Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-1 

1. Introduction 

This Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Plan) and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges (the 

Refuges) presents a preferred management direction and three 

alternatives for replacing the management direction for the 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. The original plans 

were adopted in 1985 and 1987, respectively. 

1.1 The Refuges 

The Refuges (Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, Ugashik and 

Chignik units of Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge, and 

Seal Cape of Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge) 

comprise approximately 4.2 million acres1

 on the Alaska 

Peninsula (Figure S–1). See Chapter 1 of this Plan for 

additional information about the Refuges 

Figure S–1 Location of Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges 

1.2 Purpose and Need for 

Action 

The 1985 and 1987 Comprehensive Conservation Plans provided 

broad policy guidance and established long-term goals and 

objectives for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) 

management of the Refuges. Comprehensive conservation plans 

are dynamic documents that need to be reviewed and updated 

 

1

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

vary from the refuge acreages listed in other sources. 
Executive Summary 

S-2 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

periodically. As directed by the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) and the Refuge 

Administration Act, as amended, we are revising the Plans to 

guide the management of the Refuges for the next 15 years. The 

revised Plan will also update the 1984 public-use management 

plan and will consolidate management direction from various 

plans into this plan. 

In general, a comprehensive conservation plan serves to do the 

following: 

 Ensure that the purposes of the Refuges and the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) are being 

fulfilled 

 Ensure that national policy direction is incorporated into the 

management of the Refuges 

 Ensure that opportunities are available for interested 

parties to participate in the development of management 

direction 

 Provide a systematic process for making and documenting 

refuge decisions 

 Establish broad management strategies for refuge 

management programs and activities 

 Provide a basis for evaluating accomplishments 

The Plan describes current management and three “action 

alternatives” for managing the Refuges, including the Service’s 

preferred alternative (Alternative 3a). See Chapter 2 for details 

of the four management alternatives. The document includes a 

description of the existing environment on the Refuges 

(Chapter 3) and an assessment of the effects of implementing 

each of the alternatives (Chapter 4). Each alternative provides 

choices for addressing management concerns and for resolving 

public issues. 

1.3 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

The Service is the principal federal agency responsible for 

conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and 

their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

There are 16 national wildlife refuges in Alaska; these contain a 

wide range of habitats with varied terrains, including 

mountains, glaciers, tundra, grasslands, wetlands, lakes, 

woodlands, and rivers. Together, the 16 refuges comprise 76.8 

million acres and constitute about 80 percent of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-3 

1.3.1 Service and System Missions 

The missions of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System are as follows: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is 

working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance 

fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people. 

~~~~~ 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and, where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States 

for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended). 

1.3.2 Principles of Refuge Management 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended, states that each refuge shall be managed to fulfill 

both the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for 

which the individual refuge was established. It also requires 

that any use of a refuge be a compatible use: a use that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, 

will not materially interfere with nor detract from fulfillment of 

the mission of the System or the purposes of the Refuges. 

The 1997 amendments to the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act identified a number of principles to guide 

management of the Refuge System, including the following: 

 Conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats within 

the System 

 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the System 

 Coordinate, interact, and cooperate with adjacent 

landowners and state fish and wildlife agencies 

 Maintain adequate water quantity and water quality to meet 

refuge and System purposes and acquire necessary water 

rights 

 Maintain hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education 

as the priority general public uses of the System 

 Provide opportunities for compatible priority wildlifedependent public uses within the System 
Executive Summary 

S-4 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Provide enhanced consideration for priority wildlifedependent public uses over other general public uses in 

planning and management 

 Provide increased opportunities for families to experience 

priority general public uses, especially traditional outdoor 

activities such as fishing and hunting 

 Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in 

each refuge 

In order to maintain the health of individual refuges, and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System as a whole, managers must 

anticipate future conditions. Managers must endeavor to avoid 

adverse impacts and take positive actions to conserve and 

protect refuge resources. Effective management also depends 

on acknowledging larger systems and resource relationships. 

Refuge managers will work together with partners—including 

other refuges, federal and state agencies, tribal and other 

governments, Native organizations and entities, and 

nongovernmental organizations and groups—to protect, 

conserve, enhance, or restore all native fish, wildlife (including 

invertebrates), plants, and their habitats. 

2. Legal and Policy Guidance 

and State Coordination 

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

legislation that created the unit and by the purposes and goals 

described in section 3 of this summary. However, other laws, 

regulations, policies, and agreements with the State of Alaska 

also guide the management of the Refuges. Section 1.3 in 

Chapter 1 identifies the acts and the policy guidance that are 

integral in the development of this revised Plan. 

Additional information about key programs, with which the 

planning is coordinated, is provided in Appendix A. 

3. Refuge Purposes, Vision, 

and Goals 

3.1 Refuge Purposes 

ANILCA established and set out the purposes for these 

refuges. The purposes of the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Refuges are described in Section 302(1)(B) and Section 

302(2)(B) of that act. Purposes for the Alaska Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge are described in Section 303(1)(B). These 

purposes identify the reasons why Congress established the 

Refuges and management priorities. 

The purposes include the following (unless otherwise noted, the 

purposes apply to all units of the Refuges): 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-5 

 [Alaska Maritime] to conserve fish and wildlife populations 

and habitats in their natural diversity, including marine 

mammals, marine birds, and other migratory birds; the 

marine resources upon which they rely; and bears, caribou, 

and other mammals 

 [Alaska Peninsula] to conserve fish and wildlife populations 

and habitats in their natural diversity, including brown 

bears, the Alaska Peninsula caribou herd, moose, sea otters 

and other marine mammals, shorebirds and other migratory 

birds, raptors including bald eagles and peregrine falcons, 

and salmonids and other fish 

 [Becharof] to conserve fish and wildlife populations and 

habitats in their natural diversity, including brown bears, 

salmon, migratory birds, the Alaska Peninsula caribou herd, 

and marine mammals and birds 

 to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United 

States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats 

 to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set 

forth in preceding subparagraphs, the opportunity for 

continued subsistence uses by local residents 

 [Alaska Maritime] to provide, in a manner consistent with 

preceding subparagraphs, a program of national and 

international scientific research on marine resources 

 to ensure to the maximum extent practicable and in a 

manner consistent with the purposes set forth in the 

precedings paragraph, water quality and necessary water 

quantity within the refuge 

 [Becharof Wilderness Area] to secure an enduring resource 

of wilderness, to protect and preserve the wilderness 

character of areas within the National Wilderness Resource 

Preservation System, and to administer this wilderness for 

the use and enjoyment of the American people in a way that 

will leave it unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

wilderness 

3.2 Vision Statement 

The Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges will remain as 

they are today with healthy, natural populations of fish and 

wildlife living in primarily unaltered habitats. The Refuges 

will continue to provide local residents opportunities for 

subsistence use. The Refuges will be open to all people to engage 

in a variety of wildlife-dependent activities and to enjoy the 

spectacular setting and resources. Refuge management and 

outreach will be a model of effective collaboration among 

diverse public interests and public and private landowners and 

managers. 
Executive Summary 

S-6 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3.3 Refuge Goals 

Goals for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges will direct 

work at carrying out the Refuges’ mandates and achieving the 

Refuges purposes. 

These goals are derived from the vision statement and the 

Refuges’ purposes to reflect the Refuges’ contribution to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other key management 

responsibilities that stem from law and policy. Any management 

plan eventually adopted must work toward meeting all these 

goals. 

Goal 1. Ensure quantity and optimal quality of naturally 

functioning habitats available on the Refuges for fish 

and wildlife populations in perpetuity, especially for 

salmonids, migratory birds, the northern Alaska 

Peninsula caribou herd, moose, and brown bear 

Goal 2. Improve knowledge of fish and wildlife populations 

and their habitats in order to conserve species in 

their natural diversity, especially those that are 

identified in the refuge purposes, have restricted 

populations, or have been identified as species or 

populations of ecological interest 

Goal 3. Provide opportunities for local residents to continue 

their subsistence uses, consistent with the 

subsistence priority and other refuge purposes 

Goal 4. Improve baseline understanding of water resources 

on the Refuges in order to acquire and maintain the 

water quality and quantity necessary to conserve 

fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their 

natural diversity 

Goal 5. Preserve and enhance, in perpetuity, wilderness 

values of designated Wilderness, consistent with the 

establishing purposes 

Goal 6. Provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation, emphasizing short-term, low-density 

uses that require minimal facility development or 

habitat alteration 

Goal 7. Provide opportunities for subsistence, recreational, 

and commercial users to enjoy and benefit from 

compatible activities on the Refuges in ways that 

minimize conflicts among user groups 

Goal 8. Conduct interpretive and environmental education 

programs that increase understanding and support 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-7 

for the System; develop a sense of stewardship for 

wildlife, cultural resources, and the environment; 

and enhance visitor experiences 

Goal 9. Conserve the special geological and cultural values 

of the Refuges 

Goal 10. Provide and maintain the facilities and equipment 

necessary to ensure a safe and secure environment 

for the visiting public and Service personnel 

4. Refuge Overview 

4.1 Refuge Establishment 

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter established the 1,157,000-acre 

Becharof National Wildlife Monument with Presidential 

Proclamation 4613. The monument was established from lands 

in the public domain to protect the area, notably the unique 

brown bear denning islands in the Island Arm of Becharof 

Lake. 

In 1980, Section 302 of ANILCA established the Alaska 

Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge and changed the Becharof 

National Wildlife Monument into a national wildlife refuge as 

part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Section 303(1) of 

ANILCA created the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 

by redesignating 11 pre-existing refuges as units of the new 

refuge and adding other public lands on island, islets, rocks, 

reefs, spires, and designated capes and headlands in the coastal 

areas and adjacent seas of Alaska. 

In 1983, the Service decided to manage the Ugashik and 

Chignik units of the Alaska Peninsula Refuge, the 9,900-acre 

Seal Cape area of the Alaska Maritime Refuge, and the 

Becharof Refuge as a “complex” because these areas share 

resources and resource issues. Distance and weather create 

barriers to managing the Pavlof and North Creek units from 

the King Salmon office; management of these units was shifted 

to the Izembek Refuge headquartered in Cold Bay. 

4.2 Physical Environment 

The Alaska Peninsula is a land of towering mountains, active 

volcanoes, broad valleys, fjords, tundra, and glacially formed 

lakes. The Refuges lie along the Pacific side of the Alaska 

Peninsula, starting about 10 miles south of the Refuges 

headquarters in King Salmon and extending for approximately 

250 miles. From the coastal lowlands on the Bristol Bay side of 

the Refuges, the land rises to steep, glaciated mountains and 

volcanoes, which form the spine of the Refuges, and then 

plunges to steep cliffs and sandy beaches on the Pacific side. 
Executive Summary 

S-8 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The Bristol Bay side of the Refuges consists primarily of rolling, 

moist-to-wet tundra, lakes, and wetlands. The snow-covered, 

heavily glaciated mountains of the Aleutian Range bisect the 

Refuges, with volcanic peaks more than 8,200 feet high. The 

Pacific coastline is rugged, with sea cliffs rising hundreds of feet 

from the water. Numerous streams and several large rivers 

originate in the Refuges. 

Encompassing approximately 1,157,000 acres and lying directly 

south of the Katmai National Park and Preserve, the Becharof 

National Wildlife Refuge is the northernmost portion of the 

Refuges. It contains Becharof Lake—which, at approximately 

300,000 acres, is the second-largest lake in Alaska and the 

largest lake in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Mount 

Peulik, a 4,800-foot volcano with lava flows reaching to Becharof 

Lake, is a prominent landmark. 

The Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to 

and south of Becharof National Wildlife Refuge. The Ugashik 

and Chignik units encompass about 2,648,100 acres of federal 

lands. These units are separated by the Aniakchak National 

Monument and Preserve, a unit of the National Park Service. 

The culturally and economically important Ugashik Lakes are 

located in the Ugashik Unit. 

Several volcanoes have been active in the recent past. Mt. 

Chiginagak last erupted in 1971 and continues to vent gases and 

steam. Mt. Veniaminof, a massive stratovolcano with a base 30 

miles in diameter and a summit crater 20 miles in 

circumference, erupted from 1993 to 1995 and again began 

showing increased seismic activity in 2004. Mt. Veniaminof has 

the most extensive crater glacier in the country and the only 

known glacier on the continent with an active volcanic vent in its 

center. In 1967, the (approximately) 800,000-acre Mount 

Veniaminof National Natural Landmark was designated to 

recognize the unique qualities of the area. 

Seal Cape, a 9,900-acre headland about 30 miles south of the 

village of Chignik, is the only part of the Alaska Maritime 

Refuge managed by Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges. 

Narrow bays cut Seal Cape into two main arms with cliffs that 

rise to more than 2,000 feet. 

4.3 Biological Resources 

The Refuges provide habitat for more than 260 species of 

resident and migratory wildlife. Marine mammals, seabirds, and 

waterfowl use the coastal areas. Bald eagles, hawks, falcons, and 

owls nest on the rock pinnacles and spires. The tundra lowlands 

are host to caribou, moose, brown bears, wolves, tundra swans, 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-9 

and waterfowl. Salmon, trout, char, and numerous other fish 

species are common in the waterways. 

Five species of Pacific salmon spawn in the streams and lakes of 

the Refuges. These massive runs of salmon fuel the Refuges 

ecosystems by enriching freshwater streams and lakes with 

nutrients from the ocean and by providing food for wildlife. The 

salmon spawning on the Refuges are important to humans as 

well: they support subsistence users, recreational anglers, and 

the Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery. 

Brown bear inhabit most of the Alaska Peninsula. Portions of 

the peninsula contain some of the highest densities of brown 

bear in Alaska. These bears feed on spawning salmon and 

forage over nearly all the Refuges lands. About 25 percent of 

the brown bear harvested in Alaska are taken from Game 

Management Unit 9, which includes the Refuges. Forty-five of 

the largest 100 brown bears harvested by hunters (Byers and 

Gettas 1999) were taken on the peninsula. 

The Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd migrates from 

Port Moller to and from as far north as the Alagnak River. 

Portions of the Refuges provide important summer and winter 

habitats. Caribou are an essential subsistence resource for 

many local residents and have been an important resource for 

recreational hunters. 

Moose have been on the Alaska Peninsula since the early 1900s 

and have extended their range as far south as Pavlof Bay. 

4.4 Human Uses 

Local residents and visitors from across the world use Refuges 

resources for a variety of purposes. Residents of local villages 

are subsistence users of refuge resources. They emphasize use 

of wild plants, animals, and fish and use between 200 and 800 

pounds of edible wild food per person annually (Fall and Morris 

1987). The mainstay subsistence food for many communities is 

salmon, which is obtained by subsistence harvest. All five Pacific 

salmon species that spawn in Alaska are used, although 

Chinook, sockeye, and coho are preferred. Local residents also 

harvest caribou, moose, bear, and a variety of other species. 

Caribou, traditionally the most widely used of the three large 

land mammal species, have been harvested in large quantities, 

thoroughly used, and widely shared. With the decline of the 

Northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd, however, hunting 

opportunities have been limited, as described in more detail in 

Chapter 2. 

Recreation settings on the Refuges are remote and inaccessible 

by road, keeping levels of recreation use low. The means of 
Executive Summary 

S-10 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

access for most visitors is small aircraft, although some portions 

of the Refuges are accessed by boat, either from villages at the 

mouths of rivers or from the Pacific Ocean. Nearly all recreation 

visitors access the Refuges with either air-taxi operators or 

guides, although a few visitors use their own planes or boats. 

The primary recreation uses of the Refuges continue to be 

recreational fishing and hunting (both guided and unguided) 

and associated activities such as viewing wildlife and hiking. 

Interpretive and educational efforts occur primarily in King 

Salmon or in surrounding villages rather than on site because of 

the huge size of the Refuges, the lack of developed visitor 

facilities, and the dispersed public-use patterns. 

Recreation anglers fish for a variety of species, depending on 

the drainage and season. Dolly Varden char are the most 

commonly caught species, followed by Arctic char and coho and 

sockeye salmon. The Refuges also support a renowned Arctic 

grayling fishery, with several records having been set at 

Ugashik Narrows. Most of the recreation anglers practice 

catch-and-release fishing. 

The Refuges have a national and international reputation for 

recreational hunting of brown bear and moose. Caribou are also 

hunted; however, the recent decline of the caribou herd has 

resulted in a closure of caribou hunting to nonresidents, and 

issuance of a limited number of permits for local residents, until 

the herd recovers. 

5. The Planning Process 

The process we are using to revise the Plans contains eight 

steps; with publication of this Final Plan and EIS, we are 

partway through step 6. The rest of this section describes what 

we have done at each step and what we anticipate doing to finish 

the Plan. 

Section 6.1 of this summary describes the significant planning 

issues that were identified and what aspects of management the 

Plan and the alternatives will emphasize (section 1.9 in 

Chapter 1 describes this process and those issues in depth). 

5.1 Design the Planning 

Process 

First we developed an overview of what would need to be 

done and what could be expected during the planning 

process. We then developed an outline of the steps to follow 

during the planning process. When we reviewed previous 

plans and documents providing management direction to the 

Refuges, we noted a number of discrepancies among the 

plans and also noted that they appeared to be out of date 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-11 

with current laws, policies, and regulations. We decided to 

develop one plan that included all Service lands managed 

from the Service’s King Salmon office. An interdisciplinary 

team drawn from the refuges, the Service’s regional office, 

and the State of Alaska was formed to develop the plan 

5.2 Scoping 

We initiated scoping to involve the public to help us identify 

issues to consider in the plan. We published a Notice of 

Intent, in the Federal Register, to prepare an EIS and 

mailed out a planning update. This planning update 

announced the revision effort and sought comments. 

We conducted meetings in each of the villages near the Refuges 

during 1998, 1999, and 2000. These meetings gave us an 

opportunity to explain the planning process to local individuals, 

to answer questions, and to listen to the public. The meetings 

were important in identifying and refining our understanding of 

the issues and concerns of local residents. 

5.3 Determine Significant 

Issues 

We analyzed comments from the public and from within the 

agency and identified two issues (discussed in Section 6.1 of this 

summary and in section 1.9, Chapter 1, of the Plan) to be 

addressed in the revised plan 

5.4 Develop and Analyze 

Alternatives 

The purpose of this fourth step was to develop alternative 

approaches to the issues. These alternatives would meet the 

purposes and goals of the Refuges and would comply with the 

missions of the Refuge System and the Service. The planning 

team developed a range of alternatives that responded to the 

issues identified in the previous steps. The team eliminated 

alternatives that did not meet refuge purposes or were outside 

of the Service’s ability to implement. These draft alternatives 

were sent to more than 2,000 individuals and organizations in a 

January 2000 planning update. This update was also posted on 

our planning page on the Web site of the Alaska Region of the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service <http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/planning>. 

The draft alternatives were refined based on comments we 

received from the planning update. We analyzed the 

environmental effects of the alternatives and present the results 

of that analysis in Chapter 4. We evaluated the alternatives 

against a set of criteria and present that discussion in Chapter 5 

of the Plan. 
Executive Summary 

S-12 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5.5 Prepare Draft Plan and 

Environmental Impact 

Statement 

The Draft Plan and EIS was released in February 2004. It 

contained three management alternatives, including one that 

described continuation of current management and one that was 

the Service’s preferred alternative. We held meetings in local 

villages and sent out a planning update during the public 

comment period. 

Comments were received at public meetings in eight villages 

near the Refuges and in Anchorage; comments also were 

submitted in writing, by mail and via the Internet. For a 

detailed presentation of results and our response to comments, 

see Appendix I. 

Most comments addressed three general topics: oil and gas 

development (on these refuges and on Alaska refuges in 

general) and other development within refuges; wilderness 

study and recommendations; and recreation access by use of 

helicopters, 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 recreational use 

of helicopters and other vehicles and opposed Wilderness 

review and any new Wilderness recommendations. 

5.6 Prepare and Adopt a Final 

Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement 

As part of this sixth step, the planning team reviewed and 

analyzed all the comments received on the Draft Plan and EIS, 

modified the draft as needed, and created a new preferred 

alternative. This Final Plan and EIS is the result of these 

changes. Following a 30-day period, the Service’s regional 

director will issue a record of decision that describes the 

management plan that will be implemented and the rationale 

used to make the decision on the direction. 

5.7 Implement Plan, Monitor, 

and Evaluate 

After the record of decision and final revised Plan are 

distributed, the Refuges staff will implement the Plan. A critical 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-13 

component of management is monitoring and measuring 

resource and social conditions to make sure that progress is 

being made toward meeting goals. Monitoring also detects new 

problems, issues, or opportunities that should be addressed. 

The Refuges use an adaptive management approach, which 

means that information gained from monitoring is used to 

evaluate and, as needed, to modify refuge objectives. 

5.8 Review and Revise Plan 

Agency policy directs that we review the Plan annually to assess 

the need for changes. We revise the Plan when significant new 

information becomes available, ecological conditions change, or 

the need to do so is identified during the review. If major 

changes are proposed, public meetings may be held and new 

environmental assessments and environmental impact 

statements may be necessary. Consultation with appropriate 

state agencies and Native corporations would occur during any 

future revision. Full review and revision of the Plan will occur 

every 15 years, or more often if necessary. We will continue 

informing and involving the public throughout the Plan 

implementation, holding regular meetings in local villages at 

least annually, and publishing Refuges updates. 

6. Issues 

Public responses to the three planning updates and rounds of 

village meetings were used to identify issues to be addressed in 

this revision. Refuge planning policy defines an issue as any 

unsettled matter that requires a management decision: e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to 

refuge resources, conflict in uses, public concern, or presence of 

an undesirable resource condition. 

The process of scoping initially identified a broad range of topics 

that became more focused into specific issues as more 

information was gathered. Issues identified during the first 

round of public involvement were refined and clarified during 

the second and third rounds. As described in Chapter 1 of this 

Plan, through public participation, widely varied issues were 

identified. Several issues were raised that were outside the 

scope of this revision process for any of the following reasons 

(examples are given in Chapter 1): 

 The issue is addressed by existing laws and policies. 

 The issue is addressed in other arenas, outside this revision 

process. 

 The issue is already being addressed or will be addressed 

similarly regardless of management alternative selected. 

 The issue is a significant planning issue, and the Plan 

revision will develop alternative ways of addressing. 
Executive Summary 

S-14 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

6.1 Significant Planning Issues 

The list of issues reflects problems, opportunities, or points of 

discussion that the refuge Plan can address in a variety of ways. 

They are reflected in the alternatives discussed in Chapter 2. 

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, displays the probable 

effects that implementing an alternatives would have on the 

issue. 

Following are the two significant planning issues identified and 

addressed in this Plan: 

 Issue 1. How should we address recreation access to remote 

and sensitive areas? 

 Issue 2. How can conflicts between refuge user groups be 

minimized? 

See Appendix I for the Service’s response to comments; the 

complete set of written and verbal comments received is 

available from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regional office in 

Anchorage. 

7. Management Alternatives 

7.1 Elements Common to All 

Alternatives 

 Each of the alternatives would abide by the purposes for 

which the Refuges were established, as set forth in sections 

302 and 303 of ANILCA, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

 Local residents would have access and priority to Refuges 

resources for the purposes of subsistence, as determined by 

law. 

 The Refuges would conform with all other federal laws and 

regulations. 

 Fish and wildlife would be protected and maintained in their 

natural diversity. 

 Traditional uses of the Refuges would continue to be 

allowed. 

 Opportunities to pursue traditional subsistence activities, 

scientific research, hunting, fishing, and other wildlifeoriented recreation activities would be maintained. 

 Most of the Refuges would be maintained in a relatively 

undeveloped state. 

 Disturbances to fish and wildlife habitats and populations 

would be minimal. 

 Public use of the Refuges would be allowed using existing 

access methods. 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-15 

7.2 Alternatives Considered, 

But Eliminated from 

Detailed Study 

Three alternatives for providing management direction to the 

Refuges were considered but eliminated from detailed 

consideration. These alternatives and the reasons for not 

considering them in detail are discussed in Chapter 2, section 

2.27. 

7.3 Alternative 1— 

Continue Current 

Management 

This is the “No-Action” alternative, as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It describes what would 

happen with a continuation of current management activities 

and serves as a baseline against which to compare other 

alternatives. Details of Alternative 1 are in section 2.28 of 

Chapter 2. 

Management of the Refuges would continue to follow the 

current course of action, as identified and described in the 

records of decision for the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans, as amended by the Public 

Use Management Plan of 1994, and the Alaska Maritime 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The ranges and intensities 

of management activities would be maintained. Private and 

commercial uses of the Refuges would be unchanged. Refuge 

management would continue to reflect existing laws, executive 

orders, regulations, and policies governing Service 

administration and operation of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

This alternative would continue to protect and maintain the 

existing wildlife values and natural diversity on the Refuges. 

Human disturbances to fish and wildlife habitats and 

populations would be minimal. Public use of the Refuges 

employing existing methods of access would continue to be 

allowed. Opportunities to pursue traditional subsistence 

activities, research, and hunting, fishing, and other wildlifedependent activities would be maintained. 

The management directions described subsequently, combined 

with those described earlier in this chapter and in section 2.26 of 

Chapter 2, form the elements of this alternative. 
Executive Summary 

S-16 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

If this alternative is implemented, the following would take 

place: 

 Applications for permits to allow helicopter landings for 

recreation purposes—outside of the Wilderness Area—

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

 3,364,600 acres would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. 

 9,100 acres would be managed in the Moderate Management 

category. 

 502,900 acres would be managed in the designated 

Wilderness Management category. 

 387,400 acres would be managed in the Cooperative 

Management category (this includes 23,700 acres where 

cooperative management and designated Wilderness 

overlap). 

The earlier conservation plans included management direction 

in six management categories: Intensive, Enhanced Public Use, 

Moderate, Minimal, Cooperative, and Wilderness. Lands 

recommended for Wilderness designation were assigned to the 

Minimal Management category. No lands were assigned to 

either Intensive or Enhanced Public Use categories. Only 

Moderate, Minimal, and Wilderness Management pertain to the 

areas covered in this Conservation Plan. 

New management direction specifies that all activities in 

designated Wilderness require a minimum-requirements 

analysis. Alaska Maritime and Alaska Peninsula are grouped 

together because they frequently have the same management 

direction. 

Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 shows a comparison of activities and uses 

of current management with management proposed in the 

revised Conservation Plan. 

7.4 Elements Common to 

Action Alternatives 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a (the action alternatives) share some 

common elements. This section describes those common 

elements that would apply to all but the no-action alternative 

(current management). 

With implementation of any action alternative the following 

would occur: 

 The goals and objectives described in section 2.2 of the Plan 

and the management policies and guidelines sections 2.4 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-17 

through 2.24.5 in the Conservation Plan and EIS provide for 

managing the Refuges. 

 Levels of public-use monitoring would increase above 

current levels. 

 Levels of wildlife inventories and monitoring would increase 

above current levels. 

 Cooperative Management would no longer be defined as a 

distinct management category. It is regional policy to 

cooperate with the state and with private landowners within 

and adjacent to the Refuges regardless of the applicable 

management category. Essentially, this broadens the 

concept so that all management categories include elements 

of Cooperative Management. Any Refuge lands within this 

classification would be reclassified as Minimal Management. 

The area where Cooperative and Wilderness categories 

overlapped would remain in the Wilderness category. 

7.4.1 Wildlife 

The Refuges’ objectives for wildlife under Goals 1 and 2 (see 

section 2.2 in Chapter 2) are directed toward inventorying and 

monitoring a diverse group of species, including moose, caribou, 

wolves, bears, waterfowl, bald eagles, seabirds, shorebirds, and 

songbirds. This monitoring will provide valuable information for 

the ongoing management of wildlife populations on the Refuges 

as well as for responding to catastrophic events. Lawenforcement activities would be expanded to include dedicated 

patrols, investigations, and education and outreach. 

7.4.2 Wildlife Habitat 

Understanding wildlife habitat characteristics such as 

distribution, quality, and availability is instrumental to 

understanding changes in wildlife populations. The objectives 

for wildlife habitat were established to develop the necessary 

information and tools for a basic understanding of wildlife 

habitat on the Refuges. 

7.4.3 Fish 

The objectives for fish management described in section 2.2 of 

Chapter 2 were designed to increase understanding of, and 

ability to manage, important fish populations on the Refuges. 

The objectives address species and drainages that are 

important not only for subsistence, commercial, and recreation 

uses, but also for their contribution to the ecological integrity of 

the Refuges. 

7.4.4 Public Use and Access 

New public-use objectives were designed to increase the level of 

monitoring of public use at identified locations on the Refuges 
Executive Summary 

S-18 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and to increase the Refuges’ ability to enforce existing 

regulations. Initially, monitoring would focus on several 

locations where recreational angling is either increasing or has 

the potential to affect resources and opportunities (including the 

quality of the angling experience). The goal would be to allow 

managers to detect conflicts, crowding, or other declines in 

quality or impacts to resources while the problems are still 

fairly minor and can be corrected. This new information would 

allow site-specific recreation-use objectives to be developed so 

that managers could measure progress toward desirable social 

and resource conditions, or lack thereof. 

As specified in the Refuge Improvement Act, wildlife-dependent 

recreation—hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation—would be a 

priority general public use. These uses would be allowed and 

facilitated as long as they remained compatible with refuge 

purposes and the Refuge System mission. The Refuges would 

be managed to provide opportunities for quality recreation 

experiences in generally natural wildland settings. 

More emphasis would be placed on ensuring that opportunities 

for quality recreation were being provided on the Refuges. The 

attributes of a quality experience for recreational fishing, 

hunting, and other wildlife-dependent activities can be found in 

emerging Fish and Wildlife Service policy. They include 

providing activities that are safe; contribute to refuge 

objectives; minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife 

populations or habitats; encourage high standards of ethical 

behavior; are available to a broad spectrum of the public, 

including those with disabilities; are uncrowded; minimize 

conflicts with other users; provide reasonable challenge; and 

increase understanding and appreciation for the resources. 

(Refer to the glossary, on page *****, for the definition of 

“quality” that we are using in this Plan.) 

7.5 Alternative 2 

The management directions described subsequently, combined 

with those described in sections 7.1 (Elements Common to All 

Alternatives) and 7.4 (Elements Common to All Action 

Alternatives) form the elements of this alternative. Figure 2-3 in 

Chapter 2 depicts this alternative. 

7.5.1 Management Direction 

With Alternative 2, there would be changes in the way lands are 

managed, in the manner in which the public can access the 

Refuges, and in the emphasis of public-use monitoring and 

wildlife inventories and studies. Section 2.30, in Chapter 2 of 

this Plan, provides greater detail regarding Alternative 2. 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-19 

If this alternative is implemented, the following would take 

place: 

 Helicopter landings for recreation purposes would be 

prohibited in sensitive resource or remote areas or at 

sensitive times. Landings could be considered in other 

areas. 

 Mapping of sensitive and remote areas would be done within 

five years of enactment of this Plan. These areas would be 

identified through a public planning effort to identify 

rookeries, haulouts, cultural sites, and other sensitive areas 

(see section 1.9.1, in Chapter 1 of this Plan, for information 

about sensitive and remote areas). 

 3,728,300 acres would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. 

 9,100 acres would be managed in the Moderate Management 

category. 

 502,900 acres would be managed in the Wilderness 

Management category. 

7.6 Alternative 3 

The management directions described subsequently, combined 

with those described in sections 7.1 (Elements Common to All 

Alternatives) and 7.4 (Elements Common to All Action 

Alternatives) form the elements of this alternative. Figure 2-4 in 

Chapter 2 depicts this alternative. 

7.6.1 Management Direction 

Alternative 3 would provide goals and objectives for 

management of the Refuges and reduce the size of the Yantarni 

Bay Moderate Management area (see Figure 2-5 in Chapter 2). 

Helicopter landings for recreational purposes would not be 

allowed. 

If this alternative is implemented, the following would take 

place: 

 Helicopter landings for recreation purposes would not be 

allowed. 

 The Yantarni Bay Moderate Management area would be 

reduced from 9,100 acres to 4,000 acres. 

 3,733,400 acres would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. 

 4,000 acres would be managed in the Moderate Management 

category. 

 502,900 acres would be managed as designated Wilderness. 

 Refuge lands in the Cooperative Management category 

would be reclassified I (see section 2.29 in Cahpter 2). 
Executive Summary 

S-20 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

7.7 Alternative 3a 

Preferred Alternative 

This alternative is a modification of Alternative 3 to allow for 

the potential for recreation access by helicopter. In all other 

aspects, it is identical to Alternative 3: it incorporates the goals 

and objectives described in section 2.2 of Chapter 2 and 

incorporates the management directions described in sections in 

sections 7.1 (Elements Common to All Alternatives) and 7.4 

(Elements Common to All Action Alternatives). Figure 2-6 in 

Chapter 2 depicts Alternative 3a. 

7.7.1 Management Direction 

Alternative 3a would direct management in the same manner as 

does Alternative 3 except that helicopter landings for recreation 

purposes would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

If this alternative is implemented, the following would take 

place: 

 Applications for permits for helicopter landings for 

recreation purposes outside of the Wilderness Area would 

be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

 The Yantarni Bay Moderate Management area would be 

reduced from 9,100 acres to 4,000 acres. 

 3,733,400 acres would be managed in the Minimal 

Management category. 

 4,000 acres would be managed in the Moderate Management 

category. 

 502,900 acres would be managed as designated Wilderness. 

 Refuge lands in the Cooperative Management category 

would be reclassified (see section 2.29 in Chapter 2). 

7.8 Summary Comparison of 

Alternatives 

Funding for Alternative 1 would require a continuation of the 

current level of funding (adjusted for inflation) to support the 

current staffing level. Funding for Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a 

would require increases above the current level to support an 

increase in staffing. 

Table S-1 show a comparison of acreage, and Table S-2 gives an 

over all comparison of the alternatives. Table S-3 presents the 

budget and staffing levels (FY 2003 dollars) required to 

implement each of the alternatives. Additional personnel and 

funding needs are identified in the Refuge Operational Needs 

System (RONS). These needs are updated annually and are not 

detailed in this plan. 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-21 

Table S-1 Comparison of acreages in the various management categories by alternative 

Category (acres) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 3a 

Preferred 

Intensive Management 0 0 0 0 

Moderate Management 9,100 9,100 4,000 4,000 

Minimal Management 3,364,600b 3,728,300b 3,733,400b 3,733,400b

Wilderness 502,900 502,900 502,900 502,900 

Cooperative Managementd 387,400a,c 0 0 0 

Total lands administered by 

Service 

4,240,300 4,240,300 4,240,300 4,240,300 

 Acreages were developed by Arc/Info analysis of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service land status maps. These areas have not been 

surveyed. Acreage figures may change over time as data sources improve. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service land status maps were 

derived from Bureau of Land Management Master title plats. 

a Includes Becharof Lake and Upper and Lower Ugashik lakes. 

b Includes only federal lands. 

c Includes 23,700 acres of designated Wilderness. 

d Cooperative Management merges with Minimal Management for Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a. Although the original plan called 

for the Cooperative Management category to be applied to 387,400 acres within the Refuges, for practical purposes this 

category is no longer used. We consider that we cooperate with others in all our management activities, hence, all management 

categories are “cooperative.”

Table S-2 Comparison of alternatives 

Comparison 

Item 

Alternative 1 

Current Condition 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 3a 

Preferred 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Management 

Existing plan does 

not provide focused 

direction for fish 

and wildlife 

management. 

Provides goals and 

objectives for 

increasing our 

knowledge of 

wildlife and 

habitat needs and 

relationships 

through increases 

in monitoring and 

research 

Same as 

Alternative 2 

Same as 

Alternative 2 

Conflicts 

Between User 

Groups 

Administration of 

public use is 

reactive. 

Conflict areas 

would be actively 

monitored with 

results used to 

facilitate wildlifedependent 

recreation, 

subsistence uses, 

and other 

traditional uses in 

a manner that 

minimizes 

conflicts between 

user groups. 

Provides goals and 

objectives for 

facilitating wildlifedependent 

recreation, 

subsistence uses, 

and other 

traditional uses in a 

manner that 

minimizes conflicts 

between user 

groups. 

Same as 

Alternative 3 
Executive Summary 

S-22 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Comparison 

Item 

Alternative 1 

Current Condition 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 3a 

Preferred 

Helicopter 

Landings for 

Recreational 

Access 

Helicopter landings 

for recreation 

access would be 

evaluated, outside 

of designated 

Wilderness, on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Helicopter 

landings for 

recreation access 

may be allowed in 

areas not 

identified in a 

step-down plan as 

sensitive or 

remote. 

Helicopter 

landings for 

recreation access 

not allowed. 

Same as 

Alternative 1 

Yantarni Bay 

Moderate 

Management 

Area 

9,100 acres in size; 

existing access and 

uses continued 

Same as 

Alternative 1 

4,000 acres in size; 

Existing access and 

uses continued. 

Boundary 

adjustment reflects 

relocation to 

geographically 

identifiable 

features while 

including all offroad vehicle trails 

and areas of 

moderate use. 

Same as 

Alternative 3 

Table S-3 Summary of budget staffing needs 

Item Alternative 1 

Current 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 3a 

Preferred 

Implementation 

Period 

ShortTerm LongTerm ShortTerm LongTerm ShortTerm LongTerm ShortTerm LongTerm 

Annual Budget 

(millions)a

$1.794 $4.233 $2.017 $4.456 $1.971 $4.41 $1.971 $4.41 

Permanent 

Employees 

12 22 14 23 14 25 14 25 

Permanent Part-Time 

Employees 

3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 

Seasonal Employeesb 2 7 4 10 4 8 4 8 

Seasonal Volunteersb 4 8 6 12 6 10 6 10 

 Short-term = less than three years 

 Long-term = 3–15 years 

a Based on FY 2003 dollars 

b Numbers of seasonal employees and volunteers would probably increase, but would vary from year to year. 

8. Evaluation of the 

Alternatives 

8.1 Evaluation Criteria 

The four alternatives were evaluated against six criteria based 

on existing policy and law. These criteria were selected as being 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-23 

the most important factors to be used in selecting the Preferred 

Alternative. Following are the criteria, in order of importance: 

1. How well does the alternative satisfy the purposes of the 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof Refuges (Refuges) and 

other provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act? 

2. How well does the alternative satisfy the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System? 

3. How well does the alternative contribute to meeting the 

goals of the Refuges? 

4. How well does the alternative address the issues and 

concerns identified during scoping? 

5. How well does the alternative maintain biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health at the 

refuge- and ecosystem-scale and contribute to managing 

the Refuges as part of an ecosystem? 

6. How well does the alternative agree with Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game management plans for 

the area? 

The differences among the alternatives are relatively small. 

Each action alternative (Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a) varies slightly 

from the current management direction (Alternative 1), and 

differences in meeting the evaluation criteria therefore are 

slight. Alternatives that would clearly not meet the purposes of 

the Refuges or System mission were not developed. Scoping did 

not identify any major issues that would result in significant 

changes in management direction for the Refuges. 

The most important criterion used in evaluating the alternatives 

is the degree to which the alternatives achieve the purposes of 

the Refuges as mandated by ANILCA. In Chapter 4, we 

describe the physical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts of 

each of the alternatives and provide a summary of the projected 

changes. 

8.2 Response to Refuge 

Purposes 

All alternatives conserve fish and wildlife populations and 

habitats in their natural diversity, preserve water quality and 

quantity, meet international treaty obligations, and provide 

opportunities for continued subsistence uses. 

Alternatives 3 and 3a increase the amount of land in the 

Minimal Management category by 5,000 acres and provide 

slightly more conservation of natural habitats and wildland 

values than do Alternatives 1 and 2. 
Executive Summary 

S-24 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Opportunity for wilderness experience is a supplemental 

purpose for wildlife refuges that contain Congressionally 

designated Wilderness. The Becharof Wilderness has an 

additional purpose of maintaining the wilderness resource. All 

alternatives maintain the wilderness character of the Becharof 

Wilderness. 

8.3 Response to National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

Mission 

All alternatives were developed with the Refuge System mission 

in mind, and all contribute to fulfilling that mission. The 

Refuges play a part in supporting migratory birds, salmon, 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and marine mammals that migrate far 

from the Refuges and even from the state. Many other species 

such as brown bears, caribou, and moose use the Refuges for 

part of the year and migrate to other areas seasonally. 

8.4 Response to Refuge Goals 

Goals and objectives for the Refuges are found in Chapter 2, 

section 2.2. The original Plans (USFWS 1985a, 1985b) did not 

develop goals for management; because Alternative 1 is based 

on those Plans, it does not have goals for management. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a provide goals for refuge management. 

This is shown by additional direction for monitoring resources 

and public uses. 

8.5 Response to Issues 

8.5.1 Access to Remote or Sensitive Areas 

All alternatives would maintain current means and methods of 

accessing the Refuges. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3a may allow, on a 

case-by-case basis and through issuance of special use permits, 

for access for recreation purposes to some non-Wilderness parts 

of the Refuges, where such access is compatible with refuge 

purposes. This could increase human activity in localized areas 

and could disrupt wildlife within the helicopter flight path. 

Alternative 2 could allow helicopter access for recreation use 

after an evaluation of impacts and only in areas that are not 

identified as sensitive. Alternative 3 would prohibit use of 

helicopters for recreation access on the Refuges. 

8.5.2 User Conflicts 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a provide additional direction to the 

biologists and public-use specialists regarding monitoring of 

Refuges resources and public uses. Improved understanding of 

the dynamics of fish and wildlife resources and the interactions 

of human users and visitors with those resources would provide 
Executive Summary 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan S-25 

managers better tools to manage the resources and to respond 

to conflicts in a timely manner. 

8.6 Biological Integrity and 

Ecosystem Management 

The Service policy on maintaining the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System ecosystem provides refuge managers with 

direction to follow while achieving refuge purposes. The policy 

also provides an evaluation process for analyzing refuges and, 

through the planning and compatibility processes, for setting 

appropriate management direction to maintain and, where 

appropriate, restore biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health. 

Each of the alternatives provides management direction that 

maintains the biotic and abiotic conditions on the Refuges within 

historic ranges. Natural processes are the dominant force at 

work within the Refuges. 

Human activities are predominantly related to hunting and 

fishing, managed by state regulations and Federal Subsistence 

Board regulations. 

Ecosystem management is more a way of thinking than it is an 

end product. It embodies the concepts of a constantly changing 

landscape in which humans play a part, influence the ecosystem, 

and have a role in decisions affecting the land. To understand 

the effects of an action, the manager must look at it from 

different scales, both larger and smaller than the refuge. 

Ecosystem management requires the manager to look at the 

long-term effects of actions and think in terms of years and 

decades. 

Ecosystem goals for the ecoregions encompassing the Refuges 

have not been developed. When they are developed, it will be 

possible to show the role the Refuges play in contributing to 

meeting those ecosystems goals. 

All alternatives maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuges and integrate scientific 

knowledge into its management. Alternatives 2, 3, and 3a 

provide for obtaining a higher level of scientific knowledge and 

understanding than does Alternative 1. 

8.7 Agreement with ADF&G 

Management Plans 

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

management plans and objectives for fish and wildlife are 

discussed in Chapter 3, section 3.2.3. All alternatives 
Executive Summary 

S-26 Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

acknowledge the department’s role in managing fish and wildlife 

on national wildlife refuges consistent with the Master 

Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix B). 

Wilderness designation places a higher level of protection on 

fish and wildlife resources than is available through 

administrative designation. It also places a higher level of 

responsibility on the refuge manager to analyze activities that 

may conflict with Wilderness management objectives and to 

restrict or prohibit those activities that may not be compatible 

with Wilderness management. Some fish or wildlife 

enhancement activities—for example, those that would require 

permanent structures—may be precluded in designated 

Wilderness areas; to date, designation of the Becharof 

Wilderness has not precluded any ADF&G activities. Any 

future requests for enhancement activities or structures would 

be evaluated consistent with laws, regulations, policy, and the 

management direction in the Conservation Plan. 

9. References Cited 

Byers, C.R., and G.A. Gettas, eds. 1999. Records of North 

American Big Game. Missoula, Montana: Boone and 

Crockett Club. (11th Edition) 

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

Pilot Point, Ugashik, Port Heiden, Alaska Peninsula, 

Southwest Alaska, 1986-1987." Technical Paper. No. 158. 

Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 

Division of Subsistence. 

USFWS. 1985a. Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

Environmental Impact Statement, and Wilderness 

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

Service. 426 pp. 

USFWS. 1985b. Becharof National Wildlife Refuge Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental 

Impact Statement, and Wilderness Review. Anchorage, 

Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.