Appendix I 

Response to Comments 
Appendix I 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-1 

1. Introduction 

We received comments from the public at meetings, in writing 

by mail, and electronically over the Internet. 

2. Comments from Public 

Meetings 

We conducted meetings in eight villages near the Refuges and 

in Anchorage. 

Table I-1 Locations and dates of public meetings 

Community Number of Attendees Meeting Date 

Chignik Lake 7 3/10/04 

Chignik Bay 0 3/12/04 

Chignik Lagoon 5 3/12/04 

Pilot Point 5 3/30/04 

Port Heiden 6 3/31/04 

Perryville 4 4/01/04 

Egegik 8 4/08/04 

Naknek and South Naknek 1 4/15/04 

Anchorage 7 5/11/04 

2.1 Synopsis of Comments and 

Concerns from Public Meetings 

In general, the following input was received: 

• People are satisfied with how the refuge has been managed. 

• People expressed support for Alternative 3 of the Draft 

Plan. 

• People are concerned about wildlife populations. Many 

thought that predators are a problem and that moose and 

caribou population numbers are too low. 

• People are concerned about the potential for conflicts 

between user groups. 

• People support studies to determine use levels. 

• Most respondents unanimously support the prohibition of 

helicopter landings for recreation purposes. 

• People are not concerned about the proposed boundary 

change for the Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area. 

• People expressed the importance of subsistence activities to 

local communities. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-2 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3. Written and Electronic 

Comments 

The public sent in 11,537 comments (via e-mail, regular mail, 

and telephone). Eighty-one letters were received via regular 

mail, and two persons telephoned comments, which were 

documented by the staff member receiving the telephone calls. 

All other comments were received via e-mail. The planning team 

included all these comments in the analysis. Some comments 

were signed by two or more persons; these were tallied by 

signature. Some were duplicates by the same person; any 

duplicates were removed. 

3.1 Who Commented 

Three government organizations, 13 nongovernmental 

organizations, and four businesses sent comments; all other 

comments were from individuals. 

Government

• State of Alaska 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• Chignik Lagoon Village Council 

Nongovernmental Organizations

• Safari Club International 

• Alaska Outdoor Council 

• Voices for Animals 

• Oceans Conservancy, Alaska 

• Wilderness Watch, Alaska Chapter 

• The Wilderness Society, Alaska (commenting for National 

Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, 

Defenders of Wildlife, Northern Alaska Environmental 

Center, and Arctic Connections) 

• National Wildlife Refuge Association, Alaska 

Representative 

• Sierra Club, Alaska Chapter 

• The Nature Conservancy 

• Alaska Miners Association 

• Northwest Mining Association 

Businesses

• Nova Gold 

• Alaska Gold Co. 

• Egli Air Haul 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-3 

• Grizzly Skins of Alaska 

People in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico, as well as from 22 other countries sent comments. People 

from California provided nearly twice as many comments as 

those from any other state. People from New York, Florida, and 

Washington also sent many comments. Commenters from 

Washington and Colorado provided many more comments than 

would be expected based on their populations. Commenters 

from North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, and Nebraska 

provided few comments. Alaskans appeared represented in 

these comments in approximately their proportion of the U.S. 

population. 

We received 49 comments from other countries: Australia, 

Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, Columbia, Finland, 

France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, 

Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, 

and the United Kingdom. Nineteen of these comments were 

from Canada and five each were from Mexico and the United 

Kingdom. 

4. Content of Comments 

Received on the Draft Plan 

Of the 11,537 comments received, more than 11,400 were form 

letters. About 130 letters were unique; some of those included 

the same comments as the form letters but had additional 

comments. 

Most comments addressed three general topics: oil and gas 

development (on these refuges and Alaska refuges in general) 

and other development within refuges; Wilderness study and 

recommendations; and recreation access by means of helicopter, 

snowmachine, or off-road vehicle. Most people opposed any oil 

and gas exploration, leasing, or development on all refuges in 

Alaska. They also wanted the Service to conduct a Wilderness 

review and provide Wilderness recommendations. They opposed 

use of helicopters, snowmachines, and off-road vehicles for 

recreation access. They also opposed development of 

transportation and utility systems (e.g., roads, pipelines, 

transmission lines) on the refuges. Some individuals and 

organizations, including the State of Alaska, supported oil and 

gas exploration, leasing, and development and recreation use of 

helicopters and other vehicles and opposed Wilderness review 

and any new Wilderness recommendations. 

Some comments were difficult to interpret or were outside the 

scope of this plan and are thus not discussed here. The form 

letters called for the Service to strengthen the Preferred 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-4 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Alternative but did not indicate how this should be 

accomplished. A couple of people opposed hunting. Several 

people also commented that the Refuges should be managed 

with an eye to the future: protect them for our children and 

grandchildren” was a frequent comment in e-mails. One 

individual provided detailed comments about some fishery data 

in the Plan. Another provided several planning and National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process comments and 

questioned the need for plan revisions. 

Table I-2 Most common comments on the Draft Plan 

Comment Supported Opposed Draft Preferred 

Alternative 

Oil and Gas 

Exploration, Leasing, 

and Development

8 11,554 Not allowed 

Wilderness Review and 

Recommendation

11,518 7 Not conducted 

Helicopters for 

Recreation Access

2 11,528 Not allowed 

5. Summary of Comments 

Received with Service 

Responses 

Note: The comment letter received from the State of Alaska, and 

responses to each point raised, appears in its entirety at the 

end of this appendix. Copies of the letters from the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Village of Chignik 

Lagoon are also provided. 

5.1 Wilderness Review and 

Recommendation 

Several of those commenting supported the Service’s decision to 

not conduct a Wilderness review and to not provide new 

Wilderness recommendations. Others, including those sending 

the form letters, objected to not conducting a Wilderness 

review. Still others commented that new Wilderness studies 

would be inconsistent with the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA), arguing that Section 1317 of the 

act was the only mechanism driving Wilderness studies in 

refuges in Alaska and that it was a one-time directive. They 

interpreted Sections 101(d) and 1326 of ANILCA as providing 

for “no more” Wilderness studies beyond those conducted for 

the original comprehensive conservation plans prepared in the 

1980s. Other organizations made similar arguments. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-5 

One organization commented that Service planning policy and 

Section 304(g)(1) and (2) and Section 1317 of ANILCA direct 

the Service to conduct Wilderness reviews. They stated that, 

because the Secretary of the Interior never forwarded the 1980s 

plans’ Wilderness recommendations to the President, the 

Service has not met the requirements of Section 1317 of 

ANILCA. They further commented that the National 

Environmental Policy Act’s requirements for considering a 

reasonable range of alternatives would require analysis of 

Wilderness recommendations. The organization concluded that, 

without completing a Wilderness review and/or making 

recommendations, the Service would be out of compliance with 

ANILCA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and Service 

policy and guidelines. They pointed out that the Tongass 

National Forest was ordered by a court decision to complete a 

Wilderness review and analyze Wilderness recommendations as 

part of revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan. 

Another group asked why the Service was not abiding by 

existing regulations for conducting Wilderness studies. They 

pointed out that there were different lands now available for 

consideration due to settlement of Native land claims. The 

group also commented that Koniag Corporation’s in-lieu 

subsurface selections in the Refuges are a special case: 

The Draft notes that Congressional policy rules out 

adding “split estate” to the Wilderness System, 

implying that it would be pointless to consider the 

overlying refuge-owned surface estate for potential 

addition to the Wilderness System. However, Koniag 

explored its in-lieu refuge inholdings for oil and gas 

and other mineral potential, but did not discover 

economically recoverable deposits. As the Draft 

Revision notes, Koniag is interested in selling or 

trading its in-lieu holdings to the federal government. 

Given Koniag’s continuing interest, we recommend 

that the refuge surface estate be evaluated as part of 

the overall wilderness review process, on the 

assumption that the subsurface estate will eventually 

be acquired. 

An organization urged the Service to conduct a Wilderness 

reviews as required under Section 1317 of ANILCA and to 

incorporate the review in the final Plan. They also commented 

It is our understanding that reviews conducted during 

the first CCP process were inappropriately restricted 

(GAO Report #89-144 Alaska Wildlife Refuges: 

Restrictive Criteria Used to Recommend Additional 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-6 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Wilderness), and that no recommendations have been 

forwarded by the Secretary. 

Response

Section 1.8 of the Plan provides the Service’s rationale for not 

conducting Wilderness reviews. After a thorough review of 

ANILCA Sec. 304(g) planning requirements and the Refuge 

System planning policy, we determined that, until the Service’s 

Wilderness review policy is complete, we can best meet the 

ANILCA requirements by identifying the special values of the 

Refuges and providing clearer direction for how the Refuges 

will be administered to protect these values without conducting 

a Wilderness review. 

An organization commented that the Refuges’ Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

(CCP/EIS) should include intertidal, nearshore, and marine 

waters within the existing Wilderness recommendations: 

In order to preserve coastal wilderness values (and 

refuge-protected species relying on the wilderness 

character of the habitat), the draft CCP/EIS must 

consider extending the recommended wilderness 

boundaries seaward beyond the shoreline. The draft 

CCP/EIS includes a recommendation for addition of 

398,000 acres to the Becharof Refuge (which would 

render the entire Becharof Refuge coastline a 

wilderness) as well as 9,900 acres of Seal Cape unit of 

the Alaska Maritime Refuge. This recommendation 

should extend to include the intertidal, nearshore and 

marine waters abutting the existing wilderness 

designations as well as the current recommended 

wilderness additions. 

Response

Some portions of marine environments are within the mapped 

boundaries of the Refuges. Although these marine areas lie 

within the Refuges’ mapped boundaries, there was no prestatehood withdrawal or reservation of submerged lands 

beneath these marine waters. Section 103 of ANILCA states 

that refuges’ coastal boundaries do not extend seaward beyond 

the mean high tide line except to where the state may agree to 

an extension. 

5.2 Wilderness Management 

The Service received a number of comments related to 

management of designated Wilderness areas. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-7 

5.2.1 Motorized and Mechanized Equipment in Wilderness 

One organization commented that the management direction 

contained in Chapter 2 regarding motorized and mechanized 

activities in Wilderness violates the Wilderness Act. The 

organization stated that Congress never intended to include 

recreation activities in the category of traditional activities. The 

organization recommended prohibiting recreational use of 

snowmachines and off-road vehicles within the refuge. 

Other entities opposed the proposed prohibition on preANILCA motorized and mechanized equipment. One stated, 

“Congress repeatedly affirmed its intent to protect the existing 

Alaskan lifestyle by allowing pre-ANILCA uses. Such uses are 

an important part of hunting camps, spike camps, fish camps, 

summer and winter recreation, and local residents’ activities.” 

Another said that motorized equipment is essential to hunting 

and fishing and that its use predates ANILCA. Another 

stressed its long-standing disagreement with the Service’s 

regional policy on use of motorized equipment in Wilderness. 

An organization pointed out that 50 Code of Federal 

Regulations 35.5(b) [Refuge System Wilderness Regulations] 

gives greater discretion to the Service director to permit the use 

of motorized equipment in Wilderness than is allowed by the 

Wilderness Act. They commented that the Service wrote a 

letter stating as much in 2000. 

Response

In Alaska, provisions of ANILCA take precedence over the 

Wilderness Act regarding uses within designated Wilderness 

areas. The Plan was developed under existing regulations and 

Fish & Wildlife Service regional policy. When regulations or 

policy are revised, the Plan will be reviewed and amended as 

necessary to bring it into compliance with new direction. We 

believe that no changes in the management direction outlined 

in sections 2.15 and 2.24 of the Plan, which relate to 

mechanized or motorized use within Wilderness, are needed at 

this time. 

5.2.2 Motorized Access to Wilderness 

One organization believes that there is no legal authority to 

allow helicopter air taxis within refuge Wilderness. They stated 

that the exception for activities that occurred prior to the 

establishment of a Wilderness only applies to USDA Forest 

Service Wilderness areas. Another group commented that the 

plan’s various exceptions—such as those under ANILCA 

Section 1110—”do not adequately stress the responsibility and 

authority for federal managers to make restrictions to prevent 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-8 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

resource damage.” The first organization cited ANILCA 

legislative history (Senate Report No 96-413, page 247) to 

support its contention that motorized access in Wilderness may 

be permitted only at those levels of intensity existing at the time 

of Wilderness designation. 

That same organization commented, “Other than the previously 

mentioned exception for traditional activities, the Service can 

only permit the generally prohibited motorized and mechanized 

uses in Wilderness areas on Alaska refuges where such uses are 

necessary to meet minimum requirements for the 

administration of the area for the purpose of the Wilderness 

Act.” 

Response

The activity “Helicopter Air Taxis” in Table 2.1 has been 

corrected to show that use of helicopter air taxis is not allowed 

within Wilderness areas unless the use was established prior to 

Wilderness designation. 

5.2.3 Traditional Activities in Wilderness 

An organization stated that recreation is not a traditional 

activity for which airplane use may be allowed. Another 

organization requested that traditional activities be defined in 

refuge regulations prior to revision of comprehensive 

conservation plans for Alaska refuges. The first organization 

stated that there is no authority for allowing bicycle use in 

Wilderness. 

Response

Use of airplanes for access is specifically authorized by Section 

1110(a) of ANILCA. We interpret Sec. 1110(a) of ANILCA to 

include bicycles as a valid form of nonmotorized surface 

transportation that facilitates traditional activities allowed 

within Wilderness areas as long as they are used in a manner 

that is not detrimental to the resource values of the unit. 

5.2.4 Minimum Requirements Analysis 

An organization commented that the Draft Plan 

“inappropriately addresses allowable uses in designated 

Wilderness.” They requested that the discussion of “minimum 

requirements analysis” be expanded to cite a statement in 

Section 4(c) of The Wilderness Act “for the administration of 

the area for the purposes of this Act.” They believe that this 

means minimum requirements to administer an area as 

Wilderness, not minimum requirements to accomplish a task 

that is not part of administering an area as Wilderness. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-9 

Response

The Service interprets the Wilderness Act purposes to be an 

ANILCA purpose establishing the Becharof Refuge. The 

Wilderness Act states in Section 4(b), “Except as otherwise 

provided in this Act, each agency administering any area 

designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the 

wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such 

area for such other purposes for which it may have been 

established as also to preserve its wilderness character.” 

Because the Service conducts activities such as research, 

monitoring, recreation management, or activities authorized 

by ANILCA (e.g., fisheries restoration), we need to conduct a 

minimum requirement analysis. The Wilderness Act does not 

preclude us from meeting our establishment purposes within 

Wilderness areas. It requires that we do so in a manner that 

protects the Wilderness values. 

5.2.5 Wilderness Character 

The same organization commented that the plan inappropriately 

used the concept “wilderness character.” They said, “By 

preserving the ‘wilderness character of the biological and 

physical resources,’ the Service has inappropriately reduced the 

scope and avoids the responsibility to preserve the intangibles 

of wilderness (solitude, adventure, risk, etc.).” They requested 

that the Plan be revised to reflect their comments on wilderness 

character. 

Response

We believe the full range of wilderness values are addressed in 

the Plan. Wilderness values are discussed in section 3.4. The 

discussion includes reference to intangible wilderness values. 

Section 2.24 states, “Maintaining wilderness values and 

resources, preserving the wilderness character of the biological 

and physical resources and providing opportunities for 

research and recreation are the management focuses for 

designated Wilderness.” 

Fishery Enhancement in Wilderness

The group also commented that the Draft Plan should be 

revised to reflect a recent court ruling about fisheries 

enhancement, in Wilderness, that constitutes commercial 

activity, which is prohibited by the Wilderness Act. Another 

group commented, “. . . enhancement includes movement of fish 

to areas where they are not naturally or did not historically 

exist . . . . Allowing such fishery enhancement violates Service 

policies and also fishery enhancement in designated wilderness 

arguably violates the Wilderness Act, which requires that 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-10 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

wilderness areas be managed so as to maintain their natural 

conditions.” 

Response

We have modified the discussion in section 2.22.1, “Managing 

Designated Wilderness,” to reflect the Ninth Circuit’s 

December 30, 2003, decision on conducting commercial fishery 

activities within Wilderness Areas. 

5.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

One organization commented that the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act requires that federal land-use management plans and 

revision of plans identify rivers eligible for potential addition to 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers System and recommend those rivers 

deemed suitable for addition. The group recommended the final 

revised Conservation Plan include a formal review of Refuges 

rivers. It pointed out that the Service is missing an important 

opportunity to recommend Wild and Scenic Rivers for the 

Refuges. The group also commented, “Chapter 4 does not 

include any discussion of effects to potential Wild and Scenic 

Rivers or outstanding river segments on the Refuges. This 

deficiency should be corrected in a revised draft CCP.” 

Other respondents supported the decision to not include a Wild 

and Scenic River review in the plan. 

Response

Section 1.8 provides the Service’s rationale for not conducting 

Wild and Scenic River reviews. After a thorough review of 

ANILCA Section 304(g) planning requirements and Refuge 

System planning policy, we determined that we would best 

meet the ANILCA requirements by identifying the special 

values of the Refuges without conducting a Wild and Scenic 

Rivers review. 

5.4 Oil and Gas Exploration, Leasing, 

and Development 

Several reviewers commented that the Refuges “should be 

opened for oil and gas exploration, leasing and development as 

well as for other mineral development. . . . To reduce U.S. 

dependence on foreign supplies, our nation must develop its 

domestic sources of oil and gas, and other mineral wealth. There 

is no reason why the Wildlife Refuge cannot be managed in a 

manner consistent with wildlife preservation and energy and 

mineral development.” 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-11 

Others commented that oil and gas leasing would fuel local 

economic growth, provide jobs for a local cash economy, 

establish a tax base for local funding of municipal services and 

education, and make available new energy sources to reduce the 

cost of fuel and power in rural areas. 

One organization commented that the Plan proposes additional 

restrictions on oil and gas development when “they should be 

seeking opportunities to expand such development to meet the 

serious energy security needs of the country. . . . The failure of 

the CCP and EIS to consider these needs, and how these 

refuges may potentially meet these needs, constitutes a fatal 

flaw in the CCP and EIS.” 

Many individuals and organizations opposed any oil and gas 

exploration, leasing, or development. Some questioned if oil and 

gas exploration and geological investigations were compatible 

with refuge purposes. One group said that they believed “oil and 

gas exploration activities are clearly not compatible with Refuge 

purposes” and recommended the Service modify the Plan and 

its policies accordingly. Many expressed concerns about damage 

to refuge resources. A respondent commented on direct impacts 

to Bristol Bay fisheries and on indirect impacts to the 

perception of the pristine quality of Bristol Bay fisheries, even if 

there were no pollution. Many expressed concerns that oil and 

gas development would adversely affect tourism in the area. An 

individual commented that “what is perhaps less recognized is 

that increased human industrial activity also results in the 

increase in predators going after discarded garbage and refuse 

(i.e., foxes and ravens) beyond the capability of some species to 

survive.” 

Many of those opposing oil and gas exploration and 

development commented about alternative energy sources. The 

following are some typical comments: “Realize our reliance on 

fossil fuels is a choice, not necessity”; “Oil is archaic, it is over, 

we must have renewable energy sources”; “Look for alternative, 

renewable energy sources such as Holland’s rooftop windpowered turbine”; “The alternative technologies offer jobs for 

people and advanced economical gain for the companies that sell 

them.” 

Some commented that both oil and gas development and wildlife 

management could coexist. One said that “Fish & Wildlife 

Service are trained professionals who are there to make sure 

that animals can co-exist with progress; the Service must 

provide strict oversight of the oil industry.” 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-12 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

An organization provided the following comments: 

Allowances for oil and gas exploration activities within 

the moderate and minimal management categories in 

the DEIS are of great concern to our organizations. 

These allowances represent a shift in management 

approach from the 1985 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuge Plans. In 1985, the Service did not allow oil and 

gas exploration activities within the minimal or 

wilderness management categories. We strongly 

oppose this shift in management approach which is not 

supported by any information in the DEIS. In fact, the 

document appears to argue against such activity. 

ANILCA Section 1008 authorizes establishment of oil 

and gas leasing programs but only allows leasing if 

such activities are shown to be compatible with the 

purposes for which the refuge was established. We 

believe that such a finding is extremely unlikely within 

the refuges. Furthermore, Section 1008 (b)(1) and (2) 

expressly require several preliminary studies and a 

specific national interest determination after 

consultation with numerous organizations. However, 

these requirements are not addressed in the draft. 

While Section 1010 of ANILCA provides for oil and gas 

assessments on all Federal lands, we strongly believe 

that the requirements of 1010 of ANILCA have 

already been met with the extensive exploration 

activities that occurred on the Refuges starting in the 

early 1900’s, and with BLM’s reevaluation in 2000 

(Banet 2000). It is therefore unnecessary to allow oil 

and gas exploration anywhere within these refuges. 

Furthermore, the Service’s policies on oil and gas also 

require that oil and gas exploration on Alaska refuges 

can only occur when the use is found to be compatible 

with the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the 

Refuge System (612 FW 2.8B)—a finding that we also 

believe is extremely unlikely and is lacking from the 

DEIS. Oil and gas exploration activities should 

therefore be prohibited in the Alaska Peninsula and 

Becharof National Wildlife Refuges. 

It is particularly bad policy for the Service to allow 

these activities in the minimal and wilderness 

management categories, and we see no reason for it 

particularly since these activities were prohibited in 

the 1985 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof CCP’s. We 

feel strongly that new exploration activities, such as 

geo-exploration and seismic studies, core sampling, and 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-13 

other geophysical studies, which involve mechanized 

surface transportation and/or are helicopter-supported 

(DEIS p. 2-81) are inappropriate in refuges overall 

where the federal government owns the subsurface 

estate, much less in minimal or wilderness 

management categories. It is also particularly pointless 

to implement an oil and gas assessment program in 

wilderness areas under ANILCA 1010(a) since no 

leasing is allowed in such areas under ANILCA 

1008(a). 

. . . the DEIS is deficient in a number of ways 

regarding oil and gas exploration activities. For 

example, no analysis of exploration activities, such as 

impacts to the refuges values overall or to the Becharof 

Wilderness specifically is included in the DEIS. . . . In 

fact, the Service’s authorization in the DEIS of oil and 

gas exploration in the Refuges without an affirmative 

finding that such activity is compatible violates the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. 

Response

The Conservation Plan does not make specific 

recommendations concerning oil and gas exploration, leasing, 

and development. It does describe Service policy for those 

activities on refuges in Alaska. Section 2.20.1 and Table 2.1 in 

section 2.24 specifically state that oil and gas leasing would not 

be allowed within any of the management categories on the 

Refuges. Any oil or gas leasing proposal would require a plan 

amendment and a determination that the proposal is 

compatible with the purposes of the Refuges. This is consistent 

with the management direction in the 1985 and 1987 plans. 

Oil exploration is allowed in Minimal Management areas 

under the 1987 Alaska Peninsula conservation plan. While the 

final 1987 plan and EIS states that oil and gas exploration is 

not allowed in Minimal Management areas, the Record of 

Decision changed that to “may be permitted subject to refuge 

special use permit conditions.” Although the 1985 Becharof 

conservation plan does not allow oil and gas exploration within 

Minimal Management areas, the Record of Decision changed 

this to allow exploration in certain areas. In all other 

conservation plans for refuges in Alaska. oil and gas 

exploration in Minimal Management areas may be permitted. 

We can envision times when it may be appropriate to allow oil 

and gas exploration that would not lead to development within 

the Refuges. For example, if the state were to lease lands 

adjacent to the Refuges for oil development, it might be 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-14 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

necessary to determine the extent of oil that may underlay the 

federal estate adjacent to the state lease. 

ANILCA Section 1008(b)(1)(B) states, “The Secretary 

(Department of the Interior) is authorized to issue permits for 

study, including geological, geophysical, and other assessment 

activities, if such activities can be conducted in a manner 

which is consistent with the purposes for which each affected 

area is managed under applicable law.” Given Congress’s clear 

intent to allow oil and gas exploration if it is consistent with 

refuge purposes, we see no reason to change this management 

direction. 

Any geological or geophysical study (including subsurface core 

sampling and seismic activities) would require a site-specific 

NEPA analysis, special use permits, and a favorable 

compatibility determination. Decisions to allow exploration 

would be made case by case. 

5.5 Helicopters 

The Service received comments on both sides of this issue, 

although most people opposed helicopter access for recreation. 

Some commented that the Plan should allow means for 

accessing resource development areas by private helicopters. 

Several entities supported at least some helicopter access for 

recreation. (Refer to the State of Alaska letter at the end of this 

section for the full text of its comments and the Service’s 

response.)At least one person opposed any helicopter use in the 

refuge. Another entity opposed recreational helicopter access 

but supported helicopter use for wildlife surveys and studies. 

Rationales and information provided in the comments 

supporting positions on helicopter access are detailed in the 

following text. 

An organization commented that proposed changes in 

management of helicopter access to the refuge under the 

Preferred Alternative are “overdue and welcome.” They asked 

if any public-access permits been issued since the enactment of 

ANILCA for the use of “rotary-wing aircraft” in the Becharof 

Refuge and in the entire Alaska Peninsula Refuge, and they 

requested a list of the permits in the final Conservation Plan. 

One organization further commented on helicopters: 

Congressional policy guidance in this matter is found in 

Sec. 1110(a) of ANILCA, which authorizes public 

access to conservation system units by snowmobiles, 

motorboats, airplanes, and non-motorized means of 

surface transportation. Congress drew a critically 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-15 

important distinction between airplanes—fixed-wing 

planes commonly used in Alaska—and aircraft, a 

category that includes helicopters and other rotarywing aircraft. Under Sec. 1110(a), then, fixed-wing 

planes are authorized for public access, but helicopters 

and other rotary-winged aircraft are not 

Under what legal authority is the Service allowing, at 

its discretion, rotary-winged aircraft for public access? 

Does the Service have a written legal or verbal opinion 

on this question from Department of the Interior or 

other federal attorneys, or is the Service proceeding on 

the basis of its own interpretation of Sec. 1110 (a)? If 

there is a written opinion from the attorneys, please 

include it in the final Revised CCP. If the Service 

received a verbal opinion from the attorneys, please 

reveal it to the public in the final Revised CCP. 

Two organizations recommended that the helicopters-forpublic-access policy in the current conservation plans be 

replaced in the Final Revised Refuges Conservation Plan—and 

in all revised conservation plans for other refuges in Alaska—by 

a prohibition on such use in all management categories. An 

individual commented that allowing helicopter access for 

recreation “suggests an effort to turn these two magnificent 

refuges into playgrounds for the wealthy.” 

Two respondents commented that, in addition to the negative 

effects discussed in the Draft Plan, helicopters “also have the 

very great potential for causing user conflicts with traditional 

subsistence users.” An organization commented that one cannot 

keep helicopters from disturbing populations of big game and 

other mobile species. They also pointed out that the state 

prohibits use of helicopters statewide for hunting and that the 

state closed the entire Kvichak River drainage, located next to 

the refuge, to the use of helicopters for recreational fishing. 

One entity commented that the plan improperly advocates 

helicopter-use restrictions for recreation purposes in 

Wilderness areas because The Wilderness Act allows aircraft 

use where it predates establishment of the Wilderness. They 

further said there was no scientific basis for restricting 

helicopter use on the Refuges and that the plan fails to contain 

an appropriate analysis of the impact of helicopter landings on 

fish and wildlife in the Refuges. The same entity also 

commented that restricting helicopter use outside of designated 

Wilderness is attempting to extend Wilderness purposes 

beyond the Wilderness portions of the refuges. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-16 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A respondent provided detailed comments on helicopter use on 

the Refuges, saying 

The draft CCP’s proposed blanket disapproval of the 

use of helicopters for recreational access within the 

Refuge units is not based on facts, fails to recognize the 

long history of helicopter use in the area, unnecessarily 

limits recreational opportunities, and unduly restricts 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management direction. 

The final CCP should provide that helicopter use for 

recreation MAY be authorized by the Service on a 

case-by-case basis. 

The respondent pointed out that helicopters have been used in 

the area for more than 40 years and noted that effects of 

helicopters on refuge resources are the same regardless of 

whether passengers are federal employees or recreation 

anglers. This respondent pointed out that existing helicopter 

use is not having adverse effects on wildlife and commented that 

approving helicopter access on a case-by-case basis allows the 

Service to “condition such use to avoid or minimize any effects 

on wildlife or Refuge resources.” This person also commented 

that allowing case-by-case helicopter use will not open a 

“stampede of helicopters entering the refuge.” The person 

provided information about how use elsewhere in Bristol Bay 

has demonstrated a “limited-but-important demand” for 

helicopter services. Further, this person commented that 

helicopter access can enhance opportunities for recreation use 

on the peninsula and that wildlife-dependent recreation is a 

priority public use of the Refuges that is to be facilitated by 

Refuge plans. The person also requested that the Conservation 

Plan clarify that the Services does not have the authority to 

regulate or prohibit helicopter overflights or landings on 

nonfederal lands. 

Response

Despite broad support for Alternative 3 in the Draft Plan, we 

found considerable merit in the comments from one agency. In 

response, we have developed Alternative 3a, which will consider 

helicopter landings for recreation purposes on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Helicopters were not used for recreation access in the area of 

the Becharof Wilderness Area prior to designation. Therefore, 

recreation access by helicopter within the WildernessaArea will 

not be permitted. 

This proposed action, to permit recreation access by helicopter 

on a case-by-case basis, is authorized by departmental 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-17 

regulations published in 1986 to implement the access 

provision of Section 1110(a) of ANILCA. (See 43 

CFR36.11(f)(4)) 

Only two requests for permits have been received by the 

Refuges. Each of these was denied as incompatible. This 

information has been incorporated into section 3.3.4. 

5.6 Access, Transportation, and 

Utility Corridors 

Some people commented that the Plan should include greater 

access to the Refuges, including access for hunting and fishing. 

A typical comment was, “Currently access is limited, and the 

average American has little opportunity to access these 

refuges.” 

Some commented that the Plan should take into account the 

necessity for accommodating access across the Refuges, 

especially with regard to State of Alaska RS-2477 rights-of-way, 

utility lines and pipelines, recreational snowmachine use, and 

off-road vehicles. One stated, “All RS-2477 rights of way and 

historic access routes between villages should be identified and 

shown in the CCP and on all maps with their current Alaska 

State RST number or historic name if a RST number has not 

yet been established.” One organization commented, “We agree 

with the Service that the identification of RS 2477 rights-of-way 

by the State of Alaska does not make them valid; instead, such 

claimed rights-of-way are not valid until they have been 

determined to be so through a legitimate process applying the 

proper standards. Under no circumstances may section line 

easements be legitimate RS 2477 rights-of-way.” 

Some asked that all State of Alaska proposed transportation 

corridors on the Alaska Peninsula be included on Plan maps. 

Another organization commented that the Plan should present 

information regarding potential impacts from transportation 

projects on the Refuges. They also asked for information on 

private inholdings and impacts from access to these across 

refuge lands 

Many comments, including the form letters, opposed allowing 

any transportation or utility system, including roads, pipelines, 

and transmission lines; snowmachines; private helicopter 

access; and off-road vehicles within the refuges. The 

organizations represented by one entity’s letter strongly 

opposed any new road, transmission line, or utility corridors in 

the Refuges; they commented, “We believe development of 

these types of corridors run counter to the purposes and goals 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-18 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

of the Refuges, and feel the Service should do all in its power to 

oppose such developments.” 

Response

The lakes, rivers, and undeveloped landing strips throughout 

the Refuges provide numerous opportunities for people to 

access the Refuges by airplane and boat. The management 

direction outlined in section 2.16 and Table 2.1 in section 2.24.5 

provides sufficient direction to manage current use patterns 

and respond to access situations that may arise in the future. 

All RS-2477 routes identified by the State of Alaska are 

described and displayed in Appendix C. Transportation 

corridors proposed by the State of Alaska are described and 

displayed in Appendix G. 

The Service has not proposed, nor have we received any 

proposals, to develop transportation or utility corridors or 

RS-2477 routes within the Refuges. The Plan and ANILCA 

Title XI provide mechanisms for dealing with transportation 

and utility system applications. Until an application is 

received, it is not possible to evaluate the effects of any 

development beyond the general discussion under Concerns in 

section 3.2.1 and the discussions in Chapter 4 about cumulative 

effects. 

5.6.1 Motorized Access 

A respondent provided the following comments: 

ANILCA allows for subsistence purposes the use of 

snowmachines, motorboats and “other means of 

surface transportation traditionally employed for 

subsistence.” In addition, ANILCA allows 

snowmachines, motorboats and fixed-wing aircraft to 

be used in designated wilderness and other 

conservation system units for “traditional activities” 

and travel to and from homesites. As outlined in the 

ANILCA Report of the Senate Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources, traditional activities include 

“traditional and customary activities,” such as 

subsistence and sport hunting, fishing, berry-picking 

and travel between villages and the taking of resources 

for subsistence purposes, such as subsistence and sport 

hunting, fishing and berry-picking (Senate Report 96-

413, 1979). Congress never intended to include 

recreational activities in the category of traditional 

activities. The Service should prohibit recreational use 

of snowmachines and ORVs within the Refuges. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-19 

Until the Service defines traditional activities, the 

agency must clarify that snowmachine and powerboat 

use is allowed on the Refuges for traditional activities 

as authorized under ANILCA Title XI or for 

subsistence as authorized under ANILCA Title VIII. 

The rulemaking process for defining traditional 

activities adopted for snowmachine use in the Old Park 

of Denali must be followed by all Alaska federal land 

managing agencies, including the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Further, we are concerned that the Service is not 

taking steps to appropriately limit motorized access for 

authorized traditional activities. For example, the 

DEIS [Draft Environmental Impact Statement] states 

for all Alternatives analyzed that “fixed wing aircraft 

would not be limited” (DEIS, p. 2-92). Similarly there 

appear to be no restrictions on the level of use for 

snowmachines or powerboats either. 

Rather than simply allow unlimited motorized access 

throughout the refuge, the Service should carefully 

limit or phase out certain uses, where appropriate, of 

motorized access in the Refuges. Of course at an 

absolute minimum, the traditional motorized modes 

allowed shall be subject to reasonable regulations 

designed to protect the natural and other values of the 

refuge. 

The final plan should prescribe adequate regulations 

on motorized access, such as no-use zones, 

environmental stipulations, and time period closures to 

ensure the needed protection of fish, wildlife and other 

natural resources. We recognize that the DEIS does 

limit recreational ATV use to only three existing trails 

in the Yantarni Bay Airstrip moderate management 

area (DEIS, p. 2-34) and appreciate this effort to 

restrict this activity, however we believe that 

recreational ATV use should be prohibited outright 

within the refuges. 

Many people commented on off-road and all-terrain vehicles 

with most opposing their use on the Refuges. One entity 

commented that the Draft Plan did not provide information on 

whether this use occurred at the time when the Refuges were 

established and, if so, what the level of use was and the current 

level of use. They cited a 2001 report by Ray Bane on all-terrain 

vehicle use in Alaska that identified damage occurring at 

locations in the Refuges, specifically Becharof Lake Dunes. One 

person suggested that off-road vehicles could become a problem 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-20 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

in the future and that their use should be closely monitored by 

aerial and on-the-ground visits. 

An organization provided the following comments: 

Studies have shown that ATV use causes compaction 

and displacement of soils, erosion and sedimentation of 

riparian areas, air pollution, spread of invasive species, 

habitat destruction and fragmentation, and 

displacement and stress to wildlife populations. Studies 

in Wrangell St. Elias National Park and Preserve 

found that low levels (10 passes) of ATV use over 

tussock-shrub terrain, similar to much of the terrain in 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges, causes 

substantial resource damage. We believe that crosscountry, disbursed [sic] ATV travel and the resultant 

proliferation of user-developed routes are especially 

damaging to Refuge lands. 

The Service has a responsibility to take protective 

measures before damage occurs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service regulations implementing ANILCA Section 

811 stated: 

“The Refuge manager may restrict a route or area to 

the use of snowmobiles, motorboats, dog teams and 

other means of surface transportation traditionally 

employed by local rural residents engaged in 

subsistence uses if the Refuge Manager determines 

that such use is causing or is likely to cause an adverse 

impact on public health and safety, resource protection, 

protection of historic or scientific values, subsistence 

uses, conservation of endangered or threatened 

species, or other purposes and values for which the 

refuge was established. 50 CFR Sec. 36.12(b)” 

(emphasis added). 

ANILCA Section 811 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

regulations at 50 CFR 36.12 directed the Service to 

proactively manage subsistence ATV use to prevent 

adverse impacts. On average, national ATV sales have 

increased 10 percent each year since 1996 and the 

vehicles are now going faster and further into the 

backcountry than ever before. It is widely accepted 

among land managers, scientists, and the general 

public that disbursed [sic] ATV use causes adverse 

impacts. We support the immediate implementation of 

the proposed ATV management actions outlined in 

Table 6-2 (DEIS, p. 6-8), such as designating areas or 

trails for use and limiting use in undesignated areas, 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-21 

and designating times of year or seasons that travel by 

ORV would be permitted. 

Response

In the 1994 Alaska Peninsula/Becharof Final Public Use 

Management Plan, the Refuges determined that off-road 

vehicles (ORVs) were traditionally employed within the 

Refuges for subsistence activities. Surveys of areas used by 

ORVs failed to show any resource damage. To date, the refuge 

has not documented resource damage that would require 

regulating subsistence ORV use. The monitoring program 

outlined in Chapter 6 will allow the Refuges to assess future use 

and impacts. If monitoring determines that ORV use is 

impacting refuge resources, appropriate action will be taken. 

Current and projected use of airplanes and motorboats within 

the Refuges does not demonstrate the need to regulate their use 

at this time. The management direction in section 2.17 outlines 

the process the Refuges would follow if use increased to levels 

that we thought would be detrimental to the resource values of 

the Refuges. 

5.6.2 Airboats 

One respondent recommended that the Service do the following: 

Clarify that airboats are prohibited on the Refuges 

because they were not found to be a traditional mode of 

access under ANILCA Title XI. . . . Our groups object 

to all airboat use on any Alaska refuges because of 

their significant impacts to fish, wildlife, natural 

soundscapes, vegetation, and soils. At a minimum, we 

urge the Service to clarify in the CCP that the Alaskaspecific definition of ORV (50 CFR 36.2), is superseded 

by the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges specific 

definition at 50 CFR 36.39(c)(2)(i). . . . The Service also 

needs to review impacts from airboat use on navigable 

waters in the DEIS, however. If the use of airboats on 

navigable waters would disturb wildlife, then the 

Service has the authority, grounded in its Property 

Clause authority, to manage the public lands and to 

restrict the use of airboats even if the state has 

regulatory authority over the navigable waters. 

Response

Table 2.1 addresses ORV use (including airboats and aircushion vehicles) in the section under public access. It states 

that their use is only allowed in Intensive and Moderate 

Management areas. We have modified the table to make it clear 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-22 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

that, in the Yantarni Bay Moderate Management Area, ORV 

use is restricted to three- and four-wheeled vehicles. 

5.6.3 Jet Skis 

An organization commented, “Regardless of the national policy 

being determined by the Service at this time, jet-skis should not 

be allowed on Alaskan Refuges. These joy-riding machines fall 

far outside the purposes of the Refuges, are nontraditional, and 

are known to disrupt sensitive wildlife, subsistence activities, 

and other recreational experiences.” 

Response

At this time, we have not documented any use of jet skis within 

the Refuges. If policy is developed on their use, the Plan will be 

reviewed to determine if an amendment is necessary. Before 

any restrictions could be implemented, the Service would have 

to go through the rule-making procedures and develop 

regulations. 

5.6.4 Transportation Access Plan 

An organization objected to an intra-agency study of preANILCA access for any Alaska refuge. They commented, “The 

State of Alaska’s position on developing access in and across 

CSU’s [conservation system units] is in direct conflict with the 

Service’s missions as articulated in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act and in the principles identified in 

the 1997 Refuge Administration Act. . . . If a study of preANILCA access is undertaken, it should be done solely by the 

Department of the Interior at the refuge level with ample 

opportunities for public input.” 

Response

Section 2.2 contains an objective (2) that says in part, 

“Cooperate with the State of Alaska in developing an 

interagency study of access prior to the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act . . .” Our intent is to use 

resources, expertise, and data available to both governments to 

best understand historic access within the Refuges and to 

monitor existing use. The Refuges will use the results of the 

study in determining how to manage access. We have a long 

tradition of coordinating with the state on management issues 

and clear direction in ANILCA, the Refuge Improvement Act, 

Regional Policy, and Memorandums of Understanding to do 

so. Appropriate opportunities for the public to provide input 

and comment on the study will be provided. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-23 

5.6.5 Subsistence Access 

A respondent commented about allowing off-road or all-terrain 

vehicles for subsistence access, saying 

Did the Service make a formal written finding based on 

historical evidence and field research that these 

“motorized vehicles, land based” were traditionally 

employed for subsistence purposes prior to ANILCA 

in certain areas of the Refuges? If the Service made 

such a finding, please include it in the final Revised 

CCP for the Refuges. 

Although four-wheelers were not on the Refuges prior 

to ANILCA, Congress allowed for ‘. . . the use of new, 

as yet unidentified means of surface transportation, so 

long as such means are subject to reasonable 

regulation to prevent waste or damage to fish, wildlife, 

or terrain (Senate Report 96-413, p. 275).’ Fourwheelers come under this new category, and the Draft 

Revision, as noted above, provides for the use of fourwheelers (and three-wheelers) with a maximum weight 

of 650 pounds. But allowing four-wheelers to range 

throughout the Refuges including the Becharof 

Wilderness, as called for by the Draft Revision, is 

contrary to Congress’s requirement for reasonable 

regulation and its intent that the subsistence use of 

four-wheelers not result in waste or damage to refuge 

resources. Various studies have documented that 

unrestricted off-road use of these increasingly powerful 

and technologically advanced machines can result in 

major damage to the values and resources of 

conservation system units and other public lands. 

There is no comparison in this respect between nowobsolete three-wheelers, and four-wheelers able to 

easily penetrate heretofore inaccessible back country 

areas.” 

That entity recommended “that the final Revised CCP retain 

the subsistence ORV access provisions in the current 

conservation plans, which limit ORVs ‘. . . to designated areas of 

traditional use and to designated roads and trails open to 

general public use.’” 

Response

Information is provided in section 3.3.2 that the 1994 Alaska 

Peninsula/Becharof Final Public Use Management Plan 

documented that ORVs were traditionally employed on the 

Refuges by subsistence users prior to refuge establishment, and 

ORV use was occurring without damaging the resources. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-24 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Following the recommendations of the public use plan, the 

Refuges promulgated special refuge regulations and 

established a monitoring program to properly administer this 

use. Implementing Objective 2, under Goal 1, in section 2.2 will 

clarify the extent and kinds of access that were traditionally 

employed on the Refuges. The public will be given an 

opportunity to provide input and comment on the study. 

5.7 Marine Environment 

One organization provided detailed comments recommending 

the inclusion of the marine environment in the Plan. They stated 

that the CCP/EIS fails to consider cumulative effects on the 

surrounding and enclosed marine environment. 

Without EIS level analysis of past, present and future 

effects of human activities on nearshore, marine and 

intertidal ecosystems surrounding the Refuges, 

USFWS cannot draft an informed plan to conserve the 

wildlife for which Congress created the Refuges. There 

is no other way for USFWS to “ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the System are maintained for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.” Marine 

mammals, salmon, seabirds and shorebirds cannot be 

conserved unless the marine waters and intertidal zone 

surrounding their terrestrial and intertidal forage 

grounds, haulouts, and habitats are preserved. This 

essential concept of ecosystem management—a tool 

the USFWS purports to utilize in the management of 

Refuges—was not incorporated into the CCP / EIS 

regarding the marine environment. 

To comply with NEPA, the CCP / EIS analysis must 

be reworked to fully consider the cumulative effects of 

anthropogenic impacts from all sources on the 

nearshore, intertidal and marine ecosystems 

surrounding and enclosed within the Refuges. Oil and 

gas activities, commercial fisheries, introduced species, 

atmospherically deposed toxins (e.g., methylmercury), 

runoff from current and retired mining operations, 

marine debris, recreational boating, and defense 

department activities are but a few examples of 

cumulative effects that have potential to threaten 

refuge-protected species by degrading the ecosystems 

upon which they rely. The draft EIS must also consider 

the relative impact of alternative future management 

alternatives on these marine ecosystems in light of 

these cumulative effects. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-25 

This organization also commented that the CCP/EIS fails 

adequately to explain jurisdictional significance of Refuges 

marine waters: 

The CCP states that marine waters adjoining the 

refuge are under state jurisdiction, but in fact 

Congress clearly included portions of the marine 

environment within the Wildlife Refuge System lands. 

For example, nearly half of Wide Bay is within the 

Ugashik Unit boundary of the Alaska Peninsula 

Refuge; nearly all of the fjords in the Seal Cape / 

Chignik area, all of Ivanoff Bay, a significant portion of 

Port Moller Bay, and half of the huge bay southwest of 

Aniakchak Bay (called Kujulik Bay on some maps) are 

within the Chignik Unit boundaries of the Alaska 

Peninsula Refuge. However, the fact that Congress 

designated these waters as refuge resources has been 

ignored by the USFWS in this CCP / EIS. 

Response

Some portions of marine environments are within the mapped 

boundaries of the Refuges. Although these marine areas lie 

within the Refuges’ mapped boundaries, there was no prestatehood withdrawal or reservation of submerged lands 

beneath these marine waters. Section 103 of ANILCA states 

that refuges’ coastal boundaries do not extend seaward beyond 

the mean high tide line except to where the state may agree to 

an extension. Because the Service has no land or water 

property interest within these marine areas, the Service 

therefore exerts no jurisdiction over these areas. 

We disagree that the environmental impact statement needs to 

discuss the cumulative effects of anthropogenic impacts from 

all sources on the nearshore, intertidal, and marine ecosystems 

surrounding and enclosed within the Refuges. The 

conservation plan does not propose any actions that would 

have any impact on the nearshore, intertidal, and marine 

ecosystems. To speculate on the effects of activities not under 

the control of the Refuges on resources not receiving impacts by 

the Conservation Plan goes beyond the intent of the NEPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 1508.7. 

5.8 Management of Fish and 

Wildlife 

5.8.1 Predator Management 

One respondent supported the Service’s collaboration with the 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and the 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-26 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

implementation of the wildlife inventory plan. This respondent 

recommended amending the plan to include the possibility of 

“predator control if biologically justified as a positive and 

progressive measure.” 

Another respondent commented 

While we recognize that predator management for 

protecting reintroduced, threatened or endangered 

species may be legitimate in certain situations, we do 

not agree that predator management for the sake of 

favoring certain fish or wildlife species is appropriate 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System. . . . such 

an approach violates Service policy. We urge the 

Service to drop predator management for the benefit of 

certain preferred fish or wildlife species from all 

management categories. Arguably this type of 

predator management also violates the Wilderness Act, 

which requires that wilderness areas be managed so as 

to maintain their natural conditions. 

Wolves

A few individuals commented specifically about wolves, saying 

that wolf hunting should not be allowed on the Refuges. One 

opposed aerial gunning of wolves. Another said that they did not 

think that the wolf is being given any protection under the Plan. 

Response

The Service has not changed the direction on predator 

management in response to these comments. We believe our 

intent to manage predator control programs as outlined in 

section 2.14.6 addresses many of the concerns raised in this 

comment. There are no specific proposals for predator 

management within the Refuges at this time. If a proposal is 

received, or if the Service anticipates conducting predator 

control, the proposal will be evaluated. As discussed in section 

2.14.6, that evaluation may include an appropriate NEPA 

analysis, ANILCA Section 810 evaluation, and compatibility 

determination. 

The current language on predator control states, “The Service 

considers predator management to be a legitimate conservation 

tool when applied in a prudent and ecologically sound manner 

and when other alternatives are not practical. The key 

requirements are that a predator-management program must 

be ecologically sound and biologically justified. In keeping with 

our mandate to first and foremost maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity and environmental health of fish and 

wildlife populations at the refuge scale, a predator population 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-27 

will not intentionally be reduced below a level consistent with 

the low-end of natural population cycles (see 601 FW 3).” We 

believe this wording is more consistent with the Service 

Biological Integrity Policy 601 FW 3 than the proposed change 

by the respondent. 

5.8.2 Hunting 

Hunting, Trapping, Wildlife Management

A few respondents opposed hunting on the Refuges. One person 

commented that the real purposes of Refuges cannot be 

achieved as long as hunting is allowed. He also commented that 

changes must occur in Section 302 and 303 of ANILCA 

regarding subsistence if the Refuges are to fulfill their expected 

functions. The comment stated, “The current subsistence 

system must be terminated before the last caribou has been 

killed.” One said that trophy hunting should not be allowed and 

that recreational hunting should be very limited. The individual 

also opposed aerial hunting. An individual commented that 

predator control should be specifically prohibited and that 

guided hunting should be held to the “highest standards of fair 

chase and ethical hunting.” 

Response

Refuge purposes are discussed in section 1.4. Providing 

opportunities for subsistence uses by local residents, including 

subsistence use of wildlife and fish, is one of the purposes of the 

Refuges. ANILCA Section 302(1) and (2) provide that these 

activities will be allowed as long as they are consistent with 

conserving fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their 

natural diversity and with meeting international treaty 

obligations. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act identified hunting as one of the priority 

public uses to be facilitated on refuges when they are 

determined to be compatible within the refuge (section 1.2.1). 

The compatibility determinations (Appendix H) on 

recreational hunting, commercially guided big-game hunting 

services, and subsistence activities have found these uses 

compatible with refuge purposes. 

5.8.3 Endangered Species 

An organization commented that the CCP/EIS fails to analyze 

management impacts on species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act as well as other species of concern: “Marine 

ecosystems support several refuge-protected species that are 

now listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Marine ecosystems also host the prey 

species on which these threatened and endangered animals 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-28 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

depend.” Species identified in their comments include the 

endangered western population of Steller sea lions, the 

Southwest Alaska distinct population segment of the northern 

sea otter, Steller’s eider, harlequin, oldsquaw, surf scoter, black 

scoter, and the western population of king eider. 

The organization commented, “To comply with NEPA, this 

analysis must consider the cumulative effects of past 

anthropogenic impacts from all sources on these ecosystems 

and how those impacts might affect refuge-protected species. 

The draft EIS must also consider the relative impact of various 

future management alternatives on these marine ecosystems. 

Special attention must be given to the marine mammals, 

salmon, seabirds and shorebirds that are ESA-listed or that are 

listed as ‘of concern’ by any other agency or organization.” 

Response

See our response regarding refuge boundaries under “Marine 

Environment” (section 5.7). 

Regarding the marine mammals over which the USFWS has 

management authority (i.e., sea otter, walrus, and polar bear) 

only the sea otter occurs off the coast of the Refuges. 

Management authority for sea otters is exerted through the 

Fisheries and Ecological Services Office of Marine Mammal 

Management. Therefore, this plan is not the proper venue for 

discussion of management of sea otters. 

There are several threatened or endangered species that may 

use the Refuges for some portion of the year. Section 3.2.3 

describes what we know of use of the Refuges by these 

threatened and endangered species. There are no known 

occurrences of threatened or endangered plants on the Refuges. 

Section 7.2 details the plan’s compliance with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. This review found that 

planned actions are not likely to adversely affect listed species 

or designated critical habitat. 

5.8.4 Fisheries Information 

An individual provided detailed information about refuge 

fisheries resources, including Dolly Varden, coho, long nose 

sucker, and Pacific staghorn sculpin. He also commented that 

“artificial actions to increase fish populations in wilderness 

areas may be allowed” is disturbing and that this statement 

suggests a complete lack of concern about the management of 

Wilderness areas. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-29 

Response

The text in section 3.2.3 has been revised to reflect this 

information. In response to the comment regarding artificial 

actions to increase fish populations in Wilderness areas, the 

statement in section 4.2.1 reflects ANILCA Section 304 (e), 

which states, “Where compatible with the purposes of the refuge 

unit, the Secretary may permit, subject to reasonable 

regulations and in accord with sound fisheries management 

principles, scientifically acceptable means of maintaining, 

enhancing, and rehabilitating fish stock.” As indicated in this 

provision, any proposed fishery enhancement activities must 

be found to be compatible with refuge purposes, including 

Wilderness Act purposes for designated Wilderness areas. 

Additionally, Table 2-1 has been modified to reflect that 

enhancement activities allowed by ANILCA would not be 

conducted in Wilderness if the primary purpose was to benefit 

commercial fishing. 

5.8.5 Fisheries 

An organization expressed confusion about the plan’s “intent to 

discourage the artificial increase of fisheries populations noting 

that the Service’s official mission calls for “enhancement of fish, 

wildlife, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people” This organization also recommended 

changing the plan to coordinate with the ADF&G to better 

satisfy the Service’s stated mission. 

Response

The discussion of fishery enhancement in section 2.14.11 states, 

in part, “Refuge management priorities will focus on 

conserving naturally diverse ecosystems. Fishery-enhancement 

facilities for the purpose of artificially increasing fish 

populations normally will not occur within any management 

category unless stocks have been reduced or are threatened.” 

We believe this wording reflects the authority from ANILCA 

Section 304(e) to permit fishery enhancement and from the 

Refuge Administration Act requirement that “In 

administering the System, the Secretary shall . . . ensure that 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans . . . .” 

We believe the plan adequately reflects our intent to coordinate 

with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game in meeting the 

Refuges purposes. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-30 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5.8.6 Wildlife Species 

One organization provided the following comments: 

Identification of species priorities for management and 

monitoring is a critical component of CCP planning. 

Unfortunately, a number of wildlife management and 

monitoring issues appear to be incomplete and 

inconsistent in this DEIS. They are as follows: 

1. Key or priority species lists for management and 

monitoring concern appear to be incomplete and 

variable. State and federally listed species are often 

mentioned without their recognized status and 

therefore importance. Certain Federally Threatened or 

Endangered Species are highlighted, while others 

associated with the Refuges are unmentioned except in 

an appended species list. Breeding, wintering, and 

migrational use of the Refuges by species listed on the 

Alaska State Threatened and Endangered Species list, 

Alaska Species of Special Concern list, and the 

Audubon Watch List are not completely referenced or 

coherently discussed, although the Boreal Partners in 

Flight Working Group list is cited. 

Response

There are several threatened or endangered (T&E) species that 

may use the Refuges for some portion of the year. Section 3.2.3 

describes what we know of use of the Refuges by these T&E 

species. There are no known occurrences of threatened or 

endangered plants on the Refuges. 

Section 7.2 details the plan’s compliance with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. This review found that 

planned actions are not likely to adversely affect listed species 

or designated critical habitat. 

2. In the avian realm, the Alaska subspecies of the 

Marbled Godwit (DEIS, p. 3-28, 3-43) is listed as a 

concern; the Steller’s Eider (federally threatened) and 

the Aleutian Canada Goose (recently delisted) are 

mentioned in the text but the latter is not found in the 

species list (DEIS, p. 3-42, App. D); Gyrfalcons (DEIS, 

p. 3-44) and a list of songbirds (DEIS, p. 3-45) are 

noted as “priority species for conservation” in Western 

and Southwestern Alaska (Boreal Partners...), while 

several on the above lists that occur on the Refuges 

lack mention or consideration for conservation 

management. These include the Olive-sided Flycatcher 

(ASSC) and numerous species from the Alaska 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-31 

WatchList. Additionally, most of these species are far 

from prominent in conservation activities and the 

evaluation of alternatives. Since the draft CCP was in 

press, the Yellow-billed Loon (listed as a migrant 

through the area) has been petitioned for federal 

listing. Special management actions for this species 

need to be addressed in the FEIS. 

Response

The Plan states in section 3.2.3 that the Aleutian Canada goose 

may use the Refuges, but it has not been documented. 

Similarly, the yellow-billed loon has not been documented 

within the Refuges. Refuge staff will continue to work with 

Boreal Partners in Flight and other partners to inventory 

avian habitat and populations as funding and management 

directives allow. 

3. Threatened and Endangered mammals (DEIS, p. 3-

52) fail to include the federally endangered humpback 

whale and the Alaska-endangered right whale, which 

are mentioned to occur in nearshore waters here and in 

the species lists. The Alaska Species of Special Concern 

list also includes the following species that are reported 

in the CCP to occur on the Refuges or in adjacent 

marine environments: harbor seal, Beluga whale, and 

sea otter. Note later that these species are far from 

prominent in conservation activities and the evaluation 

of alternatives. 

Response

The federally endangered humpback whale and the Alaskaendangered right whale are not mentioned in the “Threatened 

and Endangered Animal Species” section (in section 3.2.3) 

because they have not been documented within the Refuges’ 

boundaries. A note has been added to the “ACC or 

NEARSHORE MARINE MAMMALS” section of the species 

list, Appendix D, to explain that, while only gray whales and 

orcas have been documented adjacent to Refuges’ boundaries, 

the other species are present in nearshore areas. 

4. Analyses of biological effects of the three 

alternatives is specific to a list of wildlife species and 

groups (DEIS, p. 4-1) irrespective of the priority 

species described in the CCP and irrespective of 

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of 

Special Concern. Biological effects should be forecast 

for key and priority species mentioned in the CCP, and 

for any species on the lists above and that occurs on the 

Refuges, as well as key subsistence and game species 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-32 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and sensitive species. This list of key species should 

remain constant throughout the CCP. 

Response

Threatened and endangered species and other species of 

concern such as Steller’s eider, Aleutian Canada goose, and the 

emperor goose because they occur on the Refuges in small 

numbers or for brief periods. Steller sea lions, and whales are 

not major elements in the analysis of the alternatives because 

they in marine waters not managed by the Refuges. For 

example, Steller’s eiders are surveyed annually (spring and 

fall) along the coast of Alaska from the Yukon/Kuskokwim 

Delta to the Shelikof Strait (an area that includes the Refuges). 

In 2004, while almost 90,000 birds were observed, none were 

seen in or near the Refuges. Similarly, only 1.9 percent of the 

spring observations of emperor geese were seen in or near the 

Refuges. While sea lions come ashore in small numbers at 

Puale Bay, they, for the most part, use rocks and islets outside 

of the Refuges. 

5.8.7 Management and Conservation of Wildlife 

The organization also made the following comment: 

1. A change in fish and wildlife management objectives 

is mentioned in the CCP (e.g. 4-20, 4-31). While it is a 

bit unclear exactly what these changes are, we have 

interpreted them to reflect an increase in research and 

monitoring, suggested for Alternatives 2 and 3. 

However, there does not appear to be a clear set of 

wildlife management objectives or a template for them 

in the CCP. Apparently there are already a set in 

place, but they are not articulated in the CCP, nor are 

the “new” ones. 

Response

The original (i.e., 1980s) plans did not develop goals and 

objectives. Guidelines for the direction of inventory and 

monitoring of wildlife and habitat on the Refuges are presented 

within section 2.2 Refuge Goals and Objectives. Details of these 

inventory and monitoring projects will be developed through a 

biological review and subsequent inventory plans (see section 

2.29.1). This review has yet to be scheduled, but is anticipated to 

occur in the next several years. 

2. Bear viewing (DEIS, p. 2-93) is a growing 

recreational activity, both commercial and private, and 

has incurred situations of spectator overcrowding, 

reduced human safety (sometimes critical), and threats 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-33 

to bears (e.g. food-conditioning, DLP mortality) in 

other areas of Alaska. Two highly popularized bear 

viewing areas exist just north of the Refuges, and the 

Refuges have a healthy population of large bears, it 

appears. In 15 years (life of the CCP), a major increase 

in bear viewing is possible on Refuge lands. Some 

contingency planning for this, beyond simple 

monitoring, should be included in the Revised CCP. 

Response

While bear viewing has increased dramatically within Katmai 

National Park, there have been few inquiries about commercial 

bear viewing within the Refuges. This lack of interest may 

result from the Refuges being further from the airports 

(Kodiak, Homer, and King Salmon) that serve bear viewers in 

Southwest Alaska or because areas within the Refuges do not 

provide easy access or good viewing vistas. We believe that the 

potential for significantly increased bear viewing within the 

life of this plan is small and does not justify contingency 

planning. The refuge manager believes the current permitting 

process is adequate to handle expected growth. 

3. Subsistence harvests of migratory birds (DEIS, p. 

2-93) are also affected by the Alaska Migratory Bird 

Co-management Council, which currently produces a 

list of species not to be taken. This list should be 

included in the FEIS and Revised CCP? 

Response

The Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council makes 

recommendations to regulatory agencies. Its recommendations 

are not binding, and regulatory decisions and regulations may 

be revised annually (see section 3.3.2). 

4. The Revised CCP should outline how the Service 

intends to correlate wildlife population monitoring with 

public use monitoring to investigate cause and effect of 

increased public use (DEIS, p. 2-102). 

Response

The design of research methodologies is beyond the scope of this 

plan and will be developed in step-down plans. 

5. Monitoring of wildlife and habitat (enhanced in 

Alternatives 2 and 3) should include toxic and heavy 

metal (e.g. mercury, lead, et al.) assessments for 

ecosystem health and particularly for migrants to the 

western Pacific. Circumpolar networks of these 

assessments are available for participation. In the 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-34 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

agency’s monitoring efforts, the Service should include 

a process for toxic and heavy metal assessments in the 

FEIS and Revised CCP, which may interface 

circumpolar research networks already available. 

Response

This issue is best addressed at the statewide or national level. 

We believe the programs and management direction outlined 

in the Plan allow for the Refuges to participate as appropriate 

in any larger-scale programs developed. The Refuges’ role in 

monitoring the health of refuge lands will be addressed during 

the development of step-down fish, wildlife, and habitat 

monitoring and inventory plans. 

6. The Revised CCP should include annual productivity 

as an important parameter to monitor for long-lived 

avian species with low annual production of chicks, 

such as loons. Loons are also recognized as bioindicators for human disturbance and toxins and heavy 

metals in aquatic systems. 

Response

The Service recognizes that this is an important issue and will 

be considered, with others, during the biological review, which 

will develop details of inventory and monitoring projects for 

the Refuges. See section 2.29.1. 

7. Increases in bear harvest (DEIS, p. 3-47) and 

reductions of caribou numbers (DEIS, p. 3-49) and 

moose numbers (DEIS, p. 3-51) both suggest keeping 

relatively inaccessible areas less accessible, i.e. 

restricting and not permitting recreational helicopter 

use and not permitting industrial exploration. 

Response:

Helicopter permits would be subject to compatibility 

determinations and would not be issued if helicopter use 

presented a significant risk of adverse impacts to refuge 

resources or subsistence opportunities. Also, by Alaska law, 

helicopters may not be used in hunting. 

5.8.8 Mission, Purposes, and Goals Regarding Wildlife 

The organization also made these comments: 

1. Wilderness is a stated purpose of these Refuges and 

a management scheme that would benefit natural 

populations of wildlife. However, the wilderness values 

of the areas of formally proposed wilderness are not 

discussed nor protected from degradation that might 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-35 

remove them from wilderness consideration. Why has 

the Service not discussed these values and included 

measures to protect these lands from future 

degradation? 

Response

Wilderness values are discussed in section 3.4. The discussions 

in this section about Island Arm and Mount Peulik, Big Creek 

and Katmai Uplands, and Chignik Unit cover the areas 

proposed for Wilderness designation in the original 

conservation plans. The discussion recognizes the existing 

Wilderness recommendation. All of these areas fall within the 

Minimal Management category. This management category 

emphasizes maintaining the natural environment with very 

little evidence of human-caused change (section 2.24.2). 

2. What are the “clearer goals and objectives” 

for wildlife dependent uses (DEIS, p. 2-144) in 

Alternative 3? 

Response

Clarification has been provided in Alternative 1 that the 

current management direction does not contain goals and 

objectives. The goals and objectives displayed in section 2.2 

apply only to the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a). 

3. Geophysical/seismic (oil and gas) exploration are 

categorically not part of the Refuge Purposes (DEIS, 

p. 1-10 etc.) or Goals, nor are they mentioned in the 

FWS Mission, yet they are suddenly allowable in the 

draft CCP—and at the likely cost to wilderness and 

therefore to natural wildlife ecology. This appears 

counter to the Mission, Purposes and Goals. 

Response

The management direction in section 2.20 and in Table 2.1 in 

section 2.24 is fully consistent with ANILCA Section 1010(a) 

directing the Secretary of the Interior to expand the database 

with respect to mineral potential of all public lands in Alaska. 

That management direction ensures that any exploration will 

only be conducted if it is consistent with refuge purposes. 

5.9 Hazardous Materials Storage 

and Fuel Caches 

The same organization expressed concern about the potential 

for allowing hazardous materials storage in designated 

Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River corridors. They believe 

that any storage of this type would denigrate the primeval 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-36 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

character and natural conditions of the areas. They contend that 

this could violate the agency’s duty to protect refuges. Another 

group recommended revising the Plan to include fuel caches 

specifications to include 55-gallon volumes and at least five 

stations per operator, including transporters. They 

recommended allowing these fuel caches because of the “vast 

expanse of this refuge . . . [and] in an effort to retain 

accessibility to outlying areas.” They also said allowing caches 

might assist the Service in lowering use densities in higher use 

areas. 

A different group commented that opportunities for fuel caches 

should be offered fairly and reasonably. They thought the Draft 

Plan allowed some individuals engaged in some occupations 

related to hunting and fishing to cache fuel but not other 

occupations that have equal need for caching fuel on the 

Refuges. 

Response

During the compatibility evaluation, the refuge manager 

determined that locations for fuel caches for private and 

commercial aircraft were readily available at villages and on 

private inholdings. Because locations for caches are readily 

available off-refuge, the Refuges would continue the general 

prohibition. However, requests for fuel caches will be decided 

on a case-by-case basis based on stipulations in the 

compatibility determination for the use (see Appendix H). 

5.10 Public Use Management 

and Data 

A group commented that current public-use data are missing. 

They recommend presenting a new “revised” draft with current 

use and trend data. They request data be provided from 1980, 

when the Refuges were established, through at least 2002 and 

suggest that most of the data are available from the State of 

Alaska if not the refuge. 

Response

We have updated information where data is available. The fish 

and wildlife data (section 3.2.3) has been updated with 

information from the State of Alaska. Human population 

figures (section 3.3) have been updated. Values relating to 

subsistence have not been updated as the study (Krieg et al. 

1998, tech paper 244) has not been repeated (see section 3.3.2). 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-37 

An organization commented 

We object to management for “quality of experience” 

as described in the draft CCP. As drafted, 

management is for “high” quality experience and is 

characterized as dependent on low densities of public 

use. We find this assumption subjective and without 

documentation. We request that the management area 

be managed for all ANILCA protected uses including 

all motorized uses rather than managed on the basis of 

potential use conflicts or intangible experiences. We 

also recognize that density restrictions are not 

consistent with ANILCA required procedures for use 

closures, and request the plan be amended accordingly. 

Furthermore we suggest that potential for conflict be 

addressed through education of users and other nonrestrictive management tools. . . . We request retaining 

the plan’s current management direction to provide 

recreational opportunities to the maximum extent 

possible and support the decision that further limits 

would not be imposed without discussion with affected 

groups to review management options. 

An individual recommended that private recreation use should 

have preference over commercial uses. 

Response

As described in section 2.17, the Refuges will be managed to 

facilitate, where compatible with Refuge purposes and 

resources, the priority public uses as put forth in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; these are 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. The plan clearly 

states that we will abide by ANILCA, which provides for access 

and recreation. 

5.11 Climate Change 

One organization provided information from recent publications 

about global climate changes. They commented that the Plan 

“completely fails to assess the potential implications for the 

various alternatives of ongoing and future climate change. The 

Service should be proactive in developing management 

alternatives that account for climate change in management 

strategies and objectives.” They recommended that the DEIS 

be substantially revised to do the following: 

• Provide training on climate change and variability for all 

wildlife managers 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-38 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

• Encourage wildlife managers to consider climate change 

and variability whenever long-range wildlife management 

plans and strategies are developed 

• Implement monitoring programs for impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitats expected to be most sensitive to climate 

change 

• Educate the public about climate change and its effects on 

wildlife 

• Establish and maintain migration corridors that allow 

species movement and vegetation shifts among islands of 

suitable habitat 

• Increase buffer zones around the Refuges to increase 

options for species under various climate change scenarios 

• Remove impediments to inland migration of coastal and 

wetland communities 

• Make the reduction and elimination of human-induced 

synergistic effects a top priority for refuge management 

Response

The Service is pursuing several avenues to address global 

climate change. For example, the Service is coordinating efforts 

at the national level with the U.S. Geological Survey to look at 

this and other national issues. Our Web site 

<http://science.fws.gov/index.html> provides information on 

collaborative efforts the Service is taking to address this issue. 

At the local level, the Refuges will work with researchers who 

are studying the effects of global climate change at larger 

scales. Some objectives in this plan (e.g., objective 7 in section 

2.2) would contribute to understanding landbird changes 

across the arctic and subarctic. 

We have added a discussion in the Concerns section of Chapter 

3, section 3.2.1, addressing climate change and two objectives 

(31 and 32) in section 2.2 under Goal 2 that state how we will 

work with other researchers to further our understanding of 

climate change and the effects it may have on refuge resources. 

5.12 Alternatives 

Those individuals and organizations expressing a preference for 

an alternative generally supported Alternative 3, the Preferred 

Alternative in the Draft Plan. 

One organization expressed support for most of the goals and 

objectives in the Plan and for reduction in amount of the refuge 

that would be managed under the Moderate Management 

category. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-39 

Another organization recommended a fourth alternative that 

would include the following: 

• Evaluating non-Wilderness portions of the Refuges for 

potential inclusion in the Wilderness System and 

recommending qualified areas for addition to the System 

• Studying rivers in the Refuges for potential inclusion in the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System and recommending qualified 

rivers for addition to the system 

• Prohibiting recreational use of helicopters in all 

management categories 

• Retaining the current conservation plan’s policy on 

motorized means of access for public and subsistence access 

Response

Evaluation of non-Wilderness portions of the Refuges for 

inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation System or rivers for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System were 

not considered as part of any alternative for the reasons 

outlined in section 1.8. 

Evaluation of the Alternatives

An organization made the following comments:

1. Allowing for geophysical/seismic exploration 

comprises a “significant change in the management 

direction for the Refuges.” This is not addressed in the 

DEIS. Rather, the DEIS states misleadingly that, 

“scoping did not identify any major issues that would 

result in significant changes in management direction 

for the Refuges” (DEIS, p. 5-1). 

2. Though wilderness protection is an express purpose 

of these Refuges, only one paragraph occurs in this 

section regarding wilderness (DEIS, p. 5-2). 

Additionally, the significant 890,000 acres of proposed 

wilderness are not even mentioned. Designating this 

proposed area as wilderness would constitute a 

“significant change.” 

3. Human activities on the Refuges are currently 

predominantly hunting and fishing (DEIS, p. 5-3), but 

what will predominate when the first oil and gas 

exploration is allowed? What will be the effects of this 

on wildlife across the next 15 years? This deserves 

strong consideration and analysis in the Revised CCP. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-40 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Response

The Service has included an analysis of oil and gas exploration 

potential in the cumulative effects section for each alternative. 

See further discussion of this topic in our response to 

Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

later in this section (page I-47 and I-48).

Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives

An organization provided the following comments: 

1. Environmental consequences are difficult to evaluate 

when activities considered “May be allowed” or “May 

be authorized,” but no criteria for allowance or 

authorization are drafted or reported in the DEIS. The 

Service should include such criteria for authorization in 

the Revised CCP. 

Response

The definitions of terms used in Table 2.1 (see section 2.24.5) 

states that activities that “may be allowed” are subject to a sitespecific NEPA analysis, a specific compatibility 

determination, and compliance with all applicable laws and 

regulations of the Service, other federal agencies, and the State 

of Alaska. Activities that “may be authorized” must, in 

addition to the preceding requirement, have a special use 

permit or other authorization. Additional criteria for how the 

Refuges intend to manage the activity or use are found in the 

specific topic areas in Chapter 2. 

2. Gravel sales, geophysical and seismic activities, et 

al., should be subject (if allowed at all) to avoidance of 

special and sensitive wildlife areas after the mapping of 

those areas occurs, as it would under Alternative 3. 

3. The CCP states that implementing any of the 

alternatives will not have impacts on many species, 

including marine mammals. This blanket statement 

may be approximate for the issues discussed, but 

certainly would not hold, were industrial oil and gas 

exploration (and subsequent leasing) to rise to 

significant levels on the Refuges. Wintering waterfowl 

including the threatened Steller’s Eider may also be 

involved here, and needs to be considered in any 

environmental effects or cumulative impacts analysis. 

4. Discussion of helicopter use (DEIS, p. 4-2) 

completely ignores the use of helicopters in 

geophysical/seismic tests, exploratory well-drilling, and 

so on. One might expect industrial helicopter use, 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-41 

which has demonstrated effects on wildlife, to increase 

potentially above recreational and administrative levels 

of helicopter use on the Refuges. There is far less 

“challenge” to beginning to evaluate the effects of this 

kind of helicopter use (DEIS, p. 4-3) on wildlife, and it 

needs to be initiated and considered in the Revised 

CCP. 

5. Effects of helicopter use on wildlife are discussed 

(e.g. DEIS, p. 4-4, 4-31), but these are limited to 

recreational and administrative use. Industrial 

(geophysical exploration) use is ignored, while 

potentially significant disturbances to wildlife are 

readily admitted. This deficiency needs to be addressed 

in the Revised CCP. 

6. Issues of more than helicopter use and its effects are 

germane throughout Chapter 4 of the DEIS, since the 

Alternatives in the DEIS allow for consideration of oil 

and gas exploration, which would entail many other 

effects beyond helicopter use. 

Response

The Service has revised the discussion of cumulative effects in 

Chapter 4 to include the potential for oil and gas exploration 

and development. Based on the BLM oil and gas assessment 

(Banet 2000), there is very low potential for economically 

recoverable deposits of oil or gas within the Refuges. We believe 

this low economic potential reduces the potential for 

exploration requests. Oil and gas leasing is not allowed within 

the three management categories (Moderate, Minimal, and 

Wilderness) applied to these Refuges. 

7. Effects on Avian Species (DEIS, p. 4-5) fails to 

mention the known and significant potential effects of 

helicopters on nesting and brood-rearing loons and 

waterfowl, and on molting waterfowl. 

Response

We believe that this issue was adequately addressed. The EIS 

states, in section 4.2.1, “However, not all sensitive areas on the 

Refuges have been identified; therefore, helicopter operations 

would inevitably displace some nesting birds. This would 

potentially cause some loss of eggs or chicks to predation or 

abandonment.” Loons are known to nest within the Refuges 

(section 3.2.3). We made no changes in the Final EIS. 

8. A supposition of minor overall effects on nesting 

birds by helicopter overflights (DEIS, p. 4-6) 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-42 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

apparently fails to take into consideration the potential 

growth of helicopter use (including industrial) across 15 

years, and the potential for new technologies for 

smaller, less expensive private helicopters in that time. 

Response

By regulation, any helicopter use within the Refuges would 

require special use permits. Under any of the action 

alternatives, the number of permits the Refuges would 

authorize is anticipated to be small (section 4.1.1). As 

explained in the previous response, the use of helicopters for oil 

and gas exploration is not expected to be a significant factor. 

9. The Service should include draft criteria for 

determination of sensitive areas (DEIS, p. 4-20) in the 

Revised CCP. Additionally, the DEIS includes 

language such as “probably,” “a large part” (10%? 

50%? 95%?), and “might also include” which is too 

vague to be appropriate for planning language. 

Response

Criteria for identifying sensitive areas would be developed 

during subsequent collaborative planning efforts. We have 

provided quantitative analysis wherever possible. 

10. There is anecdotal, if not documented evidence, that 

helicopter traffic (DEIS, p. 4-4, 4-21, etc.) can change 

caribou migration routes, which may affect subsistence 

hunting and caribou survival. This should be taken into 

consideration in the Revised CCP. 

Response

The refuge will use its jurisdictions over helicopter landings on 

Refuges lands and over wildlife harassment to protect caribou 

and access to important habitats. 

11. Under Seabirds . . . (DEIS, p. 4-32): “Without the 

potential disturbance from helicopters...” is an 

erroneous phrase, because administrative and 

industrial use remain potential. 

Response

We disagree. As discussed in previous responses, the potential 

for oil and gas development within the Becharof Wilderness 

area is exceedingly small. Administrative use is carefully 

regulated. Any administrative use of helicopters would be 

carefully planned to minimize disturbances to known seabird 

colonies and likely nesting areas. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-43 

12. Effects on caribou (4-31 et al.) mention only effects 

within the Refuges. The “majority” (what %?) of 

caribou use calving grounds outside but near to the 

Refuges (DEIS, p. 3-48). Use of helicopters on the 

Refuges for recreation, industry and administration, 

would increase the number of overflights above the 

Refuges and over nearby lands for access to the 

Refuge, where wildlife that occurs in the Refuges 

spends some time and may depend upon sensitive 

areas outside the Refuge boundaries. What are or 

would be the effects of helicopter overflights, landings, 

etc. on the calving caribou, for example, including those 

adjacent to the Refuges? What are the effects of the 

same on other sensitive species and areas adjacent to 

or along flight paths to and from the Refuges? This 

information needs to be included in the Revised CCP. 

Response

Under any alternative, the anticipated increased use of private 

or air-taxi helicopters on Refuges lands would not be 

significant. Requests for industrial landing of helicopters on 

Refuges lands will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and be 

subject to NEPA and compatibility reviews ( see the response 

to comment #17). 

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources manages 

helicopter use on state lands and currently allows helicopter 

use for recreation access (recreational fishing) where consistent 

with state regulations. That use could continue with or without 

any Service-permitted activities. As explained previously, the 

number of permitted operations is expected to be small. 

The Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd (NAPCH) has 

continued to decline since the writing of the text in question, 

and preliminary telemetry data indicate that the proportion of 

caribou calving on Refuge lands has increased. We do not have 

sufficient data to estimate the exact proportion. 

The refuge will use its jurisdictions over helicopter landings on 

refuge lands and over wildlife harassment to protect caribou 

access to important habitats. 

13. “Significant habitat” in the Minimal Management 

category (DEIS, p. 4-33) appears to represent a list of 

species not the same as key or priority species noted 

earlier. Harlequin ducks (e.g.) and the marbled godwit 

are rightfully mentioned, but there is no mention of 

other wildlife species of critical concern. The failures 

(1) to select and focus on a single list of key species, 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-44 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and (2) to include state and federal (and other) listed 

species that occur on the Refuges within this key list—

conspire to weaken the structure of a Comprehensive 

Plan for a wildlife refuge, especially in this case, where 

the Plan is to be used as a template for all Alaskan 

National Wildlife Refuges. 

Response

We are unclear what is intended by this comment. The 

referenced section is describing what habitats occur within the 

Minimal Management category. Aside from marine mammals, 

most of the species specifically identified in ANILCA as 

purposes for establishing the Refuges are discussed here. The 

goals and objectives in section 2.2 identify those species and 

habitats the Refuges intends to focus on in implementing its 

program 

14. Conclusions (DEIS, p. 4-33) suggest that 

Alternative 3 does not propose actions that would bring 

more humans into inaccessible areas, which is 

erroneous if it allows for the potential of geophysical 

and seismic exploration. 

Response

See our previous statements discussing mineral exploration 

potential. 

15. Throughout the DEIS, the authors ignore the 

potential (and potentially extreme) effects of industrial 

exploration, and depend inappropriately upon the 

explanation that no leasing is permitted (DEIS, p. 4-

35). Given that no leasing is permitted in the Becharof 

Wilderness Area under ANILCA sec. 1008(a), no 

exploration should be undertaken either. 

Response

See our previous statements. Mineral exploration within the 

Becharof Wilderness area would only be conducted for the 

Department of the Interior in accordance with ANILCA 

Section 1010(a). See sections 2.20.1 and 4.4.2. 

16. The Service’s support and involvement with 

expanding the tourism industry and recreational 

hunting and fishing related to local communities’ 

economic development (DEIS, p. 4-35) runs counter to 

the claim that the CCP does not propose actions that 

would bring more people into the hinterlands (DEIS, p. 

4-33). 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-45 

Response

The statement was directed at allowing helicopter access for 

recreation use. The sentence has been clarified. 

17. Table 4-1 (DEIS, p. 4-43) fails to address the 

potential effects of industrial helicopter use and all 

other effects of industry and enhanced visitation levels. 

Thus the analysis regarding helicopters in this table is 

misleading because it only considers recreational 

helicopter access and not industrial helicopter access 

and all other potential industrial effects. 

Response

Table 4-1 displays the effects of proposed management actions. 

We are not proposing oil and gas exploration and don’t 

anticipate any requests during the life of the Plan. The 

management direction says we have to look at an application 

and make a determination of whether or not to allow 

exploration. We do not think this will contribute to a 

measurable increase in helicopter use within the Refuges. 

Effects of Recreation (Including Hunting) on Wildlife

A respondent provided the following comments: 

1. Outside of the question of helicopter landings, little 

difference in recreational effects on wildlife is forecast 

among the three extremely similar alternatives. 

Clearly Alternative 3 is preferable, because helicopter 

overflights and landings can and do cause 

perturbations to wildlife species, particularly in 

sensitive areas and seasons. Likely, a greater change in 

effects on wildlife will occur not due to which 

alternative is selected (among these three) but rather 

across time as recreational hunting and fishing are 

promoted (for economic development of local 

communities), and in particular if geophysical/seismic 

exploration is begun. These projected changes in 

effects to wildlife need to be analyzed in the Revised 

CCP. 

Response

Section 3.3.4 contains a discussion of projected growth in 

hunting, fishing, and ecotourism –type recreation. The current 

use patterns are not expected to change radically during the life 

of the revised Plan. 

2. It is important for the Service to better plan 

monitoring efforts of wildlife species involved in 

recreation (including hunting and fishing) -- both game 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-46 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

species and sensitive (or threatened or endangered) 

species -- to correlate to human and hunter use of the 

Refuges, so that any detrimental link between the two 

can be identified. 

3. The CCP contains too little description of 

contingency plans for management efforts if and when 

human activities of any type are recognized or believed 

to begin causing significant negative effects of wildlife 

populations or ecosystems (across the next 15 years). 

Response

The Service agrees that monitoring is an important element in 

understanding changes in fish and wildlife populations and 

the interaction with human use. The objectives in section 2.2 

and the monitoring program in section 6.3 should provide 

valuable information to be able to determine any links between 

population changes and human use. The state Boards of 

Fisheries and of Game would also be analyzing data and 

changing hunting and fishing regulations as appropriate. 

Effects of Wilderness Designation and Management on 

Wildlife

One entity provided the following comments: 

1. The CCP fails completely to address the potential 

effects of designation of 890,000 acres of Proposed 

Wilderness, should that occur. 

2. Additional wilderness designation would presumably 

not affect subsistence or recreational hunting and 

fishing. Additional wilderness designation would 

simply provide a filter on effects on wildlife from 

greater numbers of human visits, more air and boat 

traffic, and perturbations to the habitat by 

recreational, DOI, and industrial developments and 

disturbances. 

3. Wilderness management likely would maintain more 

natural populations of wildlife, and would be more 

beneficial to wildlife in general, in the face of new and 

continuing prospects for industrial exploration and 

development. 

Another organization requested removal of language stating 

that “Wilderness designation would increase protection of fish 

and wildlife resources” because they find this statement 

misleading and inaccurate. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-47 

An individual made the following comments: 

The best way of maintaining the ecological integrity of 

the Alaska Peninsula, and especially the ecological 

integrity of the Wildlife Refuges located there, is to 

maintain intact regions through Wilderness 

[designation]. Even if actual Wilderness designations 

are not anticipated to clear Congress in the very near 

future, agency recommendations will go a long ways to 

preserving the wilderness character of the refuges 

until such time as Congress is able to act. 

Response:

Wilderness recommendations were not addressed in the Plan; 

therefore any impacts of a designation were not analyzed. The 

existing recommendation was analyzed in the original 

conservation plans and environmental impact statement. 

Because we are not making a new decision on that 

recommendation, no further analysis is required. 

Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts Analysis

A responding organization provided the following comments: 

We are concerned that the environmental 

consequences and cumulative impacts analysis done in 

Chapter 4 of the DEIS is insufficient. For example, the 

Service asserts repeatedly that management for all 3 

alternatives in the DEIS would, “be very similar to the 

current management direction”, however this does not 

consider the significant management direction shift 

from the 1985 CCP’s that did not allow oil and gas 

exploration or activities in minimal or wilderness 

management categories. Specifically, for the PA, on 

page 4-39, the DEIS states, “This alternative contains 

no actions that could change, directly or indirectly, 

biological or social conditions in the Becharof 

Wilderness Area.” 

While the Service is proposing a significant shift in 

management direction regarding oil and gas 

exploration activities in minimal and wilderness 

management categories, the agency is not completing 

any environmental or cumulative impacts analysis 

regarding these activities, which it is legally required 

to do. This lack of analysis is deficient and needs to be 

addressed. Again, we encourage the Service to refrain 

from allowing oil and gas exploration activities in 

minimal and wilderness management categories. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-48 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Furthermore, the Service must address helicopter 

supported activities in minimal and wilderness 

management categories, and reveal what social and 

ecological impacts will occur as a result of these 

activities. There is a growing body of scientific 

literature that identifies impacts to wildlife, for 

example, from helicopter use. The Service needs to 

review this literature and include it in the 

environmental effects and cumulative impacts analysis. 

While the DEIS discusses recreation and 

administrative helicopter use for all alternatives (p. 4-

31), it remains silent regarding the use of helicopters 

for other activities, such as oil and gas exploration. 

Additionally, the cumulative impacts analysis section is 

insufficient for motorized access on the Refuges. The 

Service is legally required to complete a cumulative 

impacts analysis of all motorized activities on the 

Refuges, including ORV’s, snowmachines, and 

helicopters, among others, for all three alternatives 

analyzed in the CCP. Similarly, there is no 

environmental or cumulative effects analysis regarding 

oil and gas exploration activities and/or motorized 

access effects to wildlife, such as brown bears (p. 4-32), 

in the DEIS. For example, the cumulative effects 

analysis, p. 4-18 et seq., fails to analyze the cumulative 

effects of helicopter disturbances on wildlife. Again, the 

Service needs to complete such analyses in order to 

meet the legal requirements of NEPA. 

Response

As explained previously, the current plans for the Refuges 

allowed for the potential for exploration for oil and gas within 

Minimal Management areas under certain conditions. On the 

Alaska Peninsula Refuge, exploration could be permitted in 

some areas. On the Becharof Refuge, exploration could be 

allowed in Minimal Management areas to assess potentials of 

off-refuge resources. These plans explain that, in case of 

national need, the plans could be revised to consider oil and gas 

development. 

We believe there will not be any change in demand for 

exploration. Exploration would only be allowed within the 

Becharof Wilderness area if conducted for the Department of 

the Interior. 

All evidence points to little or no likelihood of sufficient oil 

being discovered to make development economically justified. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-49 

5.13 Other Comments 

5.13.1 Why Do the Revision 

One individual commented that he didn’t see the need to do the 

Plan because, aside from the question of helicopter landings, 

there were no major issues or problems addressed in the 

Revised Plan. The same individual commented that he did not 

see how the goals and objectives for addressing conflicts 

between user groups were clearer under Alternative 3 than 

under other alternatives. He also asked if visitor-carrying 

capacity is a problem now or will it become a problem during 

the life of the plan in certain areas. 

Response

In section 1.1, we present our purpose and need for revising the 

Refuges conservation plans. While the number of issues 

ultimately addressed was small, the overriding purpose—to 

update and consolidate our management direction for the two 

refuges—remains. We believe the goals and objectives 

applicable to all the action alternatives provide clearer 

direction for managing visitor use and proactively manage 

potential visitor conflicts. Visitor use patterns are discussed in 

section 3.3. We do not have any information to indicate use has 

increased substantially over the past decade. Use patterns are 

projected to remain stable for the foreseeable future (see 

Chapter 4). 

5.13.2 Management Categories 

One person recommended not including in the plan those 

management categories not used on the Refuges. “Some 

readers might think oil and gas activities could occur in these 

refuges, when they’re not being considered.” 

Response

We have revised Table 2.1 to reflect the activities and 

management categories that would occur within the Refuges. 

Some activities such as oil and gas development, even though 

they are not expected to occur, are retained to show our 

management intent to not allow them within certain 

management categories. 

5.13.3 National Environmental Policy Act 

One reviewer commented that there were several sections 

required by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

missing: an abstract, a short summary, an index, and a 

discussion on unavoidable adverse impacts. He also commented 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-50 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

that “impact intensities were never defined or identified for 

topics analyzed in the human environment.” 

Response

The comment is correct that the Draft Plan did not contain an 

index as required in 40 CFR 1502.10. This Plan is being 

provided in an electronic format that allows the reader to do a 

full word search. We do not believe an index is warranted for 

the few hard copies produced. We believe the other required 

elements are covered in the plan, including a summary. An 

abstract is not required, and we only need to discuss 

unavoidable adverse impacts if we identify any, which we have 

not. 

Two organizations commented that the current draft is 

inadequate and that a revised draft should be released for 

further public review. 

Response

We have made changes as appropriate to the document but do 

not agree that there are significant deficiencies in our analysis 

of the actions and activities proposed to warrant reissuing a 

new draft plan and draft environmental impact statement. 

5.13.4 Balance of Management 

An individual commented that “any activities in the refuges that 

create impacts on the land (such as utility corridors, 

unrestricted ORV usage and oil and gas exploration) need to be 

appropriately balanced with preservation of other portions of 

the refuges that have the highest wildlife and wilderness 

values.” 

Response

We agree. Any proposals for development of transportation and 

utility system or for oil and gas exploration will be subject to a 

compatibility determination and a separate NEPA analysis. 

5.13.5 Remove Lands from the Refuges 

One respondent commented, “The CCP and EIS do not 

consider areas that are now in the refuges that should be 

removed. Given the conflicts and controversy that have arisen in 

these refuges, it is time to consider lands that should be 

removed from the refuges.” 

Response

We disagree. Future land exchanges will be considered where 

appropriate, but we have not identified any need to propose 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-51 

exchanges or removal of refuge lands through this planning 

process. The 2002 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuge Land 

Protection Plan will guide any future land exchanges. 

5.13.6 Look to the Future 

Many people commented that the plan should look to the future. 

They asked the plan to consider future generations. One typical 

comment said, “We cannot buy back what we destroy. What do 

you want your progeny to say about you?” 

Someone else commented, “Planning should be for biodiversity 

purposes only.” 

Response:

We believe the Plan sets a course to the future that will 

maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of Refuges lands. 

5.13.7 Management Categories 

An organization made the following comments: 

We are concerned with a variety of activities allowed 

within the different management categories as outlined 

in the Statewide Management Direction in the DEIS, 

pgs. 2-65 to 2-84. At this time we will focus on issues 

specifically related to the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof 

Refuges in the DEIS, and intend to submit more 

detailed comments on the overall Statewide 

Management Template by July 2. 

Response

No response necessary. 

Wilderness Management

We feel strongly that there are violations of the 

Wilderness Act, ANILCA and agency policy and 

regulation regarding activities that are or may be 

allowed in the wilderness management category. . . . 

They include, among others, the use of bicycles, ORV’s, 

snowmachines, commercial helicopter air taxis, 

hazardous materials storage, and oil and gas 

exploration activities. 

Minimal Management

Because the Service has not undertaken a wilderness 

review and/or made wilderness recommendations 

during this CCP revision process, but has indicated 

that the agency will carry forward the wilderness 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-52 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

recommendations made in the 1985 plans, we feel 

strongly that in order to sufficiently protect the 

wilderness values of the 890,100 acre recommended 

wilderness area, activities allowed in the minimal 

management category should be the same as those in 

the wilderness management category. Without parallel 

restrictions, we do not understand how it is that the 

Service intends to protect the wilderness values of the 

agency’s wilderness recommendations. . . . 

Finally, we question the Service’s determinations 

regarding ORV/ATV trails/routes and the Wild Rivers 

management category. While ORV/ATV trails/routes 

are not allowed in the minimal or wilderness 

management categories, they “may be allowed” in the 

Wild Rivers management category (DEIS, p. 2-74). 

Under what authority is the Service allowing this use? 

We do not agree that this is an appropriate use in a 

Wild River corridor, and request the Service change 

this allowance so that it is consistent with both the 

minimal and wilderness management categories. 

Response

Wilderness values will be managed consistent with the 

direction provided in the management category in which the 

land is designated. Within the Refuges, the original Wilderness 

recommendations fall within lands designated in the Minimal 

Management category. We find that this category will 

maintain the present wilderness values and potential for 

inclusion within the National Wilderness System. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires agencies to manage 

designated rivers to protect their free-flowing character and to 

protect the outstanding values for which they were designated. 

We do not interpret the act to require us to prohibit uses that 

may be carried out without affecting either the free-flowing 

character of the river or its outstandingly remarkable values. 

At this time, the Wild and Scenic River management category 

does not apply to the Refuges because there are no designated 

Wild and Scenic Rivers within the Refuges.

5.13.8 Statewide Management Direction or “Template” 

The same organization made the following comments: 

This is a template that outlines management direction 

for all of the refuges in Alaska; however the public has 

not been properly notified of this situation. The Service 

is using the Alaska Peninsula /Becharof CCP Revision 

DEIS as the venue through which to introduce this 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-53 

template to the public. However, interested members 

of the public not commenting on this DEIS are 

completely unaware that decisions made in the Alaska 

Peninsula / Becharof CCP Revision process will affect 

refuges across the state. . . . How were these 

management directions derived? Who developed them? 

Was there a public process employed in developing this 

“default management direction” for all refuges in 

Alaska? Has this proposal been published in the 

Federal Register and otherwise complied with the 

requirements of Title 5 of the Administrative 

Procedures Act? Should not management actions be 

determined by individual goals and objectives for 

individual refuges rather than by some default 

process? How has the Service complied with the 

National Environmental Policy Act in developing and 

evaluating the proposed management categories? We 

feel strongly that the Statewide Management Direction 

proposal needs to undergo a public process that is 

legally sufficient. . . . Additionally, the entire template 

is not included in the DEIS. So, even for those 

commenting on the DEIS, without going to the 

Service’s web site, they would not know that there is 

more to the template than is included in the DEIS. 

Again, this is problematic. Because of these reasons, 

we request that the Service initiate a separate public 

process, outside of the context of the Alaska Peninsula / 

Becharof CCP Revision, for the statewide management 

direction template.” 

Response

The management direction in Chapter 2 is based on the 

management categories and management direction developed 

during the first round of conservation plans developed for the 

refuges in Alaska during the 1980s. Because management 

direction evolved as the original plans were developed, some 

actions in the later plans were not always included in earlier 

plans. In some cases, management direction varied because of 

wording choice or because of a clearer interpretation of laws 

regulations or policy. 

As the Service started revising the refuge plans, we looked at 

the management direction for all the existing plans to see 

where there were similarities and where there were differences. 

We also reviewed all the existing laws, regulations, and 

regional and national policies to see where we may be able to 

provide consistent direction. 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

I-54 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The management direction was applied to the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof Refuges as part of our proposed 

action. The Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges currently 

have different management direction for some activities (e.g., 

use of off-road vehicles. Different management direction for 

managing use by helicopters for access for recreation activities 

was proposed as part of the alternatives. The specific 

management direction for any refuge is contingent on a sitespecific environmental analysis. Only after responding to the 

issues affecting a refuge and analyzing the effects the proposed 

management direction and any alternatives will have on the 

particular refuge will a decision be made to adopt or change the 

management direction. 

5.13.9 Role of the State of Alaska in the Planning Process 

The same organization also questioned “the role of the state in 

both the development of the DEIS and the template.” They 

asked what portions of the plan the state helped prepare. They 

made the following comments: 

Since the State of Alaska may have very different 

desires about how refuges are to be managed 

compared to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the 

majority of the American public, we question their role 

in the planning process. . . . What is the State’s position 

on oil and gas development on refuges? What is their 

desire regarding road building or motorized access? 

Has the State’s interaction in the planning process 

been in strict compliance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act? We understand that the Act does not 

apply to (State and Federal) intergovernmental 

communications where such meetings are solely for the 

purposes of exchanging views, information, or advice 

relating to the management or implementation of 

Federal programs established pursuant to public law 

that explicitly or inherently share intergovernmental 

responsibilities or administration. We do question, 

however, whether writing portions of the plan, or 

participating in regular comment/editing opportunities 

are in compliance with the law.” 

Response

State involvement in the planning process is required by the 

planning requirement in ANILCA at Section 304(g)(4) and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 16 U.S.C. 

Sec. 668.dd(e)(3)(A). Further direction to include the state was 

provided in Director’s Order #148, Section 7, which provides 

guidance regarding how state representatives will be included 
Appendix I: Response to Comments 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan I-55 

in planning. Also, Service Planning Policy (602 FW 

3.4.C[1][a]) directs that the Service provide opportunities for 

state conservation agencies to participate on Service planning 

teams. The Master Memorandum of Understanding Between 

the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Juneau, Alaska, and 

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 

(Anchorage, Alaska) (Appendix B) sets out regional policy to 

coordinate planning for management of fish and wildlife 

resources on Service lands with the state. We believe that state 

involvement in the planning process, including involvement as 

part of the team developing the Draft Plan, is fully consistent 

with ANILCA, Service planning policy, and the exemptions to 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act provisions provided to 

state, local, and tribal representatives meeting with federal 

officers by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 

104-4 Sec 204). 

As members of the planning team, the state representatives had 

the opportunity to review and comment on all aspects of the 

Draft Plan and environmental impact statement. Aside from 

providing comments and suggested wording changes 

throughout the document, the only portion the state wrote was 

Appendix G. 

5.14 Federal, State, and Local 

Government Comments 

The following pages include the State of Alaska’s comment 

letter with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s comments, 

followed by a letter from the Chignik Lagoon Village Council 

and a lack-of-objection finding from the ERP with respect to the 

Environmental Impact Statement. 
May 28, 2004 

Peter Wikoff, Planning Team Leader 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Refuges 

1011 East Tudor Rd.—Mail Stop 231 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Dear Mr. Wikoff: 

Comment 

Response 

The State of Alaska reviewed the Draft Revised 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental 

Impact Statement for Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National 

Wildlife Refuges. The comments in this letter represent the 

consolidated response of Alaska’s resource agencies. We 

appreciate the efforts of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

involve the State in this planning process and the cooperative 

development of the standard management direction for Alaska 

refuges. We acknowledge that the first revision of the existing 

plans is always the most difficult, but the Service’s extensive 

effort to assure accurate information and consider a range of 

management options is worthwhile and, in fact, is already 

paying off with other plans. 

The primary issues addressed in these comments are 

wilderness studies, helicopter use, managing for quality 

recreation experiences and density, management of remote and 

non–wilderness areas, pre-existing uses in designated 

Wilderness, clarifying the process for limitations, and 

compatibility determinations. Discussion of these issues is 

followed by page-specific comments. 

Wilderness Studies 

We appreciate the draft CCP’s direction regarding wilderness 

studies and recommendations as described on page 2-88. As 

you know, the State advocated that new wilderness studies in 

this round of refuge planning would be inconsistent with 

ANILCA for the following reasons: 

• ANILCA Section 1317 is the only mechanism driving 

wilderness studies in Alaska refuges; 

• Congressional Intent in ANILCA’s “no more” clauses 

(Sections 101(d) and 1326) and the specific time 

requirements in Section 1317 confirm that this was a onetime directive; 

 

ANILCA IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

FRANK H MURKOWSKI 

GOVERNOR

550 W. 7TH AVENUE, SUITE 1660 

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 

PH: (907) 269-7470 / FAX: (907) 269-3981 

Sally_Gibert@dnr.state.ak.us
2

• Reevaluating wilderness suitability is inappropriate and 

wasteful of government resources in light of the extensive 

analysis completed pursuant to Section 1317 in the late 

1980s and no changes in land use since then that would 

change the analysis. 

Helicopter Use 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) proposes to restrict 

the use of helicopters for recreational access on approximately 

4 million acres of uplands administered by the Service. Current 

regulations at 43 CFR 36.11 (f)(4) allow the Service to 

authorize helicopter landings on refuge uplands. Provisions in 

the Wilderness Act allow the use of motorized and mechanized 

equipment and the landing of aircraft in designated 

Wilderness, subject to valid existing rights, and permit uses 

(50 CFR 35) established prior to the Act, subject to reasonable 

regulations. The Service is, therefore, authorized to allow 

helicopter use for recreational activities on Service 

administered uplands. We strongly urge the Service to allow 

helicopter landings for recreational purposes within at least a 

few carefully selected locations. Selection of such areas should 

evaluate the seasonal use patterns of local residents to 

minimize conflicts, as well as the biological information and 

fisheries use information described below. 

In response to the state’s position, the 

Service has developed Alternative 3a. This 

alternative incorporates the management 

direction from Alternative 3, but allows the 

refuge manager to consider applications for 

helicopter use for recreation access on a 

case-by-case basis. 

The discussion of biological impacts associated with the 

potential for helicopters to introduce invasive species is 

overstated. The CCP describes potential for long-term, 

irreversible impacts (page 3-29) while noting negligible short 

term impacts and a low likelihood of the possibility of 

introduction (page 4-45). The Service conducts extensive use 

of helicopters in this and other refuges, but there is no 

evidence presented in the draft CCP of incidents of introduced 

invasive species from this activity. With proper, recognized 

standards for the decontamination of helicopters for invasive 

species under Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

(HACCP) methods, as shown by training offered at the Service 

National Conservation Training Center (HACCP Planning for 

Natural Resource Pathways, Course Code FIS2131), their use 

can be safely permitted throughout the refuges. 

The Concerns section in Chapter 3 has 

been reworked to focus on the larger threat 

of introduced species without reference to 

any particular vector. 

In addition, the potential for recreational helicopter disturbance 

of wildlife and impacts on fish populations is unsubstantiated. 

The two alternatives that would permit the use of helicopters 

for recreational use each require that sensitive areas for 

wildlife (as determined in cooperation with the State) be 

placed off limits to helicopter landings or other frequent 

disturbances such as low overflights. Under this scenario, 

threats from the disturbance to wildlife and fisheries by 

helicopters for recreational use would not be substantially 

different than if the use were not permitted. 

The EIS in section 4.10 differentiates 

between the likelihood (risk) of an effect 

and the severity of the effect if it does 

occur. The EIS recognizes that many of the 

effects have a low likelihood of occurring 

or, if they do occur, the effects would be 

minor or short-term. Other effects—such as 

invasive species—may have low likelihood 

but have moderate effects on habitat if they 

occurred. 
3

In addition, the potential for recreational helicopter disturbance 

of wildlife and impacts on fish populations is unsubstantiated. 

The two alternatives that would permit the use of helicopters 

for recreational use each require that sensitive areas for 

wildlife (as determined in cooperation with the State) be 

placed off limits to helicopter landings or other frequent 

disturbances such as low overflights. Under this scenario, 

threats from the disturbance to wildlife and fisheries by 

helicopters for recreational use would not be substantially 

different than if the use were not permitted. 

The analysis of helicopter impacts to fish 

concludes, “No short-term effects are 

expected for fish populations on the 

Refuges (4.2.1, 4.3.1, and 4.5.1, Fisheries). 

Table 4.1 summarizes the effects of 

alternatives 1,2, and 3a on fish as 

negligible over the short term and minor 

(high likelihood) to moderate effects 

(medium likelihood) from potential 

increased fishing pressure associated with 

new access provided by helicopter use. 

Similarly, the EIS describes the effects of 

helicopters under Alternative 1 and 2 for 

caribou, moose, and bears as minor effects 

with a low likelihood of occurring (Table 

4-1). Effects on wolves are described as 

minor effects with a medium likelihood of 

occurring. Effects on bird colonies are 

describe as negligible (Table 4-1). 

These conclusions are not substantially 

different than the effects on fish and 

wildlife in the preferred alternative and 

appear to agree with the state’s position. 

The discussion of helicopters and their effects on recreational 

quality (page 4-17) does not accurately reflect the use of 

helicopters outside of designated Wilderness. While use of 

helicopters for recreation is not allowed in Wilderness unless 

prior use (prior to the enactment of ANILCA) is demonstrated, 

use may be authorized in the remainder of the refuge. 

The comment is correct that the Service 

has discretion to allow helicopter use 

outside Wilderness areas. However, that 

does not remove the NEPA requirement to 

analyze and discuss the consequences of 

making a decision to authorize that use. 

The discussion at page 4-17 of the Draft 

Plan reflects a broad general analysis of 

impacts to resources and does not imply 

the use is not allowed. This is now section 

4.2.2 

In a May 1998 letter denying an application for recreational 

helicopter landings in the refuge, the Service stated it would 

conduct a comprehensive analysis of helicopter use in this 

CCP process. Such an analysis was not conducted. Based on 

the lack of movement on this analysis, we object to the 

continued deferral of the commitment to evaluate the entire 

Refuge for sensitive areas prior to consideration of even a 

single case-by-case proposal as proposed in Alternative 2. We 

request the Service continue to adjudicate current permit 

applications for recreational helicopter access on a case-bycase basis, with specific routes evaluated cooperatively by the 

Service and the State while also working jointly to complete 

the sensitive areas survey by the specified date of 2007. 

We are also concerned that under the current situation, 

recreational helicopter landings within the Refuge occur solely 

on State shorelands, below mean high water on navigable 

rivers or lakes. Joint evaluation of landing sites and 

stipulations for related operations on Refuge uplands would 

The state’s recommendation will be 

addressed in the Record of Decision. 
4

serve to disperse overall use, reduce the potential of conflicts 

with other users immediately along navigable waters, and 

provide access to remote areas with less possible disturbances 

to wildlife within and adjacent to the state shorelands. 

We also urge the Service to consider the benefits to permitting 

carefully managed helicopter use on the refuges. Benefits to 

the Service and public include increased access for fish and 

wildlife dependant activities for refuge users, and increased 

oversight on helicopter operations (including landing areas) on 

refuge uplands. This increased oversight through commercial 

permit stipulations will allow the Service and State to ensure 

that resources are being protected while allowing for limited 

helicopter access to refuge uplands. Additionally, helicopter 

access presents an opportunity for refuge users to disperse into 

areas that receive little to no use, thus reducing conflict 

situations at other refuge locations. 

Managing for Quality Recreation Experiences and Density 

The draft CCP suggests that the Service manages for “high 

quality” recreational experiences. The State agrees that the 

Service can manage for quality recreational experiences 

consistent with the definition and criteria provided on page xx 

of the glossary; however, we request the final CCP avoid 

referring to management for “high” quality experiences, and 

ensure consistency with the draft plan’s definition. Areas of 

the draft CCP that appear to be inconsistent with the recreation 

quality definition and ANILCA are found on the following 

pages: 

 1-12 and 2-9 (Goal 6 reference to “high quality” and 

“low density”) 

 2-10, Objective 53 (reference to high quality) 

2-39, first full paragraph, first sentence (reference to 

“high quality” and “low density”) 

 2-103, first full paragraph, last sentence (“quality of 

angling experience”) 

 H-7, last paragraph, second sentence (reference to 

high quality) 

 H-15, last paragraph, second sentence (reference to 

high quality) 

 H-42, Justification, third sentence (reference to high 

quality) 

We have removed the word “high” from 

the document where it modifies the word 

“quality.” The Refuges intend to manage 

recreation experiences to comply with 

national direction, as described in 

applicable polices and the Refuge 

Administration Act, as amended. Quality, 

as defined within the text of this Plan, will 

ensure that the Refuges meet the needs of 

visitors and protect the Refuges values and 

resources. 

We also request the final CCP avoid referring to the national 

Service policy on quality (page 2-92, last paragraph, forth 

sentence). This text indicates that the Service policy on quality 

has been finalized; however, this policy had not been finalized 

at the time of publication of this draft plan. As such, we 

request the final CCP only refer to the definition and criteria of 

quality found on page xx of the glossary. The national policy 

should only be referenced if it is finalized and is applicable to 

Alaska. 

The current policy on recreation use is 

found in the Refuge Manual 8 RM 1.3. 

New policy is being drafted; once it is 

finalized, it will replace the Refuge 

Manual. The text on page 2-92 of the Draft 

Plan (now section 2.28.1) does not 

reference the draft policy and, as worded, 

allows for changes in policy that may occur 

over the life of the Plan. We have added 

reference to the definition in the Plan to the 

paragraph. 
5

The draft CCP provides direction for “opportunities for high 

quality wildlife dependent recreation, emphasizing short-term, 

low density uses...” (pages 1-12 and 2-9). It also states “The 

density of recreational use would be related to the management 

area. Moderate Management areas would be managed for 

greater concentrations of visitors than would be those 

classified as Minimal Management and Wilderness 

Management areas.” (page 2-39) We recognize the value of 

establishing management areas to reflect differences in use 

patterns and management emphases. We oppose statements of 

management intent such as these that predispose “density” as 

the primary attribute of quality, implying that a primary tool 

for achieving these attributes will be limits on public use 

throughout these large management units. 

The glossary defines quality recreation 

opportunity and experience as “the degree 

to which opportunities and experiences 

meet the objectives for which they are 

planned and managed.” In the 

Conservation Plan, we have stated that one 

of the objectives guiding planning and 

management of recreation opportunities is 

the provision and maintenance of lowdensity opportunities. Low density is 

simply a setting feature that we are aiming 

to protect and provide. The Plan does not 

equate quality with density. To do so 

would be to suggest that higher density 

experiences (such as those that might be 

found in Moderate Management areas) are 

lower quality, and that is clearly not the 

case. Goal 6 calls for quality, low-density 

experience opportunities. More intensely 

managed areas would aim for high-density, 

quality opportunities. 

The plan says that Minimal Management 

areas would have few facilities to attract or 

accommodate high-density visitor use. 

Moderate Management areas have more 

facilities or other infrastructure, and 

therefore they can accommodate (and will 

likely attract) higher user densities. 

Managing for low density does not imply 

use-limits, and the plan makes no claim 

that density is the primary attribute of 

quality. 

Use levels may need to be examined in specific areas where 

monitoring and data collection indicate detriment to resource 

values—consistent with the criteria Congress provided. We 

object to the implication that use levels will be limited in areas 

that are remote, inaccessible, and unlikely to experience 

overuse during the life of the plan. We also object to defining 

the administrative designation of management units defined in 

such a way to invite limits that may later be imposed without 

full compliance with ANILCA, specifically Section 1110(a) 

closure procedures. Some examples of the use of density that 

imply future limits/restrictions without suitable criteria 

include: 

2-39, first full paragraph, second sentence (Refers to 

density of recreational use in a management area) 

1-12 and 2-9 (Goal 6 reference to “density”) 

The Refuges will manage resources and 

uses consistent with applicable laws and 

regulations. Section 2.17, Recreation and 

Other Public Uses, states, “The least 

intrusive means of managing use would be 

employed. Education—through brochures, 

maps, signs, and personal contacts—would 

be the primary management tool for 

recreation management.” 

The section has been reworded by inserting 

the words in italics: “limiting commercial 

guiding and outfitting, regulating use and 

access subject to the provisions of Section 

1110(a) of ANILCA 43 CFR 36 and 50 

CFR 36 (U.S. Government 1996-2003) and 

recommending changes to state and/or 

federal fishing, hunting and/or trapping 

regulations.” 
6

Remote Areas Outside Designated Wilderness 

The draft CCP addresses recreational access to “remote and 

sensitive areas” of the refuge, primarily through the restriction 

of helicopter access on the refuge. We support continued 

cooperative studies and identification of “sensitive areas” of 

the refuge; however, we are concerned about management 

direction based on “remoteness.” We understand many refuge 

visitors seek remoteness as a characteristic of their trip, and 

this factor may be considered in the larger context of visitor 

satisfaction. We also recognize that virtually the entire refuge 

is, indeed, remote. Under the provisions of ANILCA and its 

implementing regulations, the Service lacks laws, regulations, 

or policies applicable to Alaska refuges to specifically manage 

for a “remote” experience. Parallel to our comments on density 

above, we request that the Service treat “remoteness” as a 

descriptive tool and avoid the appearance of establishing an 

administrative standard which leads to limits on public uses in 

the future. 

As used in the Plan, the term remote is for 

descriptive purposes only. However, the 

Service does have authority under 

ANILCA and regulations to manage refuge 

lands to protect the full range of values and 

resources they contain. 

Pre-existing Uses in Designated Wilderness 

We object to the following prohibition of “motorized 

equipment not related to transportation – such as generators or 

water pumps” (page 2-47, last paragraph): 

Under 50 CFR 35.5 (U.S. Government 1996-2003), 

the director of the Service may allow use of 

motorized or mechanized equipment in designated 

Wilderness where such use was established prior to 

designation. Under this provision, regional policy 

allows local residents engaged in subsistence 

activities to use chainsaws. Other motorized and 

mechanized equipment not related to transportation – 

such as generators or water pumps – is not allowed 

(Section 4[c] of the Wilderness Act of 1964, PL 88-

577). 

The last two sentences above reflect a regional policy that is 

inconsistent with ANILCA. For example, Section 1316(a) of 

ANILCA provides, in part: 

On all public lands where the taking of fish and 

wildlife is permitted in accordance with the 

provisions of this Act...the Secretary shall permit, 

subject to reasonable regulation to ensure 

compatibility, the continuance of existing uses, and 

the future establishment, and use, of temporary 

campsites, tent platforms, shelters, and other 

temporary facilities and equipment directly and 

necessarily related to such activities. 

The Service, through policy implemented at the Regional level 

despite long-standing objections from the State, prohibits the 

use of many types of mechanized equipment in Wilderness 

areas. These prohibitions are applied to non-transportation 

related equipment such as chainsaws, generators or pumps 

commonly used in areas prior to the establishment Wilderness. 

The requested changes have not been 

made. At this time, we are unaware of any 

pre-existing uses within the Becharof 

Wilderness that would trigger an exception 

to the Wilderness Act prohibition of 

motorized or mechanized equipment not 

related to transportation. However, a final 

determination on pre-existing uses will not 

be made until completion of a traditional 

access study, as described in section 2.2, 

Refuge Goals and Objectives. 
7

The only exception to the regional policy for use of this 

equipment allowed by ANILCA is specifically for chainsaws 

by local residents engaged in subsistence activities. This policy 

is inconsistent with the recommendations adopted by the 

Alaska Land Use Council (including the Service) and 

inconsistent with Congress’s clear intent to protect the Alaska 

lifestyle. Congress recognized this lifestyle with numerous 

exceptions to the general prohibitions of motorized and 

mechanized equipment in ANILCA, such as non-detrimental 

activities associated with hunting, fishing, and trapping among 

others. We request the final CCP appropriately reflect the rule 

making process at 50 CFR 36.42 and other applicable laws and 

regulations as the mechanism to prohibit this type of motorized 

equipment rather than through policy. 

Process for Use Limits 

Compared to the refuge system nationally, ANILCA requires 

additional procedural steps to restrict public access in Alaska 

refuges under Sections 811 and 1110(a). In essence, ANILCA 

explicitly “raises the bar” regarding criteria and methodology, 

effectively limiting the discretion of refuge managers. We 

request the plan clearly articulate these various provisions of 

ANILCA, implementing access regulations in 43 CFR Part 36, 

Alaska-specific refuge regulations in 50 CFR Part 36, and 

applicable national regulations, that collectively guide the 

following framework for decision making in Alaska: 

1. Credible baseline data – The collection of baseline data 

needs to comprehensively address the issue. We recognize 

and appreciate the draft CCP’s commitment towards more 

rigorous and cooperatively developed recreation use 

monitoring as described in Chapter 6 - Implementation 

and Monitoring. 

2. Development of realistic standards that reflect measures of 

visitor satisfaction. 

3. Data used to support restrictions under ANILCA Section 

811 or 1110(a) must show detriment (including a 

likelihood of detriment) to tangible resource values –for 

example, damage to wildlife habitat. 

4. Implement least restrictive means to reduce damage 

through mitigation methods, including: education, 

increased enforcement of existing regulations, voluntary 

guidelines, and commercial use permit stipulations. 

5. Finally, if other mitigation methods fail to prevent 

detrimental effects to resource values, mandatory 

restrictions/registration/limitations can be proposed 

through the ANILCA 1110(a) and 811 process at 43 CFR 

36 and 50 CFR 36. 

As stated previously, section 2.17, 

Recreation and Other Public Uses, states 

that any access limitations would be 

developed following ANILCA and 

appropriate agency regulations. We have 

added reference to 50 CFR Part 36 to the 

text. 

The word “tangible” does not appear in 

ANILCA. Section 101(a) and (b) of 

ANILCA lists the resources and values of 

the conservation system units as natural, 

scenic, historic, archeological, geological, 

scientific, wilderness, cultural, recreational, 

and wildlife. 

 

If the word “tangible” is being used to 

imply that measurable standards and 

indicators need to be in place, then we 

believe the Plan provides the processes to 

do that. Please see Chapter 6, 

Implementation and Monitoring, for a 

discussion of standards. 

General Comment on Compatibility Determinations. 

The Draft Compatibility Determinations are written to support 

the selection of the preferred alternative. Like refuge plans, 

they are subject to public review. We request clarification 

about the Service’s ability to revise draft determinations, and

how the public review requirement would be addressed if the 

final plan or Record of Decision selects another alternative or 

Section 2.8, Compatibility Determinations,

outlines the process the Service follows to 

find uses compatible with refuge purposes. 

The last paragraph in that section states, 

“Draft compatibility determinations for 

activities and uses on the Refuges are 
8

makes a final determination that differs from the Draft 

Compatibility Determinations. Our concern is particularly 

relevant if the Service selects a different alternative that 

supports the use of helicopters for recreational use, or allows 

fuel caches or other uses that the Draft Compatibility 

Determinations may prohibit. 

We urge the Service to remain as consistent as possible with 

the development of Compatibility Determinations across the 

Alaska Region refuge system. Compatibility determinations 

guide Service personnel and the public in how some allowed 

activities are conducted within Service administered areas. 

Consistency within the Region will allow for better recognition 

and compliance of how activities may be conducted. While 

there may be some instances where site specific concerns 

necessitate differences between Refuges, in most cases the 

compatibility determinations and their stipulations should be 

constant across all Refuges. 

found in Appendix H. Public comments on 

the draft determinations will be addressed 

in the final determinations released with 

the final Conservation Plan.” Thus public 

comment may influence both the final Plan 

and the final compatibility determinations. 

If the Service selects an alternative to allow 

helicopters for recreation access, we would 

still have to make a site-specific decision to 

issue a permit, which would be subject to a 

separate compatibility determination. 

The public comment, review, and approval 

process for compatibility determinations 

provides ample opportunity to ensure to the 

extent possible compatibility 

determinations are consistent throughout 

the region. 

Page Specific Comments 

Page 1-8, 2nd full paragraph. Please correct the first sentence 

to read “responsibility for managing fish and resident 

wildlife...” 

Change made 

Page 1-35, footnote, Remoteness and access restrictions. 

See general comments on managing for remoteness above. 

The footnote clarifies what we mean by 

“remote.” It neither states nor implies 

access restrictions. 

Page 1-37, Section 1.9.2, first paragraph. 

Reference is made to the State Tier II caribou hunt but not to 

the Federal subsistence hunt in the same area. Please correct 

the final CCP to note that Federal permits may be issued in 

conjunction with the State Tier II hunt. These Federal permits 

are available only to local rural residents who have been 

determined to have customary and traditional uses of caribou 

in the area and authorize hunting only on Federal public lands. 

This information is provided later in the draft CCP, but it 

would be beneficial to reference here as well. 

The change has not been made. As the 

comment points out, federal permits are 

only issued to local rural residents who 

have been determined to have customary 

and traditional uses of caribou. The issue 

arises with local hunters viewing recreation 

hunters (those that receive a state permit) 

as being in competition. Inserting a 

discussion of federal permits here would 

confuse the discussion because perceived 

competition would only occur if the state 

issued permits for other than Tier II hunts. 

Language has been added that refers 

readers to the appropriate section in 

Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of 

subsistence use. 

Pages 2-2 thru 2-12, Section 2.2, Refuge Goals and 

Objectives. Several of the Objectives propose that the refuges 

collaborate with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to 

monitor subsistence harvests of waterfowl, furbearers, and 

other resources. We appreciate this desire to work 

cooperatively and ensure that data required for management 

are available for application to regulatory issues. The Division 

of Subsistence has developed a variety of data collection 

instruments over the years that have provided timely and 

accurate information about subsistence harvests in rural 

No response necessary 
9

communities. 

Page 2-3, goal 1, objective 2, traditional access study. 

The State strongly supports conducting the proposed 

cooperative pre-ANILCA access study but requests the final 

CCP commit to an estimated target date by which the study 

will be implemented and completed. These studies are 

necessary to provide information on access in the area and 

activities that are protected by several provisions in ANILCA. 

Such a study is needed as baseline prior to development of 

restrictions through regulations. Delay will result in a loss of 

knowledge concerning the area through movement and ageing 

of residents. 

A date for starting the study has been 

added to the objective. 

Page 2-7, isolated paragraph

We request the first sentence be revised to read: 

The opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local 

residents is one of the purposes of the Refuges established by 

ANILCA. 

The sentence has been rewritten. 

Page 2-9, Goal 6, Low Density Uses

We request this goal be rewritten per our general comments on 

quality, density, and process for limiting use. 

See our response to the general comments 

on managing for quality recreation 

experiences and density. 

Page 2-11, first sentence in 58

Consistent with our general comments on managing for 

quality, we request the phrase “... and increase the quality of 

recreation experiences...” be replaced with “...and increase 

the satisfaction of recreation experiences...” 

The change was not made. Satisfaction is 

only one measure of quality. There are 

many other factors involved in developing 

and delivering quality interpretive 

programs that would not be covered by 

switching these words. Please see the 

glossary for other factors that contribute to 

a quality recreation experience. 

Standard Management Direction 

The following page-specific comments for pages 2-13 through 

2-84 address the standard management direction for all 

refuges. Some of these comments reflect longstanding issues 

and others are based on new understandings or conditions 

since this direction was posted on the Service website.

Page 2-28, Fisheries Restoration. We request clarification of 

the statement at the end of the first paragraph concerning the 

Service’s Biological Integrity Policy. The policy discusses 

biological integrity, but the Service does not manage fisheries 

populations in Alaska. Through the Master Memorandum of 

Understanding (MMOU) and other policies and legislation, 

fisheries in all waters of Alaska are managed by the State of 

Alaska. Additionally, the Biological Integrity Policy mentions 

“natural densities” and “levels of variation” but these issues 

raised serious objections by all 50 states. We urge the final 

CCP avoid unnecessary flag waving. For example, the Service 

may have general direction on genetics concerning fisheries 

stocks, but the State of Alaska is the fish manager in Alaska 

and has one of the most conservative genetics policy in the 

During an internal review of the standard 

management direction conducted before 

the draft conservation plan was printed, the 

state had an opportunity to comment on 

this section of the management direction. 

The wording as it appears in the final 

reflects the agreements reached in those 

meetings. 

The Service understands that IAFWA 

represents the concerns of all 50 states and 

commented collectively on this issue. 

However, only 31 state agencies or 

commissions responded the draft 
10

nation. Therefore, we request the final CCP recognize the State 

of Alaska’s published genetics policy. We further request the 

final CCP clarify refuge management intent to cooperatively 

approach fisheries activities that may be controversial or 

conflict with the State’s policy. 

Biological Integrity Policy individually (66 

FR 3810). A few comments were 

concerned that refuges should not manage 

for natural densities . . . because this may 

not be in keeping with state management 

objectives (66 FR 3814). Those concerns 

were addressed in the final policy. 

We believe coordination with the state has 

been covered throughout the plan. 

Page 2-29, Fishery Enhancement, second paragraph, 

second sentence.

The State reiterates its long-standing objection to the standard 

management direction statement that the artificial increase of 

fisheries populations “although authorized, would generally be 

discouraged.” No Service policy, including the Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health policy (601 FW 

3) or other regulations support this statement. Additionally, the 

Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, through which the above 

referenced Biological Integrity Policy was developed, states at 

1.6.W, that: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission. Our Mission 

is working with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

(italics added) 

We therefore quest replacing “generally discouraged” with the 

following current Service test for any enhancement project. 

Interventions for the purpose of artificially increasing 

fish populations on the refuge through enhancement, 

while allowed, will be subject to the provisions of 

NEPA, an ANILCA Section 810 determination, the 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 

Health policy (601 FW 3), and a compatibility 

determination. 

See our response to previous comments on 

the standard management direction. 

Page 2-37, third full paragraph, second sentence. 

We request the following revision be adopted as standard 

management direction for all plans: 

In the absence of ..., the validity of all RS 2477 

rights-of-way will be determined on a case-by-case 

basis, either through the courts or by legally binding 

agreement of all landowners or disclaimer. (italics 

added) 

The first revision above returns to original language worked 

out in cooperation with the State. The second revision is a 

newly requested change to incorporate the new recognition of 

the recordable disclaimer process available for resolving RS 

2477 right of way issues. 

We made the first change during an 

internal review conducted prior to 

publishing the draft Plan. We have not 

made the suggested change regarding use 

of the disclaimer process. The state has not 

sought ownership of RS-2477 rights-ofway through any refuges in Alaska using 

the recordable disclaimer process. Further, 

the existing language is broad enough to 

encompass any legitimate judicial or 

administrative process available to 

establish the validity of RS 2477 rights-ofway. 

See our response to previous comments on 
11

the standard management direction. 

Page 2-38, second full paragraph, first sentence. 

We urge the following clarification and fine tuning of the 

standard management direction: 

The physical location of an easement may be adjusted 

to meet the most practical on-the-ground location. 

When warranted due to unavoidable resource 

damage, the authorized use of an easement may also 

be adjusted. 

See our response to previous comments on 

the standard management direction. 

Page 2-39, paragraphs two and three, Recreation and 

Other Public Uses. 

See proposed new standard management direction described 

under general comments on quality, density, and process for 

limiting use. 

We have removed the word “high” where it 

modifies “quality.” We have also 

referenced 50 CFR Part 36 as it applies to 

processes for implementing use limits if 

they ever became necessary. 

Page 2-47, Management of Designated Wilderness. 

We reiterate our long-standing request that the final CCP and 

standard management direction reflect the motorized uses 

provided in ANILCA 1316. See general comments on preexisting uses in designated Wilderness above. 

See our previous response to the comments 

on pre-existing uses in designated 

Wilderness. 

Page 2-49, Navigable waters, fourth paragraph. 

We request the following new standard management direction 

be adopted for all management plans due to recent changes in 

use of recordable disclaimers to resolve ownership of 

waterways: 

In 2003, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

amended a regulation regarding Section 315 of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The 

amended regulation allows the Secretary of the 

Interior to disclaim Federal property interests in 

lands, including lands beneath navigable waters, 

within the individual states. Upon the filing of an 

application by the State and following a 

determination that waters are navigable and the 

submerged lands were not part of a pre-statehood 

Federal reservation, the BLM will issue a 

“recordable disclaimer of interest” (RDI) to remove 

any clouds on title to the lands beneath the 

identified navigable waters. (None of the lands 

within the Alaska Peninsula-Becharof Refuge 

Complex are pre-Statehood withdrawals.) In 

October 2003, acting on an application filed by the 

State of Alaska, the BLM issued its first disclaimer 

of interest to lands underlying navigable waters, 

including lands within a national wildlife refuge. 

We made substantial changes to this 

section during an internal review of the 

standard management direction conducted 

before the draft conservation plan was 

printed. The state had an opportunity to 

comment on this section of the 

management direction. The changed 

wording is broad enough to encompass any 

legitimate judicial or administrative 

process available to establish navigable 

rights ownership and management. 
12

Page 2-59, Minimal Management, third paragraph, second 

sentence. 

Consistent with our long standing disagreement with this 

regional management direction, we request the following 

revision: 

Mechanized and motorized equipment are allowed 

where its use furthers management goals or when the 

overall impacts are not detrimental to the resource 

values of the area as per ANILCA Sections 811, 

1110(a) or 1316.

The requested change is inconsistent with 

our interpretation of the ANILCA Sec. 

1110(a) implementation regulations at 43 

CFR 36.11. The Service is working with 

the state to resolve this issue outside the 

planning process. 

Page 2-86, last bullet. 

We urge revising this bullet to read: 

• Public use of the Refuges, including use of existing 

access methods, would be allowed pursuant to 

ANILCA. 

We believe the third bullet adequately 

addresses our intent to conform to all laws 

and regulations affecting management of 

the Refuges. 

Page 2-92, last paragraph, second to last sentence. 

Please change the text from “...high quality experiences, as 

defined by Service policy...” to “...quality experiences, as 

defined in this plan...” There is no definition in current 

Service policy, and the definition in the plan is supportable. 

See our previous response to the comments 

on Managing for Quality Recreation 

Experience and Density. 

Page 2-92, Public-Use Management Plan, final sentence on 

the page. 

The statement, “Unless superceded by the Federal Subsistence 

Board, the state would continue to have the authority for 

setting regulations for recreational harvest of fish and 

wildlife,” is somewhat misleading. Please clarify that the 

Federal Board is not empowered to regulate recreational 

harvests; however, it can close federal public lands to nonfederally qualified subsistence users, if doing so is necessary to 

implement the federal subsistence priority. The net result of 

such closures is that recreational harvests would be disallowed 

on the affected federal public lands. 

The sentence has been rewritten. 

Page 2-94, Aircraft, third sentence. 

 We recommend deleting this sentence. It is not pertinent to the 

discussion in the paragraph (aircraft access in the Refuges). 

Additionally, conflicts concerning access and subsistence 

would more appropriately be discussed in the Environmental 

Consequences chapter. 

The sentence has been removed. 

Page 2-97, Trails and Campsites, third sentence.

We request implementation of education efforts for hikers and 

other visitors to reduce the potential for conflicts with 

subsistence uses and wildlife. 

We believe this request is addressed in 

section 2.28.2, Guided and Unguided 

Public Use, and by the Refuge Goals and 

Objectives in section 2.2. 
13

Page 2-98, Temporary Facilities, second paragraph, food 

storage. 

We request clarification that food storage methods and 

requirements will be developed in consultation with ADF&G 

and recognition that existing state law that criminalizes 

attraction of wildlife to food, garbage, and other attractants. 

We believe the document adequately 

addresses coordination efforts with the 

state and have recognized the state’s 

management authority. 

Page 2-103, Public Use and Access. 

Please see general comments on quality, density, and process 

for limiting uses and revise accordingly. 

The fourth paragraph has been rewritten. 

Page 2-105, Management Direction, first bullet. 

Please see general comments on remoteness as a management 

criterion and revise accordingly.

The term “remote” is used for descriptive 

purposes. We have responded to this 

previously. 

Page 2-106, Public Use Management Plan, second 

paragraph, third sentence. 

Please see general comments on remoteness as a management 

criterion and revise accordingly. 

The sentence has been reworded and now 

says, “Refuge staff, in cooperation with the 

state, would develop criteria and identify 

sensitive habitats, time periods, and areas 

in which helicopter landings for recreation 

purposes would be prohibited to minimize 

impacts to ANILCA resource values and 

related recreation opportunities. 

Specifically, those criteria would be 

designed to ensure that helicopter landings 

for recreation purposes would be managed 

to protect “. . . nationally significant 

natural, scenic, historic, archeological, 

geological, scientific, wilderness, cultural, 

recreational, and wildlife values . . .” 

(ANILCA Sec. 101(a)).” 

Page 2-111 Yantarni Bay.

The reduction of the Yantarni Bay moderate management area 

from 9,100 acres to 4,000 acres is a significant management 

action. Though we have no objections to this change, 

additional analysis on the change’s impact on activities in the 

standard management direction is warranted. 

The effects analysis discussion of the 

change in size of the Yantarni Bay 

Moderate Management area has been 

expanded in Chapter 4, sections 4.4.1 and 

4.5.1. 

Page 3-15, Water Resources, second sentence. 

We are concerned that references to “...water resources of the 

Refuges...” incorrectly imply that the Service asserts 

jurisdiction over water and waterways managed by the State. 

To avoid confusion or unnecessary jurisdictional debate, we 

request the following revision, which does not imply 

jurisdiction: “water resources flowing through the Refuges...” 

Also please revise accordingly on page 3-35,(Fish, third 

sentence, and the first sentence on the following page), page 3-

63, (Refuge Contributions to the Economy, second paragraph), 

and page 4-38, (last paragraph, first sentence.) 

We have made changes to accommodate 

this request without accepting the changes 

as proposed. Nothing in the language of the 

Plan negates or diminishes any water 

jurisdiction the state or federal 

governments may have. The Service 

recognizes that certain jurisdictional 

authorities associated with water resources 

are disputed between the state and federal 

government, and we are working with the 

state to reach resolution of this issue. 
14

Page 3-37, first full paragraph, first sentence. 

Reference to recreational fishing effort increasing in the mid1980s as a result of “several articles in sportfishing 

magazines” is unsubstantiated. We recommend simply stating 

there was an increase in effort in the mid-1980s. 

The statement has been reworded. 

Page 3-63, Refuge Contributions to the Economy. 

The contribution of the refuges to the economy of the area is 

misconstrued, especially concerning the commercial fishery. 

While the Service does manage important refuge habitat, the 

State of Alaska manages both the waters and the commercial 

fisheries. The discussion would be improved by the following 

minor revisions in italics: 

“Jobs and household income the Refuges support are 

usually viewed as beneficial for the regional 

economy. The fisheries based economy sustains 

nearly 1,500 local jobs and contribute $70 million in 

income annually....” 

We have changed the word generate to 

support. We have not accepted the second 

suggested change. The statement is from 

the ISER report and, as worded, accurately 

acknowledges that the majority of the 

income and jobs is based on commercial 

fishing and that the Refuges contribution is 

based on the habitat protection it provides. 

Pages 3-67 thru 3-78, Section 3.3.2, Affected Environment: 

Subsistence Uses. 

This section concisely describes selected subsistence activities 

in refuge area communities and refers readers to other sources 

that contain more detailed information. Although the 

descriptions of subsistence uses are directed to activities 

occurring on refuge lands, the general pattern probably applies 

to state and private lands as well. Furbearer trapping and the 

hunting of small game are also seasonal subsistence activities 

important to some households. 

No response necessary. 

Page 3-78, Brown Bear Harvests and Uses, second 

paragraph, first sentence. We suggest changing to “...redfish 

(spawned out sockeye salmon)...”

Changes made. 

Page 3-82, Recreational Fishing, first paragraph. This 

paragraph is confusing. We recommend the following revision 

for clarity: 

From 1987 through 1997, annual nonresident fishing 

license sales steadily increased from 140,000 to more than 

250,000. In contrast, annual resident fishing license sales 

fluctuated at around 180,000 throughout the entire time 

period. Nonresident license sales exceeded resident 

license sales in 1992 and the gap has widened since, 

although nonresident sales have declined in recent years. 

Changes made. 

Page 3-84, Guided Recreational Fishing, third paragraph. 

“Hooked” should be changed to “caught,” as it seems 

impossible to know how many of each species were “hooked.” 

The sentence has been reworded. 

Page 3-85, Guided Recreational Fishing, first full 

paragraph. 

“The top four streams...” should be changed to “The four most 

popular...” or “The four streams with the highest levels of 

guided effort....” Also, guided use at Nakaliliok Bay does not 

show a clearly decreasing trend. In fact, from 1998 to 1999 

guided use increased. See also page H-5 (Appendix H) that 

This section has been reworded and 

updated figures provided where available. 
15

states use at most locations has leveled off or slightly 

decreased since the mid-1990s. More recent numbers may 

show a decreasing trend, but this conclusion is not consistent 

with the presented data. For data, see Jennings, G. B., K. 

Sundet, A. E. Bingham, and H. K. Sigurdsson. In prep b. 

Participation, catch, and harvest in Alaska sport fisheries 

during 2002. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery 

Data Series, Anchorage. 

Page 3-87, first paragraph, last sentence. Angler trips 

exceeded hunting trips in 1989 as well. Please clarify if the 

reference is only to the 1990s. 

The sentence has been clarified. 

Pages 3-93 thru 3-96, Section 3.3.4, Affected Environment: 

Recreational Uses. The discussion of “Conflicts and 

Crowding” illustrates the kinds of conflicts that can occur 

between subsistence and recreational uses. Future studies that 

examine hunting conflicts should consider distinguishing 

between local Federally-qualified subsistence users, other 

residents who hunt under the state regulations, and nonresident hunters. Studies designed to measure satisfaction and 

other factors in managing recreational use should carefully 

adhere to the draft CCP’s definition of “quality.” 

No response necessary. 

Page 3-109, Ruth River and Lake, first paragraph, last 

sentence. The type of Native selections, e.g., corporation 

selections or individual allotments, should be referenced here. 

Clarification has been provided.

Page 3-114, second paragraph, Agripina River. This section 

reports “...this population appears small enough that it could 

be easily exploited if exposed to significant angling pressure.” 

We request this sentence be deleted. Significant angling 

pressure is not defined and the type of fishery is not identified. 

Furthermore, state fishery management is designed to avoid 

potential impacts through regular monitoring. We welcome the 

opportunity to address this issue with the Service if it has data 

or desires to coordinate in monitoring the fishery. 

The sentence has been reworded. 

Pages 4-10 thru 4-14, Section 4.2.2, Alternative 1, 

Environmental Consequences: Subsistence Resources and 

Use. The first paragraph in the section on “Caribou and 

Moose,” cites percentages of caribou harvested on refuge lands 

in the mid-1990s. The low percentages should not be construed 

as meaning the refuge is not important for hunting caribou. 

Caribou abundance and migratory patterns can fluctuate over 

time. In some years the percentages of caribou harvested on 

refuge lands might be higher. At the top of page 4-12, the draft 

CCP states, “The Alaska Board of Game and the Federal 

Subsistence Board (not the Service) determine caribou-hunting 

regulations for recreational and subsistence hunters, 

respectively....” A more accurate statement is, “The Alaska 

Board of Game enacts resident and non-resident caribou 

hunting regulations, while the Federal Subsistence Board (not 

the Service) determines federal regulations, if needed for rural 

residents who have a customary and traditional use of caribou 

in the refuge area.” 

We have reworded this sentence on in 

section 4.2.2 (page 4-12 of the Draft Plan). 
16

Page 4-15, Effects on Recreational Fishing, first 

paragraph. See comments concerning page 3-85 about lack of 

data indicating a clear decreasing trend on Nakalilok Bay. 

Pages 4-15 and 4-16, Effects on Recreational Fishing. The 

discussion of quality throughout this section implies that the 

Service intends to manage for pre-determined experiences. 

“Quality” can vary greatly among users, evolves over time, 

and should not be used to pre-determine the type of experience 

that the user may have. It is very important that the final CCP 

recognize the state’s responsibility to manage the fishery and 

to evaluate management options consistent with the definition 

of quality in the draft CCP per our general comments on 

quality, density, and process for limiting uses. 

In the conclusions section, the text states: 

Without limits on air taxis or recreational anglers, 

increases in unguided recreational fishing levels are 

likely to continue, which could lead to crowding at 

some popular areas that are most likely the same 

areas that are frequented by guided recreational 

anglers. 

The data presented do not support the statement above (and on 

pages 4-27 and 4-37), especially considering it was collected 

from the mid to late 1990s and the economics of recreational 

fishing have since changed substantially, showing declining 

trends in the Bristol Bay area. The conclusion presented is also 

inconsistent with the last paragraph on page 4-17 that begins: 

Given the generally stable trends in use patterns, the 

absence of a more rigorous program to monitor 

recreational opportunities and quality under 

Alternative 1,...does not appear to have resulted in 

significant impacts on recreational opportunities. 

We look forward to working with the Service, in cooperation 

with ADF&G, to monitor the levels of use in the area for 

change. In the mean time, we do not anticipate that limits on 

air taxis or recreational fisherman will be necessary. 

We are unclear what the statement 

“manage for pre-determined experiences” 

is aimed at. The Refuges intend to manage 

uses consistent with the intent of the 

management category and goals and 

objectives for the Refuges. We believe 

state management authority has been 

recognized throughout the Plan. 

The referenced statement is part of a 

paragraph that discusses the current selflimiting actions that are occurring and what 

could happen if those self-limiting actions 

break down. We have modified this 

statement. 

Page, 4-23, Helicopters, last sentence. We request rewording 

to: 

If angling effort on previously inaccessible 

backcountry streams increased significantly, fish 

populations in those areas should be monitored and, if 

necessary, regulations developed through the Alaska 

Board of Fisheries to protect the populations’ 

historical size and age composition and abundance. 

The sentence has been reworded. 
17

Page 4-29, Effects on Other Recreation Opportunities and 

Recreation Quality, second full paragraph. See general 

comments on quality, density, and process for limiting use. 

We see no reason to change the paragraph 

in response to this comment. The 

paragraph deals with monitoring and the 

process the Service would follow to deal 

with potential problems that may arise with 

conflicts or decreases in quality. We have 

changed part of the paragraph in response 

to the state’s concern with water 

jurisdiction and ownership. 

 

Page 4-31, Caribou and Moose, last sentence. No evidence 

is presented to show that hunting pressure would likely 

increase over time, especially since it is illegal under state law 

to use a helicopter to assist in hunting. Legal hunting pressure, 

without the aid of helicopters, has been stable or declining 

over the past few years, as shown on pages 4-14 and 4-15, 

Effects on Recreational Hunting. We request revision to reflect 

these comments and the removal of references to hunting as an 

impact related to helicopters. 

We are aware that it is illegal under state 

law to use a helicopter to assist in hunting. 

The statement was aimed at other types of 

recreation activities such as helicopter 

access for fishing that could cause 

disturbance. The statement has been 

reworded. 

Page 4-31, Caribou and Moose, conclusions. The text should 

indicate that the disturbances caused by helicopters in 

Alternatives 1 and 2 are considered to be minor, with a low 

likelihood of occurrence.(see Table 4-1, page 4-43). This 

comment is also applicable to the conclusions for bears, 

wolves, seabirds and other avian species (page 4-32) and 

Recreational Uses (page 4-37). 

Those conclusions are discussed in the 

appropriate sections of the document, 

specifically 4.2.1, 4.3.1, and 4.5.1. Section 

4.4.1 discusses the effects of Alternative 3. 

A comparison of the effects of all four 

alternatives is found in Table 4-1. 

Pages 4-36 thru 4-37, Section 4.3.3, Alternative 3, Effects 

on Subsistence Uses. We agree that monitoring is important to 

assess the impacts of public uses on subsistence uses – as long 

as it does not become intrusive and disruptive. We also 

appreciate the discussion of the results of monitoring at these 

sites in Appendix H, pages H-5 and H-6. 

No response necessary 

Page 4-38, Recreational Uses, second full paragraph, first 

sentence. ADF&G’s Division of Sport Fish conducts annual 

surveys of recreational fishers to estimate angling effort and 

harvest throughout the State, including the area referenced 

here. 

No response necessary 

Page 4-43 thru 4-46, Summary of Environmental 

Consequences by Alternative. The matrix fails to show why 

helicopters cause more impacts, including the introduction of 

invasive species, than other methods of access, nor does it 

show that proper decontamination techniques can largely 

mitigate the concern for introduction of invasive species. (see 

general comments on helicopters). We note that the matrix 

does show that the likelihood of impacts caused by 

disturbances from helicopters will generally be minor, low or 

negligible in most instances. 

The table shows the changes that could 

occur over the baseline–which is current 

conditions. Other methods of access are 

part of the baseline, so any additional 

threats would be additive. Decontamination 

techniques may be a stipulation to include 

in any permitted operation, but it is 

speculative to assume at this stage that it is 

a reasonable stipulation until an analysis is 

made to determine if resources are 

available to implement and monitor it. 

Page 5-2, Access to Remote and Sensitive Areas.

Please see our general comments on managing for remoteness. We have not changed the statements made 

in this section. 
18

Page 5-4, second full paragraph: The first sentence indicates 

that a Wilderness designation increases the protection of fish 

and wildlife resources. We do not support this statement and 

further note that it contradicts subsequent statements that some 

fish and wildlife management activities (e.g. enhancement) 

may be precluded. From the State’s perspective, loss of 

management flexibility is more problematic for fisheries 

protection than concern about activities that may not be 

compatible with Wilderness management. 

While we have reworded this statement, we 

stand by the assessment that formal 

Wilderness designation provides increased 

protection for fish and wildlife resources. 

Roads, dams, and other large construction 

projects that can significantly affect fish 

and wildlife populations and habitats are 

prohibited in designated Wilderness Areas. 

This section recognizes the potential for a 

small number of ADF&G projects to be 

precluded in designated Wilderness. 

Appendix C 

We note the following discrepancies between the list of 

easements in appendix C and the BLM 17(b) easement maps 

located at 

http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/trails/17b/easement_maps.htm. 

(These are maps prepared by the Bureau of Land Management 

and posted under agreement with the State of Alaska on the 

Department of Natural Resources website.) 

EIN 2a D9, This easement does not show on the easement map 

EIN 2c D9, This easement does not show on the easement map 

EIN 3 D9, This easement does not show on the easement map 

EIN 7 C5, This easement does not show on the easement map 

EIN 4 D9, This easement does not show on the easement map 

EIN 6 D9, This easement does not show on the easement map 

EIN 5a D9, This easement does not show on the easement map 

EIN 5b D9, This easement does not show on the easement map 

In addition, we request the following revision to the easements 

below: 

EIN 1 D9, should read (50 feet wide: Black Lake southerly to 

Chialtuak Creek along east (left) bank of Chignik 

River. (italics added) 

EIN 23, Should read “T43S, 60W”, not “T44S, R61W”. 

EIN 3 D9, Should read “Sec. 22_ “Granville Portage”, not 

“23_Granville Portage”. 

EIN 13 E, should read in its entirety: 

 

Proposed access trail from the Port Heiden Road 

system southeasterly to Barabara Creek where the 

trail forks; the north fork parallels the right bank of 

Barabara Creek to public lands. The south fork 

roughly parallels the coastline and the right bank of 

the Meshik River to public lands (25 foot trail). 

EIN 18 C4, change Chignik River to Portage Bay. 

Is the Service only notating EIN’s through Service 

administered land or is there an intent to show all of the EIN’s 

that the Service is responsible for administering within the 

area? If the latter, the following should be included: 

The appendix has been updated to reflect 

the latest information available for all 

easements on refuge lands. 

These easements have been terminated in 

the BLM memo on lands to be patented to 

Chignik River Ltd. 

Change made except that Chialtuak Creek 

should read Chiaktuak Creek. 

Change made, except that EIN 23 should 

read EIN 23 C4. 

Changed to read as follows: 

EIN 3C5 southeasterly to Barbara Creek in 

section 16, T38S, R59W, where the trail 

forks. The north fork continues easterly 

along the right bank of Barbara Creek to 

public land; the south fork continues south 

along the shore of Port Heiden and right 

bank of the Meskik River to public lands. 
19

EIN 19 C4, Trail from Windy Bay to Public Land 

Section 31, T46S, R60W, SM 

Or Section 36, T46S, R61W, SM 

Trail to Sec 7, T47S, R61W, SM 

Change made. 

There are no conveyed lands at this 

location, so there is no easement. 

Page H-9, Appendix H, Draft Compatibility 

Determination: Recreational Hunting. The second 

paragraph in the “Description of Uses” on page H-10 states in 

part: “...The Federal Subsistence Board subsequently closed 

all Refuges lands to caribou hunting by non-local users. 

Therefore, recreational hunting of caribou is not at this time 

allowed on the Refuges....”. Please revise the second sentence 

to read, “Therefore, hunting of caribou by non-residents and 

Alaska residents who are non-federally qualified subsistence 

users is not at this time allowed on federal lands in the 

Refuges.” This is an important distinction that, without 

change, misrepresents the State regulations. 

The text has been revised. It now reads: 

“The federal Subsistence Board 

subsequently closed all Refuges land to 

caribou hunting except by federally 

qualified subsistence users. Therefore, 

hunting by other Alaskans and 

nonresidents will not be allowed on federal 

land in the Refuges until the herd recovers 

and restrictions are lifted.” 

Page H-14, Appendix H, Draft Compatibility 

Determination: Recreational Hunting, stipulations, first 

bullet. This stipulation intends “to ensure that wildlifedependent recreation does not exceed projected levels.” We 

are unaware of any “projected levels” of wildlife dependent 

activities or any agreements with the State to limit these 

activities, nor authority of the Service to enforce this 

stipulation. We urge removal of this inappropriate stipulation. 

The stipulation has been clarified to show 

that it is intended to monitor recreation use, 

not to limit actual numbers of users. 

Page H-19, Appendix H, fifth full paragraph, last sentence. 

We suggest replacing “Native way of knowing” with the more 

commonly used expression “traditional ecological knowledge” 

or “local knowledge.”

Change accepted. 

Page H-27, Appendix H Commercially Guided 

Recreational Fishing, Description of Uses. The data used in 

this compatibility determination is sufficiently out-of-date (up 

to 6 years old) to be of use in assessing current trends. The 

data in the third paragraph on page H-27 showing use by 

drainage would be more valuable if it showed the trends in 

current visitor use rather than total use days over a seven year 

period ending four years ago.

Because of changes in information 

collected, we can not directly compare 

older and current values. Minor changes in 

trends would not affect the decisions made 

in this Plan. 

Page H-27, Appendix H, Commercially Guided 

Recreational Fishing, Description of Uses, fifth paragraph, 

fourth sentence. The compatibility determination explains 

that it does not address helicopter access within the Refuges; 

however, the use of helicopters is prohibited in the stipulations 

for this activity. This appears to be a significant oversight and 

we request this section be revised appropriately. 

The statement, “Note that this 

compatibility determination does not 

address helicopter access on refuge lands 

and waters” means that the use of 

helicopters is not included in the 

description of uses. The stipulation that 

prohibits the use of helicopters is consistent 

with that statement. If the Service were to 

authorize a commercially operated 

helicopter operation for fishing access, a 

separate compatibility determination 

covering that use would be necessary. We 
20

have reworded the statement to clarify any 

confusion. 

Page H-49, Appendix H, Commercial Transporter 

Services, stipulations. Due to the distances involved in 

accessing this remote and expansive refuge complex, in 

addition to variability of the weather, the ability to cache fuel 

may be, under specific criteria, necessary to safely conduct 

otherwise legal activities. Without the ability to cache fuel, 

large portions of the units will be inaccessible and many 

activities will be largely curtailed – an important State 

concern. We request reconsideration of this stipulation and 

cooperative effort with State and commercial operators to 

address any legitimate concerns about fuel storage. Alternative 

measures may address the concerns without a prohibition. See 

also Page H-71, Scientific Research, stipulations. 

These stipulations have been altered to 

allow for fuel caches where designated by 

a permittee’s operational plan. 

Please contact me at 907-269-7476 if you have any questions 

regarding these comments. 

Sincerely, 

/ss/ 

Don Perrin 

Project Coordinator 

cc: Sally Gibert, Statewide ANILCA Coordinator


Appendix I: Response to Comments 

1-78 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5.15 References Cited 

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

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

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

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

“Subsistence harvests and uses of caribou, moose, and 

brown bear in 12 Alaska Peninsula communities, 1995/96 

and 1996/97.” Technical Paper. No. 244. Juneau, Alaska: 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of 

Subsistence.