Appendix A 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 
Appendix A 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-1 

1. Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

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

legislation that created the unit and the purposes and goals 

described in Chapter 1. However, other laws, regulations 

and policies; and agreements with the State of Alaska also 

guide the management of the Refuges. This Appendix 

identifies the Acts and policy guidance that are integral in 

the development of this Plan and identifies some of the 

primary agencies and divisions within the State of Alaska 

that are important management partners. 

1.1 Legal Guidance 

Operation and management of the Refuges is influenced by 

a wide array of federal laws, treaties, and executive orders. 

Among the most important are the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act; the Refuge 

Recreation Act; the Endangered Species Act; and the 

Wilderness Act. These acts are described briefly (beginning 

with Section 1.1.2) along with other acts and legal guidance 

that influence management of the Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges. 

1.1.1 International Treaties 

Several treaties affect how the Service manages the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. Among these are 

migratory bird treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and 

Russia and the Convention on Nature Protection and 

Wildlife Conservation in the Western Hemisphere. These 

treaties differ in emphasis and species of primary concern, 

but collectively provide clear mandates for identifying and 

protecting important habitats and ecosystems and for 

protecting and managing individual species. 

1.1.2 National Guidance 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended, 16 U.S.C. 140hh-3233, 43 U.S.C. 1602-1784 

(ANILCA) 

In addition to amending the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA), the Alaska Statehood Act, and 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and modifying portions of 

the Wilderness Act as it applies to Alaska lands, ANILCA 

expanded the federal conservation system throughout the 

state (including refuges, parks, forests, Wilderness areas, 

and Wild and Scenic Rivers). ANILCA sets forth the 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

A-2 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

purposes of the Refuges, defines provisions for planning and 

management, and authorizes studies and programs related 

to wildlife and wildland resources, subsistence 

opportunities, and recreational and economic uses (such as 

oil and gas exploration and development, access, and 

transportation and utility systems). 

Title VIII of ANILCA authorizes the State of Alaska to 

regulate subsistence uses on federal public lands if several 

requirements are met. The State of Alaska managed 

statewide subsistence harvests until late 1989, at which time 

the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the rural residency 

preference required by federal law violated the Alaska 

Constitution. Despite repeated efforts, the state has not 

amended its constitution to bring its regulatory framework 

back into compliance with ANILCA. 

The federal government began managing subsistence 

hunting, trapping, and fishing on Alaska’s federal public 

lands in July of 1990. For the purposes of federal 

subsistence management, public lands are defined to include 

lands managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(Service), National Park Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the USDA 

Forest Service; public lands also include all waters within 

refuge boundaries. 

The Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) establishes 

regulations for the harvest on federal public lands in Alaska, 

by qualified rural residents, of fish and wildlife for 

subsistence purposes. The federal process involves 

substantial public input; individuals and organizations 

submit proposals for regulations to the FSB and are 

reviewed by the Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Councils (RACs)—e.g., the Bristol Bay Federal Subsistence 

RAC. The RACs, which are composed of local citizens, make 

recommendations on the proposals to the FSB. The federal 

subsistence staff also advises the FSB on regulation 

proposals, providing data and analysis from local federal 

managers as well as from the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game (ADF&G). 

The state’s recreational, commercial, personal use, and 

subsistence regulations continue to apply on all federal 

lands unless superseded by federal subsistence regulations. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Refuge 

Administration Act) 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-3 

This act serves as the “organic act” for the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (System). Where this act provides direction 

that conflicts with direction described in ANILCA, the 

ANILCA direction is followed. The act establishes a 

unifying mission for the System, direction for determining 

compatible uses of refuges, and a requirement for preparing 

comprehensive conservation plans. This act states first and 

foremost that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System be focused singularly on wildlife conservation. 

It identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses 

and reinforces and expands the “compatibility standard” of 

the Refuge Recreation Act, which requires that, before they 

can be allowed, public uses must be determined to be 

compatible with refuge and agency missions and purposes. 

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16USC460k-460k-4, as 

amended) 

This act requires that any recreational use on areas of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System be compatible with the 

primary purpose(s) for which the area was acquired or 

established. This act also requires that sufficient funding be 

available for the development, operation, and maintenance 

of recreational uses that are not directly related to the 

area’s primary purpose(s). 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

This act did not specifically address the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, but it does directly affect management 

activities within the System. The act directs federal agencies 

to take actions that would further the purposes of the act 

and to ensure that actions they carry out, authorize, or fund 

do not jeopardize endangered species or their critical 

habitat. The Endangered Species Act also provides 

authority for land acquisition. Conservation of threatened 

and endangered species has become a major objective of 

both land-acquisition and refuge-management programs, 

especially in refuges outside of Alaska. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577) 

This act established the National Wilderness Preservation 

System and prescribes policy for Wilderness designation 

and management. In 1980, as a result of passage of 

ANILCA, approximately 502,900 acres of the Becharof 

National Wildlife Refuge was designated as Wilderness. The 

Wilderness Act and ANILCA provide direction for 

management of Wilderness areas in Alaska. The purposes of 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

A-4 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

the Wilderness Act are considered to be purposes of the 

Becharof Wilderness Area. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271-1287)—

Public Law 90-542, approved October 2, 1968, (82 Stat. 906) 

This act establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System and prescribes the methods and standards through 

which additional rivers may be identified and added to the 

system. Rivers are added to the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System based on their free-flowing character and 

their outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and 

wildlife, historic, cultural, ecological, or other values. Rivers 

in the system are managed to maintain and protect these 

values for present and future generations. For Wild and 

Scenic Rivers in Alaska, ANILCA also provides direction 

for management of designated rivers. 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as 

amended by The Clean Water Act of 1977, (33 USC s/s 1251 

et seq.) 

This act regulates the discharge of pollutants into waters of 

the United States. The act protects fish and wildlife, 

establishes operation permits for all major sources of water 

pollution, and limits the discharge of pollutants or toxins 

into water. The act makes it unlawful for any person to 

discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable 

waters unless a permit is obtained under the Clean Water 

Act. 

1.2 Policy Guidance 

Programmatic guidance and policy documents provide 

additional direction for the management of national wildlife 

refuges throughout the System. While it is not practical to 

provide information about all of these documents in this 

Plan, they are critical to management of the Refuges. Much 

of the management direction described in Chapter 2, and 

throughout this Plan, is influenced by guidance from these 

programmatic and policy documents. Several of these 

documents guide us to use an ecosystem approach in refuge 

management. In other words, we must consider the health 

of the entire ecosystem when managing the Refuges. This 

concept requires close coordination with others. In this 

section, we provide a brief description of this concept and of 

several of the national and regional (Alaska) management 

plans and programs that were considered during the 

development of this Plan. Other key policies such as the 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-5 

compatibility policy are described in Chapter 2 because they 

provide guidance in this Plan. 

1.2.1 Ecosystem Approach to Management 

The goal of the Fish & Wildlife Service’s Ecosystem 

Approach is to constantly strive to contribute to ‘‘the 

effective conservation of natural biological diversity through 

perpetuation of dynamic, healthy ecosystems’’ while 

carrying out the Service’s mission and mandates and 

through working closely with others (USFWS, Chapter 052 

FW 1). This is an ambitious goal; success lies in the 

coordinated efforts of many public agencies, private 

organizations, landowners, and citizens. Many programs and 

initiatives contribute to the conservation of biological 

diversity. Most obvious are actions that lead to the 

protection of habitat and the recovery of fish and wildlife 

populations in jeopardy. Less obvious, but equally 

significant, are actions that restore important habitats, 

reduce environmental degradation and contamination, 

monitor the integrity of natural systems, regulate the 

harvest of migratory birds, and provide technical assistance 

to private landowners. 

The Service cannot fulfill this goal alone; only through an 

ecosystem approach in which we work with others to 

conserve the nation’s biological heritage will the goal be 

realized. An ecosystem approach to management recognizes 

that institutions other than refuges have responsibilities and 

authorities for resources that lie both within and outside 

refuges. 

Fish and wildlife population and habitat goals are based on 

species biology, population dynamics, and ecological 

processes that may be international in scope (e.g., migratory 

waterfowl). Managers must think and function at multiple 

scales simultaneously. Planning and implementation of 

management actions within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service’s ecosystem units must be flexible enough to 

address site-specific conservation priorities as well as to 

reflect the broader population and habitat needs of widely 

ranging species.

1.2.2 National Management Plans 

Nature is not constrained by the administrative boundaries 

that are used to determine ownership or management of 

specific areas of land. Without physical barriers and with 

available habitat, wildlife and fish will freely roam through 

lands and waters regardless of ownership or management. 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

A-6 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

To ensure the conservation of the many species that migrate 

across state lines, there are several national efforts designed 

to monitor and protect these species. These plans were 

reviewed during the revision of the Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges Plan to ensure that the revised 

management direction is consistent with these national 

conservation plans. 

Centennial Legacy Plan 

These plans were developed for refuges nationwide to mark 

the centennial anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. They are intended to serve as a vision to provide 

resources for the System in the next 100 years. These plans 

prioritize and address only the System’s most pressing 

needs in three main categories: essential staff, missioncritical projects, and major maintenance. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

This conservation plan seeks to restore, to the levels 

recorded in the 1970s, waterfowl populations in Canada, the 

United States, and Mexico. The international partnership 

has worked to identify priority habitats for waterfowl and 

has established goals and objectives for the waterfowl 

populations and habitats (USFWS 1998). The Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges provide breeding and 

migration habitat for a variety of waterfowl, including 

harlequin ducks and tundra swans. 

Partners in Flight—Bird Conservation Plans 

Partners in Flight is a cooperative effort among federal, 

state, and local government agencies; philanthropic 

foundations; professional organizations; conservation 

groups; industry; universities; and private individuals. 

Partners in Flight was created in 1990 in response to 

growing concerns about declines in the populations of many 

landbird species and in order to emphasize the conservation 

of birds not covered by existing conservation initiatives. 

Bird conservation plans are developed in each region to 

identify species and habitats most in need of conservation, to 

establish objectives and strategies to meet those needs, and 

to implement plans and monitor progress on them. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 

This conservation plan seeks to stabilize populations of all 

shorebirds that are in decline because of factors affecting 

habitat in the United States At a regional level, the plan’s 

goal is to ensure that shorebird habitat is available in 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-7 

adequate quantity and quality to support shorebird 

populations in each region. Ultimately, the goal of the 

conservation plan is to restore and maintain shorebird 

populations throughout the Western Hemisphere through 

an international partnership (Brown et al. 2000).

1.2.3 Regional Management Plans 

In addition to considering the national conservation plans, 

this plan must consider the management of neighboring 

lands by reviewing regional conservation plans and other 

land management goals of the region. Regional plans, as 

well as goals and objectives from other programs, were 

reviewed to understand how the Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof Refuges can contribute to the goals for 

conservation within the state or local region. This list is not 

intended to be comprehensive, but it demonstrates some of 

the major regional plans that were reviewed during the 

development of this Draft Plan. Where applicable, specific 

items of information from these plans are identified in the 

chapter on Affected Environment (Chapter 3) and in the 

chapters on Management Direction (Chapters 4 and 5). 

Lake and Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management 

Plan (1996) 

This plan describes goals and objectives for resources within 

the coastal zone management area, which includes the 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. The focus of the 

plan is to maintain the functions and values of coastal 

resources, including socioeconomic values. The objectives of 

the plan were reviewed to look for opportunities to make 

progress on mutual goals. A full review of the consistency of 

the Refuges Plan with the Coastal Zone Management Plan 

can be found in Chapter 7. 

Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan (Bristol Bay 

Study Group 1984) 

In the early 1980s, public land managers in the Bristol Bay 

region developed a cooperative plan in collaboration with 

local governments and Native interests. The plan was 

prepared pursuant to Section 1203 of ANILCA. The plan 

melded direction for all public lands and took an integrated 

approach to issues such as cross-peninsula transportation 

corridors. This regional management plan was never 

adopted as a consolidated plan. Instead, it formed the basis 

for the state’s Bristol Bay Area Plan (DNR 1984), and 

provided the basis for management direction in the existing 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

A-8 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Alaska Peninsula Refuge and Becharof Refuges 

comprehensive conservation plans. 

Bristol Bay Area Plan (DNR 1984) 

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources developed 

the Bristol Bay Area Plan to provide management direction 

for 13 million acres of state uplands, tidelands, submerged 

lands, and shorelands in the Bristol Bay region. The plan 

addressed state lands within refuge boundaries, including 

closing all navigable waterways to new mineral entry. The 

plan also recommended that Becharof Lake and the 

Ugashik lakes not be placed on the state’s oil and gas lease 

sale schedule because of environmental concerns. 

Aniakchak General Management Plan, Wilderness 

Suitability Review, Land Protection Plan (NPS 1987) 

The Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve borders 

the southern end of the Ugashik Unit and the northern end 

of the Chignik Unit of the Alaska Peninsula Refuge. The 

plans for the Aniakchak National Monument were reviewed 

to ensure that the management direction proposed in this 

Plan would not create management conflicts in the 

monument. 

Katmai National Park and Preserve (NPS 1986, 1988) 

The Katmai National Park and Preserve joins the northern 

border of the Becharof National Wildlife Refuge. The park’s 

general management plan and wilderness review and 

recommendations were reviewed to ensure that the 

management direction proposed in this Plan would not 

create management conflicts in Katmai National Park and 

Preserve. 

Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic 

Regions (Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group 1999) 

This bird conservation plan was developed through the 

Partners In Flight national initiative. It provides 

conservation priorities and objectives for landbirds in each 

region of Alaska. The Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges contribute to this plan through a variety of 

monitoring and inventorying studies of landbirds on the 

Refuges. 

A Conservation Plan for Alaska Shorebirds (Alaska 

Shorebird Working Group 2000) 

This plan identifies shorebird species of concern in Alaska 

and provides goals and objectives for shorebird conservation 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-9 

throughout the state. In addition to providing breeding and 

migration habitat for a variety of shorebirds, the Refuges 

provide breeding habitat for the Alaska Peninsula 

subspecies of the marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa beringiae) 

(Gibson and Kessel 1989). 

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan 

(USFWS 1989)

This plan directed the Service to develop comprehensive 

management plans for four goose species nesting in 

Western and Arctic Alaska. The Refuges provide the 

emperor goose with important wintering habitat and spring 

and fall staging habitat along the Pacific coast. The spring 

population objective for emperors is 150,000. The Refuges 

are also on the periphery of the Bristol Bay breeding and 

molting ranges of the white-fronted goose. 

Alaska Natural Heritage Program 

The mission of the Alaska Natural Heritage Program is ‘‘to 

document the distribution and abundance of ecologically 

significant plant and animal species, ecological communities, 

and natural features and to assist in maintaining an 

ecologically healthy environment, while promoting the 

development of a sustainable economy in Alaska.’’ 

<http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/enri/aknhp_web/about/about.html>. 

The program has developed a biological conservation 

database that provides information on species distribution, 

trends, and habitats for species in need for more than 1,300 

plant and animal species in Alaska. These data were used to 

assess the status of species on the Refuges. 

The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Plans 

In 2000, the Alaska office of the Nature Conservancy began 

work on an ecoregional plan for the Alaska Peninsula. The 

Nature Conservancy’s ecoregional plans are designed to 

identify, based on national criteria, key habitats or 

vegetation communities on the Peninsula. The plan will 

include refuge and nonrefuge lands and is expected to be 

completed in 2005 (Lons 2003). 

Lake and Peninsula Borough Overall Economic 

Development Plan 

The Lake and Peninsula borough’s overall economic 

development plan (HDR Alaska 1999) is a blueprint that 

identifies and develops regional and community-specific 

economic opportunities that are practical, sustainable, 

diverse, environmentally responsible, and culturally 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

A-10 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

appropriate for residents, communities, and the borough 

itself. The plan contains eight boroughwide goals, which are 

based on an evaluation of strengths, weaknesses, 

opportunities, and threats. Although this plan is not binding 

on the Refuges, some of these evaluations are especially 

relevant to the Refuges and the Plan revision effort. 

Strengths include fishery resources, tourism potential, and 

scenic, wildlife, and natural resources (an example of an 

opportunity is tourism, while an example of a threat is 

defined as user groups competing for subsistence 

resources). 

The strategies proposed to meet the boroughwide goals 

include education, job creation, cooperation, planning, 

capital improvement, and development of business, tourism, 

and fisheries. The Fish & Wildlife 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 

borough’s parks and refuges. A related strategy calls for 

expanding the existing tourism industry from hunting and 

fishing activities to ecotourism and cultural tourism and 

developing the infrastructure (facilities, attractions, 

transportation) necessary to attract and develop these new 

markets. One of the job-creation strategies is to promote 

further local hires of residents by Federal agencies. 

1.3 Coordination with Other 

Governments 

State of Alaska Coordination

Consistent with the principles of ecosystem management 

and the laws and policies described previously, effective 

management of the Refuges is done in close coordination 

with the State of Alaska. This section is not intended to be a 

comprehensive list of state agencies, but rather describes 

the primary state agencies that share concern and 

responsibilities for fish and wildlife resources. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

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

the primary responsibility for managing fish and resident 

wildlife populations. On refuge lands, the Fish & Wildlife 

Service and ADF&G share a mutual concern for all fish and 

wildlife resources and their habitats, and both agencies are 

engaged in extensive fish and wildlife conservation, 

management, and protection programs. In 1982, the Fish & 

Wildlife Service and ADF&G signed a Master Memorandum 

of Understanding (dated March 13, 1982) that defines the 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-11 

cooperative management roles of each agency (see 

Appendix B). This memorandum sets the framework for 

cooperation between the two agencies. 

Through the direction of the Board of Fisheries and the 

Board of Game, the State of Alaska establishes fishing, 

hunting, and trapping regulations throughout the state. 

These regulations apply to federal public lands unless 

superseded by Federal Subsistence Board regulations, 

refuge-specific regulations, or closures and/or restrictions 

made pursuant to 50 CFR 36.42 {U.S. Government, 1996-

2003 #421}. Management objectives for big game and fish 

populations on the Refuges are described in Chapter 3. 

The state process for developing regulations involves 

substantial public input to the Alaska Board of Fisheries 

and the Alaska Board of Game concerning changes in 

regulations and allocations. Input may be directly to the 

boards through testimony and proposals or indirectly 

through participation in local fish and game advisory 

committees. For the areas including the Refuges, these 

include the Chignik, Lower Bristol Bay, Sand Point, and 

Naknek-Kvichak fish and game advisory committees. The 

advisory committees assist the boards in assessing local fish 

and wildlife issues and proposed regulations. ADF&G 

biology staff members also provide data and analysis of 

proposals to the boards. Regulations may be changed by the 

boards at regular meetings, by emergency regulation, or by 

emergency order. 

Although many biologists within ADF&G have lawenforcement authority, most enforcement of fishing and 

hunting regulations is carried out by Refuge law 

enforcement officers and Bureau of Wildlife Protection 

State Troopers of the Alaska Department of Public Safety. 

The Division of Wildlife Conservation works to conserve and 

enhance Alaska’s wildlife and to provide for a wide range of 

uses for the greatest benefit of current and future 

generations of the people through management of wildlife 

populations and habitat, research, information transfer, 

regulatory activities, and public service. 

The ADF&G Division of Commercial Fisheries manages, 

protects, rehabilitates, enhances, and develops fisheries and 

aquatic plant resources in the interest of the economy and 

general well-being of the state, consistent with the 

sustained-yield principle and subject to allocations 

established through public regulatory processes. It is 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

A-12 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

responsible for management of the state’s commercial, 

subsistence, and personal-use fisheries. 

The Division of Sport Fish is responsible for the state’s 

recreational fishery resource: the conservation of selfperpetuating populations of fish; management of sport 

fisheries in both salt and fresh water; and hatchery 

production and release of fish for recreational angling. The 

goals of the division are to conserve naturally reproducing 

populations of sport fish species, provide a diverse mix of 

sport fishing opportunities, and optimize the social and 

economic benefits of Alaska’s recreational fisheries. 

The Division of Subsistence is the research branch of 

ADF&G responsible for providing comprehensive 

information on the customary and traditional use of wild 

resources. Information is provided to meet management 

goals, aid in regulation development, facilitate collaborative 

agreements, assess environmental impacts, and describe the 

unique role of wild resources in Alaska. 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and 

its subdivisions are also key management partners. The 

DNR manages all state-owned land, water, and surface and 

subsurface resources except for fish and game. The DNR 

Division of Mining, Land, and Water manages the state’s 

water and lands interests within the Refuges. These 

interests will become increasingly significant in the next 10--

15 years, especially with regard to water rights, navigable 

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

over Refuge lands. 

Native Governments

There is a unique and distinctive political relationship 

between the United States and Native American 

governments------as defined by treaties, statutes, court 

decisions, and the U.S. Constitution------that differentiates 

Native American governments from other interests and 

constituencies, and that extends to all federal agencies 

{USFWS, 1994 #1253}. The refuge manager will maintain 

government-to-government relationships with the 15 Native 

corporations that own or have selected lands within or 

adjacent to the Refuges. The Service will work directly with 

Native governments involved in activities relating to the 

Refuges, will observe legislative mandates and trust 

responsibilities, and will respect cultural values when 

planning and implementing programs. 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-13 

1.4 References Cited 

Alaska Shorebird Working Group. 2000. “A conservation 

plan for Alaska shorebirds.” Unpublished report. 

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

Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group. 1999. “Landbird 

conservation plan for Alaska biogeographic regions.” 

Version 1.0; unpublished report. Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

Bristol Bay Study Group. 1984. “Proposed Bristol Bay 

cooperative management plan and draft 

environmental impact statement.” Anchorage, 

Alaska: Alaska Land Use Council and the U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, and B. Harrington, eds. 2000. The 

U.S. shorebird conservation plan. Manomet, 

Massachusetts: Manomet Center for Conservation 

Sciences. 

DNR. 1984. “Bristol Bay area plan for state lands.” 

Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources. 

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

the marbled godwit and description of an Alaska 

subspecies.” The Condor 91: 436–443. 

HDR Alaska. 1999. “Lake and Peninsula Borough overall 

economic development plan.” Final. Anchorage, 

Alaska: HDR Alaska, Inc. 

Lons, D., Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges manager. 

2003. Telephone call to P. Wikoff, U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service planner. June 11, 2003. 

NPS. 1986. “General management plan, wilderness 

suitability review, land protection plan, Katmai 

National Park and Preserve.” Denver, Colorado: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service. 

NPS. 1987. “General management plan, wilderness 

suitability review, land protection plan, Aniakchak 

National Monument and Preserve.” NPS D-8A. 

Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 

NPS. 1988. “Final environmental impact statement, 

wilderness recommendation, Katmai National Park 

and Preserve.” NPS D-34A. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 

USFWS. “Service Manual.” Accessed June 4, 2003. At 

http://policy.fws.gov/manual.html on the World Wide Web, 

produced by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 
Appendix A: Legal and Policy Guidance; Coordination with Other Governments 

A-14 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

USFWS. 1989. “Comprehensive management plans for 

Arctic nesting geese in Alaska.” Anchorage, Alaska: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

USFWS. 1998. “Expanding the Vision: 1998 Update, North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan.” Accessed 

June 16, 2003. At 

http://northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/nawmphp.htm on the 

World Wide Web, produced by U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service; Semarnat 

Mexico; Environment Canada.