted in Braided Creek (Meshik drainage), Dog 

Salmon River, Becharof Lake drainage, and Mother Goose 

Lake area. Masked shrews, dusky shrews, meadow jumping 

mice, tundra voles, northern red-backed voles, and brown 

lemmings have been documented. Other possible small 

mammals include Arctic shrews, meadow voles, northern bog 

lemmings, varying lemmings, and little brown bats. Several of 

these populations have been observed to be cyclic, including the 

tundra vole and northern red-backed vole. Small mammals 

provide food for shrikes, raptors, weasels, and fox and possibly 

for coyote, wolves, and lynx. Shrikes, owls, raptors, and weasels 

are observed more frequently during years of high vole 

populations. 

Porcupines, Arctic ground squirrels, and snowshoe and tundra 

hares are common throughout the Refuges (Murie 1959). Hoary 

marmots are present in the mountains. Muskrat are observed in 

the wetland areas of the Refuges, albeit infrequently. Red 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-46 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

squirrels occur within Becharof Refuge on the spruce forest 

edge along the border with Katmai National Park. 

The Alaska Peninsula is home to gray wolves, coyotes, red fox, 

wolverines, river otters, mink, short-tailed weasels, least 

weasels, and beaver. Beaver dams and lodges are commonly 

observed on the peninsula. In the winter, river otter tracks are 

frequently seen from aircraft. Wolverine, mink, and lynx are 

more elusive and not frequently observed. During the 1990s, 

coyotes became more common on the peninsula than in previous 

years. Fox and wolves are common and range throughout the 

peninsula. 

No formal surveys of these groups of animals have been 

conducted on the Refuges to obtain estimated population levels. 

These animals are difficult to monitor because traditional 

methods (i.e., track counts) rely on adequate snow cover that is 

refreshed frequently. Snow cover on the Alaska peninsula is 

unreliable at best. 

ADF&G has an objective for game management units (GMUs) 9 

and 10, the Alaska Peninsula and Unimak Island, to maintain a 

wolf population that will sustain an average annual harvest of 50 

wolves (Hicks 1997), but there is no formal population estimate. 

However, a survey of trappers during 1998–1999 indicated that 

wolves were increasing (Hicks 1999). Wolves on the Alaska 

Peninsula prey on caribou and moose; their use of other food 

sources (e.g., small game, small mammals, fish, and carrion) is 

not well known. Skoog (1968, p. 333) observed that wolf 

densities followed fluctuations in caribou numbers. 

Canid populations on the Alaska Peninsula are subject to 

periodic outbreaks of rabies. During 1998, rabies was confirmed 

in three red foxes collected from Refuges field camps, in a 

coyote carcass from Cinder River, and in a wolf from Port 

Heiden (Sellers et al. 1998). Rabies can cause substantial 

mortality in wolf populations (Ballard et al. 1997; Brand et al. 

1997 in Sellers et al. 1998). 

The state requires that the hides of harvested wolves, 

wolverine, lynx, land otter, and beaver receive a locking seal by 

an authorized ADF&G representative who also records data, 

including location of take. These records historically provided 

an index of abundance (Table 3-6). In recent years, however, the 

unknown variability in trapping effort makes this index less 

sensitive. Regardless of trapping pressure, these species remain 

important. They enhance the experience of many Refuges 

visitors who see them in the wild. They also provide pelts to 

local trappers for income and personal use. Furbearers are 

important components of the ecosystem. Predators are involved 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-47 

in the population regulation of many species. Beaver are an 

important factor affecting aquatic habitat on the Refuges. 

Table 3-6. Summary of furbearer harvests in all of GMUs 9C and 9E from the winter of 1985–86 

through the winter of 1998–1999 

Species Average Minimum Maximum 

Beaver 123 48 254 

Land Otter 62 25 152 

Lynx 19 2 36 

Wolverine 26 10 56 

Wolf 25 10 55 

Source: ADF&G sealing records 

Brown Bears-----The entire Alaska Peninsula is inhabited by 

brown bears; Miller et al. (1997) estimated a density of 191 

bears per 1,000 square kilometers (0.5 bears per square mile) in 

1989 in the Black Lake area. Such high densities are found in 

coastal Alaska areas where salmon are abundant. Important 

bear habitat within Refuges boundaries includes tributaries on 

the east side of Becharof Lake (including Island Arm), on the 

east side of Ugashik Lakes, and on Black Lake. ADF&G 

extrapolated census results from the study at Black Lake to 

reach a rough estimate of 3,200 bears for GMU 9E, which 

includes almost all lands within the Refuges (Sellers and Miller 

1991). Brown bears range over large areas, with home ranges 

often exceeding 400 square miles. 

Increases in recreational bear harvests during the 1980s led to 

concerns that bear populations could be overharvested in GMUs 

9D and 9E (Sellers 1991). Harvest data in 1989 from Becharof 

Refuge area suggested harvests were excessive; in spring 1990, 

the hunting season in that area was shortened by an emergency 

order. The general season for GMUs 9C, 9D, and 9E was 

reduced by one week in the fall of 1991 (Sellers 1991). The 

ADF&G population objective for GMUs 9 and 10 is to maintain 

high brown bear density with sex and age composition sufficient 

to sustain a combined fall and spring harvest composed of 60 

percent males with at least 50 males eight years or older (Hicks 

1999). 

Brown bears are susceptible to overexploitation because of low 

reproductive rates and strong hunter demand. ADF&G 

monitors population trend with stream surveys in the Black 

Lake area when spawning sockeye salmon cause bears to 

concentrate on the streams. Because of poor ability to estimate 

population through direct counts, management of bear harvests 

has been generally conservative (Miller and Sellers 1989). Even 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-48 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

with conservative guidelines, however, it is possible that 

overexploitation of bear populations can occur. 

Where bears are heavily harvested, accurate population 

information is essential to understand the effects of harvest 

(Miller and Sellers 1989). In 1988, Black Lake, in the Chignik 

Unit of Alaska Peninsula Refuge, was chosen as the site for an 

intensive study of bear population parameters. The study and 

analysis of harvest data found an adult sex ratio of 39 males to 

100 females, higher than the ratio of 21:100 found in the early 

1970s (Sellers and Miller 1991). Recent density estimates range 

from 1.4 bears per square mile in 1990 on the Shelikof Strait 

coast of the unhunted Katmai National Park to 0.5 bears per 

square mile in 1989 in the vicinity of Black Lake in GMU 9E 

(Miller et al. 1997). Miller et al. found, among six coastal areas 

surveyed, a range of densities from 0.5 to 1.4 bears per square 

mile. The population density of brown bears at Black Lake was 

more than six times greater than in any study in Interior 

Alaska. 

Caribou-----The Alaska Peninsula contains two caribou herds. 

The southern herd remains south of Port Moller. ADF&G and 

the Refuges cooperatively monitor the Northern Alaska 

Peninsula caribou herd (NAPCH), which ranges from Port 

Moller to north of the Naknek River. Many caribou in this herd 

travel more than 200 miles between calving and wintering 

grounds. In autumn, the herd migrates north. Since 1986, some 

animals from the northern herd have moved north of the 

Naknek River and intermingled with the Mulchatna herd. 

Despite this, all radio-collared caribou have returned to their 

own traditional calving grounds (Sellers 1997). In late winter 

and early spring, the caribou return south to calving grounds on 

the Bering coastal plain, concentrating in the Sandy River and 

Cinder River areas. A majority of the caribou use the coastal 

plain outside of the Refuges for calving. Since 1994, 10 percent 

to 30 percent of the annual post-calving count has been found in 

the Aleutian Range, which includes most Refuges lands (Squibb 

2000). 

Historically, the size of the NAPCH has fluctuated extensively, 

with apparent peaks just prior to 1900 and again in the early 

1940s, when the population was estimated at 20,000 caribou. 

These fluctuations are a normal occurrence in caribou herds. 

The last population low occurred during the late 1940s, with an 

estimated 2,000 caribou in 1949 (Hammond 1955; Skoog 1968). 

Skoog estimated 7,000 caribou, excluding calves, in June 1960 

(Skoog 1968, p. 292). ADF&G post-calving counts during the 

mid-1970s estimated the northern herd at 10,000 to 11,000. 

During the 1980s, these estimates were 17,000 to 20,000 caribou, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-49 

and fall composition surveys indicated good recruitment with an 

average of 41 calves per 100 cows. However, traditional winter 

range south of the Naknek River appeared overused. In fall 

1986, the northern herd crossed the Naknek River and began 

using range to the north where preferred lichens were abundant 

after decades without caribou use (Sellers 1997). In the late 

1990s, lichen availability on the northern Alaska Peninsula was 

very low and far below potential (Talbot 2001). Unfortunately, 

knowledge of changes in availability of summer forage plants is 

lacking (Post 1995). 

By 1995, the herd was showing signs of nutritional stress when 

compared to herds on good range—e.g., mediocre body 

condition, low calf weights, increased incidence of pneumonia 

and lungworm among newborn calves, low calving rates, and 

postponement of first reproduction by one year among females 

(Sellers 1997; Sellers and Squibb 1998; Sellers et al. 2000; 

Sellers et al. 1999). Further, 1998 fall weights of female calves in 

the northern herd averaged only 89 percent of those from the 

Nushagak Peninsula herd (Sellers et al. 1998), which was 

established by a 1988 transplant of northern herd animals onto 

range that had not been grazed by caribou for more than 100 

years (Collins et al. 2000). The impact of declining range 

conditions on reproduction and recruitment of calves into the 

herd appears to be the cause of the onset of the decline of the 

northern herd. 

Collins et al. (2000) noted that, in contrast to the current decline 

of the northern herd, the Nushagak Peninsula herd increased 

exponentially from 146 to 1,200 during the first 10 years after 

introduction into an environment of exceptionally good range 

condition and one containing few predators (including humans). 

As the northern herd declined, hunting was progressively 

restricted to prevent further impact on the herd (see 

recreational hunting and subsistence in Section 3.3). 

The Service began assisting ADF&G in counting the NAPCH 

during 1994. The Service’s part of the count area includes the 

Becharof Refuge south of the King Salmon River and the 

Ugashik Unit. In contrast to the total herd count, the trend of 

counts in this area remained stable to slightly increasing; counts 

have ranged from 1,200 in 1994 to about 2,000 during 1997–1999 

(Squibb 2000). This area has probably received less hunting 

pressure because of its remoteness. It is not known whether this 

area differs from the Bristol Bay coastal plain in range 

condition or predator numbers. 

The Pacific coast of the Chignik Unit has had low numbers of 

caribou for some time. Peters et al. (1993) found few caribou in 

Pacific drainages during 1993. Similarly, aerial surveys of the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-50 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Chignik Unit in 1998 observed caribou at a rate of 51 per hour in 

contrast to a rate of 540 caribou per hour in the Becharof 

Refuge and Ugashik Unit the day before under comparable 

weather conditions (Squibb 2000). Caribou of the Pacific coast of 

the Chignik Unit have traditionally been hunted by residents of 

the communities of Chignik Lake, Chignik Lagoon, Chignik 

Bay, Perryville, Ivanof Bay, and Sand Point. Some local 

residents have expressed concern about recreational hunting in 

Bristol Bay drainages affecting caribou numbers in the Chignik 

area. It remains unknown whether this Chignik Unit area 

differs from the Bristol Bay coastal plain in range condition or 

predator numbers. 

The best available data on mortality among the northern herd 

come from radio-collared females that are monitored for herd 

movements and reproductive success. Of those alive in October 

1997, 22 were found alive and three (12 percent) were found 

dead in spring 1998 (Sellers et al. 1998). In spring 1999, 13 

radio-collared caribou more than 2 years old were found, and all 

were alive; however, of 19 calves and two yearlings collared in 

October 1998, only six survived to June 1999 (71 percent 

mortality). 

Most deaths occur during winter, thus ruling out bear 

predation; wolf activity was evident at some carcasses, but it 

was impossible to determine whether predation or merely 

scavenging had occurred. In contrast, of the 13 calves and one 

yearling from the adjacent Southern Alaska Peninsula herd 

collared during the same capture operation in October 1998, 

only one died (7 percent mortality) by spring (Sellers et al. 

1999). In a study of the causes of mortality among newborn 

northern herd caribou in 1998, 35 percent of radio-collared 

calves (n=37) died during the first month of life. During the 

first two weeks, predators—primarily brown bears but also bald 

eagles and wolves—were the primary cause of death. By the 

fourth week, however, disease appeared to be an important 

factor (Sellers et al. 1998). Perhaps as much as 31 percent of calf 

mortality in the first month of life in northern herd calves (i.e., 

11 percent of radio-collared calves) was not caused by 

predators. 

In 1999, in an identical study of newborns of the southern herd, 

45 percent of radio-collared calves (n=49) died during the first 

three weeks of life. Predation—primarily by wolves, then brown 

bears, and, to a lesser extent, eagles and wolverine—accounted 

for 85 percent of mortality where cause was determined (n=13); 

the remaining 15 percent drowned (Sellers et al. 1999). 

Mortality of newborn calves in these two herds was low to 

moderate in comparison with the 20 percent to 85 percent 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-51 

mortality documented in other Alaska herds during the first 

three to four weeks of life (Sellers et al. 1999; Sellers et al. 

1998). 

Until 2001, ADF&G’s management objective for the northern 

herd was to maintain the midsummer population between 15,000 

and 20,000 caribou and an October sex ratio of 40 bulls per 100 

cows (Hicks 1997). In March 2001, the Alaska Board of Game 

approved ADF&G’s proposal to reduce the population objective 

to 12,000–15,000 with a harvest objective of 800–1,500 (Wright 

and Chythlook 2001). 

Moose-----Moose have been on the Alaska Peninsula since the 

early 1900s, but did not become abundant until the 1950s 

(Sellers and McNay 1984). The population peaked in the late 

1960s, and the Alaska Peninsula became world-renowned for 

trophy moose. In 1973, 839 moose were taken in GMU 9; by 

1977, more than 20 percent of the moose on the Boone and 

Crockett record list came from the Alaska Peninsula. 

Comparisons of trend surveys from 1969 through 1972 with 

those from 1982 and 1983 indicate moose numbers had declined 

by 60 percent or more. A 1983 density estimate in central GMU 

9E resulted in an estimate of 2,500 moose in the subunit. The 

decline apparently resulted from low calf recruitment, after 

moose overbrowsed their range. Predation on newborn calves 

by brown bears on the peninsula appeared to be a factor in 

preventing an increase in moose density after their browse had 

recovered somewhat. As the population declined, hunting 

seasons and bag limits became increasingly more restrictive 

(Sellers and McNay 1984). However, moose trend area surveys 

by ADF&G, the Service, and the National Park Service indicate 

that the population remains stable. 

Current ADF&G management population objectives for moose 

in Unit 9 are to do the following (Hicks 1998, p. 81): 

 Maintain existing densities in areas with moderate (0.5–1.5 

moose per square mile) or high (1.5–2.5 moose per square 

mile) densities 

 Increase low-density populations (where habitat conditions 

are not limiting) to 0.5 moose per square mile. 

 Maintain sex ratios of at least 25 bulls to 100 cows in 

medium-to-high density populations and at least 40 bulls to 

100 cows in low-density areas 

Calf recruitment in GMU 9E continues to be low, and the 

number of moose that current habitat could support is unknown. 

Perhaps half the high-density moose habitat on the peninsula 

occurs within the Refuges. Willow communities preferred by 

moose occur throughout the Refuges. Winter concentration 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-52 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

areas on the Refuges include the Kejulik River, Ugashik Lakes, 

the Dog Salmon River, Mother Goose Lake, the upper Meshik 

River valley, and Black Lake as well as on the Pacific coast 

drainages of Yantarni, Mitrofania, and Stepovak bays. 

Marine Mammals 

Harbor seals, Steller (northern) sea lions, and sea otters often 

use the Pacific coastline of the Refuges. Harbor seals and sea 

lions migrate up and down the coast, frequently hauling out 

(coming out of the water to rest) on Refuges land and intertidal 

areas. Sea otters are common in coastal areas of the Alaska 

Peninsula, and the population is estimated at approximately 

6,500. Sea otters may come ashore during inclement weather. 

They allegedly try to cross the Peninsula when the pack ice 

chokes the waters on the Bristol Bay side of the peninsula; this 

can lead to high mortality from exposure and predation. Harbor 

seals often follow salmon and herring runs into bays, lagoons, 

and possibly lakes on the Refuges. 

The status of other marine mammals in waters adjacent to the 

Refuges is not well known. Commercial fishermen from the 

Chignik villages and Perryville report commonly seeing gray, 

killer, humpback, and minke whales and occasionally seeing fin 

whales in nearshore waters. Local residents also report that 

gray and killer whales regularly come into Chignik Lagoon, 

within the Refuges boundary, in early spring. Killer, gray, and 

minke whales and harbor and Dall’s porpoises are frequently 

sighted in Bristol Bay, north of the Refuges. Pilot whales are 

seen infrequently. Belugas often enter the mouth of the Egegik 

River and may enter other major tributaries to feed on salmon 

smolt coming down from the Refuges or smelt (Osmerus 

mordax) entering the drainages to spawn. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Several endangered or threatened species may use the Refuges 

and the adjacent waters. The endangered western population of 

the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) is present along the 

Pacific coast of the Refuges year round. Although sea lions most 

often use offshore islands for rookeries and haul-outs, they can 

haul-out in significant numbers above mean high tide on 

mainland Refuge lands (e.g., Puale Bay). 

The winter range of the Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri), 

listed as threatened in June 1997, includes the Pacific coast of 

the Refuges. The Aleutian Canada goose, which was recently 

delisted, may also use the Refuges during spring and fall 

migration. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-53 

No listed or proposed threatened or endangered plant species 

are known to occur on the Refuges (Talbot et al. 1999). 

3.3 Human Environment 

This section describes human uses and social contexts of the 

Refuges. The first portion (Section 3.3.1) briefly summarizes the 

history of human habitation of the area; it is followed by a 

description of the local population and economy. The second 

portion (Section 3.3.2) goes into more detail about lifestyles in 

the local villages and the role of the Refuges in providing 

subsistence resources. The third portion (Section 3.3.3) 

describes management of cultural resources on the Refuges. 

The fourth portion (Section 3.3.4) describes recreational uses of 

the Refuges. Information about how the Refuges currently 

manage and regulate public use is contained in Chapter 2 under 

the description of Alternative 1 (Section 2.9, existing 

management direction). 

3.3.1 Local Population and Economy 

History 

Evidence of the earliest known human habitation of the Refuges 

was discovered at Ugashik Narrows (Dumond 1987; Dumond 

and Moore 1977). Contents from the site date to about 7000 

BCE4, part of the American Paleo-Arctic tradition. Materials 

resemble those from other sites in Alaska and, farther afield, 

materials from sites in Asia. 

From about 4000 BCE to the beginning of the Common Era 

(CE5

), two separate cultural sequences appear to have 

developed. On the Bristol Bay side of the Aleutian Range, the 

cultural sequence compares with that of the remainder of the 

Alaska coast to the north. People depended on salmon and, to a 

lesser extent, on land and sea mammals. 

On the Pacific side of the mountains, a different cultural 

sequence developed. Steep terrain limited use of the area (most 

of the use was concentrated along the coast), so people 

depended heavily on marine mammals. This culture was closely 

related to the Ocean Bay and Kodiak traditions of Kodiak and 

Afognak islands and Prince William Sound. They were marked 

by an early increase in the use of ground slate for tools. The 

Ocean Bay tradition was also strongly related to the early 

Aleutian tradition; these people were presumed to be ancestral 

Aleuts. 

 

4

 Before the common era (frequently referred to among Christians as “before Christ,” or BC) 5

 Common era (frequently referred to among Christians as “anno Domini,” or AD) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-54 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Cultural influences from the north (the Norton tradition) spread 

across the Alaska Peninsula around 800 CE, ending the nearly 

complete isolation between the cultures. This new uniformity 

continued to the time of European contact. True “Eskimo” 

culture, the Thule tradition, was established on both sides of the 

peninsula by about 1100 CE. Europeans found Koniag Eskimos 

along the Shelikof Strait, Aglegmiut Eskimos on the Bristol Bay 

side of the peninsula, and Aleuts on the extreme southern 

peninsula. 

Russians seeking furs came to the area before 1800; by the early 

1800s, they had established several fur-trading stations on the 

Alaska Peninsula. Russian traders, who forced the Aleuts to 

work for them, brought hardship and disease to the Native 

population. In 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from 

Russia. The U.S. government largely ignored the region for 

many years, but did map the area and continued to harvest fur 

seals. 

By late in the 19th century, seal and sea otter populations had 

been depleted. At about the same time, commercial fishing 

companies moved into the area. The commercial salmon fishery 

in the region started with the export of salted fish, but expanded 

rapidly with the canning industry in the 1880s. Commercial 

fishing grew to be the largest industry in the region and 

remains the dominant industry today.

Local Government and Institutions 

A number of government and quasi-government structures 

exist in rural Alaska: cities and boroughs, which are the local 

government structures authorized under the state constitution; 

tribal councils, which are administrative bodies of Native 

communities recognized under Federal law; Regional Education 

Attendance Areas, regional school districts funded by the state 

but operated by local school boards; and Native (for-profit) 

corporations formed under the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act. Native corporations do not have government 

powers, but they carry substantial influence in rural areas. They 

also have nonprofit arms that contract with the Federal 

Government to provide health care and other services in rural 

areas. For example, the Chugach Corporation had a contract to 

undertake activities at the King Salmon air base after it closed. 

Three Native regional corporations exist in the study area. The 

Bristol Bay Native Corporation includes most of the Bristol Bay 

area, from Togiak and Dillingham to Naknek and King Salmon 

and southwest to Chignik, Ivanof Bay, and Perryville. Koniag, 

Inc., the Native corporation for Kodiak Island, owns some land 

on the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula between Becharof 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-55 

Lake and Chignik Bay. The Aleut Corporation has interests on 

the southern portion of the Kupreanof Peninsula and the 

extreme western portion of the Chignik Unit. A number of 

village corporations also exist in the region and own the lands 

immediately around villages (see map of generalized land status 

in Chapter 1, Figure 1-4). 

Alaska’s boroughs are the equivalent of counties in most other 

states. Large areas of rural Alaska with very small tax bases 

have never established borough governments; these areas are 

known as the “unorganized boroughs.” In the region near the 

Refuges, four borough governments exist, formed largely on the 

strength of the tax base provided by commercial fishing. The 

Lake and Peninsula Borough covers the Alaska Peninsula from 

Ivanof Bay northeast to Lake Iliamna. The Bristol Bay Borough 

is a small borough comprising the area around Naknek, South 

Naknek, and King Salmon. A strip of the Pacific coastline is 

included in the Kodiak Island Borough, and the Aleutians East 

Borough neighbors the Refuges to the southwest and includes 

Stepovak Bay. 

The Lake and Peninsula Borough overlaps most Refuge lands, 

and its policies and goals are most relevant in providing a 

socioeconomic context for the Refuges. The borough’s “Overall 

Economic Development Plan,” published in March 1999, 

contains an inventory of conditions in the borough; goals, 

objectives, and strategies for economic development; and indepth descriptions and objectives for each community in the 

borough (HDR Alaska 1999). How the proposed revision in 

management of the Refuges would affect economic development 

is an important concern to local residents and those from other 

boroughs who use the Refuges. 

Population 

More than 2,000 people live in the 12 communities located near 

the Refuges. This is approximately two-thirds of the population 

of the Bristol Bay and Lake and Peninsula boroughs (Table 3-7). 

The largest community in 1998 was Naknek, followed closely by 

King Salmon, which had been larger in 1990 before King 

Salmon Air Base closed. Half of the communities have grown 

slightly since 1990; the others—Chignik, Egegik, Ivanof Bay, 

King Salmon, Perryville, and South Naknek—have lost 

population (Table 3-7). The proportion of Natives in the 

population varies, with King Salmon having the lowest (15 

percent) and Perryville, Chignik Lake, Ivanof Bay, Pilot Point, 

South Naknek, and Ugashik the highest, with 80 percent or 

more. Kanatak, a Native village that became an oil exploration 

boomtown in the 1920s, was abandoned in 1957, with residents 

moving to other villages on the peninsula and Kodiak Island. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-56 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Area residents, similar to those in other portions of rural 

Alaska, have lower levels of education than the statewide 

average; the 1990 census found that 61 percent of Lake and 

Peninsula Borough residents age 25 and older were high school 

graduates, compared to 87 percent of the population statewide.6

The borough population tends to have a higher proportion of 

males and more people per household than are the statewide 

average. 

The state projects population levels at the borough level, not by 

individual communities (Alaska Department of Labor 1999). The 

state population is projected to increase by 1.09 percent 

annually until 2008 (middle projection; the state also issues low 

and high projections based on different assumptions). In 

comparison, the Bristol Bay Borough population was expected 

to increase by 1.60 percent annually until 2003, and then by 1.39 

percent until 2008. This would result in a 2008 Bristol Bay 

Borough population of 1,506. Two-thirds of the population 

increase is expected to result from natural increase (births 

minus deaths) and one-third from net migration (people moving 

in minus people moving out). 

The Lake and Peninsula Borough population was projected to 

increase more slowly, at a rate of 1.15 percent annually until 

2003 and thereafter at 1.62 percent until 2008, resulting in a 

population of 2,128. Unlike that of the Bristol Bay Borough, the 

Lake and Peninsula Borough population increase is attributed 

to natural increase, while net migration is expected to be 

negative. 

 

6

 The data from the 2000 census were not available when this draft was written. 
Chapter 3

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Table 3-7. Characteristics of communities associated with the Refugesa

Community Type 1999 

Population 

1990 

Population 

1980 

Population 

1970 

Population 

Percentage 

Native 

Median 

Household 

Income 

Percentage 

Unemployment 

# 

E

Bristol Bay Borough 

2nd class borough 

1,258 1,410 1,094 1,147 32 $51,112 7 

 Naknek unincorp. 624 575 318 178 41 $50,907 4  King 

Salmon 

unincorp. 499 696 545 202 15 $54,072 6 

 South 

Naknek 

unincorp. 132 136 145 154 80 $23,750 27 

Lake and Peninsula Borough 

Home rule borough 

1,816 1,558 1,384 — 76 $25,231 15 

 Chignik 2nd class 

city 

103 188 178 83 45 $36,875 4 

 Chignik 

Lagoon 

unincorp. 68 53 38 — 57 $56,250 20 

 Chignik 

Lake 

unincorp. 136 133 138 117 92 $19,167 15 

 Egegik 2nd class 

city 

117 122 75 148 70 $20,625 24 

 Ivanof Bay unincorp. 29 35 40 48 94 $21,500 0  Perryville unincorp. 102 108 111 94 94 $25,000 14  Pilot Point 2nd class 

city 

92 53 66 68 85 $38,750 0 

 Port 

Heiden 

2nd class city 

125 119 92 66 72 $35,000 22 

 Ugashik unincorp. 8 7 13 — 88 $37,500 80 a Source is (DCED 2000) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-58 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Economy7 

As in much of rural Alaska, the region is characterized by a 

mixed cash-subsistence economy. However, the cash economy is 

well developed and is dominated by commercial fishing, tourism, 

and government employment and expenditures. Economic 

activity is highly seasonal, with a distinct peak in the summer. 

Many summer jobs go to people from outside the region. 

Because individual communities are so small, the trade and 

service sectors of their economies are not well developed; 

small villages depend on the regional center of King Salmon–

Naknek—and, to a larger extent, on Anchorage—to provide 

most support services and retail trade opportunities. 

Economic opportunities are limited, reflecting 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; no long-distance 

roads or power lines exist, and few of the communities are 

connected. Many of the communities have runways that limit 

aircraft access, and many do not have public docks (HDR 

Alaska 1999). 

These characteristics contribute to a higher cost of living in 

communities. The cost to provide educational services is 56 

percent greater than in Anchorage, and costs for food, heating 

oil, electricity, propane, water, sewer, gas, and lumber are about 

79 percent higher in Naknek than in Anchorage (HDR Alaska 

1999). The cost of living also varies by community. The cost of 

living is lower, for example, in communities that are served by 

ships year-round. 

The dominance of commercial fishing and tourism in the private 

economy of the region makes it difficult to track and measure 

the level of economic activity. Both of these industries consist of 

many sole proprietorships, which are not required to report 

employment to the Alaska Department of Labor and are not 

included in many annually compiled analyses. Employment, and 

the resident share of employment, are inferred from whatever 

output measures are available from these industries. The 

economic situation varies by community, depending mostly on 

the commercial fishing opportunities in the vicinity and the 

number of residents holding limited-entry permits for the 

Bristol Bay salmon fishery or other fisheries. 

Commercial Fishing-----The Bristol Bay salmon fishery has 

traditionally been the most productive salmon fishery in the 

world, accounting for one-third to more than one-half of the 

 

7

 Unless otherwise noted, economic information and analysis are drawn from Goldsmith (1998). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-59 

total statewide harvest in the mid-1990s. The salmon fishery is a 

limited-entry fishery. Many permits are owned by nonresidents 

who come to the state for only a few weeks in the summer, and 

many of those held by Alaskans belong to fishermen who live 

outside the Bristol Bay region. 

The salmon season is measured in weeks, so the population 

influx associated with this fishery is brief and dramatic. This 

short season, coupled with the large nonresident share of permit 

holders and crew, means that much of the potential economic 

impact of the harvest falls elsewhere because dollars earned in 

the Bristol Bay region are spent outside the region or state. 

The centerpiece of the harvest is the Bristol Bay Management 

Area, where the annual harvest from 1994 through 1997 ranged 

from 76 to 253 million pounds, with a value of $66 million to $194 

million. The low end of the range occurred in 1997, the start of 

two disastrous years for the fishery and those who depended on 

it. 

Other fishery management areas also support the economy of 

the communities in the region. The Alaska Peninsula area 

salmon fishery produced 36 million to 106 million pounds over 

the same time period, with a value of $16 million to $53 million. 

The Chignik salmon fishery, with annual harvests from 10 

million to 24 million pounds, had values of $4 million to $16 

million. 

For the Alaska Peninsula and Chignik limited-entry salmon 

fishery, a majority of permits are held by local residents. In 

addition, a significant number of local residents (nearly 200 in 

1996) are involved not only in the salmon fishery but also in 

other fisheries throughout the state. In 1996, the commercial 

seafood harvest by area residents was valued at $10 million. Of 

that total, approximately half, or $4.5 million, was Bristol Bay 

salmon. The rest was a combination of other salmon, halibut, 

and other species fisheries. 

In recent years, ever increasing supplies of salmon farmed 

outside the state have hurt Alaska salmon prices. In 1997 and 

1998, poor Bristol Bay runs further aggravated economic 

problems in Alaska’s salmon industry, and, in mid-1998, the 

governor of Alaska declared the region an economic disaster 

area. The effects of the 1997–1998 fishing seasons on the 

communities in the region were dramatic, although not 

distributed equally across communities. The salmon runs varied 

between 31 percent and 67 percent of the forecast returns for 

each year, depending on region. In the Egegik district, 

commercial salmon harvests were about the same as the 20-year 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-60 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

average, while the 1997 harvest in the Naknek-Kvichak district 

was just 5 percent of the 20-year average.

The impacts of the decreased runs are described in a report, 

commissioned by the Lake and Peninsula and Bristol Bay 

boroughs, that also included an economic recovery plan 

(Northern Economics 1999). Average net income earned by 

resident fishermen was less than $10,000 in both years and, for 

many, resulted in a net loss after making loan payments and 

paying other expenses. The boroughs’ revenues declined with 

the drop in tax revenues related to the fishing industry—the 

dominant income source for both boroughs. For example, the 

Lake and Peninsula Borough revenue from the 2 percent raw 

fish tax dropped from $2.7 million in 1993 to $1.2 million in 1998 

(HDR Alaska 1999). The decreased income created increased 

demand for public services and disrupted social structure 

because people had to leave their communities to find 

employment. Small businesses also were affected. The Small 

Business Association provided loan assistance for fishermen and 

other businesses hurt by the poor fishing seasons, and disaster 

relief provided an influx of federal money matched by local 

funds when the federal legislature rejected the governor’s 

request for matching state funds. 

The 1999 sockeye run improved markedly, resulting in a catch 

passing 25 million fish compared to the previous two years’ 

10–12 million. Despite the run size, however, not all the 

economic benefit was realized because processors had cut 

capacity following the previous two seasons, limiting the amount 

of fish processed locally. Recovery from the 1997–1998 seasons 

would take some time for many regional residents who faced an 

uncertain economic future. 

Government-----State and Federal governments have accounted 

for a great deal of money flowing into the region. Support has 

come in the form of direct Federal and state government 

employment, financial support for local government operations, 

grants for construction, social services, and transfers to 

households. 

Government employment at all levels has accounted for more 

than one in three jobs in this part of Alaska. Most jobs are 

related to local employment with municipal governments or 

school districts. Financial support for rural schools and much of 

the financial support for local municipal governments has come 

from the State of Alaska. These jobs tend to be relatively highpaying, year-round jobs that add stability to the seasonal 

portions of the regional economies. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-61 

State and Federal government grants and assistance have 

supported jobs in social-service delivery in the communities, 

particularly in the health-care and day-care fields. Federally 

supported rural housing authorities have provided money for 

home construction. State and Federal agencies also have 

provided construction grants through a variety of programs for 

economic development projects, water and sewer construction, 

transportation facilities, and other capital projects that provide 

construction employment. 

Tourism-----Tourism is centered on the recreational fishery, 

which draws people from throughout the world to the lakes and 

rivers that flow into Bristol Bay. People also come to visit 

Katmai National Park, to the north of the Refuges. Visitation 

there is increasing rapidly, but still has a small economic effect 

on the surrounding communities (mostly in King Salmon). 

As with the commercial fishery, the tourist season is short, and 

economic activity related to tourism tends to be conducted to a 

large degree by nonresidents. About 62 percent of the workers 

in the hotel and lodge industry are not Alaska residents. As a 

result, most of the money each tourist spends to visit the Bristol 

Bay region leaves the area. This makes it difficult for other 

economic activity within the community to build around a 

tourist base. Nonetheless, the borough and many villages in the 

region are looking toward tourism and to relatively new 

markets such as cultural tourism to expand the local and 

regional economy. 

Household Income and Employment-----Employment 

opportunities are scarce in rural Alaska. For example, the 

percentage of people participating in the Lake and Peninsula 

Borough labor force increased from about 26 percent of the 

population in 1991 to 31 percent in 1996, but the comparable 

figures (averages for the 1991–1996 period) were 49 percent for 

Alaska and 62 percent for the nation (HDR Alaska 1999). 

There is considerable variation in average household income 

across communities in the region, largely due to variations in 

participation in the commercial fishery. The most detailed 

information on personal income is from the 1990 U.S. census, 

which is dated but still provides a perspective on the range of 

income levels in comparison with the rest of the state. The 

largest share of income in many communities comes from fish 

harvesting, with wage income dominated by fish processing, 

government, and government-funded business and nonprofit 

organizations. Another important source of money income is 

government transfers directly to households, which include 

welfare, social security, retirement benefits, veterans benefits, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-62 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

and unemployment insurance and, from the state government, 

the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend. 

In 1997, Bristol Bay Borough had a per capita personal income 

of $33,769, which ranked first in state (DOC 1999), despite the 

poor commercial fishing season. This is not unusual for the 

borough, which ranked second in the state in 1987. In 1997, the 

proportion of total personal income from earnings was about 71 

percent, while transfer payments amounted to 21 percent, and 

dividends, interest, and rent were 8 percent. State and local 

government accounted for 27 percent of the earnings, 

transportation and public utilities 19 percent, and nondurable 

goods manufacturing 1 percent (this sector includes fish 

processing). The fastest-growing sector was services, which 

accounted for 1 percent of earnings in 1997. 

In 1997, the Lake and Peninsula Borough had a per capita 

personal income of $17,889, which ranked 22nd in the state. 

Earnings accounted for 64 percent of total personal income, and 

transfer payments accounted for 30 percent. Services accounted 

for 32 percent of earnings, nondurable goods manufacturing 24 

percent, and state and local government about 10 percent. State 

and local government decreased 14 percent from the previous 

year, while the fastest-growing sector was Federal civilian 

government, which increased 9 percent from 1996 levels. 

Table 3-7 provides community-level data, some of which are 

dated because they come from the 1990 census. Median 

household income varies considerably, but generally reflects 

borough-level trends. Unemployment varies also, as do the 

percentage of adults not working and the number not seeking 

employment. The effects of the stronger role of subsistence in 

some of the villages are evident. 

Subsistence in the Mixed-Market Economy 

Many rural Alaskans devote a considerable amount of time to 

subsistence activities: hunting, fishing, and processing of fish, 

game, and other harvested resources; manufacture of clothing 

and other items from harvested resources; maintenance and 

care of equipment used in subsistence activities; and related 

tasks (see Section 3.3.2 for a more complete discussion of 

subsistence). There is a seasonal flow to the subsistence 

activities, dictated by the movements of fish and game and their 

life cycles, the season when berries ripen, and other factors. As 

a result, many Alaskans who engage in a subsistence lifestyle 

choose not to have full-time, year-round wage employment and 

prefer instead to work on a seasonal or part-time basis. This 

enables them to hunt when it is time to hunt, fish when it is time 

to fish, and work for wages at other times. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-63 

However, because job opportunities in many rural Alaska 

communities are very limited, residents may not be able to find 

intermittent work that complements the subsistence seasons. 

Where rural residents choose to forego wage work because it 

conflicts with subsistence activities, underemployment is a 

chronic problem While subsistence may conflict with wage 

work, subsistence activities may also supply important 

resources at the levels of individual, household, and community 

when wage work is scarce and unemployment is a problem or 

when incomes are otherwise too low to provide for basic needs.. 

Subsistence work is not done for pay, so personal income 

statistics give a misleading picture of the well-being of places 

where subsistence makes a significant contribution to meeting 

the food and other needs of the community. Such communities 

often have more resources available than is reflected by 

personal income. 

Refuge Contributions to the Economy 

The economic significance of a refuge is a measure of the total 

number of jobs and the total household income generated by all 

the expenditures associated with the refuge. Those include 

expenditures for management of each refuge, expenditures by 

refuge visitors, and expenditures for the harvest and other use 

of refuge resources. In Alaska, these expenditures directly 

create jobs for Service employees, for people employed in 

businesses serving the recreation industry, and for commercial 

fishermen. As these government and private sector workers 

spend their incomes, jobs in other sectors of the economy are 

created through a process known as the multiplier effect. The 

total number of jobs created by expenditures for management 

and use of the Refuges is consequently greater than just the 

number created directly. 

The estimates of job and income creation produced through this 

analysis are of particular interest to local businesses and 

governments. Jobs and household income the Refuges generate 

are usually viewed as beneficial for the regional economy. The 

Refuges sustain nearly 1,500 local jobs and contribute 

$70 million in income annually to the local economy (Table 3-8), 

nearly all through supporting the commercial fishery by 

ensuring the continuing health of salmon spawning and rearing 

habitat (Goldsmith et al. 1998a). These economic benefits are 

estimated based on the proportion of salmon that use Refuges 

streams and rivers and corresponding proportions of the 

employment and income. These benefits existed before the 

Refuges were established and would not necessarily go away if 

the Refuges did not exist, but they do depend on protection of 

habitat and fish populations. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-64 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Table 3-8. Employment and income attributable to activity on Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges 

Activity Alaska Employment 

(jobs created) 

Local Employment 

(jobs created) 

Alaska Income Local Income 

Refuge management 32 22 $1,300,000 $1,070,000 

Big-game hunting 30 17 $760,000 $400,000 

Recreational fishing 20 9 $460,000 $190,000 

Nonconsumptive uses 

(including wildlife 

viewing) 

1 1 $30,000 $10,000 

Commercial fishing 2,077 1,433 $84,000,000 $68,560,000 

Subsistence 13 7 $310,000* $170,000* 

 Totals 2,173 1,488 $87,000,000 $70,400,000 

* Attributable to direct spending for subsistence activities, including items such as fuel, outboard motors, bait, 

ammunition. 

A few trappers operate within the Refuges; they harvest 

beaver, wolves, wolverine, lynx, and other small fur-bearing 

mammals. The sale of these furs provides supplemental income 

to residents of some communities adjacent the Refuges. 

Because the total number of trapper-related visits to the 

Refuges is small, and the trips are made by local residents who 

incur very modest costs, the benefits of trapping are not 

accounted for in this analysis.

Regional Economic Outlook 

Three identifiable factors are likely to have a large influence on 

the economic future of the region: uncertainty in the salmon 

industry; growth of the tourism industry; and uncertainty in the 

flow of dollars from government sources. 

The world market for red salmon is becoming increasingly 

competitive as supplies of farmed salmon take a larger share of 

the market. This is reflected in a softening of the ex-vessel price 

Bristol Bay harvesters receive. In addition, the 1997 and 1998 

runs were much smaller than anticipated, so the gross revenues 

of harvesters were reduced both by a falling price and a low 

number of fish. The world price for salmon is likely to continue 

to be below historical levels, unless Alaska fishermen can find a 

significant market niche that farmed salmon cannot penetrate. 

The size of the runs is likely to continue to be volatile. The 

result will be continued uncertainty in the industry and 

probably a continued decline of regional income from fishing. 

Uncertainty and volatility will limit development of a stable 

support sector. 

The tourist industry in Alaska is growing rapidly, and pressure 

on accessible sites is pushing more visitors to more remote 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-65 

locations in search of an “Alaska experience.” Entrepreneurs 

are looking for new opportunities to satisfy the demands of 

these visitors by developing new activities and locations. 

Although generally only a small portion of all visitors go to 

remote sites, their numbers will continue to fluctuate according 

to circumstances. The Bristol Bay region will continue to 

become more accessible to visitors over time, and tourist visits 

will continue to increase. Formation of groups such as the 

Bristol Bay Visitors Council reflect the region’s increasing focus 

on tourism as a component of economic development. The 

industry will always be highly seasonal. Consequently, its 

economic impact on the region will continue to be modest 

because of a high share of nonresident workers and little local 

spending on supplies by tourist businesses. 

State government spending grew rapidly in the 1980s, 

stimulating growth in local government employment as well as 

in local infrastructure. With revenues from petroleum now in 

decline, the state is cutting back on many of the programs put 

into place in the 1980s and 1990s—such as revenue sharing and 

municipal assistance. For the Lake and Peninsula Borough, 

state revenue sharing, which increased from $284,000 to 

$304,000 from 1992 to 1994, dropped to $161,000 in 1998 (HDR 

Alaska 1999). State funding for education is another program 

that has not kept up with the growth in demand in recent years. 

Local communities in rural Alaska are being asked to provide a 

larger financial contribution to the running of local government 

and community services, and it is not clear where the money will 

come from, given the small tax bases in most communities. 

The Federal government is also re-evaluating many programs 

(e.g., welfare programs) that provide money to rural Alaska. 

The Federal government is also the source of money for 

housing, water and sewer, transportation, and other types of 

infrastructure to meet basic community needs. The continued 

flow of these funds depends on political decisions; because they 

depend so much on government programs, these communities 

are economically vulnerable. 

The Lake and Peninsula Borough’s “Overall Economic 

Development Plan” (HDR Alaska 1999) shows how the borough 

intends to cope with these and other conditions. The plan’s 

mission statement describes its purpose and philosophy: 

The purpose of this plan is to develop a cohesive 

blueprint for the Lake and Peninsula Borough that 

identifies and develops regional and communityspecific economic opportunities which are practical, 

sustainable, diverse, environmentally responsible, and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-66 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

culturally appropriate for residents, communities, 

and the Borough itself. 

The borough’s plan contains eight boroughwide goals, based on 

evaluations of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and 

threats. Some of these evaluations are especially relevant to the 

Refuges and the effort to revise the Refuges’ comprehensive 

conservation plan. Strengths include natural resources, fishery 

resources, tourism potential, and scenic, wildlife and natural 

resources. One opportunity is tourism, while a threat is user 

groups competing for subsistence resources. 

The strategies proposed to meet goals include education, 

business development, tourism, fisheries, job creation, 

cooperation, planning, capital improvement, and industry 

development. The Service is listed as a lead organization in most 

of the tourism strategies, one of which is designed to develop 

communities as gateways to the national parks and refuges in 

the borough. 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. One of the jobcreation strategies is to promote further local hiring of 

residents by Federal agencies. 

The community-specific objectives mirror many of the 

boroughwide strategies and also link directly to refuge land 

uses and opportunities. One of Chignik’s goals is to “strengthen, 

promote, and encourage unification among communities, 

regions, and cultures to work together for overall economic 

development that is compatible with our way of life.” One of the 

related objectives is to build a road to Port Heiden. One of Port 

Heiden’s goals is to “build or improve infrastructure that lowers 

transportation costs, improves the marketability and delivery of 

products, and promotes good health and sanitation.” The first 

objective is to “promote road to deep-water port on Pacific side, 

probably Chignik. This would reduce shipping and 

transportation costs, and open up fishing and tourism 

opportunities.” 

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 Alaska’s southwestern region, was endorsed by the 

borough (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2002). The road would also link 

the year-round deep-water port at Chignik with the longest 

runway in the area at Port Heiden, which—at 6,400 feet—is 

capable of handling midrange jets. Local residents have also 

discussed the possibility of a railroad along that route, which 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-67 

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

benefits. 

This particular transportation corridor is part of a system of 

corridors identified as part of the Southwest Alaska 

Transportation Plan, which included two initial packages of 

transportation projects that would interconnect villages on the 

Alaska Peninsula in the vicinity of the Refuges (Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 1999b). The northern portion of the Alaska 

Peninsula Roadway package would consist of roads between 

South Naknek and Naknek, King Salmon and Egegik, Egegik 

and Pilot Point, Pilot Point and Ugashik, and Pilot Point and 

Port Heiden. The total capital cost was estimated at $324 million 

(paved) or $288 million (unpaved), with an additional $3 million 

annually in operation and maintenance. The southern portion of 

the Alaska Peninsula Roadway package would consist of roads 

between Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon, and Chignik Lake; 

Chignik and Port Heiden; Perryville and Chignik; and Ivanof 

Bay and Perryville as well as a new regional airport in the 

Metrofania Valley near Chignik. The total capital cost was 

estimated at $197 million (paved) or $175 million (unpaved), with 

an additional $2 million annually in operation and maintenance. 

The borough plan’s Description of Alternatives Technical 

Memorandum (Parsons Brinckerhoff 1999a) notes that the high 

costs “make it extremely unlikely that it would be feasible to 

implement packages with multiple elements at once, or even 

within the 20-year horizon of this planning effort.” These two 

packages of projects, along with others mentioned in the report, 

had not yet been evaluated, and construction would “have 

significant adverse impacts on the region’s economic mainstay, 

the salmon harvest.” The prospects of implementing either 

package in the short term was viewed as “remote.” Given the 

current level of interest, however, it is possible that portions of 

either package could be proposed for construction during the 

15-year life of the Refuges revised Plan. 

A discussion of the state perspective on transportation and 

utility corridors on the Alaska Peninsula is located in 

Appendix G. 

3.3.2 Subsistence 

One of the purposes of the Refuges is to provide the opportunity 

for continued subsistence uses by local residents, consistent 

with the purposes of conserving fish and wildlife populations 

and habitats and fulfilling international treaty obligations with 

respect to fish and wildlife. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-68 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

This section describes how local residents use the Refuges for 

subsistence. As reviewed in the previous section (Section 3.3.1), 

residents of villages located near the Refuges have lifestyles 

and economies that depend on subsistence resources. 

Subsistence activities are not just a way of obtaining food, but 

an important mechanism for maintaining cultural values such as 

kinship, community, respect for elders, hospitality, sharing 

resources, and the passing of values to younger generations. In 

addition, many residents in the area prefer the taste of 

traditional wild foods to that of store-bought foods (Wright et al. 

1985). 

Table 3-9 summarizes per capita subsistence harvest in pounds 

and demonstrates the extent of local residents’ reliance on wild 

resources as well as the variations in total amounts used and 

species. 

Title VIII of ANILCA defines subsistence uses as 

The customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska 

residents of wild, renewable resources for direct 

personal or family consumption as food, shelter, 

clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and 

selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible 

byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for 

personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing 

for personal or family consumption; and for 

customary trade. 

ANILCA recognizes that the continued opportunity for 

subsistence uses of public lands is critical to physical, economic, 

traditional, social, and cultural existence of rural Native and 

non-Native residents of Alaska. 

Recognizing the multiple threats to subsistence lifestyles, the 

Act established a preference for subsistence users, stating that 

the taking of fish and wildlife on public lands for nonwasteful 

subsistence use is given priority over other consumptive uses. 

In times of scarcity, recreational use is limited first. ANILCA 

also created regional advisory councils to provide opportunities 

for discussion of subsistence regulations and for development 

and review of proposals. The councils make recommendations to 

the Federal Subsistence Board, which establishes subsistence 

regulations on Federal lands. Federal regulations for 

subsistence harvests are published annually by the Federal 

Subsistence Board. 
Chapter 3

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Table 3-9. Annual per capita subsistence harvest, in pounds, of edible food 

 Fish Land Mammals Marine 

Mammals 

Marine 

Invertebrates 

Birds and Eggsa Vegetat

Chignik 281 24 3 39 4 6 Chignik Lagoon 145 36 0 21 5 4 Chignik Lake 245 153 4 21 13 6 Egegik 109 245 0 14 16 — Ivanof Bay 252 140 27 46 14 11 King Salmon 119 102 — — — — Naknek 121 66 1 — — —b Perryville 272 60 26 20 8 8 Pilot Point 111 240 5 6 17 6 Port Heiden 97 251 15 18 13 14 South Naknek 165 111 2 2 2 15 Ugashik 356 414 — — 26 19 Source: ADF&G subsistence database as reported in Goldsmith et al. (1998a) a See Table 3-10 for additional information. b According to locals, residents of Naknek use many types of vegetation, including berries, Labrador tea, petruski, and wild spinach. Th

clams, razor clams, and mussels from the Pacific coast. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-70 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

ANILCA contains many other provisions supporting continued 

opportunity for subsistence; Section 811, for example, ensures 

that subsistence users can access public lands by snowmobile, 

motorboat, and other traditionally used means of 

transportation, subject to reasonable regulation. 

Subsistence use by residents of Alaska Peninsula communities 

associated with the Refuges is described in a number of reports 

by ADF&G. Readers are encouraged to go directly to the 

reports cited for additional information. The data are contained 

in the ADF&G’s Community Profile Data Base, available from 

the department and on its subsistence division Web site 

<http://www.state.ak.us/adfg/subsist/geninfo/publctns/cpdb.htm>. 

The mainstay subsistence food for many communities is salmon, 

which is obtained by subsistence harvest as well as kept from 

the commercial catch. All five Pacific salmon species native to 

Alaska are used, although chinook, sockeye, and coho are 

preferred. Freshwater species are also used, but to a lesser 

extent. Community harvest studies conducted sporadically from 

1973 through 1987 found that use was highest in Ugashik, King 

Salmon, Egegik, Naknek, and South Naknek, ranging from 

about 15 pounds of usable weight per person per year, to a high 

of 60 pounds reported in Ugashik in 1973 (Fall et al. 1996). The 

section on fisheries resources of the Refuges shows that 

subsistence typically is a very small proportion of the total take 

of fish (the primary proportion being commercial uses). 

Additional information is available about birds and eggs used by 

residents of King Salmon, Naknek, and the villages associated 

with the Refuges (Wong and Wentworth 1999). Table 3-10 

shows the total number of birds and eggs used each year by 

residents (1996–1998; includes harvest from a winter survey 

period for north and south peninsula villages). The bird 

harvested most frequently was ptarmigan, followed by mallards, 

pintails, and green-winged teals, lesser Canada geese, and 

cackling Canada geese. The vast majority of eggs harvested 

were from glaucous-winged gulls, followed by mew gulls and 

Arctic terns. For comparison, residents of villages associated 

with the Togiak NWR harvest some 12,549 birds (4-year 

average, 1995–1998) and residents of the Dillingham, Nushagak 

River, and Iliamna regions harvested 17,819 birds (2-year 

average, 1995 and 1997). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-71 

Table 3-10. Number of birds and eggs used by Alaska Peninsula residents 

Year Birds Eggs 

1995 3,104 1,868 

1996 4,427 548 

1997 4,625 2,084 

1998 4,410 1,927 

Alaska Natives in many of the communities harvest harbor seal 

(Wolfe and Mishler 1996). From 1992 through 1995, residents of 

Port Heiden harvested the greatest number (about 151 total) 

followed by Naknek (86 seals), King Salmon (61 seals), Ivanof 

Bay (57 seals), and Chignik Lake (48 seals).

Caribou Harvest and Uses 

The NAPCH has provided abundant food to local villages for 

more than a generation (Krieg et al. 1998; Krieg et al. 1996). 

Caribou were traditionally, of the three terrestrial species 

(moose, bear, and caribou), the most widely used by residents of 

the local villages and were harvested in large quantities, 

thoroughly used, and widely shared (Fall 1993). Caribou have 

been harvested throughout the year by community residents, 

but the largest proportion of the harvest has occurred in 

August, September, and December through March. This 

reflects the pattern of seasonality found in subsistence harvest 

patterns: in the spring, people are getting ready for salmon 

fishing, which extends until October in the Bristol Bay 

communities and later in the Pacific coast communities. When 

caribou migration patterns changed, and some communities 

were unable to meet their needs within the season, the state 

declared an emergency opening. A four-day opening in April 

1992 enabled harvest of an additional 94 caribou among 

residents of communities located in GMU 9E (Fall 1993). GMU 

9E encompasses all of the Refuges except those northernmost 

portions of the Becharof NWR that drain into the Naknek River 

(Figure 1-3). 

Information in this section is drawn primarily from research 

conducted on use of caribou, moose, and brown bear during the 

1995–1996 and 1996–1997 regulatory years (Krieg et al. 1998). 

Table 3-11 shows how patterns of caribou harvest and use 

varied between the two periods. Figure 3-6 reflects the sharing 

of resources among community members; more people use 

caribou, for example, than actually harvest the animal. Because 

the number of caribou harvested each year is estimated, each 

figure really represents the midpoint of a range within which 

officials are 95 percent sure the actual harvest number occurs. 

Because of the size of the error associated with each estimate, 

the ranges for each year overlap quite a bit; as a result, one 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-72 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

cannot conclude with certainty that fewer caribou were 

harvested in 1996–1997. 

Table 3-11. Harvest and use of caribou in Alaska Peninsula communities 

 1995–1996 1996–1997 

Percentage of 

households using caribou

79 79 

Percentage of 

households hunting 

caribou 

56 51 

Percentage of 

households harvesting 

caribou 

46 49 

Percentage of 

households giving 

caribou 

39 34 

Number of caribou 

harvested 

1,126 1,047 

Source: Krieg et al. (1998) 

Figure 3-6. Percentage of local residents using and hunting caribou, moose, 

and brown bear 

The highest caribou harvest rates per household were found in 

South Naknek, Pilot Point, Port Heiden, Ugashik, and Egegik. 

Hunters had the highest rates of success—near or more than 90 

percent—in the GMU 9E Bristol Bay communities (Egegik, 

Pilot Point, Port Heiden, and Ugashik) and the GMU 9C 

communities (King Salmon, Naknek, South Naknek); success 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-73 

rates were lower—an average of 54 percent to 62 percent—in 

the GMU 9E Pacific communities (Chignik Lake, Chignik 

Lagoon, Chignik Bay, Ivanof Bay, Perryville). Success rates 

were slightly higher in 1996–1997 than in 1995–1996 for the 

GMU 9E Pacific communities and slightly lower for the other 

two community groups. Figure 3-7 shows how the harvest of 

caribou was distributed across the three community groups. 

Figure 3-7. Estimated community harvest of caribou by 

game management unit 

The communal nature of subsistence in rural communities is 

evident; in the year in which fewer caribou were harvested, 

fewer households gave caribou but more received it. Patterns 

of sharing varied by community, with greater sharing generally 

taking place in the smaller villages having a higher proportion 

of Native residents. Although harvests were down from 

1995–1996 to 1996–1997 in most communities, the number of 

caribou harvested by Pilot Point residents more than doubled, 

from 51 to 129, and levels increased in Ugashik; harvest levels 

remained about the same in the Chignik, Ivanof Bay, Naknek, 

Perryville, and South Naknek. The 1995–1996 and 1996–1997 

harvest levels were generally down from those of the previous 

regulatory year for all three groups of communities, especially 

for the GMU 9C communities, which harvested the most caribou 

of the three groups. In 1994–1995, a total of 1,345 caribou had 

been harvested. In the mid-1980s, when the herd was at its 

peak, local harvest was about comparable—about 1,100 

annually. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-74 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Of particular interest is the proportion of harvest for 

subsistence purposes that took place on the Refuges. Given the 

study methodology, it was only possible to identify harvest 

locations within the outer boundaries of Federally managed 

land units, which could include state land or private inholdings. 

In 1995–1996, community residents harvested about 98 caribou 

within the boundaries of the Refuges, or about 9 percent of the 

total number harvested for subsistence. In 1996–1997, locals 

harvested about 41 caribou within the boundaries of the 

Refuges, or about 4 percent of the total number harvested. In 

both years, 7 percent or more of the animals were taken on the 

Alaska Peninsula Refuge, with the remainder taken on 

Becharof. In 1996–1997, none of the five communities with the 

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

Heiden, and Pilot Point) harvested any caribou from the 

Refuges. 

For the 1996–1997 year, households were asked whether their 

needs for caribou had not been met. The results varied by 

community, but in a survey of households asking households if 

their caribou needs had not been met, a majority of households 

in every community said this was not true and that their needs 

had been met (Figure 3-8). When asked why their needs were 

not met, the most common response was not enough time to 

hunt, given by 41 percent of households. Other reasons included 

scarcity of caribou (22 percent), not given enough meat (18 

percent), lack of or faulty equipment (10 percent), competition 

for caribou (4 percent), and weather or travel conditions (4 

percent). 

Figure 3-8. Percentage of households reporting their caribou needs 

were not met in 1996–1997 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-75 

Given the local dependence on caribou and the animal’s 

attractiveness as a recreational hunting species, it is not 

surprising that declines in the population of the northern herd 

have been of great public concern. According to local residents, 

subsistence users thought that conservation of the declining 

herd was falling disproportionately on their shoulders; they 

were harvesting fewer animals yet recreational hunting 

continued. 

On September 9, 1998, the Federal Subsistence Board 

considered and rejected a recommendation by the Federal 

subsistence regional advisory council that Federal lands in 

GMU 9E be closed to nonsubsistence hunting for caribou from 

September 21 through 30, but did decide to limit Federally 

recognized rural subsistence hunters to bull caribou only. The 

board pointed to a pending workshop as a component of a 

longer-term solution.

The Northern Alaska Peninsula Caribou and Moose Workshop, 

held September 28–30, 1998, in Naknek, was designed as a 

forum for discussion, by a full spectrum of people concerned 

about wildlife populations and harvest on the Alaska Peninsula, 

of caribou and moose management on state and Federal lands. 

The workshop stemmed from the need for a cooperative, longterm response to petitions considered by the Bristol Bay 

Regional Subsistence Advisory Council. 

The workshop was attended by representatives from the 

Service (including the manager of Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges), ADF&G, peninsula villages, Bristol Bay 

Native Association, the regional subsistence advisory council, 

and local guides and air-taxi operators. The main goal was to 

offer recommendations to both state and Federal land 

managers to conserve caribou and moose populations and to 

maintain opportunities for subsistence hunting. Discussions at 

the session reflected many concerns of local residents: 

Rural subsistence users on the Alaska Peninsula are 

discouraged because they feel that the burden of 

conservation often falls on them . . . they are asked to 

make concessions to provide for hunters who only 

want trophies when they, the subsistence users, have 

concerns that their needs are not being met. 

The villages of Ivanof Bay and Perryville no longer 

have caribou in their traditional hunting areas. They 

have observed a severe decline of caribou in their area 

that started 15 to 20 years ago. These villages, as well 

as others, have been frustrated because they feel that 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-76 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

their local and traditional knowledge has not been 

given credence in the past. 

The Chignik Lagoon Traditional Tribal Council voiced the 

concern that locals cannot compete with recreational hunters 

and transporters who can spot animals from the plane and have 

many options for landing places (although state regulations 

prohibit same-day-land-and-shoot for all hunters). Concerns 

about the shortage of caribou were heightened because of the 

extremely poor fishing seasons in 1997 and 1998, which left 

many village residents with less cash for needed supplies such 

as food, fuel, and electrical power. 

During the late 1990s, as the decline in the herd’s numbers 

began to affect the availability of caribou, local communities 

petitioned both the Alaska Board of Game and the Federal 

Subsistence Board with proposals for regulations to restrict 

outside hunters. In 1994, the Board of Game adopted a proposal 

from the Naknek/Kvichak Fish and Game Advisory Committee 

to cut the winter bag limit to one caribou per calendar month, 

and not more than one cow could be taken per year. This change 

affected primarily nonlocal hunters because it made hunting 

around King Salmon less attractive. Local hunters still had the 

opportunity to accumulate as many as four caribou over the 

winter. This change cut the reported harvest by 60 percent. 

In 1995, the nonresident bag limit was changed from one 

caribou to one bull and the season shortened by five months. In 

1998, the Board of Game met in emergency session and passed 

an emergency regulation that cut the nonresident season and 

harvest in half. In 1999, the Board of Game established a Tier II 

subsistence hunt—which gives priority to state applicants who 

demonstrated the greatest dependence on the hunt—for as 

many as 600 permits beginning with the 1999–2000 hunting 

season. State data on this hunt showed that 155 caribou were 

harvested, 82 people obtained permits and hunted but were not 

successful, and 229 people were issued permits but did not hunt. 

The Federal Subsistence Board closed Federal public lands in 

GMU 9E to nonlocal caribou hunters and issued an additional 60 

Federal caribou permits. Federal permits are issued under a 

different protocol, with an allocation of permits issued to various 

tribal councils, which are then free to distribute them to village 

residents any way they choose. The herd’s continued decline 

into 2000 resulted in the reduction of state and Federal permits 

to 400 and 40, respectively.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-77 

Moose Harvest and Uses 

Although traditionally not used by as many households as is 

caribou (Krieg et al. 1998; Krieg et al. 1996), moose is another 

important subsistence species for residents of Alaska Peninsula 

communities (Table 3-12). During 1995–1996 and 1996–1997, 

there was a large drop in the estimated number of moose 

harvested (from 117 to 62) and a drop in rate of success from 51 

percent to 32 percent. Both numbers represented less than the 

estimated 127 moose harvested in 1994–1995. However, as was 

the case with caribou, the estimated harvest levels are 

statistically not significant, and we cannot conclude that actual 

harvest levels dropped (Krieg et al. 1998). During the mid1980s, for example, approximately 60 moose were harvested 

annually. 

Table 3-12. Harvest and use of moose in Alaska Peninsula communities 

 1995–1996 1996–1997 

Percentage of households using moose 58 54 

Percentage of households hunting moose 26 26 

Percentage of households harvesting moose 17 10 

Percentage of households receiving moose 47 47 

Percentage of households giving moose 20 18 

Number of moose harvested 117 62 

Source: (Krieg et al. 1998) 

The largest percentage of households using moose (about 70 

percent) were the GMU 9E Pacific communities, followed by the 

GMU 9E Bristol Bay communities (64 percent) and the 

GMU 9C communities (51 percent). Most of the moose are 

harvested in September and December. 

In 1995–1996, 42 moose (constituting about 36 percent of the 

moose harvested) 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), which 

represented 19 percent of the total moose harvested. In 1996–

1997, a majority of communities reported having their moose 

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

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

their needs were not met (Figure 3-9). 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 

(2 percent), and regulations or weather (5 percent each). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-78 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Figure 3-9. Percentage of households reporting their moose needs 

were not met in 1996–1997 

Brown Bear Harvest and Uses 

During the most recent years brown bear use was studied in 

detail by the ADF&G’s Subsistence Division, Chignik Lake, 

Perryville, and Ivanof Bay were the only three communities 

that showed much use of brown bear, which is the only bear 

species found on the Peninsula. In 1995–1996, 29 individuals 

hunted brown bear and 15 were successful, compared to 19 

individuals hunting in 1996–1997, with eight taking bears. Most 

bear use took place in the GMU 9E Pacific communities. In 

both study years, a majority of the bears were taken within the 

boundaries of the Alaska Peninsula Refuge: 70 percent in 

1995–1996 and 81 percent in 1996–1997. Chignik Lake was the 

only community in which a high proportion (47 percent) of 

households reported their needs for brown bear were not met in 

1996–1997. Krieg et al. (1998) provide additional information on 

the use and significance of brown bear to Alaska Peninsula 

communities.

Brown bear have been traditionally used by residents of the 

three villages as a dietary supplement that replaced the fat lost 

when redfish (salmon) are dried. Recently, the Federal 

Subsistence Board changed the customary and traditional 

determination for bear use in GMU 9C, acknowledging the 

traditional uses of brown bear that had occurred. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-79 

3.3.3 Cultural Resources 

In addition to their abundant natural resources, the Refuges 

preserve a rich historical and cultural legacy. Fossils found on 

the Refuges date from the late Cretaceous, that critical time 

when dinosaurs became extinct. Much more recently, the 

peninsula has been a crossroads where prehistoric cultures from 

the Aleutians, Kodiak, northern Alaska, and the Alaska Interior 

met and merged, creating unique local cultures and sending 

cultural impulses throughout the North American Arctic. The 

peninsula was important in the early history of Alaska, when 

Russian explorers, trappers, and missionaries were active in the 

region. During the American period, the northern part of the 

Refuges was the scene of some of the earliest scientific oil 

exploration efforts in the world. The region also played an 

important role in the early development of Alaska’s fishing 

industry. 

Several researchers believe that Eskimo culture, reflected by 

Natives’ distinctive open-water maritime hunting tradition, had 

its origins along the Pacific Coast of the Alaska Peninsula and in 

the eastern Aleutians and Kodiak (Clark 1976; Dumond 1972; 

Dumond and Bland 1995). The peopling of the New World, the 

origins of Eskimo culture, and the origins of human adaptations 

to the rich marine environments of the North Pacific Ocean are 

all of critical importance in Arctic anthropology. The earliest 

human occupation known on the peninsula—the American 

Paleo-Arctic Tradition—dates to as early as 10,500 years ago. 

Although the earliest manifestations are those of mobile caribou 

hunters, at Ugashik Narrows among other sites, people soon 

gravitated toward the coasts and began hunting seals and sea 

lions. By 8,000 years ago, Paleo-Arctic Tradition people were 

living in Kodiak and on islands in the eastern Aleutians 

(Dumond and Bland 1995). 

By 6,000 years ago, this coastal focus had evolved into the Ocean 

Bay and early Aleutian traditions (Dumond and Bland 1995). 

Ocean Bay people developed many of the characteristics 

associated with Eskimo culture, including stone lamps for 

burning sea mammal oil, polished slate tools, and an elaborate 

bone tool technology. The economy was based on exploitation of 

sea mammals, birds, and marine fish resources (Clark 1976; 

Dumond and Bland 1995). 

Although the coasts of the Bering and Chukchi seas were 

occupied as early as was the peninsula, these areas, often 

considered the heartland of Eskimo culture, did not exhibit a 

maritime adaptation until much later. In these areas, Northern 

Archaic (4600–2900 BCE) and Arctic Small Tool tradition (3100–

1000 BCE) people were primarily hunters of land animals, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-80 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

although both did exploit coastal resources occasionally 

(Anderson 1984). The earliest maritime adaptation on the 

Chukchi and Bering sea coast is Old Whaling (1400 BCE) on 

Cape Kruzenstern, which shows technological affinities to the 

Eastern Aleutians, Alaska Peninsula, and Kodiak cultures and 

may represent an expansion of these people to new regions. 

Cultural Resource Management 

Cultural resources are variously defined in the laws and 

regulations that guide management of Federal lands. In the 

National Wildlife Refuge System’s Cultural Resource 

Management Handbook, cultural resources are defined as 

fragile nonrenewable properties, including any 

district, site, building, structure, object significant in 

American history, architecture, archaeology, 

engineering, or culture. These resources are 

significant for information they contain or the 

associations they have with past people, events or life 

ways. 

An archaeological resource is defined as 

any material remains of past human life or activities 

that are of archaeological interest—which means, 

capable of providing scientific or humanistic 

understanding of past human behavior, cultural 

adaptation, and related topics through the application 

of scholarly or scientific techniques. 

Paleontological resources, which deal with the life of past 

geologic periods as known from fossil remains, are not cultural 

resources and are not covered by legislation mandating 

protection of cultural resources. They are protected under 50 

CFR 36.31(b) and by laws concerning vandalism and theft of 

government property. 

Management of cultural resources on the Refuges is described 

in the Refuges’ Cultural Resource Guide (USFWS 1996). That 

report outlines roles and responsibilities, summarizes legislation 

governing management of cultural resources, and contains 

appendices with additional information of potential use to the 

Refuges manager. Protecting cultural resources from damage 

during Service projects is the focus of the Section 106 portion of 

the guide. That section also contains information on Native 

allotments and Native historic and cemetery sites. 

The cultural resources guide provides a list of projects 

identified by the Refuges staff in consultation with a regional 

archaeologist. The aim is to synthesize existing knowledge of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-81 

the Refuges’ cultural resources and identify a clear direction for 

additional work.

Cultural Resources on the Refuges 

There are 272 known sites on the Refuges. Most of these are 

located on Becharof Refuge and the adjoining Ugashik Unit of 

the Alaska Peninsula Refuge where 214 sites are recorded. Of 

these, 80 are listed on the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey 

(AHRS), 28 were reported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) as ANCSA 14(h)(1) selections, 66 are historic sites 

reported from other sources, and 40 are paleontological. On the 

Chignik Unit, 58 recorded sites include 44 on the AHRS, four 

from BIA, and 10 from other sources. The sites are listed in 

Appendix 2 of the Refuges’ Cultural Resource Guide. 

The refuge staff have identified several areas with 

concentrations of either fish or large mammals, including 

Ugashik Lakes, Dog Salmon River, Mother Goose Lake, Meshik 

River, and Black Lake–Chignik Lake. These areas can be 

assumed to have attracted people and are therefore also highly 

likely to contain significant concentrations of cultural resources. 

The Refuges’ Public Use Management Plan identified several 

areas of high public use. Cultural resources in these areas are at 

risk from direct and indirect impacts of public access. Of 

particular concern are the ANCSA 14(h)(1) historical places 

eligible for conveyance to Koniag Inc., and to the Bristol Bay 

Native Corporation. 

The Bristol Bay Native Corporation has expressed particular 

concern about protection of the historic site at Ugashik 

Narrows. The corporation noted that it had initially filed on this 

80-acre site under Section 14(h)(1) of ANCSA, but it eventually 

decided to relinquish the selection in exchange for lands on the 

west side of the narrows because the Service “has more 

appropriate resources to ensure adequate protection of the 

archaeological resources at the narrows.” The Bristol Bay 

Native Corporation stated that amateur archaeologists had 

already caused some damage to the site (in 1998) and that the 

potential for greater harm was high. 

3.3.4 Recreational Uses 

The primary recreational uses of the Refuges continue to be 

fishing and hunting (guided and unguided) and associated 

activities such as photography, viewing wildlife, and hiking. 

There is no evidence that the increase in ecotourism predicted 

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

occurring. For example, in 1998 and 1999 air-taxi operators 

reported a total of just two trips each year to transport wildlife 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-82 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

viewers to the Refuges. During the 1990s, however, visitation 

for wildlife viewing had increased in adjacent Katmai National 

Park and Preserve, at the established viewing area on Brooks 

River as well as at and in the Shelikof Strait coast backcountry, 

and on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, across Shelikof Strait 

from the Becharof Refuge. Recreational settings on the Refuges 

are remote and inaccessible by road. The means of access for 

most visitors is small aircraft, although some portions of the 

Refuges are accessed by boat, either from villages at the 

mouths of rivers or from the Pacific Ocean. Recreational access 

by helicopters has not been permitted. 

Nearly all recreation visitors access the Refuges with air-taxi 

operators or guides, although a few visitors use their own planes 

or boats. Information on guided use is provided to the Refuges 

by guides as part of the conditions of their required special-use 

permits. Information on unguided recreational use comes 

primarily from reports provided by the air-taxi services that 

operate on the Refuges, also under special-use permit. 

Additional information is available from the State of Alaska’s 

annual hunter and angler surveys. Recreational hunting and 

fishing on the Refuges takes place according to Alaska state 

regulations and management. A guide and outfitter operating in 

the state must have a state business license and, to operate on a 

national wildlife refuge, a Service special-use permit required 

for commercial activities. The state is therefore an important 

partner in managing recreational use on the Refuges. 

The following sections describe recent trends in use patterns for 

each of the major types of recreational use. The main game 

species hunted on the Refuges are brown bear, moose, and 

caribou; recreational anglers fish for a wide variety of species, 

depending on location. 

Recreational Fishing 

Before discussing fishing on the Refuges, it is useful to provide 

a broader context using information from the ADF&G Division 

of Sport Fish database. In Alaska, nonresident fishing license 

sales steadily increased from 1987 to 1997, from 140,000 

annually to more than 250,000. In contrast, fishing license sales 

to Alaska residents remained steady or declined slightly 

throughout the entire period, fluctuating at around 180,000. 

Nonresident license sales passed resident license sales in 1992; 

the gap has widened since, although nonresident sales declined 

from 1999 to 2000. 

In late-1997 through early-1998, the state mailed two 

questionnaires to 47,000 households (Howe et al. [in prep.]). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-83 

Results of interest include responses from the 522 respondents 

who fished in Area R (the entire Alaska Peninsula and Aleutians 

south of Naknek and Cape Douglas) and the 63 people who 

fished the Ugashik or Becharof systems. The surveys had an 

overall response rate of less than 20 percent, so the results are 

suggestive more than representative of the actual population of 

anglers. 

In 1997, an estimated 910 recreational anglers made 1,760 trips 

and fished a total of 3,325 days in the Ugashik system, including 

Upper and Lower Ugashik lakes. In the Becharof system—

including Becharof Lake, Kejulik and Egegik Rivers, and 

Shosky Creek—521 anglers took 946 trips and fished 1,087 

days. Together, the two systems accounted for a relatively small 

proportion of freshwater recreational fishing use in Area R: 18 

percent of the anglers, 10 percent of trips, and 11 percent of the 

total days, or less than 5 percent of the recreational fishing use 

of the overall Bristol Bay sport fishery. Table 3-13 shows how 

these later-1990s use levels compared to those from the early 

1990s. Although use of the two systems was fairly stable in the 

early- and mid-1990s, some fluctuations were evident. 

Recreational fishing use in 1997 was the highest of the decade. 

Table 3-13. Recreational fishing use levels, Becharof and Ugashik systems 

Year Number of Anglers Number of Trips Angler Days 

1990 810 1,207 2,576 

1991 947 1,166 2,660 

1992 1,158 2,542 3,635 

1993 1,063 1,455 2,806 

1994 1,173 2,460 4,086 

1995 1,053 1,284 1,988 

1996 1,139 1,639 3,856 

1997 1,431 2,706 4,412 

Source: ADF&G as reported in (Goldsmith et al. 1998b) 

Recreational anglers are fishing for a variety of species in the 

Becharof and Ugashik systems (Table 3-14), depending on the 

drainage and season. Dolly Varden is the most commonly 

caught species, followed by Arctic char, and silver and red 

salmon. The Refuges also support a renowned Arctic grayling 

fishery, with several records set at Ugashik Narrows. The 

Alaska Board of Fisheries closed the narrows to Arctic grayling 

harvest, based on population concerns, from 1990 through 1994, 

but catch-and-release fishing continues to be popular at this 

site. Most recreational fishing on the Refuges is catch-andrelease, although anglers keep about 25 percent to 35 percent of 

coho and sockeye salmon and lake trout. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-84 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Table 3-14. Average recreational fishing catch and harvest by species, 1990–1996, Becharof and 

Ugashik systems 

Species Catch Harvest Percentage Released 

King salmon (chinook) 662 105 84 

Silver salmon (coho) 1,800 635 65 

Red salmon (sockeye) 1,567 541 66 

Pink salmon 336 25 93 

Chum salmon 452 16 96 

Dolly Varden 4,126 293 93 

Rainbow trout 907 42 95 

Arctic char 1,874 85 95 

Northern pike 401 55 86 

Smelt 1,107 957 14 

Source: ADF&G as reported in Goldsmith et al. (1998b) 

Guided Recreational Fishing—Although the number of 

recreational fishing businesses authorized to operate on the 

Refuges has not been limited, the number of permitted 

businesses that have run trips remained steady during the 

1990s, ranging from 21 in 1993 to 23 in 1997. Four businesses 

were responsible for just more than half of the trips during that 

period. Some fishing guides use air taxis to fly in clients (about 8 

percent of air-taxi trips to the Refuges between 1988 and 1997 

were transporting fishing clients). 

One of the characteristics that guides are required to report—

rod hours fished (number of people multiplied by the number of 

hours actually spent fishing)—did not exhibit a trend between 

1993 and 1997. The number of rod hours ranged from about 

12,000 hours in 1993 to more than 10,000 in 1997, with a low of 

around 7,200 in 1996 and a high of about 16,000 in 1994. 

Guided clients hooked more Dolly Varden and Arctic char than 

any other species on the Refuges, consistently ranging from 

6,000 to 7,500 fish per year from 1993 through 1997. The other 

dominant species caught was coho salmon, with 3,000 caught in 

1993 and 1997; in 1994 and 1995, more than 5,000 were hooked. 

More cohos than any other species were kept, ranging from 

more than 400 in 1997 to nearly 1,200 in 1994. The only other 

species anglers tended to keep in any number were Dolly 

Varden and Arctic char. 

To describe guided recreational fishing use on the Refuges 

requires talking about specific lakes and streams. Over the 

seven-year period from 1993 through 1999, the nine most 

popular fishing areas were the King Salmon River (366 trips), 

Egegik River (208 trips), Gertrude Creek (150 trips), Ruth 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-85 

River (122 trips), and Featherly Creek (119 trips) on the 

Becharof Refuge (Figure 1-5) and Ugashik Narrows (320 trips), 

the Nakalilok Bay area (277 trips), Painter Creek (266 trips), 

and the Yantarni Bay airstrip area (190 trips) on the Alaska 

Peninsula Refuge (Figure 1-6). The Yantarni Bay and Nakalilok 

Bay areas, located on the Pacific coast, are each used primarily 

by one guide business, while the other areas are used by many 

guides as well as by air taxis and local villagers (villagers’ use is 

not included here). 

The top four streams on the Refuges show somewhat different 

trends in guided use from 1993 through 1999 (Figure 3-10). 

Guided use at Nakalilok Bay appears to be decreasing, levels at 

the King Salmon and Painter Creek are steady, and use at 

Ugashik Narrows has shown an upward trend since 1995. 

Ugashik Narrows

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Painter Creek

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

King Salmon River Nakaliliok Bay

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Figure 3-10. Trends in the number of guided sport fishing trips, highest-use locations 

Unguided Recreational Fishing—Air-taxi operators provide 

information on primary activity, location, length of stay, and 

group size for both recreational fishing and recreational 

hunting. 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 the 

permitted businesses actually run flights each year (Figure 

3-11). During this time period, one company has accounted for 

more than half of the trips. The total number of trips made to 

the Refuges has generally fluctuated between 140 and 190 per 

year. Most of the trips are for the purpose of recreational 

fishing or hunting. Of 160 total trips that took place in 1998, 80 

were for fishing and 70 were for hunting (Figure 3-12). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-86 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Similarly, of 182 trips in 1999, 84 were for fishing and 86 for 

hunting. 

Figure 3-11. Trends in air-taxi business 

Figure 3-12. Trends in air-taxi trips 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-87 

Figure 3-12 shows the numbers of anglers transported by air 

taxis from 1988 through 1999. The largest increase occurred in 

1990 through 1993. From 1993 through 1997, use appeared to be 

stable at about 50 trips per year, or between 500 and 1,000 

visitor days annually, to lakes and streams on the entire 

Refuges. Note that more hunters used air taxis for access than 

did anglers in the early 1990s. In the late 1990s, angler use of air 

taxis increased, with 80 trips in 1998 and 84 trips in 1999; 1998 

was the only year in which the number of angler trips by air taxi 

exceeded the number of hunting trips. 

One site often mentioned as having potential for crowding is 

Ugashik Narrows, a relatively short stretch of river between 

the two Ugashik lakes. Use of the narrows by anglers 

employing air taxis for access fluctuated considerably from 1988 

through 1997, with the greatest use occurring in 1994 and then 

dropping steadily. However, use increased during 1998 and 

1999, pointing to the area’s increasing popularity. Aside from 

the weather and changes in use patterns at the Ugashik Lakes 

lodges, one of the other factors affecting use at the narrows may 

be fishing regulations. The Ugashik drainage was closed to the 

taking of Arctic grayling from 1990 through 1994 and, as of date 

of this document, remains only catch-and-release. Creel survey 

data showed 1,340 rod hours of use from June 20 through 

September 14, 1998, compared to 2,148 hours from June 22 

through August 30, 1987. 

Recreational Hunting 

The Refuges have a national and international reputation for 

recreational hunting of brown bear and moose. Caribou have 

also been hunted, most frequently while hunters were looking 

for moose. Recreational hunting regulations and seasons are set 

by the Alaska Board of Game. About 95 percent of the Refuges 

lies within GMU 9E, with only a small part of the Becharof 

Refuge (the Big Creek drainage) within GMU 9C. 

The Service has not collected data about hunter experiences, 

satisfaction with guides, or other information that would provide 

a more complete profile of hunting on the Refuges. However, an 

ADF&G study in the mid-1990s provides information on 

nonresident big-game hunters’ Alaska hunting experiences 

(McCollum and Miller 1994). That study showed that highest 

proportions of non-Alaska hunters lived in California, Michigan, 

and Pennsylvania, each contributing about 10 percent of the 

Unit 9 hunters. Comparing the responses of people who hunted 

in Unit 9 to those of people who hunted elsewhere in the state is 

not specific to the Refuges, but does provide useful additional 

information. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-88 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Hunters in GMU 9 were more likely to say they and their 

hunting partner harvested a trophy-quality animal (36 percent 

compared to 19 percent) but were slightly less likely to report 

that getting a trophy was, to them, the most important aspect of 

hunting. GMU 9 hunters reported greater satisfaction with 

their guide than did other hunters; 69 percent strongly agreed 

that their guide delivered what they expected, compared to 58 

percent of the non-GMU 9 hunters. Eighty percent of the 

hunters in GMU 9 said they took the meat home, while 10 

percent reported giving it to locals. Finally, a higher proportion 

of GMU 9 hunters said they’d strongly consider returning to 

Alaska (85 percent, compared to 76 percent of other hunters); 

just more than 50 percent said they would consider doing 

activities other than hunting if they returned. 

Guided Recreational Hunting—The Service has divided the 

Refuges into 21 areas for management of guided big-game 

hunting: six in the Becharof Refuge, seven in the Ugashik Unit, 

and eight in the Chignik Unit of the Alaska Peninsula Refuge. 

The number of big-game hunting guides authorized to operate 

on the Refuges is generally limited to one guiding operation per 

area. Guides may have permits to operate in more than one 

area. Several areas are “joint-use areas” and are used by more 

than one guide. Guiding businesses compete for special-use 

permits, which generally allow them to operate for five years. 

The special-use permit process is described in a separate 

publication (Alaska Land Managers Forum 1997). 

The following analyses are from data contained in the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges Reporting Database (available 

from the Refuges), which cover the 1996–1999 hunting seasons 

and represent use patterns during that time periods. These 

data are compared to past trends. 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 in the 1980s and early 

1990s, before the Service’s current policy (and its limits) was 

adopted in 1992. Figure 3-13 and Figure 3-14 report use levels 

and harvests for guided bear, moose, and caribou hunts (as 

noted subsequently, recreational hunting for caribou was not 

allowed in 1999). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-89 

Figure 3-13. Guided recreational hunt harvest 

Figure 3-14. Guided recreational hunting use 

Brown Bear Hunting—Most of the Refuges are open to bear 

hunting for the fall season in odd-numbered years and for the 

spring season in even-numbered years. Nonresident bear 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-90 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

hunters are required either to hire a guide or to hunt with a 

family member who is an Alaska resident; nearly all bear 

hunting by Alaska residents is unguided. 

Guided-use levels and numbers of 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 to 1,139 and 

the number of bears harvested varied from 61 to 77. In 1996 and 

1997, 15 businesses took clients on bear-hunting trips. In 1996, 

about 100 clients hunted brown bear on the Refuges, expending 

a total of 757 hunter days and harvesting 65 bears (including 58 

males). These numbers were down slightly in 1997, when 82 

clients hunted for 647 days and harvested 54 bears (36 males). 

This downward trend in numbers of clients and bears harvested 

continued in 1998 and 1999. In 1998, 15 guiding businesses took 

a total of 69 clients on bear-hunting trips,. There were 704 

hunter days of guided bear hunting on the Refuges and 45 bears 

harvested: 39 males and six females. In 1999, 17 businesses took 

a total of 68 clients on bear-hunting trips. There were 664 

hunter days of guided bear hunting on the Refuges and 46 bears 

harvested (33 males and 13 females). 

Moose Hunting—In 1996 and 1997, 11 of the guiding businesses 

took clients on moose-hunting trips. In 1996, guides had 44 

clients who hunted on the Refuges, expending 294 hunter days 

and harvesting 38 moose. Use was comparable in 1997, when 40 

clients hunted 362 days and harvested 38 moose. Use levels in 

1998 and 1999 remained steady, but fewer moose were 

harvested. In 1998, 14 businesses took 45 clients on moosehunting trips; 370 hunter days were expended for guided moose 

hunting on the Refuges, and 31 moose harvested. In 1999, 13 

businesses took 40 clients on moose-hunting trips, expending 

298 hunter days for guided moose-hunting use on the Refuges 

and harvesting 29 moose. 

Use levels during the period of 1996 through 1999 were lower 

than in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the number of 

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

moose harvested varied from 43 to 58. 

Caribou Hunting—In 1996 and 1997, when the NAPCH 

(northern herd) numbered 10,000 to 12,000 animals, eight 

businesses took clients on caribou-hunting trips on the Refuges. 

In 1996, guides had about 50 clients who hunted on the Refuges, 

expending 208 hunter days and harvesting 36 caribou. Use 

increased in 1997, when 76 clients hunted 259 days and 

harvested 48 caribou. In 1998, use decreased markedly because 

the Alaska Board of Game passed an emergency regulation 

drastically reducing the nonresident hunting season because of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-91 

the decline in caribou numbers. Five of the businesses took 28 

clients on caribou-hunting trips, resulting in 99 hunter days of 

use on the Refuges and 21 caribou harvested. Guided caribou 

hunter use and harvest were greater in the late 1980s and early 

1990s when the northern herd numbered 17,000 to 20,000 

animals; then the number of hunter days per year ranged from 

1,078 to 1,889, and the number of caribou harvested varied from 

131 to 278. 

The continuing decline of the herd resulted in a closure of 

recreational hunting of the northern herd, thereby suspending 

guided caribou hunting until the herd recovers. The estimated 

harvestable surplus of the northern herd had reached a level by 

the end of 1998 that could not sustain the established take by 

Alaska residents. Therefore, the Alaska Board of Game adopted 

a Tier II subsistence hunt for the 1999–2000 season in GMU 9E 

and southern GMU 9C, which eliminated the nonresident hunt, 

reduced the bag limit to only one bull, closed the season during 

the rut, and allowed issuance of as many as 600 permits for 

those with the greatest dependence on the herd. 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 

1999. 

Unguided Recreational Hunting—Unguided recreational 

hunting use patterns are estimated from annual reports 

provided by air-taxi operators, who are believed to transport 

nearly all unguided recreational hunters to locations on the 

Refuges. A very small percentage of use is likely not counted; 

this includes hunters who fly their own planes to the Refuges, 

hunters who access the Refuges by boat, and illegal harvest. 

Of the air-taxi trips shown in Figure 3-11, 65 percent were taken 

for hunting and an additional 3 percent were transported for 

combined hunting-fishing trips (the rest were recreational 

fishing trips). In the 1990s, the number of air-taxi trips devoted 

to hunting ranged between 100 and 120, except for nearly 150 in 

1994. Over the 10-year period, more trips were for caribou 

hunting than any other type of hunting, but caribou-moose trips 

closely followed (Figure 3-15). Caribou-bear and bear-only trips 

were the next most frequent trip types, with just a few mooseonly trips. Bear and moose may be the primary objectives in 

combined trips, because these animals have shorter hunting 

seasons and provide more demanding hunts. In 1996, about 30 

trips were bear-only, 25 were caribou-only, and 44 were cariboumoose. In 1997, about 40 trips were taken for caribou and the 

same number for caribou-moose; 30 trips were for caribou-bear. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-92 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

This difference reflects the change in hunting seasons in even 

and odd years (in even-numbered years, there are no cariboubear hunts because bear hunting has a spring season only). 

There are no combination bear-moose hunts because these 

seasons do not overlap. As noted in the previous section, there is 

currently no recreational hunting for caribou in the Refuges; 

this situation will continue until the herd recovers sufficiently. 

Figure 3-15. Types of hunt (air taxi), 1988–1997 

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

hunting and made 86 trips in 1999, both of which were decreases 

from the preceding several years. This mirrors the trend in 

reduced guided recreational hunting use. The location of air-taxi 

drop-offs for hunting is difficult to determine from the database. 

Although air taxis are required to provide drop-off locations, 

they have not been required to report location in any consistent 

format.

Interpretation and Education 

Because of the lack of developed visitor facilities on the 

Refuges, interpretive and educational efforts occur primarily in 

King Salmon or in surrounding villages rather than onsite. The 

Refuges’ public-use staff manages and operates the King 

Salmon Interagency Visitor Center, which is located in a leased 

building at the airport in King Salmon, in cooperation with the 

National Park Service, Bristol Bay Borough, and Lake and 

Peninsula Borough. The center contains a number of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-93 

interpretive displays and exhibits, a theater, an interactive 

computer, and a book and gift store sponsored by the Alaska 

Natural History Association. Exhibit topics include common 

sport fish of the Alaska Peninsula, Native peoples and local 

history of the Alaska Peninsula, and birds. At the visitor center, 

bear-resistant food containers are available for loan free of 

charge to people visiting Federal lands on the peninsula. The 

center also contains a resource lending library that makes 

available books, curricula, videotapes, and audiovisual materials 

on natural and cultural resources. 

During 1999, some 13,000 people visited the center; those who 

signed the guest register were from 43 states and 21 countries, 

reflecting the national and international appeal of the area’s 

attractions and opportunities. 

The Refuges have an active education and outreach program. 

Environmental education programs focus on the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, the purposes for which the Refuges 

were established, and significant resource-management issues. 

The Refuges also promote conservation of geese and waterfowl 

through the Western Alaska Goose Calendar Contest and the 

Alaska Junior Federal Duck Stamp Contest. Other topics have 

included conservation of bears, birds, caribou, moose, and 

marine mammals, and predator-prey relationships. In 1999, 

Refuges’ public-use staff gave approximately 65 education 

programs in 12 villages, working with more than 600 students. 

The Refuges conduct additional programs and activities for 

special events and occasions such as National Wildlife Refuge 

week, National Wildlife Week, International Migratory Bird 

Day, and National Fishing Week. 

In cooperation with numerous other entities, the Refuges 

conduct a week-long residential camp, called the “Spirit of 

Becharof Lake” Ecosystem Science Camp, for area high school 

students. Facilities are located within the Becharof Wilderness 

Area on the Becharof NWR. Sessions integrate western science 

methodology with the traditional Native ways of knowing. 

Conflicts and Crowding 

As discussed Chapter 1, many people who provided comments 

were concerned about the potential for crowding and conflicts 

on the Refuges. The Service monitors use levels based on airtaxi operator and guide reports, but historically has not 

conducted more detailed studies that focus on crowding or 

conflicts. 

The information on recreational-use patterns discussed 

previously does not provide evidence that use is increasing 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-94 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

significantly. Use at most locations is less than levels present in 

the mid-1990s. One reason may be the closure of the air base at 

King Salmon, which removed some 300 young, active members 

from the local population. However, the Refuges remain remote 

and fairly difficult to access. Most nonlocal bear hunters use 

guides, an expensive proposition. The decline of the NAPCH 

and accompanying restrictions on nonlocal use will prevent 

recreational caribou hunting from increasing in the short term. 

Finally, no significant market has developed for ecotourism 

activities or experiences on the Refuges. 

Observation and conversation with recreation visitors in the 

field takes place as part of other studies, such as the creel 

censuses conducted periodically at Ugashik Narrows and other 

locations. At the narrows, one of the popular recreational 

settings on the Refuges, use appears to be self-regulating. Most 

of the visitors fly in with guides or air taxis (although several 

lodges access the area by boat), and if one or two floatplanes 

have already landed, other planes often continue to alternative 

fishing locations. Thus, as long as alternative sites are available, 

use levels at the site may deter others from landing there on a 

given day. Users at the site also appear to be able to space 

themselves out well, because most of the reach can be fished 

from both sides by anglers wearing waders. There is little or no 

evidence of current subsistence use at the site, minimizing the 

potential for conflict between recreational and subsistence 

users. At a public meeting at Pilot Point in 1999, however, some 

residents said local people no longer visit the narrows because 

of crowding; one person had visited there the previous summer 

by boat and thought that it was crowded. 

The potential for conflicts between recreational and subsistence 

users has been well documented (Wolfe 1988). Not only do these 

groups live in very different places, they come from different 

cultures and may be unaware of, or disturbed by, other cultural 

norms. For example, catch-and-release fishing is practiced by 

most refuge recreational anglers who believe they are 

conserving fish populations and behaving in a socially 

responsible manner. Local residents, however, may view this as 

playing with food, as a practice that not only leads to pointless 

mortality but is disrespectful (Wolfe 1988). Nonlocals may not 

be aware that they are trespassing on corporation land or are at 

a local user’s traditional site. Many times, a subsistence user 

may simply continue past the favored site if it is occupied, so the 

nonlocal will not know of the intrusion. Law enforcement at 

remote recreational locations is virtually nonexistent if 

problems do occur. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-95 

Another issue of concern expressed by subsistence users has 

been conflict with recreational users in terms of the opportunity 

to gather, hunt, and fish in preferred ways and at preferred 

places and times. Beginning in 1993, the Egegik Village Council 

submitted proposals to the Federal Subsistence Board to close 

lands in the Severson Peninsula area of Becharof Lake to the 

taking of moose and caribou except by qualified rural residents. 

They stated, “Sport hunting of moose and caribou in this area is 

affecting the migration path as well as the availability of caribou 

for the subsistence user.” Although the subsistence board 

rejected the proposal, it directed that the staff of the Refuges 

monitor hunting activity in the area and develop methods to 

resolve conflicts. 

Monitoring during 1994 did not find significant recreational 

hunting of caribou; however, it did find a high density of 

recreational hunting (19 camps with 36 hunters) during the 

September 10–20 state moose-hunting season. This recreational 

hunting effort for moose presented significant competition to 

qualified rural subsistence hunters. Therefore, the refuge 

manager worked with the local air-taxi operators to reduce the 

number of recreational moose hunters using the Severson 

Peninsula area beginning in 1995 (Hood 1995). 

Other locations are used heavily by both recreational visitors 

(typically nonresidents) and local subsistence users. One 

location mentioned by several people as a problem area is 

known as the Becharof Outlet, where the Egegik River flows 

out of Becharof Lake some 32 miles upstream from Bristol Bay. 

The 5-mile-long area lies partially on lands owned by a village 

corporation (the Becharof Corporation) and partially on the 

Becharof Refuge. The area is used by Egegik residents who use 

motorboats to go upriver and by recreational anglers who fly in 

on floatplanes or wheeled planes or who boat upriver. Use is 

believed to be heaviest during the peak coho salmon run, 

typically from late July through September. 

In response to concerns raised by residents of Egegik during 

scoping meetings in 1998–1999, the Refuges began a monitoring 

program during summer 1999 to study use patterns at the 

outlet and to identify possible crowding and conflict (this was 

also the original rationale for an earlier creel survey at the 

narrows). The study (Bundy 1999) found that local users spent 

nearly all their time on the Refuges, whereas nonlocal visitors 

spent 72 percent of the time off the Refuges, nearly all of which 

was day use. During the 54-day study period, 121 groups were 

observed; on the highest-use day, seven groups were present. 

About two-thirds of the users were from outside the local area 

and nearly all arrived by float plane. Two recreational fishing-
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-96 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

guide businesses accounted for about 70 percent of nonlocal 

visitors. 

Researchers believed that during periods of high visitation, 

users were self-regulating. If three float planes were in the 

lagoon and another plane appeared, the incoming plane would 

usually circle and then leave. However, the salmon run was poor 

during the study, and it is possible that people determined there 

weren’t enough cohos in the area to entice them to land. Of the 

people using the Refuges, most were fishing, but people also 

hunted ptarmigan, picked berries, picnicked, or traveled 

through the study area to access Becharof Lake. 

Monitoring public use continued during the summer of 2000 at 

the outlet study area. In a 51-day study period, 101 groups (with 

a total of 574 individuals) were observed. As in 1999, two-thirds 

of the users from outside the local area arrived by floatplane.

In summary, public use for the years 1999 and 2000 was almost 

identical. There was little evidence of crowding or conflicts on 

the Refuges during the time of year when most users visit. The 

results should be viewed as tentative, because the coho salmon 

run arrived several weeks later than normal and had belowaverage numbers in both 1999 and 2000. On August 23, 1999, the 

state reduced the daily bag and possession limit from five fish to 

one, which could have affected some 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 studies 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. 

3.4 Wilderness Values Assessing wilderness values can be a challenging task. At the 

finest level of analysis, every person may have his or her own 

highly subjective vision of wilderness based on personal 

experience and other influences. At a broader level, however, 

certain fundamental qualities of wilderness have been identified 

and codified in law. To evaluate the wilderness values of these 

refuges, two closely linked characteristics were considered: 

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. These are key components of a wilderness setting as 

defined in Section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-97 

Naturalness describes the qualities of an area where natural 

ecological processes dominate without visible signs of human 

manipulation or a permanent human presence. Solitude is a 

state of mind facilitated by environments that are largely free of 

the sights and sounds of other people. Areas where there are 

opportunities for solitude also tend to facilitate primitive 

recreation—a kind of use that is dispersed, undeveloped, and 

does not require facilities on site. 

In Alaska, wilderness can be a living, working area where 

subsistence and other traditional activities continue. ANILCA 

allows for the use of certain methods of motorized access in 

association with these activities and allows for the presence of 

cabins for public and other uses. As a result, recreation visitors 

to some locations on the Refuges may experience evidence of 

these activities. 

The areas described in the following text (and shown in Figure 

3-16) all have considerable naturalness and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation, although the degree of these 

characteristics in a given area may vary depending on its 

location. 

3.4.1 Becharof National Wildlife Refuge 

Becharof Wilderness Area8

The 502,900-acre Becharof Wilderness, established by ANILCA 

in 1980, is the only designated Wilderness area on the Refuges. 

This Wilderness area encompasses Federal lands within a 

portion of Becharof Lake and about one-third of the total 

acreage of the Becharof Refuge. It shares a border with 

designated Wilderness in the Katmai National Park and 

Preserve and is bounded on the southeast by the Pacific Ocean. 

Tremendous numbers of salmon that spawn in the Becharof 

Lake watershed attract dense concentrations of brown bears to 

the area. Some bears den on islands in the lake—an extremely 

rare behavior. On the Pacific coast, Puale Bay provides haul-out 

beaches for Steller sea lions and other marine mammals. 

In general, the area is remote, and access is primarily by small 

aircraft. Visitors are unlikely to encounter other people or 

evidence of people, so opportunities for solitude are excellent. 

There are abundant opportunities for viewing wildlife, hunting, 

fishing, and other recreational activities in an undeveloped 

setting. 

 

8

 This description was adapted from information provided on the National Wilderness Preservation 

System database, maintained at http://www.wilderness.net. To link directly to the Becharof Wilderness 

page, go to http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/wild_view.cfm?wname=becharof. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-98 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NW

Figure 3-16. Areas with wilderness values 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-99 

Island Arm and Mount Peulik 

This area is bounded on the north by Becharof Lake and the 

designated Becharof Wilderness, on the east by the Pacific 

Ocean, and on the south by the Alaska Peninsula Refuge. It 

encompasses approximately 158,000 acres. In association with 

Becharof Lake, this area contains some of the highest-quality 

fish and wildlife habitats on the Alaska Peninsula. The 

tributaries of Island Arm provide spawning and rearing habitat 

for about 85 percent of the salmon spawned in the Becharof 

Lake drainage. These salmon, in turn, support a large, dense 

population of brown bears that congregates in the summer on 

the spawning streams. Bear Creek, which forms the border with 

the designated Wilderness to the north, is considered a valuable 

bear-denning area. Many caribou migration routes pass through 

the area as well. There are historic and cultural sites on Portage 

Bay (Kanatak) and near Ruth Lake (see Section 3.3.3). 

Mount Peulik and the nearby Gas Rocks area is one of Alaska’s 

most recently active volcanic sites. The 1977 eruption that 

formed the Ukinrek Maars9

 received international attention 

from the scientific world. Maars formation has only been 

witnessed one other time in recorded history. The Gas Rocks 

area produces gaseous emissions that can usually be seen 

bubbling up from the bottom of Becharof Lake. In combination, 

these volcanic features contribute to a varied and dramatic 

scenic landscape. Steep-sided mountains rise from the tundra 

and, on the Pacific side, the mountains end abruptly, forming 

rugged cliffs on the coast. 

Along with wildlife resources, historical and cultural values, and 

geologic and associated scientific, educational, and scenic values, 

this area offers outstanding opportunities for solitude. Except 

for some old cabins and the limited remnants of past oil 

exploration, very little evidence of human activity exists in the 

area. The region is large and remote. Consequently, the level of 

use is relatively low, and visitors are unlikely to encounter more 

than a few other people. Remoteness and rugged topography 

provide ample opportunities for the kinds of experiences that 

characterize primitive recreation, including isolation, selfreliance, challenge, and risk. 

This area is included in the existing Wilderness 

recommendation (see Section 3.4.4). 

 

9

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

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

Maars often fill with water to form a lake. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-100 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Becharof Lowlands Area 

This area is located north of Becharof Lake and the Island Arm 

and Mount Peulik area. It is bounded on its north by the Big 

Creek Uplands, on the east by the designated Becharof 

Wilderness, and on the west by state and private lands. The 

area encompasses approximately 259,000 acres of low, rolling 

tundra. The Egegik River flows out of Becharof Lake, and the 

King Salmon River drains the northern part of the area. Both of 

these streams are important to the migration and spawning of 

the five species of Pacific salmon native in Alaska. The area 

provides key habitat for brown bear and caribou and contains 

important habitat for waterfowl. 

Wildlife resources are a key attraction, and most visitors to the 

area are caribou hunters. There is little evidence of human use, 

aside from a few remnants of past oil exploration, and visitor 

use levels are low. Visitors can expect to experience a high 

degree of solitude. The remote location of the area and the low, 

wet terrain provide ample opportunities for primitive recreation 

experiences such as isolation and challenge. 

Big Creek and Katmai Uplands 

This area is located north and east of the Becharof Lowlands. It 

is bounded on the east by designated Wilderness in Katmai 

National Park and Preserve and by the designated Becharof 

Wilderness to the south. To the north, it is bounded by state and 

private lands; to the south and west, it is bounded by the 

Becharof Lowlands. The area encompasses approximately 

189,000 acres. 

The headwaters of the King Salmon River, including Gertrude 

Creek, are in this area. The King Salmon River drainage has 

important spawning and rearing habitats for the five species of 

Pacific salmon native to Alaska, as well as valuable brown bear 

and caribou habitat. Gertrude Creek is a high-quality stream for 

rainbow trout and Arctic grayling fishing. It is also part of a 

traditional caribou migration corridor. The Big Creek drainage 

and Granite Peak area provide habitat for salmon, moose, and 

caribou, as well as brown bear denning areas. This area is 

remote, and there is little evidence of human use. Most access is 

by small aircraft, and public use levels are low. These 

conditions—combined with the rugged, undeveloped terrain—

provide outstanding opportunities for visitors to experience 

solitude and enjoy primitive recreation. 

This area is included in the existing Wilderness 

recommendation (see Section 3.4.4). 

3.4.2 Alaska Peninsula Refuge 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-101 

Ugashik Unit 

This area is bounded by the Becharof Refuge to the north and 

the Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve to the south. 

To the east, it is bounded by the Pacific Ocean and to the west 

by state and private lands. The unit encompasses approximately 

1,141,000 acres and includes Upper and Lower Ugashik lakes 

and the southern flanks of Mount Peulik. The Ugashik lakes are 

world-renowned for trophy Arctic grayling fishing. The lakes 

support large numbers of lake trout, Dolly Varden, Arctic char, 

and the five species of Pacific salmon native to Alaska. 

Large numbers of waterfowl and waterbirds—particularly 

tundra swans, loons, and cranes—use lowlands east of the 

Ugashik lakes, the Dog Salmon River drainage, and the Mother 

Goose Lake area for nesting, molting, and staging in the spring 

and fall. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons nest on cliffs along 

the Pacific coastline, and colonies of marine birds such as 

murres and kittiwakes can be found along the coast. Brown 

bear, moose, and caribou use the diverse habitats of this unit. 

The Dog Salmon River is one of the most important moose 

concentration areas on the peninsula. 

The Ugashik Unit has important geologic and related scenic 

values. The area contains fjords, volcanic peaks, rugged cliffs, 

and glaciers. Mount Chiginagak, a volcano southeast of Mother 

Goose Lake, rises to 6,700 feet and has active steam vents. The 

coast in the Chiginigak vicinity includes bays, small rocky 

islands, extensive bay-head tidal flats, and a chain of both round 

and peaked volcanoes. 

The area receives relatively high use for subsistence and 

recreational hunting and fishing. The Ugashik lakes and Mother 

Goose Lake are important access points that facilitate the 

greatest concentration of recreational use on the Refuge. 

However, given the large scale and remote nature of the unit, 

visitors can still expect to encounter few other people or signs of 

people. The rugged and varied terrain provides outstanding 

opportunities for primitive recreation. 

The area acquired in the Yantarni Bay exchange is located in 

the southern tip of this management unit. It abuts the 

Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve and Pacific Ocean 

to the south and east and the rest of the Ugashik Unit to the 

west and north. It exhibits the same characteristics as other 

portions of this unit that border the Pacific Ocean. 

The existing Wilderness recommendation (see Section 3.4.4) 

includes 12,800 acres of this unit abutting the Island Arm and 

Mount Peulik area. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-102 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Chignik Unit 

This area extends from Aniakchak National Monument and 

Preserve in the north to the division between the Chignik and 

Pavlof units at the head of Port Moller Bay. It encompasses 

approximately 1,590,000 acres. The Meshik River is one of the 

six most important salmon-spawning systems for the Bristol 

Bay region. The upper reaches of this river support 

concentrations of moose and brown bears. The unit contains the 

main north-south migrational corridor of the NAPCH. Moose 

are found in the Bear River–Sandy Lake, Chignik Lake, Mount 

Veniaminof, and Amber Bay areas, which all have extensive 

willow thickets. Wolves, wolverines, and river otters inhabit the 

unit. 

This unit has several outstanding geologic and related scenic 

features. Mount Veniaminof, a massive stratovolcano 40 miles in 

diameter at its base, contains North America’s only known 

active volcanic vent within a glacier and was designated a 

national natural landmark in 1981. The Castle Cape fjords 

consist of extremely rugged mountains deeply indented by the 

sea. The Cape itself serves as a famous landmark for ship and 

airplane travelers. 

This area is extremely remote and sparsely populated. Villages 

in the vicinity include Port Heiden to the north; Chignik Lake, 

Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Bay, Perryville, and Ivanof Bay on the 

Pacific Side; and Port Moller near the southern end. There has 

been some oil exploration in the area, and one well was drilled 

about six miles north of Stepovak Bay. However, there are 

generally very few people or signs of people. Severe storms with 

intense winds occur year-round. Inclement weather combined 

with extremely rugged terrain limits visitation so that visitors 

have a very low likelihood of encountering others and are 

relatively ensured of experiencing a high degree of isolation and 

challenge. 

The existing Wilderness recommendation (see Section 3.4.4) 

includes 468,800 acres of this unit. This majority of the acreage 

in this recommendation includes the Mount Veniaminof volcano. 

Smaller areas are abutting and near Seal Cape. 

3.4.3 Alaska Maritime Refuge 

Seal Cape 

Seal Cape provides nesting areas for numerous bird species, 

including cormorants, black-legged kittiwakes, glaucous-winged 

gulls, and murrelets. Its extremely rugged coastline is deeply 

indented by fjordlike bays. Cliffs, which line much of the 

coastline, reach heights of more than 2,000 feet. The scenery is 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-103 

spectacular, with fjords and deeply cut bays set against a 

backdrop of jagged peaks and pinnacles. This area is very 

rugged and remote; it provides outstanding opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation. This 9,900-acre area is 

included in the existing Wilderness recommendation (see 

Section 3.4.4). 

3.4.4 Existing Wilderness Recommendation 

As directed by ANILCA, Wilderness review amendments and 

supplemental environmental impact statements were developed 

for the nondesignated portions of these Refuges. This 

recommendation and the review process were described in the 

Final Supplemental EISs (USFWS 1985c) for each refuge (the 

Refuges were managed separately when the first conservation 

plans and Wilderness reviews were completed). 

The existing recommendation (Figure 3-17) for designation of 

an additional 890,100 acres as Wilderness includes portions in 

all units of these refuges. Included are 347,000 acres of the 

Becharof Refuge; 12,800 acres of the Ugashik Unit, and 468,800 

acres of the Chignik Unit of Alaska Peninsula Refuge plus the 

9,900 Seal Cape Unit of Alaska Maritime Refuge. 

Since the 1988 wilderness review was conducted, several parcels 

have been added to the Refuges. The largest of these, the 1993 

Yantarni Bay exchange, was a legislatively directed land 

exchange that added 43,100 acres to the Alaska Peninsula 

Refuge. Although this parcel is large enough to be considered 

for a Wilderness recommendation, its characteristics do not 

make it stand out from the surrounding lands. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-104 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NW

Figure 3-17. Existing Wilderness recommendation 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-105 

3.5 River Values 

This section describes ten rivers and segments of rivers that 

have outstanding values. They are considered to be exceptional 

examples of the rivers on the Refuges. All of these rivers are 

free-flowing. They were evaluated based on a number of other 

characteristics, including abundance of and importance to fish 

and wildlife populations, recreation opportunities, geology, and 

cultural resources. The findings can be modified based on new 

information received in comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-109 

3.5.1 Becharof Refuge 

King Salmon River 

The segment of the King Salmon River within the Refuges 

begins at the Katmai National Park and Preserve boundary 

below the confluence of Angle, Takayoto, and Contact creeks 

and ends at the Refuge boundary about 20 river miles above 

Egegik Bay, for a total of 38.7 river miles. The entire river 

corridor discussed here is on Federal lands within the Becharof 

Refuge. It flows through rolling tundra and shrub lands at a 

relatively gentle gradient and is typically shallow and braided 

with frequent gravel bars. Fish and wildlife in this river corridor 

include a diversity of resident and anadromous fish, including 

significant populations of rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, Dolly 

Varden, and round whitefish, as well as runs of chum, chinook, 

pink, and coho salmon. Moose, caribou, and brown bear forage 

within the drainage. Similar big game and fishery values occur 

on many rivers of the Alaska Peninsula. Drainages that include 

lakes have substantial sockeye runs in addition to other salmon 

species. 

Scenery and recreation opportunities are identified as 

outstanding values of the King Salmon River. Scenic values 

include vistas of rugged highlands, including mountain glaciers 

covering actively steaming volcanoes. Large expanses of 

maritime tundra in mosaic with shrubs and wetlands can be 

seen from the lower parts of the river. The stream is braided for 

much of its length. Similar braided streams with vistas of 

mountains and expanses of tundra exist on the Alaska Peninsula 

(e.g., Sandy River and Muddy River near Port Moller and the 

Meshik River draining into Port Heiden), but there are no 

comparable lengths of such a stream within Refuge boundaries. 

Recreational values include excellent opportunities for angling 

and moose hunting. These may be pursued from fixed camps or 

by floating the river. Similar opportunities exist on similar 

terrain on the Sandy, Muddy, and Meshik rivers. 

Ruth River and Lake 

The Ruth River and Ruth Lake combination includes the area 

from the headwaters above Ruth Lake to the mouth of Ruth 

River on Island Arm of Becharof Lake, a total of 1.5 miles of 

river and 9 miles of lakeshore. The corridor is located on 

Federal lands within Becharof Refuge; Native selections exist 

at the mouth of Ruth River. 

Steep mountain walls surround Ruth Lake and rise to peaks 

where snowfields more than 2,000 feet above the lake persist 

through the summer. The lower Ruth River flows about a mile 

through tundra and shrub thickets to the Island Arm of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-110 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Becharof Lake. Brown bears concentrate on the river to fish for 

salmon. Moose, caribou, and beaver are common in the area. 

The mouth of Ruth River is a popular site for recreational 

anglers who access the site by floatplane to target Dolly Varden 

and sockeye salmon. Both subsistence and recreational moose 

hunters use the area. A big-game guide has a permitted spike 

camp at the outlet of Ruth Lake. 

The outstanding values identified for Ruth River and Lake are 

scenery and geology. The combination of a medium-sized lake in 

a steep mountain valley connecting by a short river into an arm 

of a major lake is unique on the peninsula. The scenery is an 

outstanding example, even by Alaska Peninsula standards, of a 

beautiful mountain valley. Similar scenic values are present on 

other rivers in the region, but they are truly exemplary on the 

Ruth. Fishery and wildlife values and hunting and fishing 

opportunities are typical for this habitat on the peninsula. 

3.5.1 Alaska Peninsula Refuge— 

Ugashik Unit 

Ugashik Narrows 

The Ugashik Narrows is a 0.7-mile long river that flows from 

the outlet of Upper Ugashik Lake to the inlet of Lower Ugashik 

Lake. The western (right) bank of the narrows and the island in 

the middle of the narrows are Federal land. The eastern (left) 

bank is private, including an ANCSA 14(h)(1) parcel, a large 

Native allotment, and a private parcel. 

Surrounding lands are dominated by shrub thickets mixed with 

beach grass and wet and dry meadows. Big-game animals and 

furbearers use the area, but the narrows are not of particular 

importance to them (e.g., brown bear do not concentrate there 

to fish for salmon). Avian use of the area includes breeding 

migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds, upland game 

birds, and resident raptors, such as bald eagles. The narrows 

offer scenic vistas of the mountains toward the Pacific, including 

the Mt. Chiginagak volcano. The identified outstanding values 

for Ugashik Narrows are recreational (fishing), geological, and 

cultural. 

Recreational values are outstanding for angling for trophy 

Arctic grayling in combination with several other popular sport 

fish. The narrows is renowned among anglers for Arctic 

grayling; the Alaska record was caught there in 1981 (ADF&G 

2003). Other species of interest in the recreational fishery 

include coho salmon, sockeye salmon, Arctic char, Dolly Varden, 

and lake trout (Jaenicke and Squibb 2000). Recreational anglers 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-111 

from around the world visit the area, which is among the more 

heavily used sites on the Refuges. 

The Ugashik Narrows is a unique geologic feature on the 

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

joined by a shallow-flowing narrows. Similar connections 

between large arms and main bodies of lakes occur in the area 

at the juncture of Island Arm and Becharof Lake and at the gap 

through Iliuk Moraine in Naknek Lake, but these are deep 

water. The Ugashik Narrows can be forded in chest waders in 

some conditions. 

Evidence of the earliest known human habitation of the Refuges 

was discovered at Ugashik Narrows (Dumond and Moore 1977). 

The Narrows was important to prehistoric Native communities, 

as evidenced by archaeological remains on both sides of the 

stream, and the area remains popular among local subsistence 

users from the communities of Ugashik and Pilot Point. The 

Cultural Resource Guide for the Refuges (USFWS 1996) lists 

Ugashik Narrows as one of two sites on the Refuges that have 

highest priority for the Service working cooperatively with 

Native corporations to develop a site-preservation plan. 

Dog Salmon River 

From its headwaters on Mt. Kialagvik and Mt. Chiginagak, the 

Dog Salmon River flows 45 miles through Federal lands. As the 

river descends, it becomes a braided glacial river before 

entering the marshes and lakes of the valley floor, where it 

emerges as a meandering river of oxbows before reaching the 

Refuge boundary. 

Habitat of the drainage changes from the steep mountain valley 

of the river’s origin, where alders dominate lower slopes, to the 

marshes and lakes of the valley floor, where the river’s gradient 

becomes almost flat. Caribou summer in the area, grazing the 

lush wetlands and using the highlands on warm, calm days. The 

upper part of the drainage provides good-quality moose habitat. 

Fishery resources of the drainage include chinook, chum, coho, 

pink, and sockeye salmon. Resident fish species include Dolly 

Varden, Arctic char, round whitefish, stickleback, sculpin, and 

blackfish. 

The lower Dog Salmon River drainage is within the limited 

nesting range of the Alaska subspecies of the marbled godwit 

(Limosa fedoa beringiae) (Gibson and Kessel 1989). The only 

recorded nest of this small population was discovered in 1992 in 

the Dog Salmon drainage within Federal lands of the Alaska 

Peninsula Refuge (North et al. 1996; North and Tucker 1992). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-112 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Public use in the drainage is relatively light for the northern 

Alaska Peninsula. Some local subsistence hunters hunt big 

game in the area. Two big-game guides are permitted a 

combined total of two base camps and 15 spike camps in the 

drainage. 

The river corridor contains outstanding scenic, geologic, and 

wildlife values. Scenic values unique within the Alaska 

Peninsula include a slow-meandering river flowing through lush 

wetlands flanked by high ridges plus headwaters on a snowcapped volcano and a glacier-topped mountain. Scenery is 

present at a comparable level or scale on few other rivers in the 

region. 

The Dog Salmon River is unique on the peninsula in that it is a 

slow-meandering river that originates directly from mountain 

headwaters before flowing through wetlands. The other slowmeandering rivers in this area originate directly from large 

lakes. The Dog Salmon River flows through areas with 

moderate to high potential for presence of hydrocarbons but 

with unknown economic feasibility for extraction (Banet 2000). 

Outstanding wildlife values include the river’s contribution to 

the small and poorly defined nesting range of the Alaska 

subspecies of marbled godwit and its position in the core area of 

relatively higher-quality moose habitat on the Alaska Peninsula. 

King Salmon River 

From the outlet of Mother Goose Lake to the Refuges 

boundary, the King Salmon River10 flows 16.6 miles through 

Federal lands, except for one private parcel occupying the half 

section of land immediately south of the outlet of Mother Goose 

Lake. Near the outlet of Mother Goose Lake, the river flows 

through a mix of poplar woodlands and shrub lands. 

Surrounding lands change to low shrubs and marshes as the 

river approaches the Refuges boundary. Painter Creek joins the 

King Salmon River less than a mile below the lake outlet. 

Scenery at the outlet of the lake is spectacular, with a vista of 

Mother Goose Lake and glacier-covered Chiginagak volcano. 

Public use in the drainage is moderate for the northern Alaska 

Peninsula. Subsistence hunters from local villages and guided 

and unguided recreational hunters hunt big game here. 

Recreational anglers, often guided, fish the King Salmon River, 

particularly the area at the confluence of Painter Creek where 

coho salmon are available. 

 

10 This King Salmon River is not the same as the King Salmon River in the Becharof Refuge, discussed 

previously. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-113 

Lands surrounding Mother Goose Lake and the upper part of 

the King Salmon River have the largest expanse of deciduous 

forest on the Alaska Peninsula southwest of Katmai National 

Park. Although scattered small stands exist elsewhere, this 

large area of forest is unique on the peninsula. Fishery 

resources of the drainage include resident Dolly Varden and 

Arctic char and anadromous chinook, sockeye, chum, pink, and 

coho salmon. The outlet of Mother Goose Lake is the farthest 

north site for overwintering tundra swans, with 50–100 swans 

spending the winter there. 

Scenic and fish and wildlife values have been identified as 

outstanding. The scenic vista of a relatively large lake with a 

snow-covered, active volcano in the background occurs in only a 

few places on the upper Alaska Peninsula. Mt. Veniaminof can 

be seen from both Black Lake and Sandy Lake, but at a much 

greater distance (20+ miles) from the peak than from Mother 

Goose Lake to Chiginagak (10 miles). The deciduous forest 

along King Salmon River and around Mother Goose Lake is 

unique. It provides habitat to many breeding songbirds, moose, 

beaver, hare, and lynx as well as to occasional brown bear and 

caribou. The lands along the King Salmon River provide highquality moose habitat. 

Port Wrangell River 

From headwaters in the glaciers of Mt. Kialagvik, the Port 

Wrangell River and its two significant branches and their 

tributaries flow through Federal lands into a small tidal channel 

off Port Wrangell Bay. Including several associated small lakes 

and tributaries, the total corridor length is 10 miles. For a few 

miles before it empties into a long, narrow tidal channel, the 

river is a cloudy, braided glacial stream through a valley floor. 

The stream is deep enough that it cannot be readily forded after 

it reaches its valley floor. Perched lakes rest in exposed bedrock 

on a high bench above the river. 

Moose, caribou, and bear occur in the drainage. Caribou use the 

snowfields of the drainage on warm, calm days. Fishery 

resources include pink, chum, sockeye, and coho salmon and 

Dolly Varden. Public use of the area is low. A big-game guide 

uses two permitted spike camps in the drainages of Port 

Wrangell Bay. 

Scenery is the identified outstanding river value. The drainage 

offers spectacular scenery exemplary of the rugged Pacific 

coast of the Alaska Peninsula. The combination of glaciated 

mountains, rocky sea coast, exposed rock formations containing 

perched lakes, and a long tidal channel make this an 

outstandingly beautiful river corridor. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-114 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Agripina River 

Agripina River is a steep mountain stream that flows 6 miles 

through a small, narrow valley on Federal lands from its 

headwaters in the glaciers of Icy Peak before reaching tidal 

flats at Agripina Bay. 

Moose, caribou, and bear use habitat in the drainage. Caribou 

use the snowfields of the drainage on warm, calm days. Fishery 

resources include pink, chum, and coho salmon and Dolly 

Varden. Public use of the area is low. A big-game guide uses two 

permitted spike camps in the drainages of Agripina Bay during 

some hunting seasons. The stream has several holes with 

abundant char; this population appears small enough that it 

could easily be overexploited if exposed to significant angling 

pressure. 

Scenery is the identified outstanding river value. The drainage 

offers spectacular scenery exemplary of the rugged Pacific 

coast of the Alaska Peninsula. Adjacent to the mouth of the 

river is a long, narrow lagoon in bedrock. The combination of 

glaciated mountains and rocky sea coast dissected by many 

small bays and inlets make this an outstandingly beautiful 

drainage on the Pacific coast. 

3.5.2 Chignik Unit 

Upper Sandy River 

The Upper Sandy River flows, from its headwaters in Sandy 

River Pass below Mt. Veniaminof to Sandy Lake, 19 miles 

through Federal land. The upper Sandy River offers scenery of 

a spectacular volcanic landscape where rubble with scattered 

patches of vegetation meets the glaciers of Mt. Veniaminof in 

the steep valley below Sandy River Pass. From these 

headwaters, the river flows through tundra and shrublands until 

the braided stream forms a broad delta as it empties into Sandy 

Lake. 

Although substantial public use, especially fishing, occurs on the 

Sandy River below Sandy Lake, use of the river above the lake 

is low. A big-game guide permitted by the Refuges uses a cabin 

and three spike camps in the upper drainage. 

Caribou use the area, but at low numbers in recent years. Local 

subsistence hunters state that the Sandy River Pass area was a 

traditional place to find caribou when they were not available in 

the lowlands near the village of Ivanof Bay and that the pass 

was a caribou migration route between Bristol Bay and Pacific 

drainages. The Upper Sandy River offers little moose habitat. 

However, the braids of the river entering Sandy Lake provide 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-115 

spawning habitat for sockeye salmon and attract moderate 

concentrations of brown bears. Other fishery resources of the 

Upper Sandy River include chum, coho, and pink salmon; 

resident fish species include Dolly Varden, Arctic char, round 

whitefish, stickleback, sculpin, and blackfish. 

Scenery is the river corridor’s outstanding value. The scenery of 

the Upper Sandy River, formed by glaciers and volcanic 

eruption, is exemplary among the spectacular scenery of other 

Alaska Peninsula rivers. 

Black Lake–Chignik River Tributary Complex (West): West 

Fork Chignik River and Bearskin Creek 

These streams originate in the highlands west of Chignik Lake, 

flowing 44 miles before entering the Chignik River near Black 

Lake. The river corridors consist of Federal lands. The West 

Fork of the Chignik River originates in three major stems from 

the Pacific-Bering drainage divide; at this confluence, the 

stream is already in a valley floor more than a mile across. Bear 

Skin Creek originates in two stems: one from the steep-walled, 

narrow Bearskin Gulch and another from the east side of Knife 

Peak. 

The Black Lake–Chignik River Tributary Complex (West), of 

West Fork Chignik River and Bearskin Creek, provides an 

outstanding example of fish and wildlife values on the Alaska 

Peninsula because of the concentration of spawning sockeye 

salmon and the large numbers of brown bear that the fish 

attract. The size of this run and the number of bears that 

depend on it are truly exemplary. 

The tributary streams of Black Lake and the main stem of the 

Chignik River constitute the majority of the spawning grounds 

of the Chignik sockeye salmon run, the only major sockeye run 

on the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula. This run is a 

mainstay of the Chignik community economy. In 2000, more 

than 800,000 sockeye salmon entered the Chignik system. The 

run provides an important subsistence resource to the local 

communities. The five species of Pacific salmon (native to 

Alaska) all spawn in the Black and Chignik lakes drainage. 

The tributary streams of Black Lake and the Chignik River 

host the greatest seasonal congregation of brown bears on the 

Alaska Peninsula. As many as 500 bears concentrate on these 

streams to fish for salmon during August. About 100 of these 

congregate on West Fork Chignik River and Bearskin Creek, 

with almost all of their effort occurring on Federal lands on the 

upper parts of those streams. Berry flats in the valley floor of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-116 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

the West Fork and Bearskin drainages provide bears a 

secondary source of food (Hicks 1999). 

Public use of the Black Lake and Chignik River drainage is low 

to moderate. Subsistence and recreational hunters hunt for 

moose, bear, and caribou in the area. There are many Native 

allotments around Black Lake, along the Chignik River, and on 

the shore of Chignik Lake. 

Black Lake–Chignik River Tributary Complex (East): 

Chiaktuak (Red Salmon) Creek, Fan Creek, and Alec River 

From their origins in the highlands east of Black Lake and 

Chignik Lake, these streams and their small tributaries flow a 

total of 27 miles through Federal lands. The upper drainages 

are steep-walled but with relatively low gradients. They 

converge into a lowland immediately east of Black Lake and 

Chignik River before entering the marshes east of Black Lake 

(Alec River and Fan Creek) or directly draining into the 

Chignik River (Chiaktuak Creek). 

The Black Lake–Chignik Tributary Complex (East)—of Alec 

River, Fan Creek, and Chiaktuak Creek—provides an 

outstanding example of fish and wildlife values on the Alaska 

Peninsula because of the concentration of spawning sockeye 

salmon and the large numbers of brown bear attracted by the 

fish The size of the run and the number of bears that depend on 

it is truly exemplary. 

The tributary streams of Black Lake and the main stem of the 

Chignik River constitute the majority of the spawning grounds 

of the Chignik sockeye salmon run, which is the only major 

sockeye run on the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula. This 

run is a mainstay of the Chignik community economy. In 2000, 

more than 800,000 sockeye salmon entered the Chignik system. 

The run also provides an important subsistence resource to the 

local communities. 

The tributary streams of Black Lake and the Chignik River 

host the greatest seasonal congregation of brown bears on the 

Alaska Peninsula. As many as 400 bears congregate on the Alec 

River and tributaries of Fan, Boulevard, and Broad creeks; 

perhaps 20 percent of their effort occurs on the Federal lands 

along those streams. Chiaktuak Creek attracts bears later in 

the year when a later component of the run begins spawning in 

large numbers there (Hicks 1999). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-117 

Public use of the Black Lake and Chignik River drainage is low 

to moderate. Subsistence and recreational hunters hunt for 

moose, bear, and caribou in the area. There are many Native 

allotments around Black Lake, along the Chignik River, and on 

the shore of Chignik Lake. 

3.6 Refuge Infrastructure and 

Administration 

3.6.1 Facilities 

Administrative facilities include offices; visitor center and 

contact stations; residences (quarters); bunkhouses; 

maintenance shops; warehouse space; vehicle storage; fenced 

storage yards; hangar and airport leases, tie-down space, and 

float ponds or docks; vessels and home port facilities; fuel and 

other hazardous materials storage sites; and remote 

administrative cabins or sites. 

The Refuges’ administrative facilities are headquartered in the 

former National Marine Fisheries Service compound in King 

Salmon, Alaska. The administrative site consists of 

approximately five acres on the Naknek River. Table 3-15 is a 

comprehensive list of all current administrative facilities used 

and maintained by the Refuges, including pertinent information 

on the adequacy of the facilities to meet current and projected 

refuge needs. 

The step-down Facilities Management Plan describes in detail 

the condition of existing facilities and projects needed to bring 

them into compliance with current building codes. It also 

describes facilities necessary to meet projected refuge needs. 

Service buildings are expected to comply with the latest adopted 

editions of the international building, residential, fire, 

mechanical, and plumbing codes and the National Electrical and 

Electrical Safety codes. Additionally, Service facilities will 

comply with accessibility standards set forth in the Uniform 

Accessibility Standards, Americans with Disabilities Act, and by 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 117.1. 

Additional administrative facilities necessary for 

implementation of the Refuges’ current program of work are 

identified in Table 3-16. If additional facilities are required to 

implement a specific alternative, those facilities and associated 

costs are identified in the discussion of that alternative (see 

Chapter 2). Infrastructure changes that would be required to 

meet projected Refuges needs are addressed in the Facilities 

Management Plan. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-118 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

3.6.2 Staffing 

The Refuges currently have approved positions for the following 

13 permanent full-time and three permanent part-time seasonal 

employees; an additional three to five positions are filled on a 

seasonal basis: 

 Refuge manager 

 Deputy refuge manager 

 Assistant refuge manager and airplane pilot 

 Supervisory wildlife biologist 

 Wildlife biologist (3) 

 Park ranger and airplane pilot 

 Park ranger 

 Refuge information technician (3) 

 Administrative technician (2) 

 Refuge ranger maintenance worker (2) 
Chapter 3

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Table 3-15. Existing administrative facilitiesa

Asset Number Size (square feet) Description 

Bldg 1 10034918 1,260 Wood-frame building constructed as a residence in 1939. The facility requires exten

considerable remodeling to make it accessible and to bring it into compliance with b

limited remaining useful life and significant scope of repairs, demolition and replacehave been recommended. 

Bldg 3 100364919 2,330 Wood-frame building constructed as a mess hall in 1939. Used as a bunkhouse for se

This facility is overcrowded and does not afford privacy to the staff. It requires exte

remodeling to make it accessible and to bring it into compliance with building codes. remaining useful life, significant scope of repairs, and lack of space, demolition and r

structure have been recommended. 

Bldg 4 10034920 8,156 Metal-sheathed steel building constructed as a warehouse in 1959; 4,350 square feet 

office space in 1984. Offices were moved into the new administrative building (Bldg 6Bldg 4 is now used as both heated and unheated storage space. This facility requires 

roof, siding, windows, boiler system, and fuel-oil system as well as general repairs to 

as a storage facility. 

Bldg 5 10034921 6,000 Metal-sheathed steel building constructed as a warehouse in 1959, used as unheated 

requires extensive renovation, including replacement of a concrete floor slab, rusted 

metal siding and roof, large broken overhead doors, and the lighting system. The sitto provide positive drainage away from the foundation, removal of contaminates founand seismic bracing. Due to the limited remaining useful life and the significant scopdemolition and replacement have been recommended. 

Bldg 6 10034922 1,296 Metal-sheathed building with steel structure constructed in 1954; used as a vehicle a

maintenance facility. It is not adequate because of lack of a dust-collection system, fiviolations, mechanical system problems, and lack of restroom facilities. Due to confli

replacement of Bldg 7 and moving the woodworking functions there are recommend

Bldg 7 10034923 2,116 Steel building constructed in 1957; used for storage. To bring the building into comp

codes requires extensive renovations, including regrading the site, replacement of th

replacement of exterior walls and roof, removal of an abandoned electrical system, rlighting fixtures, installation of emergency lighting, replacement of heating system, 

Due to the limited remaining useful life and the significant scope of repairs, demolitiof the structure have been recommended. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-120 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NW

Asset Number Size (square feet) Description 

Bldg 9 10034924 768 Wood-frame cabin constructed 1939; used as temporary quarters. Requires extensiv

replacement of deteriorated foundation, exterior walls, and roof; removal of asbestoof electrical and plumbing systems; and remodeling for accessibility. Due to its limitlife and the scope of repairs, demolition and replacement of the structure have been 

Bldg 10 10034925 720 Wood-frame cabin constructed 1939; used as temporary quarters. Requires extensiv

replacement of deteriorated foundation, exterior walls, and roof; removal of asbestoof electrical and plumbing systems; and remodeling for accessibility. Due to its limitlife and the scope of repairs, demolition and replacement of the structure have been 

Bldg 11 1003492 720 Wood-frame cabin constructed 1939, used as temporary quarters. Requires extensiv

replacement of deteriorated foundation, exterior walls, and roof; removal of asbesto

of electrical and plumbing systems; and remodeling for accessibility. Due to its limitlife and the scope of repairs, demolition and replacement of the structure have been 

Bldg 12 100349276 

268 Wood-frame cabin constructed 1959; used for storage. Due to its small size and poor 

and replacement of the structure have been recommended. 

Bldg 15 10034928 3,416 Prefabricated wood-frame duplex residence constructed 1998. Bldg 25 10034931 3,600 Erecta-tube aircraft hangar located at King Salmon Airport, constructed 1986. Build

heated. The facility needs extensive repairs, including construction of a holding tank 

of the bi-fold doors, and bracing against seismic movement. 

Bldg 26 10034932 1,968 Wood-frame residence, constructed 1987. Located in King Salmon. Bldg 27 10034933 1,968 Wood-frame residence, constructed 1987. Located in King Salmon. Bldg 28 10034934 1,968 Wood-frame residence, constructed 1987. Located in King Salmon. Bldg 29 10034935 1,968 Wood-frame residence, constructed 1987. Located in King Salmon. Bldg 35 10034940 400 Metal building constructed 1988; used for fuel storage. Bldg 36 10034941 160 Wood-frame storage building constructed 1986; used as a fuel shed at the hangar. It 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel-containment requirements. Replacemcompliant metal containment fuel-storage building has been recommended. 

Bldg 1 10034991 256 Wood-frame cabin used for administration. Located at Island Arm. Structure is seve

Demolition and replacement have been recommended. 

Bldg 3 10034908 384 Panabode log cabin used for administration. Located at Mother Goose Lake. 
Chapter 3

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Asset Number Size (square feet) Description 

Bldg 4 10034909 160 Wood-frame cabin used for administration. Located at Yantarni Bay airstrip. Struct

deteriorated. Demolition and replacement have been recommended. 

Bldg 63 10034968 8,400 Wood and steel frame headquarters administrative facility constructed in 2002. Rep

temporary office space in Bldg 4. 

Bldg 76 10094981 3,262 Duplex residence leased from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), located in Bldg 77 10034982 2,071 Single-family residence leased from the FAA, located in King Salmon. a Except where noted, all facilities are located within the King Salmon office compound. 

Table 3-16. Additional facilities needed to support current Refuges programs 

Facility Location Size (sq. ft.) Lease/Constr Projected Cost Discuss

Bunkhouse King Salmon 

office compound 

8,000 Construct To replace overcrowded ex

Office and Admin Bldg 

Chignik 400 Construct For administration of the C

subheadquarters 

Storage Bldg Chignik 2,600 Construct Storage of equipment and v

Chignik subheadquarters 

Visitor Center King Salmon Replace the current leased 

expires 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-122 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

3.7 References Cited 

Adams, J.R., P.A. Weaver, J. Cooper, and J. Baker. 1962. “A 

preliminary stream catalogue of the Egegik River 

system, Bristol Bay, Alaska.” Auk Bay, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 

Commercial Fisheries, Biological Laboratory. 

ADF&G. 1999. “Annual Management Report, 1998.” Regional 

Information Report. 2A99-18. Anchorage, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Commercial Fisheries. 

ADF&G. 2000. “Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries on 

spawning escapement goal evaluations for Bristol 

Bay salmon.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Commercial Fisheries Management and 

Development. 

ADF&G. 2003. “Alaska Trophy Fish Record Holders.” 

Accessed June 18, 2003. At 

http://www.state.ak.us/adfg/sportf/geninfo/trophy/record. 

htm on the World Wide Web, produced by Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. Source last 

updated March 4, 2003. 

Alaska Department of Labor. 1999. “Alaska population overview: 

1999 estimates.” At 

http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/popover.htm 

on the World Wide Web, produced by Alaska 

Department of Labor, Research and Analysis 

Section. 

Anderson, D.D. 1984. “Prehistory of North Alaska.” Handbook of 

North American Indians. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institution Press. Vol. 5: Arctic: pp.

94-105. 

Arctic Slope Services. 1982. “Preliminary feasibility report and 

environmental document, small hydropower 

potential from Indian and Mud Bay Lake creeks.” 

Chignik, Alaska: U.S. Department of the Army, 

Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 

Bailey, R.G. 1980. “Descriptions of the Becharof of the United 

States.” Miss. Pub. No. 1391. Washington, D.C.: 

USDA Forest Service. 

Ballard, W.E., L.A. Ayers, P.R. Krausman, D.J. Reed, and S.G. 

Fancy. 1997. “Ecology of wolves in relation to a 

migratory caribou herd in northwest Alaska.” 

Wildlife Monograph. 135. Bethesda, Maryland: 

The Wildlife Society. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-123 

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

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

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Bascle, R., D. Evans, and J. Burkowski. 1986. “Alaska 

Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuges Oil 

and Gas Assessment.” U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

Bertrand, C.M., D.L. Hess, R.T. Kemnitz, D.F. Meyer, and W.C. 

Swanner. 2000. “Water resources data Alaska 

water year 1999.” Water-Data Report. AK-99-1. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

Bishop, D.M. 1974. “Investigation of selected streams of 

Becharof and Ugashik lakes.” Interim report. 

Juneau, Alaska: Environaid. 11 pp. 

BLM. 1997. Review of current knowledge and development of 

stipulations. In proceedings from Teshekpuk 

Lake Area Caribou/Waterfowl Impacts Analysis 

Workshop. Waterfowl Group. May 21-22, 1997. 

Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group. 1999. “Landbird 

conservation plan for Alaska biogeographic 

regions.” Version 1.0; unpublished report. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Bristol Environmental and Engineering Services Corp. 2000. 

“Solid Waste Removal at Sites Within Becharof, 

Alaska Peninsula, Togiak, and Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuges.” Final Report 

prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Contract No. 70181-8-C016. Anchorage, Alaska: 

Bristol Environmental and Engineering Services, 

Corp. 

Brower, W.A., R.G. Baldwin, D.N. Williams, Jr., and L.D. Leslie. 

1988. “Climatic atlas of the outer continental shelf 

waters and coastal regions of Alaska.” (Volumes 1 

and 2). Anchorage, Alaska: Arctic Environmental 

Information and Data Center, University of 

Alaska Anchorage. 

Buck, E.H. 1979. “Surface resources and environmental value -- 

Alaska Peninsula: Becharof Lake to Aniakchak 

area.” Anchorage, Alaska: Arctic Environmental 

Information and Data Center, University of 

Alaska Anchorage. 

Bundy, L. 1999. “Becharof Outlet public use study.” King 

Salmon, Alaska: Alaska Peninsula/Becharof 

National Wildlife Refuges. (Report available in 

refuge office.) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-124 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Cameron, R.D., D.J. Reed, J.R. Dau, and W.T. Smith. 1992. 

“Redistribution of calving caribou in response to 

oil field development on the Arctic Slope of 

Alaska.” Arctic 45: 338-342. 

Cassirer, E.F., J.D. Reichel, R.L. Wallen, and E.C. Atkenson. 

1996. “Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histronicus) 

United States Forest Service/Bureau of Land 

Management Habitat Conservation Strategy for 

the U.S. Rock Mountains.” Collaboration of the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana 

Heritage Program, Grand Teton National Park, 

and the Howk Mountain Sanctuary Association. 

Clark, D. 1976. “The Pacific origins of Eskimos.” In paper 

presented at third Alaska Anthropology 

Association conference. Anchorage, Alaska. 

Collins, G.H., M.T. Hinke, and A. Aderman. 2000. “Population, 

growth, movements, and status of the Nushagak 

Peninsula herd following reintroduction, 

Southwest Alaska, March 1988-March 2000.” 

Report. Dillingham, Alaska: Togiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

DCED. 2000. “Alaska Community Database Online.” 

Accessed July 7, 2000. At 

http://www.state.ak.us/mra/CF_COMDB.htm on the 

World Wide Web, produced by Alaska 

Department of Community and Economic 

Development. 

de Vries, S., and M. Giger. 1998a. “Contaminants Survey: Bear 

Creek Well Number 1.” Technical Report. 

WAES-TR-980-3. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. 

de Vries, S., and M. Giger. 1998b. “Contaminants Survey: Island 

Bay Barrel Cache.” Technical Report. WAES-TR98-2. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Dewhurst, D.A. 1991. “Populations and productivity of seabirds 

on the Pacific coast of Becharof Refuge, Alaska, in 

1989 and 1990.” Unpublished administrative 

report. King Salmon, Alaska: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Dewhurst, D.A., and M.P. Moore. 1992. “Populations and 

productivity of seabirds on the Pacific coast of 

Becharof Refuge, Alaska, in 1991.” Administrative 

report. King Salmon, Alaska: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-125 

DNR. 1990. “Bristol Bay easement atlas.” Anchorage, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Land & Water Management. 

DOC. 1999. “Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional 

Facts (BEARFACTS).” At 

http://bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/index.htm 

on the World Wide Web, produced by U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. 

DOI. 1974. “Proposed Katmai National Park, Alaska.” Final 

environmental impact statement. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Dumond, D.E. 1972. “The Alaska Peninsula in Alaskan 

prehistory in 1984 Prehistory of the Bering Sea 

Region.” In F.W. Voget and R.L. Stephenson, eds. 

Handbook of North American Indians: 

Smithsonian Institution Press. Vol. 5: Arctic. 

Dumond, D.E. 1987. “Prehistoric human occupation in 

southwestern Alaska, a study of resource 

distribution and site location.” No. 36. University 

of Oregon Anthropological Papers. 

Dumond, D.E., and R.L. Bland. 1995. “Holocene prehistory of the 

northernmost North Pacific.” Journal of World 

Prehistory 8(4). 

Dumond, D.E., and M.P. Moore. 1977. “Subsistence and 

seasonality.” In Archaeology on the Alaska 

Peninsula: The Coast of Shelikof Strait, by G.W. 

Clark. Anthropological Papers No. 13. Eugene, 

Oregon: University of Oregon. 

Edmundson, J.A., and G.L. Todd. 2000. “Limnological 

perspective on stock and recruitment for Egegik 

and Ugashik river sockeye salmon.” Regional 

Information Report. No. 2a00-33. Juneau, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Commercial Fisheries. 

ESWG. 1995. “A national ecological framework for Canada.” 

Ecological Stratification Working Group (ESWG), 

Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological 

Resources; and Environment Canada, State of the 

Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis 

Branch. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-126 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Evans, C.C., and S.V. Cuccarese. 1977. “Evaluation of wildlife 

habitats in Alaska—Alternatives for replacement 

on National Wildlife Refuge lands, and maps.” 

Report for the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska: 

University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental 

Information and Data Center. 

Evergreen State College. 1977. “The Alaska Peninsula, a Study 

of Resources and Human Expectations.” Final 

Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Olympia, Washington: Evergreen State College. 

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 and Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 

Fall, J.A., M.B. Chythlook, J.C. Schichnes, and J.M. Morris. 

1996. “An overview of the harvest and use of 

freshwater fish by the communities of the Bristol 

Bay region, Southwest Alaska.” Technical Paper. 

No. 166. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 

Feulner, A.J. 1973. “Preliminary draft summary of water 

supplies at Alaska communities, 1973, Southwest 

Region, Bristol Bay subregion.” Joint FederalState Land Use Planning Commission, Resource 

Planning Team. 

Gallant, A.L., E.R. Binnian, J.M. Omernik, and M.B. Shasby. 

1995. “Ecoregions of Alaska.” U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper. No. 1567. Washington, 

D.C.: Government Printing Office. 

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

marbled godwit and description of an Alaska 

subspecies.” The Condor 91: 436-443. 

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 and Wildlife Service. 

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

December 3, 1998) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-127 

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) 

Hammond, J.S. 1955. “A Brief History of the Alaska Peninsula 

Caribou.” Administrative Report (unpublished). 

King Salmon, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Harle, M.L. 1994. “Water resources threats analysis.” 

Unpublished report. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Water Resources Branch. 30 pp. plus 

appendices. 

HDR Alaska. 1999. “Lake and Peninsula Borough overall 

economic development plan.” Final. Anchorage, 

Alaska: HDR Alaska, Inc. 

Hicks, M. 1999. “Brown Bear: Annual Performance Report of 

Survey-Inventory Activities, 1 July 1998-30 June 

1999.” Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration report. 

Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. 

Hicks, M.V. 1997. “Caribou: Annual Performance of SurveyInventory Activities, 30 July 1996-30 June 1997.” 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration report. 

Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. 

Hicks, M.V. 1998. “Moose: Annual Performance Report of 

Survey-Inventory Activities, 1 July 1997-30 June 

1998.” Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration report. 

Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. 

Hill, E.L. 1985. “A preliminary examination of the behavioural 

reaction of caribou to the Upper Salmon 

Hydroelectric Development in Newfoundland.” In 

T.C. Meredith and A.M. Martell, eds. Caribou 

Management, census techniques, and status in 

eastern Canada. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: 

McGill University. (McGill Subarctic Research 

Paper No. 40) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-128 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Hood, R.E. 1995. “Option for resolution of user conflicts in the 

Island Arm area of Becharof Lake.” Briefing 

statement. King Salmon, Alaska: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Alaska Peninsula/Becharof 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Howe, A.L., B. Walker, C. Olnes, and A.E. Bingham. [in prep.]. 

“Revised harvest, catch, and participation in 

Alaska sport fisheries during 1997.” Fishery Data 

Series. No. 98-25. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. 

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

Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 

Hurley, P.J., 1932. Letter from the Secretary of War, 

transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, 

United States Army, submitting a report, 

together with accompanying papers and an 

illustration, on preliminary examination and 

survey of Egegik River, Alaska to 73rd Congress; 

1st Session; House of Representatives, December 

3, 1932. 

Jackson, R. 1991. “Report of Findings: Becharof National 

Wildlife Refuge Contaminants Study.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ecological Services. 

Jaenicke, M.J., and R.C. Squibb. 2000. “Survey of the sport 

fishery at Ugashik Narrows, 1998.” Fishery Data 

Series. No. 00-11. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport 

Fisheries. 

Jones, S.H., and C.B. Fahl. 1994. “Magnitude and frequency of 

floods in Alaska and conterminous basins of 

Canada.” Water Resources Investigations Report. 

No. 93-4179. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

Jones, S.H., R.J. Madison, and C. Zenone. 1978. “Water 

resources of the Kodiak-Shelikof subregion, 

south-central Alaska.” Reston, Virginia: U.S. 

Geological Survey. 2 map sheets. 

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 and Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-129 

Krieg, T.M., P.C. Kenner, L. Hutchinson-Scarbrough, and L. 

Brown. 1996. “Subsistence harvests and uses of 

caribou, moose, and brown bear in 12 Alaska 

Peninsula communities, 1994/95.” Technical 

Paper. No. 240. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 

Leptich, D.J., and P. Zager. 1991. Road access management 

effects on elk mortality and population dynamics.

In proceedings from Elk Vulnerability 

Symposium. pp. 126–131. Bozeman, Montana: 

Montana State University. 

Marcum, C.L., and W.D. Edge. 1991. Sexual differences in 

distribution of elk relative to roads and logged 

areas in western Montana. In proceedings from 

Elk Vulnerability Symposium. pp. 142–148. 

Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 

Mathisen, O.A., J.J. Goering, and R. Russell. 1996. “Sockeye 

salmon production in Egegik and Ugashik 

watersheds.” Paper presented at the 26th 

International Congress of Limnology, San Paulo, 

Brazil. July 24, 1995. Fairbanks, Alaska: 

University of Alaska, School of Fisheries and 

Ocean Science, Juneau Center. 

McCollum, D.W., and S.M. Miller. 1994. “Nonresident hunters: 

their hunting trip characteristics and economics.” 

Report available from Information Management 

Program. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation. 

McCurdy, M.L. 1973. “Egegik River system spawning ground 

surveys.” Bristol Bay data report (unpublished). 

No. 42. King Salmon, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial 

Fisheries. 

Medeiros, A., and J. Larson. 1996. “Estimates of angling effort, 

catch, harvest, and population structure of coho 

salmon caught and harvested by sport and 

subsistence fisheries at the outlet of Becharof 

Lake, Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 

1994 and 1995.” Alaska Fisheries Data Series. No. 

96-2. King Salmon, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Meyer, S.C. 1990. “Stock assessment of Arctic grayling in 

Ugashik Lakes, Alaska.” M.S. thesis. University 

of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks, Alaska. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-130 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Miller, S.D., and R.A. Sellers. 1989. “Density and structure of a 

hunted population of brown bears at Black Lake, 

Alaska.” Unpublished progress report. 

Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game. 

Miller, S.D., G.C. White, R.A. Sellers, H.V. Reynolds, J.W. 

Schoen, K. Titus, V.G. Barnes, R.B. Smith, R.R. 

Nelson, W.B. Ballard, and C.C. Schwartz. 1997. 

“Brown and black bear density estimation in 

Alaska using radio-telemetry and replicated 

mark-resight techniques.” Monograph. No. 133: 1-

55. Bethesda, Maryland: The Wildlife Society. 

Miller, T.P., R.G. McGimsey, D.H. Richter, J.R. Riehle, C.J. Nye, 

M.E. Yount, and J.A. Dumoulin. 1998. “Catalog of 

the historically active volcanoes of Alaska.” Open 

File Report. No. 98-582 (preliminary report). 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Alaska Volcano Observatory. 

Motyka, R.J., S.A. Liss, C.J. Nye, and M.A. Moorman. 1994. 

“Geothermal resources of the Aleutian Arc.” 

DGGS Professional Report. No. 114. Juneau, 

Alaska: Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey. 

Motyka, R.J., M.A. Moorman, and S.A. Liss. 1981. “Assessment 

of thermal springs sites—Aleutian Arc, Atka 

Island to Becharof Lake.” DGGS Open File 

Report. No. 144. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological and Geophysical Survey. 

Murie, O.J. 1959. “Fauna of the Aleutian Island and Alaska 

Peninsula.” North American Fauna. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Vol. 61. 

Nellemann, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1996. “Effects of petroleum 

development on terrain preferences of calving 

caribou.” Arctic 49: 23-28. 

NOAA. 1994. “United States Coast Pilot 9, Pacific and Arctic 

Coasts Alaska, Cape Spender to Beaufort Sea.” 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Ocean Service. 

(Sixteenth edition) 

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

discovered for Alaska subspecies of marbled 

godwit.” Northwestern Naturalist 77: 17-18. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-131 

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

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

Report. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services and 

Endangered Species. 

Northcott, P.L. 1985. Movement and distribution of caribou in 

relation to the Upper Salmon Hydroelectric 

Development).In proceedings from 2nd North 

American Caribou Workshop. pp. 69–84 in 

“Caribou management, census techniques, and 

status in eastern Canada”. Val Morin, Quebec, 

Canada: McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, 

Canada. 

Northern Economics. 1999. “Impacts of the 1997–1998 Bristol 

Bay fishing disasters and economic recovery plan 

for the Bristol Bay and Lake and Peninsula 

boroughs.” Report prepared for the Bristol Bay 

and Lake and Peninsula boroughs. 

Nowacki, G., and T. Brock. 1995. “Ecoregions and Subregions of 

Alaska.” ECOMAP, Version 2.0 (map) Juneau, 

Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 

Nowacki, G., P. Spencer, T. Brock, M. Fleming, and T. 

Jorgenson. 2001. “Ecoregions of Alaska and 

neighboring territories.” (map) Reston, Virginia: 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

Omerick, J.M. 1995. “Level III ecoregions of the continent.” 

Washington, D.C.: National Health and 

Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff. 1999a. “Southwest Alaska Transportation 

Plan Descriptions of Alternatives.” Memorandum 

prepared for the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities. Anchorage, 

Alaska: Parsons Brinckerhoff, in association with 

HDR Alaska, Inc., Northern Economics, The 

Glosten Associates, Inc., and Ogden Beeman & 

Associates, Inc. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff. 1999b. “Southwest Alaska transportation 

plan: Description of alternatives technical 

memorandum.” Report prepared for Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities. Parsons Brinckerhoff in association 

with HDR Alaska, Inc., Northern Economics, The 

Glosten Associates, Inc., and Ogden Beeman and 

Associates, Inc. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-132 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2002. “Southwest Alaska Transportation 

Plan.” Final Edition: An approved component of 

the Alaska Statewide Transportation Plan. 

Prepared for the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities. November 

2002. Anchorage, Alaska: Parsons Brinckerhoff in 

association with HDR Alaska, Inc.; Northern 

Economics, Inc.; The Glosten Associates, Inc.; 

Christopher Beck & Associates; and Ogden 

Beeman & Associates, Inc. 

Peters, E.O.T., K.L. Boden, and D.A. Dewhurst. 1993. “Caribou 

populations and subsistence hunting on the 

Chignik Unit of the Alaska Peninsula National 

Wildlife Refuge.” Report. King Salmon, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska 

Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge. 

Phinney, D.E. 1970. “Spawning ground catalog of the Chignik 

River System, Alaska.” Data Report. No. 41. 

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

Platte, R., and W. Butler. 1995. “Water bird abundance and 

distribution in the Bristol Bay region, Alaska.” 

Unpublished report. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Post, E.S. 1995. “Comparative foraging ecology and social 

dynamics of caribou (Rangifer tarandus).” M.S. 

thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Resource Analysts. 1984. Resource Inventory for the Aleutians 

East Coastal Resource Service Area. King 

Salmon, Alaska: Resource Analysts. 

Resource Analysts. 1996. Lake and Peninsula Borough Coastal 

Management Plan. King Salmon, Alaska: 

Resource Analysts. 

Ricketts, T., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, and C. Loucks. 1999. 

“Who’s where in North America: Patterns of 

species richness and the utility of indicators taxa 

for conservation.” Bioscience 49(5). 

Rieger, S., D.B. Schoephorster, and C.E. Furbush. 1979. 

“Exploratory soil survey of Alaska.” Anchorage, 

Alaska: USDA Soil Conservation Service. 

Russell, R. 1980. “Ruth River–Ruth Lake survey.” Unpublished 

report. King Salmon, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial 

Fisheries. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-133 

Selkegg, C.C., ed. 1975. Alaska Profiles, Vol. 1: Southcentral 

Region. Anchorage, Alaska: University of Alaska, 

Arctic Environmental Information and Data 

Center. 

Sellers, R. 1997. “Status of the northern Alaska Peninsula 

caribou herd (NAPCH).” King Salmon, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Sellers, R.A. 1991. “Game Management Unit 9.” In S.M. Abbot, 

ed. Brown Bear: Federal Aid in Wildlife 

Restoration Survey-Inventory Management 

Report, 1 July 1989- 30 June 1991. Juneau, 

Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Wildlife Conservation. pp. 76–92. 

Sellers, R.A., and M. McNay. 1984. “Population status and 

management considerations of brown bear, 

caribou, moose, and wolves on the Alaska 

Peninsula.” Report to the Game Board. King 

Salmon, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game. 

Sellers, R.A., and S.D. Miller. 1991. “Dynamics of a hunted brown 

bear population at Black Lake, Alaska.” Third 

Annual Progress Report, 1990. Juneau, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Sellers, R.A., and R.C. Squibb. 1998. “Post-calving counts of 

northern Alaska Peninsula caribou, June 1998.” 

Report. King Salmon, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game. 

Sellers, R.A., P. Valkenburg, B. Dale, R.C. Squibb, and M. Roy. 

2000. “Fall sex/age composition, genetic screening 

and collaring of northern and southern Alaska 

Peninsula caribou hers, 1999.” Final Report for 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Co-operative 

Agreement 00-020. King Salmon, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. 

Sellers, R.A., P. Valkenburg, R.C. Squibb, M. Roy, and B. Dale. 

1999. “Survival, natality, and calf weights of 

caribou on the Alaska Peninsula, 1998-1999.” 

Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Co-operative Agreement 99-017. King 

Salmon, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game. 

Sellers, R.A., P. Valkenburg, R.L. Zarnke, and R.C. Squibb. 

1998. “Natality and early calf mortality of 

northern Alaska Peninsula caribou, 1998.” Final 

Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Agreement 98-079. King Salmon, 

Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-134 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

Skoog, R. 1968. “Ecology of the caribou (Rangifer trandus 

granti) in Alaska.” Ph.D. thesis. University of 

California, Berkeley. Berkeley, California. 

Sowls, A.L., S.A. Hatch, and C.J. Lensink. 1978. Catalog of 

Alaska seabird colonies. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services 

Program. (FWS/OSB-78/78) 

Squibb, R.C. 2000. “Post-calving counts of caribou in the 

Becharof and Alaska Peninsula refuges and 

vicinity, 1998 and 1999.” Report to Files WI 8.3.1, 

Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. King Salmon, Alaska: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. New York, New York: 

Universe Books. 

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

2001. Personal communication to C. Ardizzone, 

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

Resources Division. October 14, 2001. 

Talbot, S.S., B.A. Yurtsev, D.F. Murray, G.W. Argus, C. Bay, and 

A. Elvebakk. 1999. “Atlas of rare endemic 

vascular plants of the Arctic.” Conservation of 

Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Technical 

Report. No. 3. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

UAF. 1996. “Bathymetric maps of Lake Becharof and the 

Ugashik Lakes.” Juneau, Alaska: University of 

Alaska Fairbanks, School of Fisheries and Ocean 

Sciences, Juneau Center. 

USFWS. 1985a. “Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge.” 

Final comprehensive conservation plan, 

environmental impact statement, wilderness 

review. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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

comprehensive conservation plan, wilderness 

review, and environmental impact statement. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

USFWS. 1985c. “Bristol Bay Regional Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement.” U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-135 

USFWS. 1985d. “Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Wilderness 

Review, and Environmental Impact Statement.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

USFWS. 1987. “Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge.” 

Final comprehensive conservation plan, 

environmental impact statement, wilderness 

review. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

USFWS. 1993. “Bald Eagle Basics.” Pamphlet. Anchorage, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska 

Region. 

USFWS. 1994a. “Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Final Public Use Management 

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

Service. 

USFWS. 1994b. “Fishery management plan, Alaska Peninsula 

and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges.” 

Unpublished report. King Salmon, Alaska: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, King Salmon Fishery 

Resource. 

USFWS. 1995. “Plan of study: Hydrologic investigation of 

Egegik River watershed, Becharof National 

Wildlife Refuge.” Unpublished report. Anchorage, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Water 

Resources Branch. 

USFWS. 1996. “Cultural Resources Guide, Alaska 

Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuges.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. (Report available from USFWS regional 

office in Anchorage, Alaska.) 

USFWS. 1999. “Beringia seabird colony catalog.” Computer 

database. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management. 

USGS. 1973. “Major Ecosystems of Alaska.” (map) 1:2,500,000. 

Fairbanks, Alaska; Denver, Colorado; 

Washington, D.C.: Joint Federal-State Land Use 

Planning Commission for Alaska. 

USGS. 1978. “Water resources data for Alaska water year 1977.” 

USGS Water Data Report. No. AK-77-1. 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey. 

USGS. 1979. “Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska 

Boundary Series.” (map) 1:250,000. Reston, 

Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3-136 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 

USGS. 1980. “Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska 

Boundary Series.” (map) 1:250,000. Reston, 

Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Villegas, S.V. 1993. “Arctic grayling in the Ugashik Drainage.” 

M.S. thesis. School of Renewable Natural 

Resources, University of Arizona. Tucson, 

Arizona. 

Wagner, T.A., and S.H. Lanigan. 1988. “Survey of fishery 

resources in the Meshik River drainage basin.” 

Technical Report. No. 1. King Salmon, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, King Salmon 

Fishery Assistance Office. 

Wahrhaftig, C. 1965. “Physiographic divisions of Alaska.” 

Geological Survey Professional Paper. No. 482. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. 

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. 

Wibbenmeyer, M., J. Grunblatt, and L. Shea. 1982. “Draft users 

guide for Bristol Bay land cover maps.” 

Unpublished report. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources. 

Wolfe, R.J. 1988. “‘The fish are not to be played with’: Yupik 

views of sport fishing and subsistence-recreation 

conflicts along the Togiak River.” In presentation 

of papers at the Alaska Anthropological 

Association meeting, March 3-4, 1988. Anchorage, 

Alaska. 

Wolfe, R.J., and C. Mishler. 1996. “The subsistence harvest of 

harbor seals and sea lions by Alaska Natives in 

1995.” Technical Paper. No. 238. Juneau, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 

Wong, D., and C. Wentworth. 1999. “Subsistence waterfowl 

harvest survey, Bristol Bay 1995-1998.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Migratory Bird Management. 

(Data also available at 

http://www.r7.fws.gov/mbm/HarvestSurvey/data/ 

9599akpe.htm) 

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

Memorandum to ARD ES/Fisheries, Juneau, 

Alaska, Fish and Wildlife Service Office. Subject: 

“Invasive species.” 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Draft Conservation Plan 3-137 

Wright, J.M., J.M. Morris, and R. Schroeder. 1985. “Bristol Bay 

regional subsistence profile.” Technical Paper. 

No. 114. Dillingham, Alaska: Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 

Wright, S., and J. Chythlook. 2001. “Summary of actions, Board 

of Game, March 2–12, 2001.” Report. Anchorage, 

Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Board Support Section.