Central Yukon

Resource Management Plan

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Report on the Application of the 

Relevance and Importance Criteria

Prepared by the 

Bureau of Land Management

Central Yukon Field Office

Fairbanks, Alaska

November 2015

BLM

Alaska

BLM/AK/GI-16/001+8351+F000

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern i 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... ES-1

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

2. REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGNATION........................................................................................... 7

2.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern........................................................................ 7

2.1.1 Relevance............................................................................................................ 7

2.1.2 Importance .......................................................................................................... 8

2.1.3 Special Management Attention........................................................................... 8

2.2 Research Natural Areas.................................................................................................... 9

3. ACEC EVALUATIONS................................................................................................................ 11

3.1 General Scoping Comments Received on the Modification or Removal of 

ACECs, Support for ACECs, and Other Considerations............................................... 11

3.2 Specific Scoping Comments Received on the Modification or Removal of 

ACECs, Support for ACECs, and Other Considerations............................................... 14

3.3 Specific ACEC Nominations and Evaluations............................................................... 19

3.3.1 Accomplishment Creek..................................................................................... 19

3.3.2 Atigun-Sagavanirktok River............................................................................. 21

3.3.3 Dalton Utility Corridor ..................................................................................... 23

3.3.4 Galbraith Lake ACEC....................................................................................... 28

3.3.5 Nigu-Iteriak ACEC........................................................................................... 29

3.3.6 Toolik Lake RNA (Including Expansion)......................................................... 30

3.3.7 West Fork Atigun River ACEC (Including Expansion) ................................... 33

3.3.8 Midnight Dome/Kalhabuk ................................................................................ 34

3.3.9 Nugget Creek ACEC ........................................................................................ 36

3.3.10 Poss Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion).................................................. 37

3.3.11 Snowden Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)........................................... 39

3.3.12 Sukakpak Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion).......................................... 41

3.3.13 Jim River ACEC (Including Expansion) .......................................................... 44

3.3.14 South Fork Koyukuk River............................................................................... 48

3.3.15 Upper Kanuti River........................................................................................... 50

3.3.16 Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC................................................................................ 54

3.3.17 Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River................................................................ 55

3.3.18 Alatna River...................................................................................................... 58

3.3.19 Indian River ACEC (Including Expansion)...................................................... 60

3.3.20 Koyukuk River Tributaries............................................................................... 62

3.3.21 Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA.......................................................................... 63

3.3.22 Mentanontli River/Lake Todatonten................................................................. 66

3.3.23 South Todatonten Summit RNA....................................................................... 67

3.3.24 Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC..................................................................... 69

3.3.25 Klikhtentotzna Creek ........................................................................................ 72

3.3.26 Pah River .......................................................................................................... 74

3.3.27 Wheeler Creek .................................................................................................. 75

3.3.28 Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA ................................................................... 78

3.3.29 Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers..................................................................................... 79

3.3.30 McQuesten Creek RNA.................................................................................... 82
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ii

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Table of Contents

3.3.31 Ray Mountains (Tozitna Caribou ACECs Expansion)..................................... 85

3.3.32 Spooky Valley RNA ......................................................................................... 86

3.3.33 Tozitna River ACEC......................................................................................... 89

3.3.34 Dulbi River ACEC............................................................................................ 91

3.3.35 Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC (Including Expansion) ................................ 92

3.3.36 Traditional Hunting and Fishing Areas for Louden Tribe ................................ 93

3.3.37 Yukon River Watersheds.................................................................................. 96

3.3.38 Bishop Creek .................................................................................................... 98

3.3.39 Nulato Hills ACEC........................................................................................... 99

3.3.40 Arms Lake RNA............................................................................................. 100

3.3.41 Redlands Lake RNA ....................................................................................... 101

3.3.42 Sethkokna River.............................................................................................. 103

3.3.43 Sulukna River ACEC (Including Expansion)................................................. 105

3.3.44 Telsitna-Titna Rivers ...................................................................................... 108

4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, EVALUATION PROCESS, AND NEXT STEPS................................... 111

4.1 Summary of Findings................................................................................................... 111

4.2 Evaluation Process....................................................................................................... 125

4.3 Next Steps.................................................................................................................... 125

5. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 127

6. REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................ 129

TABLES Page

ES-1 Summary of Findings.............................................................................................................. ES-2

1 Existing ACECs and RNAs.......................................................................................................... 2

2 ACEC Nominations, Including Expansions of Existing ACECs or RNAs................................... 3

3 Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations............................................................................... 112
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern iii

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Table of Contents

FIGURES (see Appendix A) Page

1 Planning Area and ACEC Locator Overview........................................................................... A-3

2 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – North Dalton .......................................................... A-4

3 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – North Dalton ...................... A-5

4 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Middle Dalton ........................................................ A-6

5 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Middle Dalton.................... A-7

6 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – South Dalton .......................................................... A-8

7 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – South Dalton ...................... A-9

8 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Indian River ......................................................... A-10

9 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Indian River ..................... A-11

10 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Hogatza ................................................................ A-12

11 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Hogatza ............................ A-13

12 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Ray Mountains..................................................... A-14

13 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Ray Mountains................. A-15

14 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Dulbi Galena Wolf............................................... A-16

15 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Dulbi Galena Wolf........... A-17

16 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Lower Yukon* ..................................................... A-18

17 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Nowitna................................................................ A-19

18 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Nowitna............................ A-20

*There are no ACECs found to meet the relevance and importance criteria in the Lower Yukon area.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern iv

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CYRMP Central Yukon Resource Management Plan

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

NRHP National Register Historic Places

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

ORV Off-Road Vehicle

PLO Public Land Order

RMP Resource Management Plan

RNA Research Natural Area

ROD Record of Decision

TFS Toolik Field Station

U.S.C. United States Code

USFWS United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ES-1 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

During the scoping period for the Central Yukon Resource Management Plan 

(RMP)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) requested public input on both existing and nominated areas of critical 

environmental concern (ACECs) and research natural areas (RNAs). In addition, the BLM sought 

public comments, nominations, and modifications, during a specific comment period on ACECs 

from May 1 to August 29, 2014. 

In compiling a list of areas to be analyzed in this report, the BLM considered the public 

comments received on ACEC modifications, removals, and nominations (Sections 3.1 and 3.2). 

The BLM followed the guidance set forth in BLM Manual 1613 and considered: 

• Existing ACECs and RNAs

• Areas recommended for ACEC consideration (internal and external nominations) 

• Areas identified through inventory and monitoring 

• Adjacent designations of other federal and state agencies 

Requirements for Designation

To be eligible for designation as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance 

criteria described in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613, and 

need special management. The determinations in this report deal strictly with the relevance and 

importance criteria, and not special management attention. The ACECs that meet both the 

relevance and importance criteria will be carried forward and further analyzed in the Draft 

RMP/EIS, where special management will be addressed.

Relevance and importance are defined as follows: 

• Relevance: There shall be present a significant historic, cultural, or scenic value, a 

fish or wildlife resource or other natural system or process, or natural hazard. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ES-2 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Executive Summary

• Importance: The above described value, resource, system, process, or hazard shall 

have substantial significance and value, which generally requires qualities of more 

than local significance and special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or 

cause for concern. A natural hazard can be important if it is a significant threat to life 

or property.

RNAs are established and maintained for the purpose of research and education because the land 

has one or more of the following characteristics (43 CFR 8223):

• A typical representation of a common plant or animal association.

• An unusual plant or animal association.

• A threatened or endangered plant or animal species.

• A typical representation of common geologic, soil, or water features. 

• Outstanding or unusual geologic, soil, or water features.

Findings

The following table summarizes the findings for each existing and nominated area. See Table 3

in Chapter 4 for more details. See also Appendix A for figures. 

Table ES-1 

Summary of Findings

Name/Area Existing or 

Nominated

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Size 

(acres)

Nominated 

Size 

(acres)

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Accomplishment 

Creek Nominated

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

fish/riparian

N/A 0 41,000

(Figure 2)

41,000

(Figure 3)

Alatna River Nominated

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

fish/riparian

N/A 0 5,500

(Figure 8)

5,500

(Figure 9)

Arms Lake RNA Existing

Yes: soil 

and 

vegetation

Yes 10,600

(Figure 17)

10,600

(Figure 17)

10,600

(Figure 18)

AtigunSagavanirktok 

River

Nominated Partially N/A 0 105,000

(Figure 2)

0 (41,000 acres 

overlap 

Accomplishment 

Creek, 29,200 

acres overlap 

Toolik Lake RNA 

and expansion) 

Bishop Creek Nominated No N/A 0 16,200 

(Figure 16) 0 

Dalton Utility 

Corridor Nominated Partially N/A 0 

699,000

(Figures 2, 

4, and 6)

0 (288,000 acres 

overlap with 

multiple ACECs)
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ES-3 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Executive Summary

Table ES-1

Summary of Findings

Name/Area Existing or 

Nominated

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Size 

(acres)

Nominated 

Size 

(acres)

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Dulbi River 

ACEC Existing Yes: wildlife N/A 54,300(Figure 14)

54,300 

(Figure 14)

0 (11,700 acres 

overlap Galena 

Mountain Caribou 

ACEC)

Galbraith Lake 

ACEC Existing Yes: wildlife N/A 53,900(Figure 2)

53,900

(Figure 2)

53,900

(Figure 3)

Galena 

Mountain 

Caribou ACEC

Existing and 

Nominated 

Expansion

Yes: 

wildlife N/A 19,400(Figure 14)

671,000

(Figure 14)

507,000

(Figure 15)

Hogatza River 

Tributaries 

ACEC

Existing and 

Nominated 

Expansion

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

fish/riparian

N/A 5,200 

(Figure 10)

62,000 

(Figure 10)

60,000

(Figure 11)

Indian River 

ACEC Existing

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

fish/riparian

N/A 158,000

(Figure 8)

176,000

(Figure 8)

176,000

(Figure 9)

Ishtalitna Creek 

Hot Springs 

RNA

Existing

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

vegetation

Yes 1,000

(Figure 12)

1,000

(Figure 12)

1,100

(Figure 13)

Jim River ACEC

Existing and 

Nominated 

Expansion

Yes: soil, 

water, 

fish/riparian, 

wildlife, and 

cultural

N/A 203,000

(Figure 6)

476,000

(Figure 6)

303,000

(Figure 7)

Kanuti Hot 

Springs ACEC Existing Yes: soil and water N/A 40(Figure 6)

40

(Figure 6)

40

(Figure 7)

Kanuti-Kilolitna 

Rivers Nominated Yes: wildlife N/A 0 266,000(Figure 12)

0 (264,000 acres 

overlap Ray 

Mountains, 1,100 

acres overlap 

Ishtalitna Creek 

Hot Springs RNA)

Klikhtentotzna 

Creek Nominated

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

fish/riparian

N/A 0 108,000

(Figure 10)

108,000

(Figure 11)

Koyukuk River 

Tributaries Nominated No N/A 0 

174,000 

(Figures 8, 

10, and 16)

0 (14,100 acres 

overlap Indian 

River ACEC and 

expansion)

Lake Todatonten 

Pingos RNA Existing

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

vegetation

Yes, if 

combined 

with 

others

660

(Figure 8)

660

(Figure 8)

660

(Figure 9)
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ES-4 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Executive Summary

Table ES-1

Summary of Findings

Name/Area Existing or 

Nominated

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Size 

(acres)

Nominated 

Size 

(acres)

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

McQuesten 

Creek RNA Existing

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

vegetation

Yes 3,900

(Figure 12)

3,900

(Figure 12)

3,900

(Figure 13)

Mentanontli 

River/Lake 

Todatonten

Nominated Yes: 

fish/riparian N/A 0 22,000(Figure 8)

22,000

(Figure 9)

Midnight 

Dome/Kalhabuk Nominated Yes: soil and wildlife N/A 0 10,000(Figure 4)

10,000

(Figure 5)

Nigu-Iteriak 

ACEC Existing No N/A 40,200(Figure 2)

40,200

(Figure 2) 0 

Nugget Creek 

ACEC Existing Yes: soil and wildlife N/A 3,300(Figure 4)

3,300

(Figure 4)

3,300

(Figure 5)

Nulato Hills 

ACEC Existing No N/A 40,700(Figure 16)

40,700

(Figure 16) 0 

Pah River Nominated No N/A 0 50,600

(Figure 10) 0 

Poss Mountain 

ACEC

Existing and 

Nominated 

Expansion

Yes: soil 

and wildlife N/A 8,700(Figure 4)

25,500

(Figure 4)

25,500

(Figure 5)

Ray Mountains

Existing and 

Nominated 

Expansion

Yes: 

wildlife N/A

129,000 

(Tozitna 

Subunit 

North) and 

62,600 

(Tozitna 

Subunit 

South)

(Figure 12)

938,000

(Figure 12)

1,540,000

(Figure 13)

Redlands Lake 

RNA Existing

Yes: soil 

and 

vegetation

Yes 3,800

(Figure 17)

3,800

(Figure 17)

3,800

(Figure 18)

Sethkokna River Nominated

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

fish/riparian

N/A 0 319,000

(Figure 17)

299,000

(Figure 18)

Snowden 

Mountain ACEC

Existing and 

Nominated 

Expansion

Yes: soil, 

wildlife, and 

geology

N/A 29,700

(Figure 4)

102,000

(Figure 4)

0 (102,000 acres 

overlap Sukakpak 

Mountain ACEC)

South Fork 

Koyukuk River Nominated

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

fish/riparian

N/A 0 417,000

(Figure 6)

415,000

(Figure 7)

South 

Todatonten 

Summit RNA

Existing

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

vegetation

Yes 660

(Figure 8)

660

(Figure 8)

660

(Figure 9)
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ES-5 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Executive Summary

Table ES-1

Summary of Findings

Name/Area Existing or 

Nominated

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Size 

(acres)

Nominated 

Size 

(acres)

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Spooky Valley 

RNA Existing

Yes: 

wildlife, 

vegetation

Yes 10,100

(Figure 12)

10,100

(Figure 12)

8,800

(Figure 13)

Sukakpak 

Mountain ACEC

Existing and 

Nominated 

Expansion

Yes: 

geology and 

scenic

N/A 3,500

(Figure 4)

18,700

(Figure 4)

125,000

(Figure 5)

Sulukna River 

ACEC

Existing and 

Nominated 

Expansion

Yes: soil, 

water, 

fish/riparian, 

and wildlife

N/A 24,600

(Figure 17)

405,000

(Figure 17)

398,000

(Figure 18)

Telsitna-Titna 

Rivers Nominated No N/A 0 27,900(Figure 17) 0 

Toolik Lake 

RNA

Existing and 

Nominated 

Expansion

Yes: special 

status 

species and 

vegetation

Yes 77,200

(Figure 2)

108,000

(Figure 2)

106,000

(Figure 3)

Tozitna River 

ACEC Existing

Yes: soil, 

water, 

fish/riparian, 

and wildlife

N/A 843,000

(Figure 12)

843,000

(Figure 12)

0 (838,000 acres 

overlap Ray 

Mountains)

Traditional 

Hunting and 

Fishing Areas 

for Louden 

Tribe

Nominated No N/A 0 

43,100

(Figures 14 

and 16)

0 (5,500 acres 

overlap Galena 

Mountain Caribou 

ACEC and 

expansion)

Upper Kanuti 

River Nominated Partially N/A 0 232,000(Figure 6)

975,000

(Figure 7)

Upper 

Teedriinjik 

(Chandalar) 

River

Nominated

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

fish/riparian

N/A 0 295,000

(Figure 6)

296,000

(Figure 7)

West Fork 

Atigun River 

ACEC

Existing and 

Nominated 

Expansion

Yes: soil 

and wildlife N/A 9,200(Figure 2)

33,500

(Figure 2)

33,500

(Figure 3)

Wheeler Creek Nominated

Yes: soil, 

water, and 

fish/riparian

N/A 0 147,000

(Figure 10)

145,000 (excludes 

nominated lands

outside the 

watershed)

(Figure 11)

Yukon River 

Watersheds Nominated No N/A 0 

78,200

(Figures 14 

and 16)

0 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ES-6 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Executive Summary

This page intentionally left blank.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 1 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 1. Introduction

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION

The scoping period for the Central Yukon Resource Management Plan (CYRMP)/Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) was from June 14, 2013, to January 17, 2014. During this period, the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) presented summaries of existing 

and nominated areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), described criteria for ACEC 

qualification, and requested public input on existing and nominated ACECs. In addition, the BLM 

sought public comments, nominations, and modifications during a specific comment period on 

ACECs, from May 1 to August 29, 2014. The BLM received numerous nominations for new 

ACECs and expansions of existing ACECs as a result of these outreach efforts.

The Central Yukon interdisciplinary team members reviewed all ACEC nominations and BLMmanaged lands in the planning area to determine whether any areas should be considered for 

designation as an ACEC. Team members also reviewed all existing ACECs and research natural 

areas (RNAs) to determine if the designations are still relevant. The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) requires priority be given to the designation and protection of 

ACECs. The FLPMA defines ACECs as “areas within the public lands where special 

management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no 

development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, 

or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect 

life and safety from natural hazards.” 

The ACEC relevance and importance criteria has been analyzed in accordance with FLPMA 

Section 202(c)(3) (43 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 1712), 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610.7-

2, and BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. All existing and nominated 

ACECs were treated similarly in the evaluations of relevance and importance; there was no 

deference given to one over another (see Table 1, Existing ACECs and RNAs, and Table 2, 

ACEC Nominations, Including Expansions of Existing ACECs or RNAs, and Figure 2, Existing 

and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – North Dalton, Figure 4, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs 

– Middle Dalton, Figure 6, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – South Dalton, Figure 8, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Indian River, Figure 10, Existing and Nominated 

ACECs/RNAs – Hogatza, Figure 12, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Ray Mountains, 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 1. Introduction

Figure 14, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Dulbi Galena Wolf, Figure 16, Existing and 

Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Lower Yukon, and Figure 17, Existing and Nominated 

ACECs/RNAs – Nowitna, in Appendix A). 

The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the evaluations, list those areas that 

meet relevance and importance criteria and thus will be considered during resource management 

plan (RMP) alternatives development as potential ACECs, and identify those areas that do not 

meet relevance and importance criteria and thus will not be considered further.

Table 1 

Existing ACECs and RNAs

Land Use Plan ACEC or RNA Name Size 

(Acres) Reason for Designation 

CYRMP (1986) Arms Lake RNA 

(Figure 17) 10,600 Sand dune complex and associated vegetation and limnologic characteristics 

CYRMP (1986) Dulbi River ACEC

(Figure 14) 54,300 Crucial peregrine falcon habitat

Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (1991)

Galbraith Lake ACEC 

(Figure 2) 53,900 Cultural resources, rare or sensitive plants, high scenic values, and crucial Dall sheep lambing areas 

CYRMP (1986)

Galena Mountain 

Caribou ACEC 

(Figure 14)

19,400 Crucial peregrine falcon habitat, caribou calving grounds

CYRMP (1986)

Hogatza River 

Tributaries ACEC

(Figure 10)

5,200 Crucial salmon spawning habitat

CYRMP (1986) Indian River ACEC

(Figure 8) 158,000 Crucial salmon spawning habitat

CYRMP (1986)

Ishtalitna Creek Hot 

Springs RNA 

(Figure 12)

1,000 Low-gradient hot springs system

Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (1991)

Jim River ACEC 

(Figure 6) 203,000 Crucial salmon spawning habitat, recreational fishery, cultural resources, and high scenic values

Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (1991)

Kanuti Hot Springs 

ACEC (Figure 6) 40 Hot springs system 

CYRMP (1986) Lake Todatonten 

Pingos RNA (Figure 8) 660 Geologic features: open system pingos1

 

CYRMP (1986) McQuesten Creek 

RNA (Figure 12) 3,900 Low-gradient hot springs system; geologic features: stone stripes and surface slumps

Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (1991)

Nigu-Iteriak ACEC 

(Figure 2) 40,200 Geology, cultural resources

Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (1991)

Nugget Creek ACEC 

(Figure 4) 3,300 Crucial Dall sheep lambing areas, mineral lick 

CYRMP (1986) Nulato Hills ACEC 

(Figure 16) 40,700 Crucial peregrine falcon habitat 

Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (1991)

Poss Mountain ACEC 

(Figure 4) 8,700 Crucial Dall sheep lambing areas, mineral lick 

CYRMP (1986) Redlands Lake RNA 

(Figure 17) 3,800 Remnant lake and sand dune complex 

 

1

 A mounded layer of soil over a large core of ice; found in permafrost areas
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 3 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 1. Introduction

Table 1

Existing ACECs and RNAs

Land Use Plan ACEC or RNA Name Size 

(Acres) Reason for Designation 

Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (1991)

Snowden Mountain 

ACEC (Figure 4) 29,700 Crucial Dall sheep lambing areas, mineral lick 

CYRMP (1986)

South Todatonten 

Summit RNA 

(Figure 8)

660 Geologic features: open system pingos 

CYRMP (1986) Spooky Valley RNA 

(Figure 12) 10,100 Geologic, physiographic, vegetation, and scenic 

Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (1991)

Sukakpak Mountain 

ACEC (Figure 4) 3,500 High scenic values, geology 

CYRMP (1986) Sulukna River ACEC 

(Figure 17) 24,600 Crucial salmon and sheefish (inconnu) spawning habitat 

Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (1991)

Toolik Lake RNA 

(Figure 2) 77,200 Research activities

CYRMP (1986) Tozitna River ACEC 

(Figure 12) 843,000 Crucial salmon spawning habitat 

CYRMP (1986) Tozitna Subunit North 

ACEC (Figure 12) 129,000 Crucial caribou calving habitat 

CYRMP (1986) Tozitna Subunit South 

ACEC (Figure 12) 62,600 Crucial caribou calving habitat 

Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (1991)

West Fork Atigun 

River ACEC (Figure 2) 9,200 Crucial Dall sheep lambing areas, mineral lick 

Table 2 

ACEC Nominations, Including Expansions of Existing ACECs or RNAs

ACEC Name or 

General Location 

Proposed 

Size (acres) 

Nominated 

By Reasons Provided for Nomination by Nominator(s)

Accomplishment 

Creek (Figure 2) 41,000 BLM Crucial Dolly Varden overwintering habitat. 

Alatna River 

(Figure 8) 5,500 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service 

(USFWS) 

Crucial whitefish spawning habitat supporting the main 

subsistence fishery resources for villages in the Upper 

Koyukuk River. Only documented spawning area in 

upper Koyukuk drainage for sheefish (inconnu) and 

broad white fish.

AtigunSagavanirktok River 

(Figure 2)

105,000 USFWS Scenic values; geology; paleontological resources; Dall 

sheep lambing habitat and mineral licks. 

Bishop Creek

(Figure 16) 16,200

Koyukuk 

Tribal Council, 

Louden Tribal 

Council

Traditional harvest lands and waters used by the 

Koyukon people; cultural and historical significance of 

the area to Koyukon people; ecological processes that 

support traditional harvest practices.

Dalton Utility 

Corridor 

(Figures 2, 4, and 6)

699,000 The 

Schoppenhorsts 

Migratory routes for resident wildlife populations, fish 

habitat, unique geological features, natural hazard areas, 

and high scenic value.

Galena Mountain 

Caribou ACEC 

Expansion 

(Figure 14)

671,000 BLM Crucial habitat for the Galena Mountain Caribou Herd. 

Expand this area to include more habitat. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 4 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 1. Introduction

Table 2

ACEC Nominations, Including Expansions of Existing ACECs or RNAs

ACEC Name or 

General Location 

Proposed 

Size (acres) 

Nominated 

By Reasons Provided for Nomination by Nominator(s)

Hogatza River 

Tributaries ACEC 

Expansion 

(Figure 10)

62,000 BLM 

Crucial summer chum spawning habitat. Adjust current 

boundary of the Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC to 

include all BLM-managed lands within the combined 

watersheds of Clear and Caribou creeks as well as in 

High Creek and the South Hogatza sub-watershed.

Indian River ACEC 

Expansion 

(Figure 8)

176,000 BLM 

Crucial Chinook and summer chum salmon spawning 

habitat. Adjust ACEC boundary to include spawning 

habitat downstream of current boundary.

Jim River ACEC 

Expansion 

(Figure 6)

476,000 Allakaket, 

BLM

Crucial Chinook and chum spawning habitat and 

overwintering habitat for resident fish. 

Kanuti-Kilolitna 

Rivers (Figure 12) 266,000 USFWS 

Cultural resources; historical territory to three tribal 

bands of aboriginal Alaska Natives; sensitive or rare 

plants; Hodzana Caribou Herd habitat; rare or 

undescribed floral communities; geology.

Klikhtentotzna 

Creek (Figure 10) 108,000 BLM Crucial summer chum salmon spawning habitat. 

Koyukuk River 

Tributaries (Figures 

8, 10, and 16)

174,000 Koyukuk 

Tribal Council 

Traditional harvest lands and waters used by the 

Koyukon people; cultural and historical significance of 

the area to Koyukon people; ecological processes that 

support traditional harvest practices.

Mentanontli River/

Lake Todatonten 

(Figure 8)

22,000 USFWS Wildlife and waterfowl habitat; crucial feeding habitat 

for humpback whitefish; whitefish migration route. 

Midnight Dome/ 

Kalhabuk (Figure 4) 10,000 Mr. Reakoff Crucial Dall sheep habitat and mineral lick; Dall sheep movement corridor. 

Pah River 

(Figure 10) 50,600 Ambler Native Village 

Cultural importance to Upper Kobuk River 

communities; crucial sheefish (inconnu) and chum 

spawning habitat; genetically unique sheefish (inconnu) 

population; Western Arctic Caribou Herd migration 

route; waterfowl habitat; unique wetlands. 

Poss Mountain 

ACEC Expansion

(Figure 4)

25,500 BLM Crucial lambing habitat for Dall sheep and known 

mineral licks. 

Ray Mountains 

(Tozitna Caribou 

ACECs Expansion)

(Figure 12)

938,000 BLM

Crucial calving habitat for the Ray Mountains Caribou 

Herd; combine existing Tozitna caribou ACECs and 

rename as the Ray Mountains ACEC. 

Sethkokna River 

(Figure 17) 319,000 BLM Crucial Chinook salmon spawning habitat. 

Snowden Mountain 

ACEC Expansion

(Figure 4)

102,000 BLM

Crucial Dall sheep habitat, mineral licks, and unique 

geological exposures and associated paleontology. This 

area includes Nutirwik Creek, which is noted for its high 

scenic values.

South Fork 

Koyukuk River 

(Figure 6)

417,000 BLM Crucial Chinook and chum salmon spawning habitat. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 5 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 1. Introduction

Table 2

ACEC Nominations, Including Expansions of Existing ACECs or RNAs

ACEC Name or 

General Location 

Proposed 

Size (acres) 

Nominated 

By Reasons Provided for Nomination by Nominator(s)

Sukakpak Mountain 

ACEC Expansion

(Figure 4)

18,700 BLM

Unique geologic structures, folds, and faults; view of the 

geologic process of mountain building and erosional 

forces; rare plant species; and outstanding scenic views 

along the Dalton Highway, including Dillon Mountain. 

Sulukna River 

ACEC Expansion

(Figure 17)

405,000 USFWS, BLM

Crucial spawning and rearing habitat for sheefish 

(iconnu); preserve water quality in the Nowitna National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Adjust current boundary to 

include spawning habitat upstream of the current ACEC.

Telsitna-Titna 

Rivers (Figure 17) 27,900 USFWS 

Crucial spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook 

salmon; primary producer of Chinook within the 

Nowitna River drainage; preserve water quality in the 

Nowitna NWR. 

Toolik Lake RNA 

Expansion 

(Figure 2)

108,000

Toolik Field 

Station 

Management 

Committee

High value research station supporting more than 14,000 

scientific research plots near Toolik Field Station (TFS). 

The area around TFS is the arctic site for the National 

Ecological Observatory Network. 

Traditional Hunting 

and Fishing Areas 

for Louden Tribe

(Figures 14 and 16)

43,100 Louden Tribal 

Council

Traditional harvest lands and waters used by the 

Koyukon people; cultural and historical significance of 

the area to Koyukon people; ecological processes that 

support traditional harvest practices.

Upper Kanuti River 

(Figure 6) 232,000 USFWS 

Cultural resources; historical territory to three tribal 

bands of aboriginal Alaska Natives; sensitive or rare 

plants; Hodzana Caribou Herd habitat; rare or 

undescribed floral communities; geology.

Upper Teedriinjik 

(Chandalar) River2

(Figure 6)

295,000 

USFWS, 

BLM, 

Mr. Gilbert 

Crucial habitat for Chinook, summer and fall chum, 

coho, whitefish, and cisco; likely area of cultural 

significance; high-value cultural resource for Alaska 

Natives.

Wheeler Creek 

(Figure 10) 147,000 BLM, USFWS Crucial summer chum salmon spawning habitat. 

Yukon River 

Watersheds 

(Figures 14 and 16)

104,000 Koyukuk 

Tribal Council

Traditional harvest lands and waters used by the 

Koyukon people; cultural and historical significance of 

the area to Koyukon people; ecological processes that 

support traditional harvest practices.

 

2 In September 2015, the U.S. Board of Geographic Names changed the name of the Chandalar River to the 

Teedriinjik River to recognize its native name. This document refers to the former Chandalar River as the 

Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 6 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 1. Introduction

This page intentionally left blank.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 7 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 2 Requirements for Designation

CHAPTER 2 

REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGNATION

2.1 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

To be eligible for designation as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance 

criteria described in 43 CFR 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613, and it must require special 

management. The determinations in this report deal strictly with the relevance and importance 

criteria and not special management attention. The ACECs that meet both the relevance and 

importance criteria will be carried forward and further analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS, where 

special management will be addressed. 

Relevance and importance are defined as follows: 

• Relevance—There shall be present a significant historic, cultural, or scenic value, a 

fish or wildlife resource or other natural system or process, or natural hazard. 

• Importance—The above-described value, resource, system, process, or hazard shall 

have substantial significance and value, which generally requires qualities of more 

than local significance and special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or 

cause for concern. A natural hazard can be important if it is a significant threat to life 

or property.

2.1.1 Relevance

An area meets the relevance criterion if it contains one or more of the following: 

• A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including but not limited to rare or 

sensitive archeological resources and religious or cultural resources important to 

Native Americans). 

• A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for endangered, 

sensitive, or threatened species or habitat essential for maintaining species diversity). 

• A natural process or system (including but not limited to endangered, sensitive, or 

threatened plant species; rare, endemic, or relic plants or plant communities that are 

terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or rare geological features). 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 8 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 2 Requirements for Designation

• Natural hazards (including but not limited to areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding, 

landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by 

human action might meet the relevance criteria if it is determined through the 

resource management planning process to have become part of a natural process. 

2.1.2 Importance

An area meets the importance criterion if it meets one or more of the following: 

• Has more than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, consequence, 

meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar 

resource. 

• Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change. 

• Has been recognized as warranting protection to satisfy national priority concerns or 

to carry out the mandates of FLPMA. 

• Has qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns 

about safety and public welfare. 

• Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property. 

2.1.3 Special Management Attention

This report does not address special management; special management will be addressed for 

those ACECs that are recommended for further analysis in the Draft RMP/EIS. Special 

management attention refers to “management prescriptions developed during preparation of an 

RMP or amendment expressly to protect the important and relevant values of an area from the 

potential effects of actions permitted by the RMP, including proposed actions deemed to be in 

conformance with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the RMP” (BLM Manual 1613.12). 

Thus, these are management measures that would not be necessary and prescribed if the relevant 

and important values were not present. 

A management prescription is considered special if it is unique in the area involved and includes 

terms and conditions specifically to protect the values found in the area. BLM Manual 1613 

includes the following guidance on incorporating management prescriptions for potential ACECs 

into appropriate alternatives: 

During the formulation of alternatives, management prescriptions for potential ACECs are fully 

developed. Management prescriptions will generally vary across the plan alternatives. If there is 

no controversy or issues raised regarding the management of a potential ACEC, it may not be 

necessary to develop a range of management alternatives. In other words, management 

prescriptions may not vary significantly across alternatives. A potential ACEC (or portion 

thereof) must be shown as recommended for designation in any or all alternatives in the Draft 

RMP in which special management attention is prescribed to protect the resource or to minimize 

hazard to human life and safety. Because special management attention must be prescribed in at 

least one plan alternative, each potential ACEC will appear as a recommended ACEC in at least 

one plan alternative. (BLM Manual 1613.22.B) 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 9 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 2 Requirements for Designation

Designation is based on whether or not a potential ACEC requires special management attention 

in the selected plan alternative (i.e., proposed RMP; BLM Manual 1613.23). 

2.2 RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS

RNAs are established and maintained for the purpose of research and education because the land 

has one or more of the following characteristics (43 CFR 8223): 

1. A typical representation of a common plant or animal association

2. An unusual plant or animal association

3. A threatened or endangered plant or animal species

4. A typical representation of common geologic, soil, or water features

5. Outstanding or unusual geologic, soil, or water features

Per BLM Manual 1613.53, existing RNAs and proposed expansions were evaluated using the 

ACEC relevance and importance criteria and the RNA criteria defined in 43 CFR 8223. RNAs 

that do not meet the relevance and importance criteria for ACEC designation may still be 

considered for RNA designation in the revised RMP.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 10 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 2 Requirements for Designation

This page intentionally left blank.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 11

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

General Scoping Comments Received on the Modification or Removal of ACECs, 

Support for ACECs, and Other Considerations

CHAPTER 3 

ACEC EVALUATIONS

3.1 GENERAL SCOPING COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE MODIFICATION OR REMOVAL OF 

ACECS, SUPPORT FOR ACECS, AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The BLM needs to strongly consider closing ACECs to mineral location. Some areas currently designated as 

ACECs are open to mineral location under the General Mining Act of 1872 (Central Yukon RMP p. 20). Entry 

should be prohibited in order to maintain the other uses that currently take place in those ACECs. 

The RMP should not propose the designation of any new ACECs that would occupy lands selected by Doyon 

under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act or surround lands that already have been conveyed to Doyon. 

Such areas are unlikely to meet the regulatory criteria for designation of ACECs. Areas under consideration for 

ACEC designation that contain substantial areas of land that are in the process of conveyance or are high priority 

Doyon, Limited, and State-selected lands are unlikely to be retained in federal land status and ACEC designation 

is inappropriate. 

The peregrine falcon was provided habitat protection in several existing ACECs due to its threatened species 

listing. These protections have made a difference for this species. Existing protections should not be removed to 

allow for mining or oil and gas surface disturbing activities. Other raptors may also use riparian cliff areas and 

adjacent hunting grounds used by nesting peregrine falcons, and other riparian species may be protected by the 

existing ACECs. 

The BLM should consider these goals for ACECs: 1) Identify the resources and support necessary to promote and 

maintain the wild, scenic and scientific qualities of ACECs; 2) Identify (further) rehabilitation and reclamation 

needs within the ACECs; 3) Develop management objectives that protect and enhance the resource values, 

including prohibiting activities that would degrade the qualities of current and potential designations; 4) Close all 

designated ACECs to mineral development; 5) Designate wildlife corridors as ACECs with strong protections; 

and 6) Prohibit road development within RNAs and ACECs off the Dalton Highway. 

The RMP must evaluate a range of alternatives including ACEC designations to protect sensitive and important 

resources in the planning area and should establish robust management prescriptions to ensure real protection for 

the resources which ACECs are designated to protect. 

ACECs should be established to provide real protections for near-shore rearing habitat for fingerling and smolt. 

The BLM should consider designating corridors between conservation units as ACECs to protect the outstanding 

qualities of these areas as well as to promote connectivity between other units. 

Depending on the realities of current land status, the BLM should retain all existing ACECs in the planning area 

and expand and improve management prescriptions to protect these important places. Keeping these special areas 

closed to mineral development is a high priority. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 12

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

General Scoping Comments Received on the Modification or Removal of ACECs, 

Support for ACECs, and Other Considerations

RNAs need to be an adequate size to protect the integrity of the system. The BLM should review the success of 

current RNA management related to the size of these areas to determine if the originally proposed areas are 

serving their true purpose. 

The BLM should analyze if all hot springs should be designated as RNAs as hot springs host unique vegetation 

communities in the Arctic and Subarctic. 

The resources in the planning area include many values that merit protection through special administrative 

designations. Protection of existing ACECs and due consideration of newly-proposed ACECs, RNAs and 

outstanding natural areas, must be a priority in the Central Yukon planning process. 

ACEC nominations should not be done through a separate "call for nominations." The identification of new 

ACECs should be a product of the BLM’s integrated planning effort following detailed resource inventories, data 

review, and analysis. The plan should identify all of the resources in the area being considered for ACEC 

designation and determine if the ACEC designation is appropriate to achieve the management objectives for the 

specific area. The planning effort should not start out by pre-determining that certain areas deserve a higher level 

of protection before management objectives have been established. The Relevance and Importance criteria, which 

must be met to qualify for ACEC designation should be reviewed in light of the resources of the entire planning 

area and not as individual areas. This review can only be adequately performed after the completion of planning 

related inventories and data review, including mineral inventories and assessments. 

Requesting nominations for new ACECs early in the planning process compromises the BLM’s mandates to 

provide for a full range of multiple use opportunities on public lands and biases the process towards further land 

use restrictions and closures. 

The BLM’s May 1, 2014 Call for Nominations and related press release inaccurately describe the current step in 

the process as the request was only for “nominations” for ACECs. As part of any nomination process, the BLM 

should also request comments on existing ACECs. Revised ACEC designations need to reflect new knowledge 

about resources values, and consider changes to laws and regulations regarding mining and other land uses that 

have occurred since the existing plans were developed. 

There are significant inconsistencies in the BLM’s approach to ACEC and RNA designations between plans. 

Some recent BLM plans use a very conservative approach when delineating ACECs while others do not. For 

example, the East Alaska and Bay RMPs designated only one ACEC each. Conversely, the existing Central 

Yukon plan designated 24 ACECs and RNAs, covering almost half the planning area. It does not appear that the 

environmental resources within the Central Yukon Planning Area are correspondingly that more “critical” or 

significant than those found in other planning areas. Rather it appears this is due to a lack of consistent criteria 

used in different planning areas, by different planning staff, and the relatively ambiguous criteria for ACEC 

designation. Another example is the designation of thirteen ACECs for fisheries and five ACECs for salt licks 

within the Central Yukon planning area. Many other BLM-managed lands have similar fisheries values and salt 

licks; yet statewide the BLM has identified ACECs for fisheries in only four other areas (three in Kobuk-Seward 

RMP and one in the Southwest Management Framework Plan (Anvik River), and no ACECs for salt licks. The 

BLM has apparently concluded that on BLM-managed lands outside the Central Yukon plan area, existing 

regulations provide adequate protection for these resources. 

The guidance provided in BLM Manual 1613 is too vague, open ended, and broad, resulting in an inconsistent 

approach to ACEC designation between planning areas. Based on this guidance, it appears that many of the 

Central Yukon ACECs do not meet the importance criteria as many of the streams designated seem to be 

important locally, but not on a regional or statewide basis. 

The RMP should encourage multiple use, emphasize that mineral development under today’s regulations can be 

performed in an environmentally safe manner (as demonstrated by Taiga Mining Company operations for the past 

24 years), and only propose ACEC or RNA designation in areas that clearly require a higher level of protection 

than provided by existing regulations. The re-write of the 43 CFR 3809 Regulations in 2001, along with new 

requirements from other agencies such as Alaska’s Title 16 Authorities protecting salmon, and tightened water 

quality standards have put many new stringent requirements on Alaskan miners today. The protection these new 

standards provide, such as stream buffers and stream reclamation, should be considered prior to ACEC 

designation. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 13

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

General Scoping Comments Received on the Modification or Removal of ACECs, 

Support for ACECs, and Other Considerations

Land transfers under the Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act have significantly reduced 

the land area under BLM management of many ACECs, making them no longer appropriate for ACEC 

designation. As many as 10 of the 25 ACECs in the planning area have had significant reductions in the acreage 

of land managed by the BLM. Where significant portions of the ACEC are no longer under BLM jurisdiction, the 

ACEC designations no longer apply and should be eliminated or, if ACEC designation of the remaining BLMmanaged lands is determined appropriate, it should be reduced to only those areas remaining under exclusive 

BLM control. 

The BLM should not encumber the land with protective designations on lands they do not administer, even if the 

ACEC has no legal authority over the non-federal lands. 

Prior land management plans called for leaving many ACECs open to mineral location. However, the BLM has 

kept many of these areas closed. Mining can be compatible with most ACEC designations and ACEC lands 

should be open to mineral location and entry under federal mining laws and to the sale of federally owned 

minerals, including oil and gas and coal resources. If the BLM finds it appropriate to maintain some of the 

existing ACECs or designate new ones, leaving them open to mineral entry with reasonable environmental 

protections can reduce the economic impact of designation. 

All ACECs should be reviewed with consideration given to federal lands already designated as Conservation 

System Units under the ANILCA [Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act]. Within the boundary of the 

planning area there are three NWRs representing a significant acreage. The area borders four additional NWRs 

and two National Parks all removed from multiple use management. These conservation system units represent 

many different types of ecosystems and resources of interior Alaska. These resources should be considered prior 

to establishing new, or maintaining existing, ACECs. 

Discussion and proposed management of ACECs should not consider mineral resource development a “threat.” 

The BLM is charged by the FLPMA with managing federal public lands for multiple use, including specifically 

mineral resources. References to mineral resources within the existing planning documents repeatedly refer to 

mineral resource potential as a “concern” or a “threat” to their intended management. This language is found 

primarily in the five step-down management plans prepared by the Kobuk District between 1988 and 1995 for 

specific ACECs. Multiple use management requires that the BLM allow for access to mineral resources and 

opportunities for future mineral development, mining related activities should not be viewed as a “threat” to other 

resources. 

Prior to considering new ACECs the BLM should review all existing ACECs to determine if they meet the 

relevance and importance criteria and if designation is still justified. Of the 25 existing ACECs within the 

planning area only seven have ACEC management plans. If only seven of these 25 ACECs required preparation 

of their own management plans, it is questionable if the areas actually meet the Relevance and Importance 

criteria. 

The costs to the government of ACEC management should be considered when reviewing existing and new 

ACECs. ACEC designation can have serious budget implications for the BLM and result in agency directed 

mandates that are expensive and may not be met. The BLM prepared the Hogatza ACEC Aquatic Management 

Plan and subsequently embarked on a very intensive aquatic and hydrologic inventory and monitoring scheme 

spanning 15 to 18 years. While this work was likely undertaken to meet the objectives of the management plan, 

no reports, data summaries, or ACEC status reports were ever made available to Taiga Mining. To our knowledge 

reports of this nature were never prepared, including the annual reporting required under the management plan. 

Consequently, it is questionable if these undocumented data collection efforts were an appropriate expenditure of 

federal tax dollars. 

The BLM should explain that the public and tribes can propose an ACEC through the planning process because 

areas are important special places, culturally valued, critical for subsistence, historic, or special biological 

habitats. Commenters noted that ACECs in the planning area are working and being managed well and that they 

can be expanded with input from the public and tribes to achieve their purposes. 

If an ACEC achieved the purpose it was established for, it may no longer be needed (for example, protecting a 

species that is no longer protected by legislation). 

The RMP should explain what an RNA is and how they are designated and used. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 14

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

General Scoping Comments Received on the Modification or Removal of ACECs, 

Support for ACECs, and Other Considerations

The BLM needs to manage access issues on ACECs. Some lands users are unaware that an area is an ACEC and 

use Argos/ATVs [all-terrain vehicles]/ORVs [off-road vehicles] in critical spawning areas. The RMP should 

describe and evaluate access issues and implications of misuse. 

3.2 SPECIFIC SCOPING COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE MODIFICATION OR REMOVAL OF 

ACECS, SUPPORT FOR ACECS, AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Analyze the upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River for designation as an ACEC, from the East Fork Chandalar 

River/Chuttoh Bluffs to Caro. The Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River drainage provides essential fisheries habitat for 

Chinook, summer and fall chum, coho, whitefish, and cisco (Brown et al. 2012, Melegari 2012, Rost 1986), and 

critical subsistence resources for all Alaska communities which harvest fish from the Yukon River. Radiotelemetry data suggest that the Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River contributes 2 to 4 percent of the statewide run of 

Chinook that enter the Yukon River annually (Eiler et al. 2006a, 2006b). Radio-telemetry data (Martin 2013, 

unpublished data) collected in 2003 and 2004 documents spawning Chinook present in the Teedriinjik 

(Chandalar) River from Venetie upstream to the East Fork, main stem, and West Fork (Martin 2013). With onethird of the entire Yukon River fall chum salmon population utilizing the Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River, this 

discrete population is the largest fall chum population of the Yukon River drainage and provides an essential 

food source for users throughout the Yukon River basin and a primary resource for Arctic Village, Venetie and 

Fort Yukon. ADFG [Alaska Department of Fish and Game] subsistence harvest data reported the community of 

Venetie reported harvesting 1,938 fall chum, 10 chinook and 34 coho in 2011. The physical attributes which 

make the Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River productive fisheries habitat are understudied but it is suspected that a 

combination of upriver water upwelling and other physical features contribute to its high fisheries production. 

Presently there are increased mining activities in the upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) watershed which pose a 

threat for water quality and downstream fisheries spawning habitats. The USFWS is specifically concerned 

about that stretch of the Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River upstream from the East Fork/Chuttoh Bluffs to Caro and 

proposes that this area be carefully studied and evaluated for designation as an ACEC. The existing 1970s 

withdrawal from mining laws should be retained to further protect the valuable subsistence fisheries resources. 

Additionally the area should be afforded protection from road access. 

Existing ACECs need to be reviewed. Significant areas within or adjacent to a number of the ACECs in the 

planning area have been conveyed to Doyon, Limited and the State. Doyon now owns significant land holdings 

near the villages of Kaltag, Galena, Ruby, Tanana, and Hughes. As a result, significant portions of the Nulato 

Hills, Dulbi-Kaiyuh Mountains Subunit, and Galena Mountain Caribou ACECs, among others, are no longer in 

federal land status, and should be removed formally from ACEC designation. Other areas within the ACECs 

may no longer be appropriate for continued designation because of the status of adjacent lands or for other 

reasons. 

The Kateel, Box, and Inglutalik River ACECs/RNAs should be expanded north to include the Tagagawik River 

and all BLM-managed lands north to the boundary of the Selawik NWR. These ACECs/RNAs, as well as the 

Nulato Hills ACEC, are critical migration routes and winter range for the western arctic caribou herd. The BLMmanaged lands along the eastern flanks of these ACECs should remain closed to all forms of mining and mineral 

leasing. 

The Jim River ACEC should be expanded to include the Jim River drainage, South Fork Koyukuk, upper 

Prospect Creek, and the forks of Bonanza Creek. The alpine zone of the Jim River Mountains seems to be 

vegetatively distinctive in that lichen communities and primary successional heath communities form unusual 

and dramatic islands among extensive lichen covered granitic talus slopes. This is a strikingly beautiful valley 

with remarkable rock glaciers. The Jim River is a significant salmon drainage and provides quality hunting, 

trapping, and grayling fishing opportunities. Additionally this area connects Yukon Flats and Kanuti NWRs 

along a low-altitude corridor. The expanded ACEC should be closed to mineral entry as mining or road 

construction would severely impact this narrow river valley. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 15

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Specific Scoping Comments Received on the Modification or Removal of ACECs, 

Support for ACECs, and Other Considerations

The Kanuti watershed comprises a highly scenic and productive basin upstream of the highway, and provides a 

higher-altitude connector between Yukon Flats and the Kanuti NWRs. Viewed from Finger Rock and the Dalton 

Highway the Upper Kanuti basin is a lovely and distinctive arctic landscape that should be protected so that 

tourists driving the road and Alaskans can continue to enjoy this place, and hunting opportunities remain 

uncompromised. An ACEC closed to mineral entry might protect this special, scenic valley. 

The BLM should analyze and consider designating the Kanuti River and the Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers drainages 

as RNAs/ACECs to protect rare plant communities and cultural resources. Both river corridors host relic 

Beringia vegetation communities, and notable archaeological sites. These drainages are untrammeled and offer 

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Further, they host adjacent vegetation 

communities that are either rare or diminishing on the landscape (relic Beringia vegetation communities [Lipkin 

2007]); old growth spruce/lichen habitats), scenic tors, serpentine soils, and active golden eagle (BLM sensitive 

species) nesting territories. 

Nulato Hills is some of the wildest lands in the state. Additionally the following rivers should be assessed for 

designation as an ACEC: Dakli Creek, Wheeler Creek, Sulukna River, Titna River, Telsitna River, and 

Sethkokna River. Justification: Maintaining water quality and quantity in areas of known spawning grounds that 

are critical for providing subsistence resources for the surrounding villages. 

The BLM should designate new ACECs to protect anadromous fish and lands adjacent to anadromous streams, 

caribou habitat (calving, wintering, foraging, and migration), and habitat for rare and imperiled species in the 

planning area. Protections of uplands adjacent to anadromous streams would protect the Yukon River drainage 

as it intersects with BLM-managed land. ACEC protections on the BLM-managed land adjacent to the Yukon 

River and its tributaries could help king salmon runs as this declining population trend over time is of a serious 

conservation concern. 

All BLM-managed lands north of the Yukon River in the Tozitna River ACEC, and its north and south subunits, 

as well as all the Ray Mountains, all the way to the Kanuti NWR boundary, should be retained by the BLM. 

State tentatively selected lands in this area should not be approved. The Tozitna ACEC should be expanded 

north to include all these tentatively selected State lands. All BLM-managed lands in this area should be closed 

to all mineral entry and leasing. 

The BLM should leave the Tozitna River ACEC, both Tozitna Subunits South and North, and the McQuesten 

Creek, Spooky Valley and Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNAs in place as they are for the next 20 years. Let our 

descendents [sic] have a chance to make that decision. The area is doing just fine now. 

Regarding the Tozitna Subunits, Kanuti Hot Springs, Indian Mountain, and Upper Jim River ACECs and the 

Spooky Valley and Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNAs: Acreage totals provided in documents provided by the 

BLM are vague and conflicting, representing boundaries that have varied over the past 25 years; Maps are of 

poor quality; and there are mixed and confusing references to ACECs and RNAs. 

Much of the Tozitna Sub-units and the Jim River area are in conflict with State of Alaska land selections or topfilings where land status is unresolved. The State land interest includes most of the Ray Mountains and the 

adjacent pipeline corridor where selections have been top-filed over temporary BLM-managed land closures 

(public land orders [PLOs]) of the corridor. The State has filed land selections, or has top-filed selections over 

most of these lands in good faith that the lands will be re-opened to selection as per the intent of the Statehood 

Act. The area of State selection applications are largely due to mineral resource potential of the region, and the 

strategic importance of the only available corridor to the Arctic. In spite of a 2006 report to Congress on the 

status of existing PLOs that are blocking State selection, the BLM has taken no action to remove these closures. 

Any proposed extension of the Snowden Mountain ACEC to the east that would fully encompass the headwaters 

of Mathews River is unnecessary. The Snowden Mountain ACEC adequately and effectively protects sheep 

habitat as is, in the vicinity of Snowden Mountain. The headwaters of Mathews River has a documented history 

of continuous and existing recreational use over the last 47 years that includes limited ORV use by occupants of 

a single private land in-holding. Limited ORV use by this land owner within the Mathews River corridor has not 

negatively affected sheep or sheep habitat. 

The Sulukna River provides critical sheefish (inconnu) spawning habitat for subsistence fisheries and portions 

are currently open to mining. The BLM should maintain or expand the current ACEC for the Sulukna River and 

close the lower portion of the river to mining. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 16

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Specific Scoping Comments Received on the Modification or Removal of ACECs, 

Support for ACECs, and Other Considerations

The following ACECs were established primarily for fish habitat protection. Considering the existing federal 

and State authorities that protect fisheries these ACECs should not be designated in the updated Central Yukon 

RMP, or the BLM must explicitly state why existing protections do not adequately protect these areas and why 

their fisheries resources are particularly unique: Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC, Indian River ACEC, 

Inglutalik River ACEC, North River ACEC, Shaktoolik River ACEC, Sulukna River ACEC, Tozitna River 

ACEC, Ungalik River ACEC, Jim River ACEC, Ivishak River ACEC. 

Many commenters were in support of retaining the Galbraith Lake ACEC. Reasons cited included aesthetics and 

research. 

The BLM should consider combining the Redlands and Arms Lake RNAs into one larger RNA encompassing 

most of the BLM-managed lands in the area. The enlarged RNA should be managed for its unique qualities. 

The BLM should consider combining the Lake Todatonten Pingos and the South Todatonten Summit RNAs into 

one larger RNA. The combined RNA should be managed to maintain the unique qualities for which they were 

designated. 

The Oksrukuyik River watershed should be designated as a RNA for the purpose of research and education, 

rather than as a Wild and Scenic River. This watershed is representative of the common geologic, soil, or water 

features (43 CFR 8223) in the area and is highly useful for basic and applied research that is relevant to land 

management and environmental stewardship in this region of Alaska. The Oksrukuyik Creek watershed has a 

rich history of research activities and continues to be very productive in this regard. Short and long term studies 

have been geared towards gaining an improved understanding and ability to predict the effects of environmental 

change on arctic landscapes. The long term monitoring and observing activities and experimental manipulations 

that have taken place to date have been fundamental in enabling a better understanding of the ecology of the 

surrounding tundra, streams, and lakes and of the controls of ecosystem structure and function, enabling better 

land and natural resource management in the region. The investments that have been made thus far and the 

benefits of all that stands to be learned through future research activities. Restrictions that a Wild and Scenic 

designation would impose would represent a loss of both the investments that have been made thus far and the 

benefits of all that stands to be learned through future research activities. 

Continue the restriction on overnight camping in Toolik Lake RNA because this restriction: reduces interference 

with research projects; similar camping sites are readily available outside the RNA. 

The current plan does not allow camping in the Toolik Lake RNA. The BLM should evaluate if recreational 

camping can be allowed in the southern region of the Toolik Lake RNA, which is adjacent to Arctic NWR

Atigun River Gorge area, without impacting the identified cultural and research activity values. 

Many supported the recommendation of the TFS Management Team and Steering Committee: The boundaries 

of the Toolik Lake RNA should be expanded as shown in the submitted map. Because of the expansion of longterm research programs beyond the current boundaries of the RNA, we request that the BLM expand the area 

included in the Toolik Lake RNA primarily eastward, with a small extension south to the area just north of the 

Atigun River along the Dalton Highway. There are more than 14,000 scientific research plots in the vicinity of 

TFS, and the expansion of the RNA proposed here would pick up most of the current research plots that are on 

BLM-managed land in the area. We recognize that the current and proposed expanded areas of the Toolik Lake 

RNA include lands within the Alaska pipeline corridor and that this status will not change. 

The Toolik Lake RNA should be continued and enlarged to include important research sites outside of the 

current boundary. More specifically, the RNA designation should also be applied to existing research areas 

around Atigun, which are located as to not prevent access to Atigun canyon by other users. 

The BLM should consider expanding Toolik Lake RNA to the south, north, and west of the current RNA. 

Invaluable research has already come from the current RNA and expanding the area designated for this use will 

ensure continued research for the benefit of all Alaskans. 

Consider expanding Toolik Lake RNA to include some of the key research sites outside of the current RNA. 

Expansion to the south is needed to include the sites near Atigun. To the north and east, there are important 

research plots and no other current designations for the land. The eastern boundary should follow the watershed 

boundary between the Sagavanirktok River and the lake district east of the Kuparuk River. 

The Toolik Lake RNA should be expanded to include study plots at the Imnavait Creek materials site, these are 

a key comparison to those closer to Toolik Lake that allow researchers to discern what differences are due to 

soils and vegetation (which contrast at those sites), but have very similar climatic conditions. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 17

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Specific Scoping Comments Received on the Modification or Removal of ACECs, 

Support for ACECs, and Other Considerations

The present boundaries of the Toolik Lake RNA should be extended on the west, northwest, and south, sides, to 

include (a) at least the entire upper watershed of the Toolik River and Oksrukuyik Creek including all of its 

headwater lakes, and (b) at least a portion of the dune and heath habitats near the Atigun River crossing. These 

areas are already being used in long-term studies by investigators based at TFS, and researchers are running out 

of space closer to Toolik Lake. 

The TFS has become the flagship Arctic field research station in the U.S. Researchers and students from a wide 

range of disciplines come from around the world come to work and study here. The location of the field station 

provides easy access to a wide range of environments that are representative of other places in the Arctic and the 

facilities and services offered allow a wider range of research to be conducted than has ever been the case 

previously. Much of the research that is being done is either explicitly of a long-term nature or could serve as a 

crucial benchmark for future studies if the local environment is preserved. 

The Central Yukon Management Plan needs to recognize the importance of continuous long-term data collection 

to proper understanding and management of this unique area. The Toolik Lake RNA supports such long-term 

research. 

Material sites should not be enlarged into the Toolik Lake RNA. Any enlargement of the Imnavait Creek 

material site could damage ongoing studies, some of which have been in place since the installation of the 

Dalton Highway in the 1970s. 

The Toolik Lake RNA should be maintained and the area protected to allow research to continue. 

The BLM should renew the University of Alaska TFS lease. 

The use off off-road vehicles should be restricted within the Toolik Lake RNA. 

The BLM should continue with efforts to “pre-screen” areas within the Toolik Lake RNA for research. 

Regulations about the degree and area of impact involved in triggering a requirement for a research permit 

within the RNA, and regulations about the number of separate permits required for a single project working at 

multiple locations, should be reformulated at least for research that takes place within the RNA. Many scientists 

engaged in research at Toolik, and particularly graduate students, often would like to set up new experiments 

relatively quickly based on observations made in the field. The current BLM permitting process requires a great 

deal of time for review, and has hampered research progress in the past. Streamlining the permitting process will 

allow new research to proceed more efficiently. 

The current BLM regulations governing use of the Toolik Lake RNA work well, allowing compatible nonresearch activities such as hunting, fishing and hiking. Given the huge investment in research and the sensitive 

nature of the long-term studies, we urge that non-research uses continue to be restricted to those that are 

temporary and non-invasive. Similar restrictions should be applied to the expanded RNA if it is approved. 

If the Toolik Lake RNA receives more land, it would prohibit access for subsistence activities. Toolik is the only 

place where you find caribou. People in Stevens Village would not want to lose access to those lands. 

The RMP should evaluate the potential impacts of granting more land to the Toolik Lake RNA and how this 

would this impact nearby recreation or subsistence activities and access to the caribou hunting in this area. 

The public commented about the beauty of the RNAs at Toolik and Galbraith Lake areas and the importance of 

their research uses; they should continue to be RNAs and not be further degraded. 

The Indian River and Hogatza River Tributaries ACECs should be monitored more carefully to detect if mining 

in these areas is affecting the values for which these areas are being managed (salmon and sheefish spawning 

areas). BLM-managed land in the upper Hogatza River could be affected by one of the more southerly route 

proposals of the Ambler Road. 

Approximately 90 percent of the Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC has been conveyed and is now managed by 

the State of Alaska or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations. The BLM should consider dropping 

the Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC. 

The 1994 BLM Hogatza ACEC Aquatic Habitat Management Plan is no longer a relevant assessment or 

justification of the Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC: The maps are out of date with regard to the lode mining 

potential; the plan does not discuss modern placer mining techniques and safeguards; the aquatic habitat 

evaluation is based on out of date and incomplete information without regard to new mining techniques and 

safeguards; the ACEC location information is unclear; and 90 percent of the land is selected for conveyance or is 

no longer under BLM management. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 18

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Specific Scoping Comments Received on the Modification or Removal of ACECs, 

Support for ACECs, and Other Considerations

The Hogatza area land status maps provided by the BLM show conflicting ACEC boundaries. The May 1994 

BLM Hogatza ACEC Aquatic Habitat Management Plan maps indicates the ACEC abuts the entire east edge to 

the Doyon land; whereas the 2013 BLM GIS map layer indicates a gap in the Dry Creek area between the ACEC 

and the Doyon Land. 

An incomplete chum salmon survey and poor spawning count timing has resulted in inaccurate assessment of 

the salmon in the Hogatza River system. 

Mineral potential in the Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC area should be considered when reevaluating this 

ACEC. For example, there is potential for uranium, lode gold, silver, and rare earth minerals. Additionally, there 

is potential for a gold-copper-molybdenum porphyry system west of the ACEC. Native corporation lands in the 

area are available for mineral exploration and development. Taiga Mining is a large, highly regarding placer 

mining company which received an award from the BLM for their outstanding reclamation at Hogatza. In spite 

of Taiga’s diligent reclamation work the ACEC closures effectively prohibit Taiga Mining from staking 

additional placer claims. 

Mineral potential should be considered when reevaluating the Indian River ACEC. Little modern information is 

available for the region although occurrences of zinc, copper, lead and gold have been reported. Modern 

exploration has been discouraged by restrictive military access and withdrawals for Native land selections. 

Indian Mountain is cored by an intrusive pluton that is generally grouped with the Hogatza Plutonic Belt which 

elsewhere is known to contain these metals plus uranium and rare earth elements. 

Mineral potential and existing mining claims should be considered when reevaluating the Tozitna-Ray 

Mountains region ACECs. The intent of the State of Alaska to acquire lands in this region has encouraged the 

location of several thousand mining claims, the majority staked under the State mining location rules for location 

on State-selected lands. Multiple studies by Alaska Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Mines, and the U.S. 

Geological Survey indicate mineral potential across this region, including documented occurrences of rare earth 

elements, tin, tungsten, zirconium, chromium, germanium, manganese, and uranium. Mineral occurrences and 

exploration potential occurs as an approximately 50 mile-wide northeast-trending zone from the Kokrine Hills 

on the southwest, and including the Tozitna River, the Ray Mountains, Ishtalitna, Kanuti, Kilolitna, Ray, Salt, 

and Dall drainages, and ultimately beyond Caribou Mountain to the northeast including the pipeline corridor, the 

Jim River and upper Prospect Creek regions. The area of State selection applications and top-filings 

approximates the distribution of critical metals in statewide surveys by the National Uranium Resource 

Evaluation of the 1970s and 1980s. Dysprosium is one of the rare earth elements and is also one of the most 

sought after high-technology. The distribution of dysprosium correlates with the area of mineral potential across 

the Tozitna subunit. Similar patterns of distribution occurs for each of the other rare earth elements and 

associated metals such as tin and tungsten. Known deposits of chromium occur in a parallel adjoining belt 

forming the northwest side of the Ruby batholith trend. Generally in this area of central Alaska there are 

numerous perspective mineral locations that would be of interest to industry if questions of secure mineral title 

are resolved. 

The Dulbi-Kaiyuh, Galena Mountain Caribou, and Sagwon Bluffs ACECs were designated to protect peregrine 

falcon habitat. Peregrine falcons were de-listed in August 1999. These areas should be reevaluated. 

Consider establishing a RNA near Lake Minchumina as there have been researchers coming there to do water 

resource research, air quality research and methane research. 

The RNAs (and ACECs) near the Tozi are doing what they were designated to do and should be left in place in 

the new RMP. The Tozi should not be a wild and scenic river because it would draw attention to the area and 

defeat the purpose of keeping it as habitat. Just keep managing it as you have for the past 20 years.

ACECs in the Utility Corridor that are small should be retained and expanded if possible. 

During scoping, the following areas were mentioned as areas with potential as ACECs: Central Arctic 

Management Area for species like wolves and sheep, and Henshaw Creek near the Allakaket River for salmon 

and sheefish spawning areas. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 19

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Specific ACEC Nominations and Evaluations

3.3 SPECIFIC ACEC NOMINATIONS AND EVALUATIONS

The following sections include specific evaluations grouped by areas depicted in Figure 1. 

Existing ACECs and nominated areas were evaluated for soil, water, fish, wildlife, vegetation, 

special status species, cultural, natural systems, and geology as appropriate. Values noted by the 

nominator were evaluated for each ACEC. In some cases, these values were not explicitly stated 

in the nomination, so the BLM had to infer values intended. The tables in the following sections 

and the summary table in Chapter 4 discuss values identified by the nominator and any 

additional values found to meet both the relevance and importance criteria by the BLM. Full 

evaluations are available from the Central Yukon Field Office.

3.3.1 Accomplishment Creek

Background: During scoping for the CYRMP, the BLM received a nomination for 

Accomplishment Creek (a tributary to the Sagavanirktok River) as a potential ACEC.

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Accomplishment Creek drainage is 

unique in that it is one of a small number of streams flowing into the Arctic Ocean that provides 

reliable groundwater flow through the winter. The spring areas in Accomplishment Creek and its 

tributary, Section Creek, are essential to the survival of Dolly Varden, a species sought as a 

subsistence and sport fishing resource. Conditions at the springs provide spawning habitat, allow 

eggs to incubate and hatch, and provide an overwintering refuge for all age classes of fish, from 

eggs to adults.

Fisheries work conducted by the BLM in the summer of 2012 found juvenile Dolly Varden 

inhabiting the braided sections of Accomplishment and Section Creeks. Tagging studies have 

shown that Dolly Varden caught at Kaktovik for subsistence reside in several North Slope rivers, 

including streams in the Sagavanirktok River drainage (e.g., Accomplishment Creek; Craig 

1989).

Visitor use of the Dalton Highway is also increasing with improved road conditions. As a result, 

populations of Dolly Varden will continue to come under increased sport fishing pressure from 

anglers accessing the Sagavanirktok River drainage via the Dalton Highway. The upstream 

(eastern) edge of this watershed borders the Arctic NWR. 

Area nominated: The nominated area is 41,000 acres. See Figure 2, Existing and Nominated 

ACECs/RNAs – North Dalton, and Figure 3, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and 

Importance Criteria – North Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian

Accomplishment Creek

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The freshwater spring system, in the Accomplishment Creek nomination, 

encompassing soil, water, riparian, and wetland resources, is rare to the 

planning area and supports a unique incubation, rearing, and overwintering 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 20

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Accomplishment Creek

Accomplishment Creek

habitat essential for maintaining Dolly Varden diversity in the planning area

and Alaska as a whole. 

Important Yes Soil resources in the Accomplishment Creek nomination are generally in a 

pristine and undisturbed condition and would be considered unique on a 

national scale. Even so, they are not unique in the planning area or region. 

However, permafrost underlies much of the Accomplishment Creek

nomination. These soils are highly susceptible to erosion or other soil 

movement caused by disturbance of the ground cover and subsequent 

thawing of permafrost. The unique and fragile soils around the freshwater 

springs in the nominated area control the hydrology of the springs. Any 

disturbance of these soils would affect the freshwater springs flow regime. 

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The freshwater spring system in the Accomplishment Creek nomination

encompasses soil, water, riparian, and wetland resources and is rare to the 

planning area. It supports a unique incubation, rearing, and overwintering 

habitat essential for maintaining Dolly Varden diversity in the planning area

and in Alaska as a whole. 

Important Yes While water quality in the Accomplishment Creek nomination is excellent 

and would be considered unique on a national scale, it is not unique in the 

planning area or region. The series of freshwater springs that provide water 

for incubation and rearing of Dolly Varden are unique in the planning area

and in Alaska. Maintaining water quality and temperature in these 

freshwater springs is crucial in the incubation of Dolly Varden eggs and 

maintaining crucial overwintering habitat. Adhering to the mandates of the 

Clean Water Act is a national priority. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Dolly Varden, grayling, round whitefish, burbot, and slimy sculpin have 

been documented in this drainage. Some of the adult Dolly Varden migrate 

to the Arctic Ocean during the summer to feed and then return to the 

Accomplishment Creek drainage to spawn and overwinter near the springs. 

Resident fish species, including juvenile and adult Dolly Varden, make use 

of the spring areas year-round. Riparian resources in the area are integral to 

maintaining the quality of this unique aquatic habitat.

Important Yes The springs are found in a limited number of watersheds in the region and 

create unique overwintering habitat for fish species. The lack of 

overwintering habitat is the major limiting factor to survival for arctic fish 

species. The springs provide a source of winter flow and small habitat 

refuges needed for fish survival.

Riparian resources are integral to the overall condition and quality of these 

unique aquatic refugia. This is due to their performance of ecological 

functions that define sediment transport processes, biochemical and nutrient 

cycling, and food web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, when 

viewed independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of BLMmanaged lands in the planning area, which could be considered somewhat 

rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a disproportionate 

number of biological and physical functions on a unit area basis. Because of 

this, protection is warranted to satisfy national priorities of water quality, 

land health, floodplain function, and biodiversity maintenance.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 21

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Atigun-Sagavanirktok River

3.3.2 Atigun-Sagavanirktok River

Background: During scoping for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC nomination for the 

Atigun-Sagavanirktok River from the USFWS. This nomination overlaps with both the 

Accomplishment Creek nomination and the nominated Toolik Lake RNA expansion.

Nominator: USFWS (Arctic NWR)

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominators: The Arctic NWR proposes that BLMmanaged lands east of the Toolik Lake RNA be designated as an ACEC for wildlife, fishery, 

cultural, and scenic values. This area also has unique recreation values that may warrant special 

consideration as a management objective. 

Atigun River is a tributary to the Sagavanirktok River, and both have direct road access from the 

Dalton Highway, making them a very popular river float by a variety of recreation groups. The 

Arctic NWR’s boundary is 0.75 mile from the Dalton Highway, in the Atigun River Gorge area.

NWR streams in the Atigun River Gorge have been assessed and evaluated through a formal wild 

and scenic river review process for the Arctic NWR’s Draft Revised Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. These streams were found to be eligible and suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The streams have a classification of wild and 

outstandingly remarkable recreation and geologic values (USFWS 2015, Appendix I, Section 

2.1.2). Both BLM- and Arctic NWR-managed lands in the Atigun-Sagavanirktok River 

nomination provide for very high quality recreation for hikers, campers, hunters, and wildlife 

viewing groups; at the same time, they provide outstanding scenic, geologic, wildlife, fishery, and 

cultural resource values. 

The 1989 BLM Proposed RMP/Final EIS for the Utility Corridor states that the Galbraith Lake 

ACEC has “the highest concentration of historic and prehistoric cultural resources of any region 

yet inventoried along the Utility Corridor. Located on the northern side of the Brooks Range, 

north of Atigun Pass, the scenic value is high. The geology and paleontology are remarkable and 

are accessible via the Dalton Highway.” 

This area also has been identified as providing crucial Dall sheep lambing and mineral licks areas.

Dall sheep have been observed using the east side of the Atigun River near Atigun Gorge as 

lambing-nursery areas, particularly in the spring when green vegetation is just beginning to 

emerge (Craig and Leonard 2009). Immediately north of the Atigun-Sagavanirktok nomination is 

the former Slope Mountain ACEC, which was also designated for its lambing and mineral lick 

values. The Sagavanirktok River drainage is believed to contain the largest overwintering 

aggregation of Dolly Varden on the North Slope (Viavant 2005). 

While most of the spawning and overwintering habitats are in the lower sections of the 

Sagavanirktok drainage, the Accomplishment Creek tributary in this nominated ACEC is used by 

Dolly Varden and arctic grayling for spawning and for overwintering by adults, juveniles, and 

newly emerged fry (Craig and McCart 1974, McCart et al. 1972). In spring and summer, waters 

in this nominated ACEC provide important habitat for many other fish species (pers. comm. 

Randy Brown, USFWS 2014).
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 22

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Atigun-Sagavanirktok River

Area nominated: The nominated ACEC extends eastward from the northern boundary of the 

Toolik Lake RNA to the Arctic NWR boundary, including that portion of the Sagavanirktok 

River on BLM-managed land. The nominated area is 105,000 acres. See Figure 2, Existing and 

Nominated ACECs/RNAs – North Dalton, and Figure 3, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance 

and Importance Criteria – North Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian, geology, cultural

Atigun-Sagavanirktok River

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the 

Accomplishment Creek nomination. See the evaluation for this area. 

Important Yes The area that satisfies the importance criteria is encompassed within the 

Accomplishment Creek nomination. See the evaluation for this area. 

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the 

Accomplishment Creek nomination. See the evaluation for this area. 

Important Yes The area that satisfies the importance criteria is encompassed within the 

Accomplishment Creek nomination. See the evaluation for this area. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the 

Accomplishment Creek nomination. See the evaluation for this area. 

Important Yes The area that satisfies the importance criteria is encompassed within the 

Accomplishment Creek nomination. See the evaluation for this area. 

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No While the geologic views for this ACEC are impressive, they are scenic 

and not of geologic significance.

Important No While the geologic views for this ACEC are impressive, they are scenic 

and not of geologic significance.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No There are several known archaeological sites in the nominated ACEC,

but densities are not unusually high. Site densities are significantly 

higher on drainages to the west, which are managed by the National Park 

Service.

Communication with University of Alaska paleontologists indicates that 

densities of paleontological resources are to the north and west of the 

nominated ACEC, in the vicinities of Slope Mountain and the Atigun 

Gorge.

Important No While there are two Late Pleistocene sites (Putu and Bedwell) that appear 

to meet the threshold for inclusion on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP), both have been extensively excavated and likely do not 

retain significant research potential.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 23

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Dalton Utility Corridor

3.3.3 Dalton Utility Corridor 

Background: During the scoping process for the CYRMP, Scott and Heidi Schoppenhorst of 

Wiseman Village nominated the Dalton Utility Corridor as an ACEC. 

Most of the nominated area is subject to PLOs 5150 and 5180. These orders withdraw the area 

from mineral leasing and, at a minimum, location for non-metalliferous minerals. The area within 

the inner corridor is withdrawn from all mineral entry. This nomination encompasses many

existing and nominated ACECs north of Wiseman. 

Nominators: The Schoppenhorsts (Boreal Lodging Wiseman Village)

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominators: This area has been nominated because 

it holds several unique values and characteristics. It has historic value as the Koyukuk River 

Valley, which is rich in placer gold mining history that far predates the establishment of the 

Utility Corridor. Significant historic mining activity sites and archaeological evidence are 

scattered within the Utility Corridor, from south of Coldfoot to the north of Sukakpak Mountain, 

spanning the corridor’s width. This includes the still inhabited historic trading village of 

Wiseman, containing many of the original, unique log structures from its establishment in the 

early 1900s. This is one of the few intact, inhabited, and mostly unmodified historic mining 

establishments still in existence in Alaska; it is unique in the Brooks Range. Evidence of early 

nomadic Nunamuit Eskimo habitation and archaeological evidence are also present in the Dalton 

Corridor through this Brooks Range and North Slope section. 

The scenic value of the Dalton Highway is unprecedented in the Utility Corridor through the 

Brooks Range. This is the only road access to Alaska’s Arctic and is one of the few east-westtrending mountain ranges in the world. The corridor spans this width and provides easy access to 

relatively undisturbed unique geologic features found only in the Brooks Range; it is appreciated 

by thousands. 

The Utility Corridor within the Brooks Range is home to and part of important migratory routes 

for many resident arctic wildlife populations: Dall sheep, caribou, moose, brown and black bears, 

wolves, wolverines, lynx, red foxes. It is season and year-round habitat for migratory and resident 

avian species, including those that are threatened. Dall sheep rely on crossing the Utility Corridor 

in the Brooks Range during different seasons for access to minerals, food, and lambing and 

breeding locations. Areas of specific knowledge are east/west crossing through the Marion Creek 

Mountain and adjacent area, Snowden/Big Jim and adjacent areas, Atigun Pass north/south 

through most drainages east and west of the highway up to the Galbraith Lake/Atigun Gorge area, 

and again at Slope Mountain north of Toolik Lake. These are all very crucial habitat locations for 

Dall sheep, who use them for access and crossing to sustain healthy populations.

Caribou have traditionally used the Atigun Pass/Atigun drainage for north-south migrations. 

Staging areas are the lands around Galbraith Lake and Toolik Lake and the migratory route in the 

Dalton Corridor north and south of the pass into the Dietrich and Koyukuk River valleys.

Resident caribou populations pass in and out of the corridor east to west around the Nugget 

Creek/Gold Creek and upper Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River/Bettles River valleys. Specific 

vegetation, primarily lichens, are found in the corridor and are essential for caribou. Significant 

disruptions to these feeding areas and migratory paths are detrimental to this resident herd. For 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 24

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Dalton Utility Corridor

example, a very large gravel pit created at Nugget Creek a few years ago demolished a huge 

lichen area traditionally used by these resident caribou. Slate Creek, Marion Creek, Wiseman 

Creek, Minnie Creek, and Nugget/Gold/Linda Creek drainage area are essential habitat for black 

bears. 

Although brown bears are found throughout the Utility Corridor in the Brooks Range, specific 

habitat degradation that potentially affects populations are in the Brooks Range southern 

boundary around Rosie Creek, north between Coldfoot and Wiseman (highlighting Marion Creek

and Wiseman/Nolan Creek valleys), and in the Dietrich River valley/Chandalar Shelf area and 

areas north and south of Atigun Pass. 

Habitat for other small game and birds essential for maintaining diversity of all species is in the 

Utility Corridor throughout the Brooks Range and includes specific scientific study areas of small 

game. Hares are found in the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River drainage (Cathedral Mountain 

area, Wiseman/Nolan/Hammond River area) and those areas from Chandalar Shelf to north of 

Toolik Lake, where extensive small mammal research is continuously conducted. 

Species essential to diversity are snowshoe hares, arctic ground squirrels, ptarmigan, and voles; 

areas of specific degradation threat are in the Koyukuk/Dietrich River valleys for ptarmigan and 

hares and from Chandalar Shelf and north past Toolik Lake for ground squirrels. Disruption to 

their habitat directly affects populations of furbearers and resident raptors and possibly brown 

bears. 

Nesting habitat for a variety of raptors and resident avian populations are found throughout the 

Brooks Range and the north slope Utility Corridor area; these include peregrine falcon in the

Wiseman Creek/Nolan valley areas and nesting habitat for great horned owl, ravens, and goshawk 

owls and in the Snowden Mountain and Atigun Pass area for golden eagles. Toolik Lake and 

surrounding area is also nesting habitat for yellow-billed loons and bluethroat.3 Note that specific 

denning areas for wolverines, wolves, and foxes are found in this section of the corridor and at 

many sites within a short distance of the highway. 

Arctic grayling, whitefish, burbot, lake trout, and other species of fragile, slow-growing northern 

fish are found throughout this section of the Utility Corridor. Significant disruption to streams 

crossing the corridor or the introduction of chemicals into these pure watersheds would have 

adverse impacts on the fragile populations. 

The Utility Corridor north/south and the Brooks Range contain hundreds (if not thousands) of 

species of fragile and sensitive arctic plants, including rare and relict species. Sensitive plant 

research at and near the Toolik Lake research facility is ongoing and is significant in monitoring 

climate change. Sensitive aquatic and other plants found in the corridor provide essential nutrients 

for all species of large and small mammals, as well as many thousands of migratory birds. Fragile 

tundra underlain with permafrost, which is found in the entire area presented for consideration, is 

subject to degradation. 

 

3 A small thrush species (Luscinia svecica) 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 25

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Dalton Utility Corridor

Geologic features in the Utility Corridor through the Brooks Range section highlight unique and 

rare formations and years of glacial sculpture. The area is a source of not only scientific interest 

and multiple books, but also beauty for all who travel this section of the highway. Once an 

ancient mountain range was eroded and covered by a shallow tropical sea; folds and other 

features formed by water currents can be viewed from the highway. 

The distinctive composition of multiple mineral conglomerates, metamorphosed materials, and 

remnants of aquatic fossil remains is evident throughout this section. Some corals evident here 

are found in only a few other places on Earth. Sukakpak Mountain is limestone metamorphosed 

with marble seams and is a monument of the Dalton Highway; marble content and distinct 

features of Snowden Mountain are equally scenic. Cathedral Mountain and 12 Mile Mountain are 

ancient sister volcanoes on either side of the highway. Ancient coal seams can be viewed by 

Tramway Bar, and fossils of many types, including Ice Age mammals, are found in many 

locations throughout. Atigun is the highest road pass found in Alaska and the only road crossing 

into the high arctic. 

Specific natural hazard areas through this section of the corridor are at Atigun Pass, which 

regularly experiences avalanches during the winter and falling rocks during the summer.

Additional natural hazard areas are found in the Dietrich River valley, where debris slides travel 

down the slopes toward the highway in multiple locations; one of these debris slides currently is 

considered threatening. During the winter, the unique arctic buildup of ice in shallow streams in 

the corridor can cause significantly higher water during spring break up and seasonal flooding. 

Winter brings some of the coldest temperatures recorded in North America, which can be 

combined with high winds and blowing snow to create hazards to humans and property. 

The relevance criteria for the Dalton Highway through the Brooks Range section also defines 

much of the important criteria for this designation. The qualities found in this section of the 

Utility Corridor are important and significant to a large and diverse user group; this area does not 

compare with any other road accessible location in Alaska or the United States. The Dalton 

Highway being the only road access point for most users creates the significance of future 

degradation; this would render the area’s critical environmental qualities lost and irreplaceable for 

many user groups. 

Thousands of travelers from around the world visit this section of the Dalton Highway for many 

different reasons each year, as follows:

• Sightseeing, photography, and wilderness travel

• Access to adjacent Department of the Interior-managed lands

• Scientific study and research on any of the natural features/resources outlined above

• Mining, hunting and fishing

• Subsistence lifestyle dependence

• Birding 

• Oil transport and the upkeep related to it
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 26

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Dalton Utility Corridor

Safety concerns are the extreme environment of this nomination’s location: extreme subzero 

temperatures during the winter, high winds, whiteout conditions at times, and avalanche dangers 

throughout Atigun Pass. All of these factors can threaten life and property if travelers are

unprepared. This section of the corridor is entirely in the Arctic and is a dangerous environment 

during winter, requiring respect and preparedness. 

Up until recent years, these diverse user groups have meshed fairly well with the complex web of 

regulations in place. Since the significance of area resources and unique scenic quality are 

becoming more publicized, there is more of a demand for resources from this fragile area, which

threatens the very qualities that are sought. 

The RMP revision process is a good time to implement possible new regulations to ensure 

continued maintenance and stability for these fragile and irreplaceable resources and qualities in 

the road-accessible Brooks Range. Designating the BLM-managed Utility Corridor through the 

Brooks Range to the northern boundary as an ACEC would offer the opportunity to better 

manage such an amazing, intact ecosystem for future generations. 

Additionally, managing for conservative developments and careful consideration for diverse use 

in the BLM-managed portion of the corridor will also complement adjacent Department of the 

Interior missions in Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve and the Arctic NWR. This 

would further highlight cooperative management by the BLM, the National Park Service, and the 

USFWS in the Artic Interagency Visitor Center, which is also within the area of nomination. The 

ACEC would truly be exemplary and quite possibly iconic in the lands administered by the 

Department of the Interior. 

Area nominated: The area nominated includes 699,000 acres and encompasses the entire Utility 

Corridor. It begins south of Cathedral Mountain at approximately Chapman Creek (east and west 

of the highway to encompass the 10-mile width of the corridor). It extends the length and width 

of the BLM-managed Utility Corridor to Mile Marker 301 on the North Slope, which the northern 

extent of the BLM-managed corridor. This includes the Brooks Range section of the Utility 

Corridor in its entirety. See Figure 2, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – North Dalton, 

Figure 4, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Middle Dalton, and Figure 6, Existing and 

Nominated ACECs/RNAs – South Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian, wildlife, special status species, vegetation, geology, 

cultural

Dalton Utility Corridor

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the South 

Fork Koyukuk River nomination, Jim River ACEC and expansion, Midnight 

Dome/Kalhabuk nomination, Poss Mountain ACEC and expansion, Nugget 

Creek ACEC, Snowden Mountain ACEC and expansion, and West Fork 

Atigun River ACEC. See the evaluations for these areas.

Important Yes The area that satisfies the importance criteria is encompassed within the 

South Fork Koyukuk River nomination, Jim River ACEC and expansion, 

Midnight Dome/Kalhabuk nomination, Poss Mountain ACEC and 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 27

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Dalton Utility Corridor

Dalton Utility Corridor

expansion, Nugget Creek ACEC, Snowden Mountain ACEC and expansion, 

and West Fork Atigun River ACEC, and Accomplishment Creek

nomination. See the evaluations for these areas.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the South 

Fork Koyukuk River nomination, Jim River ACEC and expansion, Midnight 

Dome/Kalhabuk nomination, Poss Mountain ACEC and expansion, Nugget 

Creek ACEC, Snowden Mountain ACEC and expansion, and West Fork 

Atigun River ACEC. See the evaluations for these areas.

Important Yes The area that satisfies the importance criteria is encompassed within the 

South Fork Koyukuk River nomination, Jim River ACEC and expansion, 

Midnight Dome/Kalhabuk nomination, Poss Mountain ACEC and 

expansion, Nugget Creek ACEC, Snowden Mountain ACEC and expansion, 

and West Fork Atigun River ACEC, and Accomplishment Creek

nomination. See the evaluations for these areas.

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the South 

Fork Koyukuk River nomination and the Atigun-Sagavanirktok River 

nomination. See the evaluation for these areas.

Important Yes The area that satisfies the importance criteria is encompassed within the 

Accomplishment Creek nomination and South Fork Koyukuk River

nomination. See the evaluation for these areas.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the West 

Fork Atigun River ACEC, Poss Mountain ACEC, Galbraith Lake ACEC, 

and Nugget Creek ACEC. See evaluation for these areas.

Important Yes The area that satisfies the importance criteria is encompassed within the 

West Fork Atigun River ACEC, Poss Mountain ACEC, Galbraith Lake 

ACEC, and Nugget Creek ACEC. See evaluation for these areas.

Special Status 

Species Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the 

Toolik Lake RNA. See evaluation for this area.

Important Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the 

Toolik Lake RNA. See evaluation for this area.

Vegetation Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the 

Toolik Lake RNA. See evaluation for this area.

Important Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the 

Toolik Lake RNA. See evaluation for this area.

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the 

Sukakpak Mountain ACEC and expansion. See evaluation for this area.

Important Yes The area that satisfies the importance criteria is encompassed within the 

Sukakpak Mountain ACEC and expansion. See evaluation for this area.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No While there are three distinct areas of high archaeological site densities in 

the large area nominated as an ACEC (one of which is already contained in 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 28

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Dalton Utility Corridor

Dalton Utility Corridor

an ACEC), there are also significant areas with low site densities. As such, 

the large area identified is not of an appropriate scale to base an ACEC on 

cultural resources. It would be more appropriate to consider an ACEC that 

extends from Chapman Lake to the Bettles River. This area includes a 

significant density of prehistoric sites south of Coldfoot and a relatively 

high density of historic mining sites between Coldfoot and the Bettles River.

Important No There is a problem of scale with this nomination as it relates to cultural 

resources. The significant cultural resources near Galbraith Lake are already 

included in that ACEC. Historic sites in the Utility Corridor, between 

Coldfoot and the Bettles River, have been severely impacted by continuous 

placer mining. 

This being said, the village of Wiseman does contain significant resources, 

including a historic cemetery. A few other scattered resources retain 

sufficient research potential to warrant inclusion on the NRHP. Prehistoric 

sites south of Coldfoot are typically small, shallow deposits; none is

currently thought to have unusually significant research potential. This is 

not to say that unusually significant sites do not exist in this area; however, 

inventory coverage is incomplete and centers along the Dalton Highway and 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

3.3.4 Galbraith Lake ACEC

Background: The Galbraith Lake ACEC was designated in 1991 through the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Utility Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991). The BLM received numerous letters from 

individual researchers and institutions in support of retaining the Galbraith Lake ACEC. The 

nominated Toolik Lake RNA expansion overlaps the Galbraith Lake ACEC. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Galbraith Lake ACEC was

reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the unique characteristics below. 

Table 2.4 in the Utility Corridor Proposed RMP/Final EIS lists the following resources for the 

ACEC: cultural, rare or sensitive plants, scenic values, and Dall sheep lambing areas. The cited 

management objective (BLM 1989, p. 2-43) is to protect historical and archaeological sites, 

crucial wildlife habitat, paleontological and geological sites, scenic values, and possibly, rare and 

sensitive plants. 

Area nominated: The current Galbraith Lake ACEC is 53,900 acres. See Figure 2, Existing and 

Nominated ACECs/RNAs – North Dalton, and Figure 3, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance 

and Importance Criteria – North Dalton.

Values nominated: Fish/riparian, wildlife, cultural 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 29

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Galbraith Lake ACEC

Galbraith Lake ACEC

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Galbraith Lake and the portion of the Atigun River in the ACEC are 

inhabited by Dolly Varden, arctic grayling, slimy sculpin, round whitefish, 

burbot, and lake trout. Riparian resources are in proper functioning 

condition.

Important No The riparian resources and species of fish are typical of the area, with only 

locally significant qualities.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Dall sheep in Alaska have a range restricted to mountainous areas, 

including lands managed by the BLM’s Central Yukon Field Office to the 

east and west of the Dalton Highway. Key habitat for Dall sheep has been 

identified in this region, including lambing areas, and the BLM continues to 

document key habitat for Dall sheep in this region. Several ACECs have 

been designated and nominated to protect sheep, in light of important 

habitat and hunting pressure. 

Important Yes This area is known to encompass key or limited habitat sensitive to 

development, including lambing areas. Protecting this habitat for Dall sheep 

is key to sustaining a healthy population.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes There is a significant density of cultural resources in the Galbraith Lake 

ACEC. 

Important Yes There are more than locally significant cultural resources in the ACEC.

3.3.5 Nigu-Iteriak ACEC

Background: The Nigu-Iteriak ACEC was designated in 1991 through the ROD for the Utility 

Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991). 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Nigu-Iteriak ACEC was

reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the unique characteristics below. 

Table 2.4 in the Utility Corridor Proposed RMP/Final EIS lists geology and cultural resources for 

the ACEC. The cited Management Objective (BLM 1989, p. 2-61) is to protect the unique 

geological, cultural, and scenic resources of the area.

Area nominated: The original ACEC was approximately 62,000 acres. PL 104–333 transferred a 

portion of the Nigu ACEC to Noatak National Preserve. Part of Iteriak ACEC has been 

tentatively approved for conveyance to State of Alaska. The current Nigu-Iteriak ACEC is 40,200 

acres. See Figure 2, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – North Dalton, and Figure 3, 

ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – North Dalton.

Values nominated: Geology, cultural 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 30

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Nigu-Iteriak ACEC

Nigu-Iteriak ACEC

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No No known geological resources have been found within the ACEC.

Important No No known geological resources have been found within the ACEC.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No Known cultural resources within ACEC are found only on lands managed 

by the National Park Service.

Important No Known cultural resources within ACEC are only found on lands managed 

by the National Park Service.

3.3.6 Toolik Lake RNA (Including Expansion)

Background: The Toolik Lake RNA was designated in 1991 through the ROD for the Utility 

Corridor RMP/EIS. In 2014, through the scoping process for the RMP/EIS, the TFS Management 

Committee proposed expanding the Toolik Lake RNA to include 30,800 additional acres. The 

BLM received numerous letters from individual researchers and institutions in support of the TFS

Management Committee proposal. The expansion overlaps slightly with the Galbraith Lake 

ACEC. 

Nominator: Toolik Field Station Management Committee 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Toolik Lake RNA and expansion 

was reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC and RNA designation and the unique 

characteristics below. 

Research in the RNA has expanded significantly since designation. There are more than 14,000 

scientific research plots near TFS. The area around TFS has been chosen as the Arctic site for the 

National Ecological Observatory Network. This is an upcoming program of ecological 

observation funded by the National Science Foundation and is expected to last 30 to 50 years.

The expansion of the RNA would include most of the current research plots that are on BLMmanaged land near the TFS. 

The TFS Management Committee feels that the current BLM regulations governing the use of the 

RNA are working well. Given the huge investment in research and the sensitive nature of the 

long-term studies, the committee urges that the current restrictions on overnight camping in the 

Toolik Lake RNA be maintained and extended to the expanded RNA. 

The ROD for the Utility Corridor RMP/EIS designated the Toolik Lake RNA. It is approximately 

77,200 acres and is home to the TFS, which is managed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

The TFS is one of the premier Arctic field stations of the United States, with a history of longterm, continuous research that extends back almost 40 years. Work by scientists at TFS began in 

1975 and has resulted in much of what is known about the structure and function of the terrestrial 

and aquatic ecosystems of the Arctic foothills and tundra, the effects of climate change on these 

regions, and feedbacks through gas and hydrological fluxes to global climate. In addition, TFSbased work has resulted in a showcase of discoveries on the adaptations of plants and animals to 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 31

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations 

Toolik Lake RNA (Including Expansion)

the Arctic, population-level changes in distributions, and the physiology and phenology4 of life 

history traits.

Much of the research that is currently being done in the vicinity of the TFS is either explicitly 

long term or could serve as a crucial baseline for future studies of effects of land use and climate 

change if the local environment is preserved for research.

The TFS is a national facility used by many researchers. From 2009 to 2012, up to 533 different 

scientists, staff, and contractors worked out of the TFS each year, conducting and supporting 

scientific research in the area. Each year, these scientists come from up to 109 different 

institutions from around the country and are working on up to 81 separately funded research 

projects. More than 879 scientific publications have resulted from work based at the TFS. 

Research around the TFS is a major activity and will continue to be so in the future. Designating

the land around the TFS as an RNA has been important in ensuring the integrity of the long-term 

research of scientists working out of the TFS; it gives scientific research a seat at the table when 

other land uses are being discussed.

Because of the expansion of long-term research programs beyond the current boundaries of the

RNA, the TFS Management Team submitted a nomination to expand the current RNA primarily 

eastward. There also would be a small extension south to the area just north of the Atigun River, 

along the Dalton Highway. There are more than 14,000 scientific research plots near TFS, and the 

expansion of the RNA would pick up most of the current research plots that are on BLMmanaged land near the TFS. 

Area nominated: The current Toolik Lake RNA is 77,200 acres. The nominated expansion of 

Toolik Lake RNA includes 30,800 additional acres. The expanded RNA as nominated would 

encompass 108,000 acres. See Figure 2, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – North Dalton, 

and Figure 3, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – North Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, fish/riparian, special status species, vegetation, geology

Toolik Lake RNA (Including Expansion)

Soil Yes/No Rationale

RNA 

characteristics

Yes The Toolik Lake RNA contains a typical representation of permafrost 

soils, tundra lake, and the tundra biome.

RNA size Existing: 

No

Expansion: 

Yes

Due to the increasing research on climate change, the nominator 

suggested that the size of the current RNA be expanded to encompass 

more of these soil features and existing studies located outside of the 

existing boundary.

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Waters in the nominated ACEC are inhabited by Dolly Varden, arctic 

grayling, slimy sculpin, round whitefish, burbot, arctic char, and lake 

trout. Riparian resources are present and are currently in proper 

functioning condition.

 

4 The functions of living organisms and the study of seasonal and natural phenomena on species
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 32

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations 

Toolik Lake RNA (Including Expansion)

Toolik Lake RNA (Including Expansion)

Important No The riparian resources and species of fish are typical of the area, with 

only locally significant qualities.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes The area has a typical representation of fish and riparian plant species. 

Fish species may be of value in research studies that evaluate the effects 

of land use and climate change.

RNA Size Existing: 

No

Expansion: 

Yes

Research studies are being conducted outside the original RNA 

boundaries. The nominated expansion of the RNA would encompass 

most of the currently permitted activities. Future long-term needs (the 

life of the RMP) are unclear, so it is difficult to predict whether the 

nominated RNA will adequately meet the size requirements of the 

research community.

Special Status 

Species Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Energy transportation is the primary function of the corridor lands that 

comprise this RNA. However, because of the vital importance of the data 

produced by ongoing research, the area, including BLM Alaska sensitive 

species habitat, needs to be protected to the extent possible.

Important Yes A large number of research projects have been based in and around this 

lake area. These projects have produced and are producing extremely 

valuable information concerning the resources of public lands on the 

North Slope. Only through carefully planned and detailed research 

findings will it be possible to design land use and resource management 

strategies that will adequately protect environmental values in the face of 

resource development. Additionally, two rare plant species, Montia 

bostockii and Muir’s fleabane (Erigeron muirii), are known to occur in 

the Toolik Lake RNA.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes Two rare plant species, Montia bostockii and Muir’s fleabane (Erigeron 

muirii), are known to occur in the Toolik Lake RNA.

RNA Size Existing: 

No

Expansion: 

Yes

Research has expanded out of the designated RNA to include areas 

representative of the region not represented in the current RNA. The 

boundaries of the RNA were not large enough or well enough distributed 

to encompass the larger area. However, the expansion into the area 

currently occupied by Galbraith Lake ACEC is large enough. The 

concentration of plots for research in the Galbraith Lake ACEC is in the 

Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area, which is not open to 

motorized traffic. The potential issues with motorized traffic were cited 

as a primary reason for the extension. There is a justifiable need for 

extending the RNA to the east but not to the south. 

Vegetation Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Special Status Species above.

Important Yes See Special Status Species above.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes See Special Status Species above.

RNA Size Existing: 

No

Expansion: 

Yes

See Special Status Species above.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 33

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations 

Toolik Lake RNA (Including Expansion)

Toolik Lake RNA (Including Expansion)

Geology Yes/No Rationale

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes The RNA contains common geological features that are found 

throughout the northern slope of the Brooks Range.

RNA Size Existing: 

Yes

Expansion: 

Yes

The RNA is of adequate size to provide the research that is currently 

being conducted.

3.3.7 West Fork Atigun River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Background: The West Fork Atigun River ACEC was designated in 1991 through the ROD for 

the Utility Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991). In 2014, through the scoping process for the RMP, 

the BLM proposed expanding the West Fork Atigun River ACEC to include additional Dall sheep 

habitat. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The West Fork Atigun River ACEC 

was reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the following unique 

characteristics: 

Designation would promote protection for Dall sheep lambing area and mineral licks. Ewes 

traditionally return to the same habitat each spring to bear their offspring. Dall sheep use natural 

mineral licks to replace minerals important to the skeletal system. Destructive activities or 

excessive human disturbance may eliminate these important habitats necessary to sustain a viable 

sheep population. 

A growing number of hunters use the Dalton Highway for easy access to hunt Dall sheep; 

therefore, the BLM needs to protect this crucial habitat to sustain a viable sheep population. 

Potentially disturbing activities, such as increased traffic and recreational use or additional 

pipeline construction, may disturb sheep (BLM 1989). 

Area nominated: The West Fork Atigun River ACEC includes 9,200 acres, as defined in 1991 

Utility Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991)5

. The nominated expansion identified during scoping 

includes an additional 24,300 acres. The total acres of the existing ACEC plus the nominated 

expansion is 33,500 acres. See Figure 2, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – North Dalton, 

and Figure 3, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – North Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, wildlife

 

5 The 1991 Utility Corridor RMP/EIS identified approximately 8,500 acres as the ACEC. The acreage discrepancy is 

due to improved mapping and not a difference in the area intended to be designated as an ACEC. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 34

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

West Fork Antigun River ACEC

West Fork Atigun River ACEC 

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The West Fork Atigun River ACEC contains natural mineral licks. These rare 

soil features provide essential minerals to ungulates and are essential for 

maintaining healthy populations of Dall sheep populations in this vicinity

Important Yes Natural mineral licks are rare and sensitive soil types. 

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated area meets the relevance criteria for Dall sheep habitat. There 

is a known mineral lick in this area, and sheep are regularly observed in the 

current ACEC. Additionally, well-used sheep habitat appears to extend to the 

north from the ACEC boundary to the Galbraith Lake ACEC. There is a 

potential mineral lick due east of the current ACEC that may provide 

important habitat. 

The nominated area meets the relevance criteria for raptor habitat. The 2010 

BLM raptor survey suggests that the area is inhabited by a number of golden 

eagles and other raptors. Notably, golden eagles and other raptors appear to 

use the area northeast of the current ACEC (extending to Galbraith Lake 

ACEC on the west side of the West Fork Atigun River).

Important Yes The nominated area meets the importance criteria for Dall sheep habitat, 

which is necessary for sustaining viable sheep populations and is sensitive to 

destructive activities. 

The nominated area meets the importance criteria for raptor habitat. Golden 

eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

3.3.8 Midnight Dome/Kalhabuk 

Background: During the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC 

nomination from Mr. Jack Reakoff for the Midnight Dome/Kalhabuk Mountain area. This 

proposed ACEC and nomination information provided was evaluated against the criteria for an

ACEC. 

Nominator: Mr. Jack Reakoff 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: This area was nominated because it is

crucial Dall sheep habitat, which includes a calcareous mineral source (mineral lick) and is within 

a migration route; this allows sheep to move to advantageous habitat. The nominator also states 

that this area is essential to the physical survival of Dall sheep in the winter and spring and 

provides a unique crossing between divided habitats. 

Nolan Road has little impact on sheep movements. However, potential activities exist that may 

make the area vulnerable; these include: permanent human occupation of a camp in the sheep 

crossing area, any recreational motor vehicle use of Midnight Dome in winter, or other human 

activities that are continually disruptive to Dall Sheep movements and use of the area. The 

FLPMA would recognize this area as important for the American publics’ Dall sheeps’ 

population health. Additionally, this area was nominated for its cultural values regarding 

subsistence use of Dall sheep. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 35

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Midnight Dome/Kalhabuk ACEC

Area nominated: Midnight Dome/Kalhabuk Mountain, approximately 10,000 acres. The 

nominator has described this location to be at approximately 150°10' W-67°27'N. See Figure 4, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Middle Dalton, and Figure 5, ACECs found to Meet 

the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Middle Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, fish/riparian, wildlife

Midnight Dome/Kalhabuk 

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Midnight Dome/Kalhabuk nomination contains natural mineral licks. 

These rare soil features provide essential minerals to ungulates and are 

essential for maintaining healthy Dall sheep populations in this vicinity.

Important Yes Natural mineral licks are rare and sensitive soil types. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Chinook salmon are documented as rearing in lower Wiseman Creek 

(ADFG 2014). Most of the riparian resources found in the ACEC are 

undisturbed and fully functional. There are placer gold mining claims on 

Union and Confederate Gulch and on south slope tributaries of the 

Hammond River. There is also a mining road bisecting the ACEC that leads 

to Nolan. Mining has disturbed the riparian resources in these areas. 

Depending on the site, the riparian resources in the disturbed areas are either 

nonfunctional (vegetation and woody debris needed to dissipate stream 

energy at high flows is missing) or functioning at risk (some vegetation 

remains, but the capability to dissipate stream energy at high flows is 

compromised).

Important No The species of fish present and the riparian community that is integral to the 

function of this aquatic habitat are typical of the area, with only locally 

significant qualities.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated area meets the relevance criteria for sheep habitat for the 

reasons cited above. The migratory route of the sheep indicated in the 

nominator’s description is corroborated by sheep movement data from a 

recent study. One known mineral lick has been identified within the current 

boundary. 

The nominated ACEC meets the relevance criteria for raptor habitat since 

the BLM observed a number of sticknests, including a golden eagle 

sticknest, in this area during its 2010 survey.

Important Yes The nominated area meets the importance criteria for sheep, especially 

given the significant decrease in sheep numbers in recent years and because

this subpopulation is a regularly used subsistence resource for Wiseman 

residents. Intact and contiguous Dall sheep habitat is necessary for 

sustaining viable sheep populations and is sensitive to human activity. 

This area does not meet the importance criteria for raptor habitat. Although 

the habitat is present, raptor numbers may not be great enough to justify 

special protection in this area.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 36

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Nugget Creek ACEC

3.3.9 Nugget Creek ACEC 

Background: The Nugget Creek ACEC was designated in 1991 through the ROD for the Utility 

Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991). 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Nugget Creek ACEC was

reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the unique characteristics below. 

Current designation protects this habitat, where Dall ewes return each spring to bear their 

offspring. Dall sheep use natural licks to replace minerals important to the skeletal system. 

Destructive activities or excessive human disturbance may eliminate or alter access to these 

important habitats necessary to sustain viable sheep populations. 

A significant number of hunters use the Dalton Highway for easy access to hunt Dall sheep; 

therefore, the BLM needs to protect this crucial habitat to sustain a viable sheep population.

Areas such as this ACEC should be earmarked for attention since a number of potentially 

disturbing activities (e.g., increases in traffic and recreation and future pipeline construction) may 

occur during the life of this plan (BLM 1991). 

Area nominated: Approximately 3,300 acres, as defined in 1991 Utility Corridor RMP/EIS 

(BLM 1991). See Figure 4, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Middle Dalton, and Figure 

5, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Middle Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, wildlife 

Nugget Creek ACEC 

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Nugget Creek ACEC contains natural mineral licks. These rare soil 

features provide essential minerals to ungulates and are essential for 

maintaining healthy Dall sheep populations in this vicinity.

Important Yes Natural mineral licks are rare and sensitive soil types.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated area still meets the relevance criteria for sheep habitat for the 

same reasons cited when this ACEC was established. Specifically, in repeated 

surveys, sheep have been observed to inhabit the area, and two known 

mineral licks have been identified within its boundary. 

This area meets the relevance criteria for raptor habitat since a number of 

sticknests, including golden eagle sticknests, were observed in the 2010 BLM 

survey.

Important Yes The nominated area still meets the importance criteria for sheep for the same 

reasons as were cited when this ACEC was established. Intact and contiguous 

Dall sheep habitat is necessary for sustaining viable sheep populations and is 

sensitive to human activity. 

This ACEC does not meet the importance criteria for raptor habitat. Although 

raptors have been observed in the area, and therefore habitat is present, the 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 37

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Nugget Creek ACEC

Nugget Creek ACEC 

2010 survey did not indicate that the area had a great enough concentration of 

raptors to be especially notable habitat for them. 

3.3.10 Poss Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)

Background: The Poss Mountain ACEC was designated in 1991 through the ROD for the Utility 

Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991). In 2014, through the scoping process for this RMP, the BLM 

proposed expanding the Poss Mountain ACEC to include areas to the north, incorporating the 

Gold Creek mineral lick, and areas to the south, incorporating the Minnie Creek drainage, an 

additional 16,800 acres of land.

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Poss Mountain ACEC and the 

expansion was reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the unique 

characteristics below.

The Poss Mountain ACEC was designated to protect lambing habitat for Dall sheep and known 

mineral lick sites. Pregnant ewes use the same habitat annually, and mineral licks are essential to 

sheep health. In 1991, the authors of the ROD for the Utility Corridor RMP/EIS noted that, “a 

growing number of hunters use the Dalton Highway for easy access to hunt Dall sheep; therefore 

the BLM needs to protect this crucial habitat to sustain a viable sheep population...the area 

should be earmarked for attention since a number of potentially disturbing activities near this 

habitat (principally mining) may occur within the life of this plan.” 

The BLM established that “crucial habitat and use periods will be monitored” and that the ACEC 

should be inventoried to “identify any additional crucial sheep habitats.” Program activities 

outlined in the ROD specified that an area of 160 acres around a given mineral lick in the ACEC 

would be withdrawn from mineral entry and location under the General Mining Law of 1872, as 

amended. 

A collaring study conducted from 2009 to 2011 suggested that the Poss Mountain subpopulation 

is likely separated by natural and human-made barriers from other subpopulation ranges; the 

isolated Poss Mountain subpopulation was shown to regularly cross Minnie Creek. This isolated 

subpopulation relies on a known mineral lick within the perimeter of the current Poss Mountain 

ACEC, as well as a mineral lick located to the north of the ACEC, on an embankment of Gold 

Creek. 

The Gold Creek mineral lick is near an area of human activity. To the west of the mineral lick, a 

large material site has been established to support road construction. Mining is being conducted 

to the east of the mineral lick. The mineral lick is now between the gravel pit and an operation 

just upstream. The high level of human activity will greatly increase the potential for disturbance 

of sheep using the lick. Further development of the area will likely compound disturbance of the 

isolated subpopulation.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 38

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Poss Mountain ACEC

The BLM proposes to extend the Poss Mountain ACEC north to encompass the Gold Creek 

mineral lick. Furthermore, the expansion south of the current ACEC to include the Minnie Creek 

drainage should also be considered since this area is regularly used by this population as well. 

Notably, abundance survey results from 2012 to 2014 suggest reduced lamb production in this 

region; therefore, there is a high likelihood of reduced abundance in all sheep cohorts in future 

years. This underscores the importance of protecting sheep habitat to the greatest extent possible.

Area nominated: The Current Poss Mountain ACEC includes 8,700 acres6

, with an additional

16,800 acres nominated. The nominated expansion of Poss Mountain ACEC is to the north and

encompasses the Gold Creek mineral lick and to the south to and includes the Minnie Creek 

drainage. The existing ACEC and nominated expansion total approximately 25,500 acres. See 

Figure 4, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Middle Dalton, and Figure 5, ACECs found 

to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Middle Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, wildlife

Poss Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion) 

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Poss Mountain ACEC contains natural mineral licks. These rare soil 

features provide essential minerals to ungulates and are essential for 

maintaining healthy Dall sheep populations in this vicinity.

Important Yes Natural mineral licks are rare and sensitive soil types. 

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The current and nominated areas still meet the relevance criteria for sheep 

habitat for the same reasons as were cited when this ACEC was established. 

One known mineral lick has been identified within the current boundary; the 

expansion would encompass a second lick on Gold Creek, as well as areas 

where sheep have been observed in repeated surveys since 2004. 

The nominated area meets the relevance criteria for raptor habitat since a 

number of sticknests, including a golden eagle sticknest, were observed in the 

2010 BLM survey. The expansion would include a number of other known 

sticknest sites. 

Important Yes The current and nominated areas still meet the importance criteria for sheep 

for the same reasons that were cited when this ACEC was established. Intact 

and contiguous Dall sheep habitat is necessary for sustaining viable sheep 

populations and is sensitive to human activity. 

This ACEC does not meet the importance criteria for raptor habitat. Although 

raptors have been observed in the area, and therefore habitat is present, the 

2010 survey did not indicate that the area had a great enough concentration of 

raptors to be especially notable habitat for them.

 

6 The 1991 Utility Corridor RMP/EIS identified approximately 8,000 acres as the ACEC. The acreage discrepancy is 

due to improved mapping and not a difference in the area intended to be designated as an ACEC. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 39

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Snowden Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)

3.3.11 Snowden Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion) 

Background: The Snowden Mountain ACEC was designated in 1991 through the ROD for the 

Utility Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991). In 2014, through the scoping process for the RMP, the 

BLM proposed expanding the Snowden Mountain ACEC to the east around Mathews Creek to 

include additional sheep habitat. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Snowden Mountain ACEC and 

expansion was reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the following unique 

characteristics. 

The Snowden Mountain ACEC was designated to protect Dall sheep habitat and mineral lick sites 

as well as to protect the unique geologic exposures and associated paleontology. It was 

established that “crucial habitat and use periods will be monitored” and that the ACEC should be 

inventoried to “identify any additional crucial sheep habitats.” Accordingly, the sheep 

subpopulation in the Snowden Mountain ACEC and the surrounding vicinity has been monitored 

and inventoried regularly, particularly from 2000 to 2014.

Surveys of sheep abundance conducted by the ADFG have been the primary source of sheep 

population monitoring for the Central Brooks Range, including the BLM-managed Dalton 

Highway Corridor Management Area. 

The ADFG has used the two most regularly surveyed units (1A and 1B) to index the status of 

sheep abundance in the Central Brooks Range; 1A, the larger unit, encompasses the Snowden 

Mountain ACEC. Additionally, between 2009 and 2011 radio collared sheep locations were used 

to identify highly used sheep habitat in relation to ACEC boundaries and survey units. The 

current boundary of the Snowden Mountain ACEC does not include the area encompassing the 

headwaters of Mathews Creek, which sheep frequently use. While the existing Snowden 

Mountain ACEC is situated along the western slope of the Snowden Mountain massif, more 

sheep activity was found to occur on the northern and eastern slopes of that ridge, east of the 

ACEC boundary. The BLM recommends that, to adequately protect important sheep habitat, the 

Snowden Mountain ACEC be extended eastward to the boundary of BLM-managed land near 

Mathews Creek. Notably, abundance survey results from 2012 to 2014 show reduced lamb 

production and survival for the Snowden Mountain ACEC subpopulation; therefore, there is a 

high likelihood of reduced abundance in all sheep cohorts in future years. This underscores the 

importance of protecting sheep habitat to the greatest extent possible.

Area nominated: The current Snowden Mountain ACEC is approximately 29,700 acres, as 

defined in the Utility Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 19917 ; Snowden Mountain, mile 217 of the 

Dalton Highway). The nominated expansion identified during scoping includes an additional 

72,300 acres to include the headwaters of Mathews Creek. The total acres of the existing ACEC 

 

7 The 1991 Utility Corridor RMP/EIS identified approximately 28,000 acres as the ACEC. The acreage discrepancy 

is due to improved mapping and not a difference in the area intended to be designated as an ACEC. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 40

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Snowden Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)

plus the nominated expansion is 102,000 acres. See Figure 4, Existing and Nominated 

ACECs/RNAs – Middle Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, fish/riparian, wildlife, geology

Snowden Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion) 

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ACEC contains natural mineral licks. These rare soil 

features provide essential minerals to ungulates and are essential 

for maintaining healthy populations of Dall sheep populations in 

this vicinity.

Important Yes Natural mineral licks are rare and sensitive soil types. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG’s Freshwater Fish Inventory database8 lists slimy 

sculpin and arctic grayling as present in the Mathews River and 

Nutirwik and Snowden Creek watersheds. ADFG does not list 

the Mathews River or Nutirwik or Snowden Creeks as habitat 

for anadromous fish (ADFG 2014). The status of riparian 

resources has not been documented; however, due to lack of 

disturbance in the ACEC, riparian resources are expected to be 

fully functional.

Important No The species of fish present and the riparian community that is 

integral to the function of this aquatic habitat are typical of the 

area, with only locally significant qualities.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated area meets the relevance criteria for Dall sheep

habitat. The expanded area would include additional heavily 

used sheep habitat (based on recent studies) and encompasses 

two additional potential mineral licks. 

The nominated area also meets the relevance criteria for raptor 

habitat. The BLM 2010 raptor survey showed that the 

established ACEC area is home to a high concentration of raptor 

and golden eagle sticknest sites and use areas.

Important Yes The nominated area meets the importance criteria for Dall sheep 

habitat, which is necessary for sustaining viable sheep 

populations and is sensitive to destructive activities. 

The nominated area also meets the importance criteria for raptor 

habitat. Golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act.

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes This occurrence consists of (a) a 6-inch-thick gypsum-calcite 

zone in shaley limestone, which contains abundant fine-grained 

pyrite, and (b) a vein quartz float that contains traces of graphite, 

pyrite, and chalcopyrite (Mulligan 1974). Dillon and others 

(1988) mapped the country rocks as a Devonian igneous unit of 

 

8 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 41

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Snowden Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)

Snowden Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)

diabase, gabbro, and diorite dikes and sills that are in contact 

with Middle Ordovician black, carbonaceous phyllite and metalimestone. Calc-silicate hornfels occurs along the contact. 

Chromium, lead, nickel, and vanadium were detected 

spectrographically in samples from the occurrence (Mulligan 

1974).

Important Existing: Yes

Expansion: No

The existing ACEC boundary meets the importance criteria but

the expanded boundary does not. The existing boundary 

encompasses the geology of interest for this ACEC. Making the 

ACEC larger does not make it any more exceptional for the area.

3.3.12 Sukakpak Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion) 

Background: The Sukakpak Mountain ACEC was designated in 1991 through the ROD for the 

Utility Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991). In 2014, through the scoping process for this RMP, the 

BLM proposed expanding the Sukakpak Mountain ACEC to include Dillon Mountain, an 

additional 15,200 acres.

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Sukakpak Mountain ACEC and the 

expansion was reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the unique 

characteristics below. 

The Sukakpak Mountain ACEC was designated to protect unique geologic structures, folds, and 

faults; the view of the geologic process of mountain building and erosional forces; rare plant 

species; and one of the more outstanding scenic views along the Dalton Highway. The ACEC lies 

entirely within BLM-managed lands. Since approval of the Utility Corridor RMP, Native and 

State land selections immediately east of Sukakpak Mountain have been conveyed and the State 

of Alaska has top-filed the Utility Corridor.

The BLM has operators to conduct tours along the Dalton Highway, of whom five conducted 

winter trips as well (K. Egger, BLM Recreation Planner, pers. comm.). While freight hauling by 

truck is still the primary use, the scenery and wildlife along the highway corridor have grown in 

importance as resources valued by the public. The Dalton Highway is increasingly seen and 

marketed globally as a unique Alaskan destination. More visitors, using more commercial tour 

operators, are visiting in the fall, winter, and spring for aurora viewing and winter scenery; during

the 2013-2014 season, the BLM permitted 12 operators to conduct tours along the Dalton 

Highway, five of whom conducted winter trips as well (K. Egger, pers. comm.). 

In the broad Dietrich and Bettles River valleys along the highway, the timberline is at an 

elevation of only about 1,200 feet and the view from the highway is largely unobstructed. 

Sukakpak Mountain, (elevation 4,459 feet) with its unique shape and distinctive northwardpointing horn, stands apart from the surrounding mountains and draws the eye for miles in either 

direction. Its western wall is a sheer vertical face, towering 3,060 feet above the highway, slightly 

less than El Capitan in California’s Yosemite Valley. The clear water of the Bettles River flowing 

along the northeast flank of the mountain adds to the overall scenic beauty.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 42

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Sukakpak Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)

The Dalton Highway Scenic Byway Corridor Partnership Plan (Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources 2010) identifies Sukakpak Mountain as “a dominant feature along this stretch of the 

highway, a massive marble rock rising from the earth.” In its Intrinsic Quality Assessment, the 

Byway Plan identified Sukakpak Mountain for both its scenic and natural qualities, calling it “... 

one of the most recognized Brooks Range peaks viewable from the byway.”

To protect more of this spectacular view for highway travelers, the BLM recommends that the 

boundary of the Sukakpak Mountain ACEC be adjusted to include all BLM-managed lands 

extending west to the highway right-of-way in Townships 32 North, Range 10 West, Fairbanks 

Meridian, and south to a line along the southern border of Sections 25 to 29 (approximately 

Dalton Milepost 200.5 and across peak 2929); and in Townships 33 North, Range 9 West, and 33 

North, Range 10 West, Fairbanks Meridian, from the Inner Corridor to as far north as the 

southern border of Section 12, Township 33 North, Range 10 West, Fairbanks Meridian and 

Sections 8 and 9, Township 33 North, Range 9 West, Fairbanks Meridian (approximately Dalton 

milepost 210). This adjustment would also protect the scenic view of Dillon Mountain, a 

spectacular 4,820-foot peak on the opposite side of the Bettles River from Sukakpak Mountain. 

Together, Dillon and Sukakpak Mountains form a breathtaking view, even by Alaska standards.

Extending the boundary to the highway right-of-way will also protect the frost mounds (palsas) 

that border the highway on the western slope of Sukakpak Mountain. These permafrost features 

are unusually abundant here. Some are ephemeral, appearing and melting in one or more seasons, 

and some are more stable and long lasting. Brown and Krieg (1983) describe the mounds and 

their vegetation in detail, with the calcareous fens between the mounds supporting a rich flora that 

is distinct from the tops of the mounds or the nearby forest. The frost mound area supports at least 

one plant species, longstem sandwort (Arenaria longipedunculata), identified as rare by Lipkin 

and Parker (1995), and the ACEC description from the RMP identifies another plant, 

Orthotrichum diminutivum, a bristle moss. Further research may show that the area between the 

highway and the base of Sukakpak Mountain is an exemplary example of the frost mound-fen 

ecosystem. This boundary adjustment would add 15,200 acres to the ACEC, for a total of 18,700

acres. 

Area nominated: Approximately 3,500 acres is nominated, as defined in the 1991 Utility 

Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991), along with 15,200 acres to the west, south, and north of the 

existing ACEC. The total acres of the existing ACEC plus the nominated expansion is 18,700

acres. See Figure 4, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Middle Dalton, and Figure 5, 

ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Middle Dalton.

Values nominated: Fish/riparian, wildlife, geology, scenic
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 43

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Sukakpak Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)

Sukakpak Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Chum salmon are documented in the lower Bettles River (ADFG

2014). Arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, and slimy sculpin have also 

been documented in the nominated ACEC (ADFG Freshwater 

Fish Inventory database9

). Though a small portion of the riparian 

resources have been disturbed along the Dalton Highway, the 

remainder of the riparian habitat present is undisturbed and is 

expected to be in a fully functional condition.

Important No Species of fish present and the riparian community that is integral 

to the function of this aquatic habitat are typical of the area, with 

only locally significant qualities.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The current ACEC and the nominated expanded ACEC both meet 

the relevance criteria for Dall sheep habitat. While this area is 

generally lower elevation than most of the ACECs designated for 

sheep habitat, there are some records of small groups of sheep on 

Sukakpak Mountain. (Note: most of the Sukakpak Mountain

ACEC area has not been included in sheep surveys conducted 

since 2004.) The northernmost section of the expansion overlaps 

the southernmost point of the nominated Snowden Mountain

ACEC expansion (it lies within the regularly surveyed Unit 1A); 

several bands of sheep have been recorded in this area.

The nominated ACEC meets the relevance criteria for raptor 

habitat; the 2010 BLM raptor survey suggests that there is a small 

number of golden eagles and other raptors in this area.

Important No The current Sukakpak Mountain ACEC would not meet the 

importance criteria for Dall sheep. The most valuable sheep 

habitat encompassed in the nominated expansion of the Sukakpak 

ACEC would be encompassed within the nominated Snowden 

Mountain ACEC expansion.

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Sukakpak Mountain prospect consists of 2 or 3 quartzstibnite-gold veins exposed intermittently for 1 kilometer (.62 

mile) in and near a high-angle fault at the contact between 

Devonian and Silurian(?) Skajit limestone and underlying 

Ordovician to Cambrian(?) graphitic quartz-, chlorite-, calcareous 

schists intruded by metabasite dikes (Dillon 1982). The veins 

occur in the Skajit limestone along thin schist layers or along the 

contact between marble and the underlying schist unit. The veins 

consist of early sulfide-poor (traces of chalcopyrite and 

tetrahedrite) and later stibnite- and gold-bearing quartz. The 

stibnite occurs as euhedral crystals in amounts ranging from less 

than 10 percent to more than 50 percent of the vein. Stibnite 

crystals as long as 8 inches are present. Gold occurs as small 

cubes and as wire and flakes in fractures in the veins, along with 

 

9 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 44

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Sukakpak Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)

Sukakpak Mountain ACEC (Including Expansion)

stibnite, quartz, and graphite. The veins exhibit characteristics of 

open-space filling that include crystalline stibnite and cockscomb 

quartz crystals.

Important Existing: Yes

Nominated: No

The existing ACEC boundary meets the importance criteria but 

the nominated expanded boundary does not. The existing ACEC 

boundary encompasses the geology of interest for this ACEC.

The expanded boundary encompasses even more of the same 

geology, and making the ACEC larger does not make it any more 

exceptional for the area.

Scenic Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes As described above, Sukakpak Mountain, with its unique shape 

and location draws the eye for miles in either direction. The 

Dalton Highway Scenic Byway Corridor Partnership Plan 

identifies Sukakpak Mountain as a dominant visual feature and 

one of the most recognizable Brooks Range peaks viewable from 

the highway. Sukakpak ACEC is located within the Central and 

Eastern Brooks Range, which has a Scenic Quality Rating of 

Class A, which indicates high scenic value. The Dalton Highway 

has a (draft) Sensitivity Level Rating as High most of the ACEC 

is within the Foreground-middle ground distance zone (0-5 

miles). This would lead to a Visual Resource Inventory of Class 

II, but could be identified as Visual Resource Inventory Class I 

due to it being a special designation (scenic ACEC).

Important Yes The Dalton Highway is marketed globally as a unique Alaska 

destination for tourism. Sukakpak Mountain viewshed has more 

than locally significant qualities that give it special worth and 

distinctiveness.

3.3.13 Jim River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Background: The Jim River ACEC was designated through the ROD for the Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (BLM 1991). In 2014, through the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM and the 

Allakaket Tribal Council nominated the Jim River ACEC for expansion. 

Large portions of the ACEC were State-selected. The objective of current management, which

allows for mineral materials disposal, is for this ACEC to protect or enhance chum and king 

salmon spawning areas, overwintering habitat for resident and anadromous species, and sport 

fishing. Raptor habitat must be monitored and protected, and scenic, recreation, and 

archaeological resources must be protected. 

Current management practices and allowable uses include protecting fishery habitats and 

populations, including salmon spawning areas and overwintering and nursery/rearing habitats. 

Plans of operation with stipulations should be required. Mitigation measures should be applied to 

all surface-disturbing activities. This is to avoid unduly affecting aquatic and riparian habitat, 

threatened, endangered, or candidate species (including plants and peregrine falcon), or any other 

protected resource. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 45

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Jim River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Seasonal use and surface occupancy restrictions, including oil and gas leasing, may be identified 

once inventory and monitoring studies have been conducted. Habitat crucial to threatened and 

endangered species, especially peregrine falcons, should be protected. New mineral material sites 

would be approved within the floodplain only if no other economically feasible sites are 

available. 

Nominators: BLM and the Allakaket Tribal Council

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominators: The Jim River ACEC and the 

expansion was reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the unique 

characteristics below. 

The Allakaket Tribal Council nominates the Jim River ACEC for expansion because it includes 

important salmon spawning areas, which hold critical subsistence value for the people of 

Allakaket. All of the Henshaw River is an important spawning ground for Chinook and chum 

salmon and other small fish species. Additionally, the surrounding land is important for access to 

subsistence hunting. 

This area is culturally significant and has been traditionally hunted and fished by the people of 

Allakaket. All of the Alatna River and the surrounding areas provide important caribou, moose, 

and Dall sheep habitat. All species of whitefish and cisco spawn in this river, which is also a 

major spawning area for sheefish (inconnu); the Siruk and Senyalak tributaries are spawning 

areas for salmon, and Chebanika Creek tributary is an important seining area. 

The BLM has also proposed an expansion of the Jim River ACEC. This expansion was evaluated 

against the criteria for ACEC designation and the unique characteristics discussed below. The Jim 

River ACEC was designated based on fishery, cultural, and recreation resources. Management 

objectives for the fish resources included protecting or enhancing Chinook and chum salmon 

spawning areas, over-wintering habitat for resident and anadromous species, and sport fishing.

The BLM manages the entire Jim River watershed, with the exception of 1,300 acres at the river’s

mouth, which is encompassed by the Kanuti NWR and private land. The designated ACEC 

includes the Jim River drainage upstream of the inner corridor. While the Inner corridor provides 

some protection to aquatic resources because it is closed to mineral entry, the lower river 

(downstream of the western boundary of the inner corridor) is not afforded any additional 

protections, other than discouraging gravel extraction in the floodplain. The ADFG’s research in 

the Jim River drainage since establishment of the ACEC has documented the lower Jim River as 

important spawning and overwintering habitat for grayling (Fish 1998). The lower portion of the 

river is also used by Chinook and chum salmon as spawning habitat (ADFG 2013).

The proximity of the Jim River/Prospect Creek watershed to the Dalton Highway continues to 

attract economically feasible roads and mining development opportunities, which threaten its 

aquatic habitat and fisheries. Given the high value of the aquatic resources and habitat in the 

lower Jim River, including this portion of the watershed in the ACEC is warranted. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 46

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Jim River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Area nominated: The current Jim River ACEC is approximately 203,000 acres10. The Allakaket 

Tribal Council proposes an expansion of the Jim River ACEC to include all areas of the Jim 

River and the South Fork of the Koyukuk River west of the Dalton Highway and surrounding 

lands. The area is bordered on the west by the Kanuti NWR and Native Corporation patented land 

therein, on the east by the Dalton Highway, on the south by a line of five miles south of the Jim 

River, and on the north by the NWR, the Gates of the Arctic National Park, and Chapman Creek. 

Additionally, the BLM proposed expanding the existing ACEC to encompass the entire Jim River 

watershed. The total nominated area is 476,000 acres. See Figure 6, Existing and Nominated 

ACECs/RNAs – South Dalton, and Figure 7, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and 

Importance Criteria – South Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian, wildlife, cultural

Jim River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

spawning in the Jim River ACEC are rare to the planning area. It 

encompasses soil, water, riparian, and wetland resources. Moreover, it 

supports unique incubation, rearing, and overwintering habitat essential for 

maintaining chum and Chinook salmon diversity, in the planning area and 

in Alaska as a whole. 

Important Yes Soil resources in the Jim River ACEC are generally in a pristine and 

undisturbed condition and would be considered unique on a national scale. 

Even so, they are not unique in the planning area or region. However, 

permafrost underlies much of the Jim River ACEC. These soils are highly 

susceptible to erosion or other soil movement caused by disturbance of the 

ground cover and subsequent thawing of permafrost. In addition, the unique 

and fragile soils around the upwelling and downwelling areas associated 

with chum and Chinook salmon spawning control the hydrology of the 

salmon spawning areas. Any disturbance of these soils would affect the 

spawning area’s flow regime and would negatively affect salmon egg 

survival.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the Jim River ACEC is excellent and would be 

considered unique on a national scale, it is not unique in the planning area

or region. However, the upwelling and downwelling areas associated with 

chum and Chinook salmon spawning areas that provide water for incubation 

and rearing of salmon are unique in the planning area and in Alaska. 

Maintaining water quality and temperature and adequate streamflows in 

these spawning areas is crucial in the incubation of salmon eggs and 

maintaining crucial overwintering habitat. Adhering to the mandates of the 

Clean Water Act is a national priority. 

 

10 The 1991 Utility Corridor RMP/EIS identified approximately 200,000 acres as the ACEC. The acreage 

discrepancy is due to improved mapping and not a difference in the area intended to be designated as an ACEC. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 47

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Jim River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Jim River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes A 2005 BLM open file report (BLM 2005) lists arctic grayling, burbot, 

round whitefish, slimy sculpin, humpback whitefish, longnose sucker, and 

northern pike as occurring in the Jim River. That same report lists arctic

grayling, round whitefish, slimy sculpin, and longnose sucker as occurring 

in the South Fork Koyukuk River. The ADFG’s Freshwater Fish Inventory 

database11 lists one additional species (burbot) as present in the South Fork 

Koyukuk River. 

The Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of 

Anadromous Fishes – Interior Region, Effective June 1, 2014 lists Chinook 

and chum salmon as using the Jim River for spawning habitat; coho salmon 

are listed as being present in this system. The catalog lists Chinook, coho, 

and chum salmon and whitefish as being present in the South Fork 

Koyukuk River. Chinook salmon are also noted in the catalog as using the 

South Fork Koyukuk River as rearing habitat. 

The ADFG’s freshwater fish inventory database lists Chinook juveniles as 

being present in the Jim River watershed. Though a small portion of the 

riparian resources have been disturbed at the bridge and oil pipeline 

crossings along the Dalton Highway and at the Bettles Road crossing, the 

remainder of the riparian habitat is undisturbed and is expected to be in a 

fully functional condition.

Important Yes The Jim River and South Fork Koyukuk River watersheds meet the 

importance criteria. (The South Fork Koyukuk River watershed was 

evaluated separately in the analysis of the South Fork Koyukuk River

nomination and is not discussed further in this section.) The Jim River 

watershed has some of the highest concentrations of Chinook and chum 

salmon spawning in the upper Koyukuk region. Salmon produced in the Jim 

River are harvested by downstream subsistence and commercial users. The 

habitat is important for spawning and overwintering of salmon eggs and fry, 

as well as summer rearing of juvenile salmon. 

The Jim River watershed also contains excellent habitat for resident fish 

species, which spawn, rear, and overwinter throughout the drainage. In 

particular, the Jim River and Prospect Creek harbor significant spawning 

populations of arctic grayling, from a regional perspective. 

Riparian resources are integral to the overall condition and quality of this 

important aquatic habitat. This stems from their ecological functions, which 

define sediment transport processes, biochemical and nutrient cycling, and 

food web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, when viewed 

independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of the BLMmanaged lands in the planning area, which could be considered somewhat 

rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a disproportionate 

number of biological and physical functions on an area basis. Because of 

 

11 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 48

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Jim River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Jim River ACEC (Including Expansion)

this, protection is warranted in order to satisfy national priorities for water 

quality, land health, floodplain function, and biodiversity maintenance.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated area meets the relevance criteria for raptor habitat; a 2010 

BLM raptor survey indicates that there are a number of golden eagle and 

other raptor nests in this area. The above description of known raptor 

habitat, in combination with the results from the 2010 BLM raptor survey 

(survey results indicate a number of sticknests in this area, including golden 

eagle nests) suggest that the area is important raptor habitat. 

The nominated area also meets the relevance criteria for caribou habitat. A 

small, non-migratory caribou herd inhabits the headwaters of the Kanuti and 

Jim Rivers.

Important Yes The nominated area meets the importance criteria for caribou. The Hodzana 

Hills Caribou Herd is genetically distinct and contributes to the ecological 

diversity of the Central Yukon Planning Area. 

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes There are significant densities of cultural resources in the nominated ACEC. 

In addition to known sites, sample surveys have identified a number of 

additional high probability areas for prehistoric cultural resources.

Important Yes Several prehistoric sites in the nominated ACEC are likely to meet the 

criteria for inclusion on the NRHP. A number of NRHP-eligible sites were 

identified and excavated in the nominated ACEC during construction of the 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System; some of these are of Late Pleistocene age.

3.3.14 South Fork Koyukuk River

Background: During the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM nominated the South Fork 

Koyukuk ACEC. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The South Fork Koyukuk River 

provides habitat to a significant number of Chinook salmon and chum salmon. In 1990, the 

USFWS operated a sonar project to estimate the number of chum salmon. The sonar project was 

1.2 miles downstream of the confluence of the South Fork Koyukuk River and Fish Creek. Chum 

salmon escapement at the conclusion of the project was estimated at 19,485 (Troyer 1993). A 

follow-up study conducted by the USFWS in 1996 and 1997 used a resistance board weir, located 

1.2 miles upstream of the confluence of Fish Creek, as a means to count fish. This project 

estimated chum salmon escapement at 37,450 (1996) and 11,237 (1997). The estimate in 1997 

was incomplete due to high water (Wiswar 1998). Chinook salmon escapement for 1996 and 

1997 was estimated at 1,232 and 1,643 (Wiswar 1997, 1998). Spawning concentrations are 

known to exist near the confluence of the Jim River (Barton 1984); however, the State’s atlas to 

the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes

(ADFG 2014) documents both Chinook spawning and rearing and chum salmon spawning as far 

upstream as the Mosquito Fork. The watershed in the planning area is 1,468,000 acres, 57.1 

percent of which is managed by the BLM. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 49

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

South Fork Koyukuk River

Area nominated: The area nominated includes approximately 417,000 acres. It does not include 

the Jim River because it is addressed separately within the Jim River ACEC and expansion. See 

Figure 6, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – South Dalton, and Figure 7, ACECs found to 

Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – South Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian

South Fork Koyukuk River

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

spawning in the South Fork Koyukuk River nomination are rare in the 

planning area. The system encompasses soil, water, riparian, and wetland 

resources and supports a unique incubation, rearing, and overwintering 

habitat. This is essential for maintaining chum and Chinook salmon 

diversity in the planning area and Alaska as a whole. 

Important Yes Soil resources in the South Fork Koyukuk River nomination are generally 

pristine and undisturbed and would be considered unique on a national 

scale. Even so, they are not unique in the planning area or region. However, 

permafrost underlies much of the South Fork Koyukuk River nomination. 

These soils are highly susceptible to erosion or other soil movement caused 

by disturbance of the ground cover and subsequent thawing of permafrost. 

In addition, the unique and fragile soils around the upwelling and 

downwelling areas associated with chum salmon spawning control the 

hydrology of the salmon spawning areas. Any disturbance of these soils 

would affect the spawning area’s flow regime and would negatively affect 

salmon egg survival.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the nominated South Fork Koyukuk River 

nomination is excellent and would be considered unique on a national scale, 

it is not unique in the planning area or region. However, the upwelling and 

downwelling areas that provide water for incubation and rearing of salmon 

are unique in the planning area and Alaska. Maintaining water quality and 

temperature and adequate streamflows in these spawning areas is crucial to

the incubation of salmon eggs and maintaining crucial overwintering 

habitat. Adhering to the mandates of the Clean Water Act is a national 

priority. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes A 2005 BLM open file report (BLM 2005) lists arctic grayling, round 

whitefish, slimy sculpin and longnose sucker as occurring in the South Fork 

Koyukuk River. The ADFG’s freshwater fish inventory database12 also lists

burbot in the South Fork Koyukuk River. The Catalog of Waters Important 

for Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes – Interior 

Region, Effective June 1, 2014 lists Chinook, coho, and chum salmon and 

whitefish as present in the South Fork Koyukuk River. Chinook salmon are 

also noted in the catalog as using the South Fork Koyukuk River as rearing 

 

12 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 50

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

South Fork Koyukuk River

South Fork Koyukuk River

habitat. A small portion of the riparian resources has been disturbed along 

the Dalton Highway due to the bridge and oil pipeline crossings and at 

mining operations downstream of the Dalton Highway; even so, the 

remainder of the riparian habitat is undisturbed and is expected to be fully 

functional.

Important Yes These waters provide crucial spawning and rearing habitat for salmon. 

Salmon produced in this nominated ACEC contribute to the availability and 

abundance of subsistence fish resources harvested in the lower Koyukuk 

and Yukon Rivers. In addition, these fish play a small but important role in 

the overall genetic health of salmon produced in the Yukon Basin. 

Key areas for fish are those habitats that support specific life stages and 

provide connectivity as fish move between habitat types as part of their life 

cycle. If, as predicated, climate change affects aquatic habitat in Alaska, 

there will be changes to water quality and quantity. Changes in water

temperature and hydrology will directly affect habitat suitability and 

ultimately the distribution of fish species. The size of the South Fork 

Koyukuk watershed in the planning area is 1,468,000 acres, 57.1 percent of 

which is managed by the BLM. The South Fork Koyukuk River provides 

connectivity between habitats and, due to its length and varied aquatic 

habitat, would likely be able to continue to provide suitable fish habitat in 

an environment affected by a changing climate if stream functionality were

maintained. 

Riparian resources, through their performance of ecological functions, are 

integral to the overall condition and quality of this important aquatic 

habitat. This is because they define sediment transport processes, 

biochemical and nutrient cycling, and food web maintenance. In addition, 

riparian resources, when viewed independently of other resources, 

constitute only 3 percent of the BLM-managed lands in the planning area, 

which could be considered somewhat rare on a regional basis. Riparian 

resources perform a disproportionate number of biological and physical 

functions on a unit area basis. Because of this, protection is warranted in 

order to satisfy national priorities related to water quality, land health, 

floodplain function, and biodiversity maintenance.

3.3.15 Upper Kanuti River

Background: During the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC 

nomination from the USFWS for the Upper Kanuti River. The Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC, which 

was designated in 1991 through the ROD for the Utility Corridor RMP, falls within this 

nomination, but will be evaluated separately in Section 3.3.16. 

Nominator: USFWS (Kanuti NWR)

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The nominated area contains 

archaeological, cultural, fish, wildlife, and sensitive/rare natural systems (geologic plant 

communities). 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 51

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Upper Kanuti River

This area includes historical hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering territories for at least three 

tribal bands of aboriginal Alaska Natives:: the K'iitł'it Gwich'in,

13 the South Fork (Koyukuk) 

Koyukon Athabascan, and the Lake Todatonten/Kanuti River band of Koyukon Athabascan 

(Kanuti NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan; Steven Bergman, pers. comm.). See specific 

examples below. 

Example 1: Archaeological surveys in the nominated ACEC undertaken periodically since the 

1970s (e.g., for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Project) have identified over 50 archaeological sites, 

primarily in upland settings. This work strongly suggests that uplands in the ACEC, particularly 

those next to streams and rivers, are likely to yield significant densities of small archaeological 

sites (Bill Hedman, BLM Archaeologist, pers. comm.). 

Example 2: Koyukon place names provided to the Kanuti NWR staff in 2006 by residents of 

Allakaket refer to traditional knowledge and use of the ACEC area. Specific areas are Too Loghe 

(a valley east of Dalton Highway, near Old Man airstrip and the headwaters of the Kanuti River), 

K'eyon T'uh (a 3,068-foot mountain east of Olson’s Lake, near the Kanuti River headwaters), and 

Henok'ooltl'oon' Denh (a 3,170-foot mountain east of the Old Man gravel pit [the name means 

“place where caribou snares were set around mountain”]). This suggests traditional hunting of 

Hodzana Caribou Herd there.

Example 3: A July 2014 interview with Allakaket Elder Steven Bergman confirms use of the 

Upper Kanuti River nomination by his relatives and others during the twentieth century.

The area supports or has supported fish and wildlife species of environmental concern by federal 

or state agencies. See specific examples below. 

Example 1: Within traditional summer and calving range of Hodzana Caribou Herd, a small, 

isolated non-migratory herd. 

Example 2: BLM fish surveys (Dave Esse, pers. comm.) indicate occupancy of the Upper Kanuti 

River by arctic grayling, regarded by the State of Alaska as a high value resident species.

Example 3: Seemingly historically supported golden eagle occupancy/nesting, based on 

Koyukon place name K'eyon T'uh (translation: eagle nest) for “Kanuti” Mountain (USGS 

cadastral marker name). Other suitable habitat exists elsewhere. Golden eagle is a BLM Alaska 

sensitive species. In addition, those on Kanuti River float trips from Dalton Highway to Kanuti 

NWR reported (e.g., Spindler 2007) blackpoll warbler and olive-sided flycatcher, two BLM

Alaska sensitive species. Reports (e.g., Saperstein 1999, 2000) also indicate this stretch supports a 

diversity of raptors, including merlin, American kestrel, peregrine falcon, sharp-shinned hawk, 

northern goshawk, red-tailed Harlan’s hawk, and bald eagle.

The ACEC contains the Upper Kanuti and Caribou Mountain ultramafic bodies in the Caribou 

Mountain-Melozitna ultramafic belt (Patton and Miller 1970). It may support sensitive or 

 

13 http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/ANCR/Athabascan/AdelinePeterRaboff/PrelimStudyWesternGwichin/prelimfig5.html 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 52

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Upper Kanuti River

uncommon plants or plant communities, based on floristic inventories in nearby areas with 

similar geology and soil profiles. 

Archaeological/cultural resources: A very small fraction, perhaps less than 1 percent, of the land 

in the nominated ACEC has been surveyed for archaeological resources. Archaeological work has 

largely focused on areas next to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, Dalton Highway, and a small portion 

of Kanuti River uplands east of the Dalton Highway. Nevertheless, this small sample of sites has 

identified several buried components and relatively dense concentrations of small, shallow buried 

sites. Artifacts recovered from sites in the nominated ACEC indicate human use of the area in 

excess of 10,000 to 12,000 years. If this work is taken to be a representative sample of the larger 

ACEC, then this area is likely to yield significant archaeological information, high site densities, 

and a number of archaeological sites that are eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

Fish/wildlife resources (Hodzana Hills Caribou Herd): Horne et al. (2014) discuss threats to this 

herd based on its small population, proximity to Dalton Highway (i.e., easier access), and latitude 

(i.e., more quickly encountered by more populous hunter population from the south). 

Natural system (ultramafic sites): Lipkin (2007) reported that the ultramafic alpine sites on 

Kanuti NWR “contained unusual and apparently undescribed communities that are either rare or 

unknown elsewhere.” The flora of the BLM’s ultramafic sites in the nominated ACEC are 

unknown. Lipkin further reports the seeming sole Alaska occurrence of Tilingia ajanensis from 

Mendenhall’s 1902 expedition and suggests its likely location in the nominated ACEC. 

Area nominated: The USFWS nominated the entire or parts of select Hydrological Units within 

the Kanuti River Watershed, specifically those designated Upper Kanuti River drainage, that are 

upstream of Kanuti NWR and excluding the Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC. The BLM modified the 

nominated area to encompass the Hodzana Caribou Herd range, which overlaps with the Jim 

River ACEC and South Fork Koyukuk River and Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River ACEC

nominations. The area totals 232,000 acres. See Figure 6, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs 

– South Dalton, and Figure 7, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – 

South Dalton.

Values nominated: Fish/riparian, wildlife, special status species, cultural

Upper Kanuti River

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG’s Freshwater Fish Inventory database14 lists arctic grayling as 

present in the Kanuti River watershed at the Dalton Highway. A 2005 BLM 

open file report (BLM 2005) lists burbot, round whitefish, northern pike, 

slimy sculpin, and arctic grayling as occurring in the Kanuti River. The 

ADFG does not list the Kanuti River in the nominated ACEC as 

anadromous (ADFG 2014). Though a small portion of the riparian resources 

have been disturbed at the bridge and oil pipeline crossing along the Dalton 

Highway, the remainder of the riparian habitat is undisturbed and is 

 

14 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 53

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Upper Kanuti River

Upper Kanuti River

expected to be in a fully functional condition.

Important No Species of fish present and the riparian community that is integral to the 

function of this aquatic habitat are typical of the area, with only locally 

significant qualities.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated area meets the relevance criteria for caribou habitat. A 

small, non-migratory caribou herd inhabits the headwaters of the Kanuti and 

Jim Rivers. 

The nominated area meets the relevance criteria for raptor habitat. The 

above description of known raptor habitat, in combination with the results 

of the 2010 BLM raptor survey (survey results indicate a number of 

sticknests in this area, including golden eagle nests), suggest that the area is 

important raptor habitat.

Important Yes The nominated area meets the importance criteria for caribou. The Hodzana 

Hills Caribou Herd is a genetically distinct herd that contributes to the 

ecological diversity of the Central Yukon Planning Area. 

The nominated area does not meet the importance criteria for raptor habitat. 

Although the habitat is present, the number of inhabiting raptors is not great 

enough to justify special protection in the nominated ACEC area. 

Special Status 

Species Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated area meets the criteria for special status species and 

communities. Two rare plants are known to be near the Kanuti Hot Springs 

ACEC. In addition, as noted above in the nominated ACEC description, 

sensitive animal species are known to inhabit the area (including blackpoll 

warbler and olive-sided flycatcher).

Important No This area would not meet the importance criteria for special status species. 

The known rare plant species in the area (which are mostly centralized 

around the Kanuti Hot Springs) are not listed on the BLM Alaska Sensitive 

Species list. Although the blackpoll warbler and olive-sided flycatcher are 

known to inhabit the area, it is not likely that the habitat in the ACEC area 

is crucial to the extent that ACEC designation would be warranted on this 

basis alone. 

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated ACEC contains significant densities of prehistoric cultural 

resources. Current known distribution indicates site densities in the Kanuti 

River drainage. Site densities and high probability terrain for holding 

prehistoric sites likely account for less than 10 percent of the nominated 

ACEC. 

Important Yes Distribution of known sites and high probability terrain in this large 

nominated ACEC is limited to a small portion. Significant sites have been 

identified, and several sites have already been excavated, with little research 

potential remaining. Additional significant sites are likely to be found win 

the nominated ACEC.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 54

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC

3.3.16 Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC

Background: The Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC was designated in 1991 through the ROD for the 

Utility Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991). This ACEC is in the Upper Kanuti River nomination. It 

is on all State-selected land, and PLO 399 applies. 

The current management objective of this ACEC is to protect the hot springs and the associated 

meadow habitat. The current management practices and allowable uses are as follows: 

• Leasing and development is restricted to actions that would not directly affect the hot 

springs, any identified crucial wildlife habitat, and rare, endangered, or listed plant 

species. 

• The ACEC is closed to mineral entry. Also closed are the surrounding lands (a total 

of approximately 160 acres) under PLO 399 of August 20, 1947, which withdrew 

from entry and all forms of appropriation all hot springs in Alaska. 

• No-surface occupancy stipulations apply for mineral leasing within the ACEC. 

• The water quality of the spring area is maintained and adheres to Environmental 

Protection Agency and State water quality standards. All surface-disturbing activities 

having any effect on the resources in the ACEC require plans of operation and 

appropriate mitigation to eliminate or minimize any adverse impacts. 

• The ACEC is closed to gravel extraction.

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC was

reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the unique characteristics below. 

According to the Utility Corridor RMP/EIS (BLM 1991), the current ACEC was designated for 

the following characteristics and concerns: Kanuti Hot Springs is the only undeveloped hot 

springs known to occur on BLM-managed land in the Utility Corridor Planning Area. It is 

approximately 5 miles southwest of Caribou Mountain, along the Kanuti River. The spring 

temperature has been reported by some sources to be about 150 degrees Fahrenheit and to have a 

strong sulphur dioxide odor. However, in December of 1988, BLM personnel measured the 

spring temperature at 125 degrees Fahrenheit in the main outlet and 73 degrees in the lesser 

outlet.

The hot springs are about 8 miles west of and are accessible from the Dalton Highway. There is 

an immediate need for special management attention in order to protect this undeveloped spring, 

since hot springs in Alaska’s interior are usually developed (BLM 1991).

Area nominated: The current Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC, as described in the Utility Corridor 

RMP/EIS (BLM 1991), is 40 acres. It is in the Upper Kanuti River nomination, which is

evaluated separately. See Figure 6, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – South Dalton.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian, geology
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 55

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC

Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of soil and hydrologic processes associated with the Kanuti 

River Hot Springs ACEC are rare in the planning area and are sensitive to 

change. 

Important Yes Soil and water resources in the Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC are generally 

pristine and undisturbed. The soil and water characteristics are rare in the 

planning area and are highly susceptible to erosion or other soil movement 

caused by disturbance of the ground cover. 

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes See Soil above.

Adhering to the mandates of the Clean Water Act is a national priority.

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG’s freshwater fish inventory database15 lists arctic grayling in the 

Kanuti River watershed, upstream of the Kanuti Hot Springs at the Dalton 

Highway. A 2005 BLM open file report (BLM 2005) lists burbot, round 

whitefish, northern pike, slimy sculpin, and arctic grayling in the Kanuti 

River. The ADFG does not list the Kanuti River in the ACEC as 

anadromous (ADFG 2014). The status of riparian resources has not been 

documented; however, due to lack of disturbance in the current ACEC, 

riparian resources are expected to be pristine and fully functional.

Important No Species of fish in the riparian community, which is integral to the function 

of this aquatic habitat, are typical of the area, with only locally significant 

qualities.

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Hot springs are a unique geologic feature.

Important No Hot springs are not a high value geologic feature.

3.3.17 Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River

Background: During the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM received overlapping 

nominations from several entities for the upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River. The BLM’s 

nominated area is the largest and encompasses the other nominated areas. Mr. Matthew Gilbert’s 

nomination includes the western end of the Venetie Block, including the mouth of the river’s east 

fork and the south slopes of Thazzik Mountain. 

Nominators: BLM, Mr. Matthew Gilbert, USFWS (Yukon Flats NWR)

 

15 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 56

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominators: 

BLM 

The Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River is recognized as providing a significant contribution to the 

overall Yukon River Basin Chinook salmon stock and is considered one of the more productive 

Chinook salmon streams in the U.S. portion of the Yukon River (Eiler et al. 2006). Based on 

estimates derived from the distribution of radio-tagged Chinook, Eiler et al. (2006) found the 

contribution of the Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River to be 4 percent of the overall Yukon River 

Chinook salmon stock. This is on par with the Chena, Salcha, and Goodpaster Rivers, which are 

recognized as some of the more productive streams within the U.S. portion of the Yukon River 

(Eiler et al. 2006). The Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River also provides habitat for the largest 

population of fall chum salmon in the Yukon River basin: the number of spawners often account 

for 25 to 30 percent of the Yukon River fall chum salmon run (JTC 2012, Melegari 2011). The 

BLM currently manages about 14 miles of the Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River, extending from the 

confluence of the East Fork of the Chandalar, upstream to the mouth of Schilling Creek. 

Mr. Gilbert

The Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River has significant cultural value and is an important cultural 

resource for Alaska Native residents of the Venetie. According to interviews conducted by Mr. 

Gilbert with traditional leaders, this area is heavily used by Alaska Natives. Interviews identified 

specific lookout spots and strategic hunting ground in this area for moose hunting. He describes 

his disinterest in development of the area, as it would conflict with moose hunting. Mr. Gilbert 

provided additional documentation of these interviews, including maps. 

USFWS

The nominated area provides a fisheries resource and other essential resources for the 

communities of Venetie, Arctic Village, and Fort Yukon. Residents use the elevated bluff habitat 

in the nominated area (including Chuttoh Bluffs) from the East Fork Chandalar River to Caro for 

other subsistence resources, specifically moose and furbearers. 

The Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River contributes 2 to 4 percent of the statewide run of Yukon River 

Chinook salmon, and the nominated area is essential spawning/migrating habitat. The Teedriinjik

(Chandalar) River contributes one-third of the entire Yukon River fall chum run, and the

nominated area is essential spawning/migrating habitat. The physical attributes of the nominated 

area (water upwelling feature) contribute to significant fisheries. Significant fall chum and 

Chinook salmon fishery habitats in the nominated area have regional and statewide food 

availability implications for all Yukon River drainage users. Fishery habitats in the nominated 

area are unique and of special worth due to the high fisheries production, with special emphasis 

on fall chum salmon. Recent research indicates that upwelling waters, water quality, and channel 

morphology are likely responsible for unique fall chum and Chinook salmon habitat features.

These fragile fishery habitats are sensitive to upstream impacts that may affect water quality and 

quantity. 

Area nominated: The total nominated area encompasses 295,000 acres. See Figure 6, Existing 

and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – South Dalton, and Figure 7, ACECs found to Meet the 

Relevance and Importance Criteria – South Dalton.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 57

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian, cultural

Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

spawning in the Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River nomination are rare to 

the planning area. They encompass soil, water, riparian, and wetland 

resources. They support a unique incubation, rearing, and overwintering 

habitat essential for maintaining chum and Chinook salmon diversity in the 

planning area and Alaska as a whole. 

Important Yes While soil resources in the Upper (Chandalar) River nomination are 

generally pristine and undisturbed and would be considered unique on a 

national scale, they are not unique in the planning area or region. However, 

permafrost underlies much of the Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River 

nomination. These soils are highly susceptible to erosion or other soil 

movement caused by disturbance of the ground cover and subsequent 

thawing of permafrost. In addition, the unique and fragile soils around the 

upwelling and downwelling areas associated with chum and Chinook 

salmon spawning control the hydrology of the salmon spawning areas. Any 

disturbance of these soils would affect the spawning area’s flow regime and 

would negatively affect salmon egg survival.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the nominated Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River 

nomination is excellent and would be considered unique on a national scale, 

it is not unique in the planning area or region. However, the upwelling and 

downwelling areas associated with chum and Chinook salmon spawning 

areas provide water for incubation and rearing of salmon and are unique in

the planning area and Alaska. Maintaining water quality and temperature 

and adequate streamflows in these spawning areas is crucial for the 

incubation of salmon eggs and maintaining crucial overwintering habitat. 

Adhering to the mandates of the Clean Water Act is a national priority. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG’s Freshwater Fish Inventory database16 lists arctic grayling, 

burbot, round whitefish, slimy sculpin, longnose sucker, and northern pike 

in the Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River drainage, in the vicinity of the 

nominated ACEC. The Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning,

Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes – Interior Region, Effective 

June 1, 2014 lists Chinook and chum salmon as using the Teedriinjik

(Chandalar) River for spawning habitat. The status of riparian resources has 

not been documented; however, due to lack of disturbance in the current 

ACEC, riparian resources are expected to be pristine and fully functional.

Important Yes These waters provide crucial spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook and 

chum salmon. Recent research indicates that upwelling waters, water 

quality, and channel morphology are likely responsible for unique fall chum 

and Chinook salmon habitat features. Salmon produced in this nominated 

ACEC contribute to the availability and abundance of subsistence fish 

 

16 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 58

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River

Upper Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River

harvested in the lower Teedriinjik (Chandalar) and Yukon Rivers. In 

addition, these fish play a small but important role in the overall genetic 

health of salmon produced in the Yukon Basin. 

Riparian resources are integral to the overall condition and quality of this 

important aquatic habitat. This is due to their performance of ecological 

functions, which define sediment transport processes, biochemical and 

nutrient cycling, and food web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, 

when viewed independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of 

the BLM-managed lands in the planning area, which could be considered 

somewhat rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a 

disproportionate number of biological and physical functions on a unit area 

basis. Because of this, protection is warranted in order to satisfy national 

priorities related to water quality, land health, floodplain function, and 

biodiversity maintenance.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No While this location may play an important role in local subsistence, there 

are few known cultural resources. The presence of sacred sites or potential 

Traditional Cultural Properties must be considered; however, it is not likely 

that an entire drainage would be considered a Traditional Cultural Property 

or sacred site. These are typically discrete landforms or specific locations 

relating to traditional religious practices or significant events in the 

traditional belief system, such as places of cultural origin. (Cultural 

significance should not be confused with subsistence importance because

subsistence use is accounted for under a unique set of laws and regulations.)

Important No There are no identified cultural resources in this area that meet the criteria 

for inclusion on the NRHP. 

3.3.18 Alatna River

Background: During the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC 

nomination from the USFWS for Alatna River. 

Nominator: USFWS (Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office) 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The USFWS has provided rationale 

indicating that the nominated ACEC contains crucial spawning habitats for all five whitefish 

species in the Upper Koyukuk River drainage: sheefish (inconnu), broad whitefish, humpback 

whitefish, least cisco, and round whitefish. Additionally, these species are primary subsistence 

food for the residents of all the villages in the Koyukuk River drainage. 

The nominated area of the Alatna River is prime spawning habitat, which supports the main 

subsistence fishery resources for villagers in the upper Koyukuk River drainage area. Whitefish 

species make up more than 85 percent of the non-salmon fish harvests in the entire drainage; the 

nominated area is essential spawning habitat for this fishery.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 59

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Alatna River

The nominated area is the only documented location in the upper Koyukuk River drainage where 

sheefish (iconnu) and broad whitefish spawn. Additionally, this is the only spawning reach on 

BLM-managed lands in the entire upper Koyukuk River drainage that supports all five whitefish 

species. 

The USFWS suggests implementing management measures that would maintain the current 

habitat conditions, which appear to be suitable to meet fishery resource needs. Should land use 

activities change in the future, resource protection strategies should be implemented, including

prohibiting in-stream activities that could impact the fisheries and establishing significant riparian 

buffers of 100 feet or more. Because the whitefish that spawn in this portion of the Alatna River 

are a shared resource with the Kanuti NWR, the BLM could consider working directly with the 

refuge to establish appropriate resource management measures. 

Area nominated: As described by the USFWS, the nominated area is the segment of the Alatna 

River in Township 16 North, Range 25, East Kateel River Meridian Sections 19, 20, 28, 29, 30, 

and 33. The nominated Alatna River ACEC is 5,500 acres. See Figure 8, Existing and Nominated 

ACECs/RNAs – Indian River, and Figure 9, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and 

Importance Criteria – Indian River.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian 

Alatna River

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The hydrologic system in areas associated with whitefish spawning in the 

Alatna River nomination encompass soil, water, riparian, and wetland 

resources. These are rare in the planning area and support a unique 

incubation, rearing, and overwintering habitat essential for maintaining 

whitefish species diversity in the planning area and Alaska. 

Important Yes While soil resources in the Alatna River nomination are generally pristine 

and undisturbed and would be considered unique on a national scale, they 

are not unique in the planning area or region. However, permafrost 

underlies much of the Alatna River nomination. These soils are highly 

susceptible to erosion or other soil movement caused by disturbance of the 

ground cover and subsequent thawing of permafrost. In addition, the soils 

around whitefish spawning areas in the nomination are unique and fragile. 

Any disturbance would affect the spawning area’s flow regime and would

negatively affect whitefish egg survival. 

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the nominated Alatna River is excellent and would 

be considered unique on a national scale, it is not unique in the planning 

area or region. The hydrologic system associated with whitefish spawning 

areas, which provide water for whitefish incubation and rearing, are unique 

in the planning area and Alaska. Maintaining water quality and temperature 

and adequate streamflows in these spawning areas is crucial in the 

incubation of whitefish eggs. Adhering to the mandates of the Clean Water 

Act is a national priority. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 60

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Alatna River

Alatna River

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG’s Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, 

Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes – Interior Region, Effective 

June 1, 2014 lists Chinook and chum salmon as using the Alatna River at 

the nominated ACEC site for spawning; coho salmon are also listed at this 

location. The USFWS nomination indicates that the nominated ACEC 

contains crucial spawning habitat for five whitefish species—sheefish

(iconnu), broad whitefish, humpback whitefish, least cisco, round

whitefish—in the Upper Koyukuk River drainage. The status of riparian 

resources has not been documented; however, due to minimal disturbance in 

the nominated ACEC, riparian resources are expected to be fully functional.

Important Yes The nominated ACEC encompasses the only spawning reach on BLMmanaged lands in the entire upper Koyukuk River drainage that supports all 

five whitefish species. This area is also the only documented location in the 

upper Koyukuk River drainage where sheefish (inconnu) and broad 

whitefish spawn.

Riparian resources’ ecological functions are integral to the overall condition 

and quality of this important aquatic habitat. This is because they define 

sediment transport processes, biochemical and nutrient cycling, and food 

web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, when viewed 

independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of the BLMmanaged lands in the planning area, which could be considered somewhat 

rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a disproportionate 

number of biological and physical functions on a unit area basis. Because of 

this, protection is warranted in order to satisfy national priorities related to 

water quality, land health, floodplain function, and biodiversity 

maintenance.

3.3.19 Indian River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Background: The Indian River ACEC was designated in 1986 through the ROD for the CYRMP 

(BLM 1986). In 2014, through the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM proposed 

expanding the Indian River ACEC to include 18,000 additional acres. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The Indian River ACEC and expansion was

reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and its unique characteristics below. 

In 1986, after recognizing that the Indian River supported a substantial number of chum salmon 

and a smaller number of Chinook salmon, the BLM designated the upper portion of the Indian 

River watershed as an ACEC (BLM 1986). Recent aerial escapement surveys conducted in 2011 

and 2012 documented 3,979 and 24,833 summer chum in the Indian River (ADFG aerial survey 

database). Numbers of adult Chinook salmon observed during aerial surveys of the river have 

been as follows: 38 (Barton 1984), 93 (Barton 1984), 5 (BLM 1993 unpublished data), and 12 

(ADFG 2012 aerial survey database).
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 61

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Indian River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Following a cursory inventory of the ACEC in 1993, it was determined that a substantial number 

of summer chum salmon spawned in the Indian River downstream of the lower most ACEC 

boundary. It is estimated that no more than 25% of the chum salmon spawning that takes place 

within the drainage occurs within the existing ACEC boundary (Kretsinger and Will 1995). As a 

means to protect the important salmon spawning habitat found within the drainage, BLM 

proposes to expand the boundary of the existing ACEC to include approximately ten additional 

miles of the lower Indian River.

Area nominated: The current Indian River ACEC is 158,000 acres17. The expansion of this 

ACEC will add 18,000 acres, for a total of 176,000 acres. See Figure 8, Existing and Nominated 

ACECs/RNAs – Indian River, and Figure 9, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and 

Importance Criteria – Indian River.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian

Indian River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

spawning, encompassing soil, water, riparian, and wetland resources, are 

rare to the planning area. It supports a unique incubation, rearing, and 

overwintering habitat essential for maintaining chum and Chinook salmon 

diversity in the planning area and Alaska. 

Important Yes While soil resources in the Indian River ACEC are generally pristine and 

undisturbed and would be considered unique on a national scale, they are 

not unique in the planning area or region. However, permafrost underlies 

much of the Indian River ACEC. These soils are highly susceptible to 

erosion or other soil movement caused by disturbance of the ground cover 

and subsequent thawing of permafrost. In addition, the unique and fragile 

soils around the upwelling and downwelling areas associated with chum 

and Chinook salmon spawning control the hydrology of the salmon 

spawning areas. Any disturbance of these soils would affect the spawning 

area’s flow regime and would negatively affect salmon egg survival.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the nominated Indian River ACEC is excellent and 

would be considered unique on a national scale, it is not unique in the 

planning area or region. However, the upwelling and downwelling areas 

associated with chum and Chinook salmon spawning areas provide water 

for incubation and rearing of salmon; these areas are unique in the planning 

area and Alaska. Maintaining water quality and temperature and adequate 

streamflows in these spawning areas is crucial in the incubation of salmon 

eggs and maintaining crucial overwintering habitat. Adhering to the 

mandates of the Clean Water Act is a national priority. 

 

17 The 1986 CYRMP identified approximately 155,390 acres as the ACEC. The acreage discrepancy is due to 

improved mapping and not a difference in the area intended to be designated as an ACEC. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 62

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Indian River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Indian River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG’s Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, or 

Migration of Anadromous Fishes – Interior Region, Effective June 1, 2014

lists Chinook and chum salmon as using the Indian River for spawning 

habitat and Chinook salmon using this river as rearing habitat. The status of 

riparian resources has not been documented. However, due to minimal 

disturbance in the nominated ACEC, riparian resources are expected to be 

fully functional.

Important Yes The Indian River provides high quality spawning habitat for chum salmon, 

and to a more limited extent, Chinook salmon. Salmon produced in this 

nominated ACEC contribute to the availability and abundance of 

subsistence fish resources harvested in the lower Koyukuk and Yukon 

Rivers. In addition, these fish play a small but important role in the overall 

genetic health of salmon produced within the Yukon Basin.

Riparian resources’ ecological functions are integral to the overall condition 

and quality of this important aquatic habitat. This is because they define 

sediment transport processes, biochemical and nutrient cycling, and food 

web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, when viewed 

independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of the BLMmanaged lands in the planning area, which could be considered somewhat 

rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a disproportionate 

number of biological and physical functions on a unit area basis. Because of 

this, protection is warranted in order to satisfy national priorities related to 

water quality, land health, floodplain function, and biodiversity 

maintenance.

3.3.20 Koyukuk River Tributaries

Background: During the 2014 scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC 

nomination from the Koyukuk Tribal Council for the watersheds of the Koyukuk River and its 

tributaries. PLOs 5179 and 5173 close the river and tributaries to mineral entry and mineral 

leasing. 

Nominator: The Koyukuk Tribal Council

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The following rationale has been provided 

by the Koyukuk Tribal Council in support of the ACEC nomination for the Koyukuk River and 

its tributaries.

This area holds significant historical and cultural value to the Koyukukon People. Its fish and 

wildlife species are important for subsistence use. The ecological process of this region support 

subsistence and tribal traditions. BLM mining and natural hazards due to climate change pose 

potential threats to this area. 

Area nominated: Watersheds of the Koyukuk River tributaries, including portions of

Baathbakdizuni Creek, Hughes Creek, Indian River, Pocahontas Creek, Raven Creek, Atla Creek,
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 63

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations 

Koyukuk River Tributaries

Hogatzakhatak River, and unnamed tributaries. The nominated area is 174,000 acres. See Figure 

8, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Indian River, Figure 10, Existing and Nominated 

ACECs/RNAs – Hogatza, and Figure 16, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Lower 

Yukon.

Values nominated: Fish/riparian, wildlife, cultural

Koyukuk River Tributaries

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed in the 

Indian River ACEC and expansion and Alatna River nomination. See 

the evaluation for these areas.

Important No The area that satisfies the importance criteria is encompassed in the 

Indian River ACEC and expansion and Alatna River nomination. See 

the evaluation for these areas.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No Not enough information provided by the nominator and no data for 

relevant wildlife values.

Important No Not enough information provided by the nominator and no data for 

important wildlife values.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No While this location may play an important role in local subsistence, 

there are no known cultural resources in the Hogatzakhatak Creek

River drainage. Nearby known sites are attributable to mining in the 

Hogatza River drainage. The presence of sacred sites or potential 

Traditional Cultural Properties must be considered. However, it is 

unlikely that an entire drainage would be considered a Traditional 

Cultural Property or sacred site, which are typically discrete 

landforms or specific locations relating to traditional religious 

practices or significant events in the traditional belief system, such as 

places of cultural origin. Cultural significance should not be confused 

with subsistence importance; this is because subsistence use is 

accounted for under a unique set of laws and regulations.

Important No There are no known sites in the nominated area that meet the criteria 

for inclusion on the NRHP. 

3.3.21 Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA

Background: The Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA was designated in 1986 through the ROD for 

the CYRMP (BLM 1986). 

All lands in the RNA are State selected but are low priority. The Lake Todatonten Special 

Management Area and the Lake Todatonten Pingos and Summit RNAs are geographically close 

to one another but do not overlap. However, the Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA does border the 

special management area on the south side for 0.5 mile. 

Nominator: BLM 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 64

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA was

reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC and RNA designation and the unique characteristics

below. 

As stated in the 1983 Central Yukon Management Situation Analysis, the Lake Todatonten 

Pingos RNA was designated because of the unique and valuable features and characteristics

below. This RNA was reevaluated using the rationale used in the original RNA proposal.

Elevations of the Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA range from approximately 180 meters (590 feet) 

along the stream flowing north for approximately another mile into Lake Todatonten, to over 396

meters (1,300 feet) on the summit of the watershed west of the pingos. The longest pingo in the 

southeast quarter of Section 19 is approximately 80 meters (263 feet) long on the north-south axis 

and approximately 55 meters (180 feet) on the east-west axis. This pingo was just over 13 meters

(43 feet) tall from its base. 

The second pingo in this RNA had an irregularly collapsing summit, with a half-cratered rim. No 

water was trapped in the summit crater because there was not an entire unbreached basin. This 

second half-cratered pingo is nearly 70 meters (230 feet) long along the north-south axis and 70 

meters (230 feet) on the east-west axis. This pingo is approximately 9 meters (30 feet) tall.

The vegetation on the longer pingo is a black spruce forest and woodland on the north-facing 

slope, mixed open birch forest on the east and west aspects, and a few large white spruce trees on 

the south-facing upper slope. Other species, especially on the lower slopes of this pingo, are

Vaccinium vitis-idea, Ledum palustre var. decumbens, Spirea beauvardiana, Rubus 

chamaemorus, Geocaulon lividum, Oxycoccus microcarpus, and Pedicularis ssp. This pingo is

marked around its base by a concentric slight depression, accentuated by the luxuriant growth of 

lichens, especially Cladina stelaria, and other Cladina and Cladonia species. The half-cratered 

pingo has a steeper south slope, with large, old-growth white spruce on it. The steepest part of the 

slope is nearly 30 degrees and is made up of loose gravel and sand. The depth to frozen sediment 

was at least 1.5 meters (4.8 feet) in late June 1983.

This RNA was originally recommended because it contains the hydrologic recharge area that is 

presumably feeding the pingo system. Any disruption of this hydrologic system would probably 

severely disrupt or cause premature collapse of the pingos systems in the nominated RNA.

Area nominated: The current Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA is 660 acres. See Figure 8, Existing 

and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Indian River, and Figure 9, ACECs found to Meet the 

Relevance and Importance Criteria – Indian River.

Values nominated: Soil, water, vegetation, geology

Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes As noted in the original designation, the Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA 

has a system of soil and hydrologic processes associated with the 

system of pingos. This system is rare to the planning area and is 

sensitive to change. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 65

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA

Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA

Important Yes Soil and water resources in the Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA are 

generally pristine and undisturbed. The soil and water characteristics 

that create the system of pingos are rare to the planning area and are 

highly susceptible to erosion or other soil movement caused by 

disturbance of the ground cover. No national priority concerns are 

known for this area. 

RNA Characteristics Yes The soil and water characteristics in the Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA 

are unusual to the planning area.

RNA Size No The nature of pingo system features is that they are small. However, if 

multiple pingo systems (South Todatonten Summit RNA) were

incorporated into the RNA, they would be of adequate size for 

scientific study. 

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes See Soil above. Adhering to the mandates of the Clean Water Act is a 

national priority.

RNA Characteristics Yes See Soil above.

RNA Size No See Soil above.

Vegetation Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area would meet the relevance criteria because the pingos and 

their associated vegetation and habitat represent a natural system that 

is sensitive and rare.

Important Yes The pingo-related biological communities are considered 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, and vulnerable. This is because 

pingos are permafrost features that can be altered by changes in 

climate. The pingo geography is unique in that it creates topographic 

relief on an otherwise relatively flat landscape and therefore islands 

with specialized biological communities that depend on slope and 

aspect.

RNA Characteristics Yes Forested pingos are unique landforms and community types and 

include unusual plant assemblages.

RNA Size No The nature of pingo system features is that they are small. However, if 

multiple pingo systems (South Todatonten Summit RNA) were

incorporated into the RNA, they would be of adequate size for 

scientific study. 

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The pingos are of geologic interest. 

Important No Pingos are always changing, and there is no record of their continued 

existence in this RNA. It is quite possible that this RNA is no longer 

needed for geologic reasons.

RNA Characteristics Yes Pingos are common to arctic and subarctic environments throughout 

the Northern Hemisphere.

RNA Size NA Not necessary for geology.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 66

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Mentanontli River/Lake Todatonten

3.3.22 Mentanontli River/Lake Todatonten 

Background: During the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC 

nomination from the USFWS for Mentanontli River/Lake Todatonten. The nominated ACEC 

overlaps the Lake Todatonten Special Area Management. 

Nominator: USFWS (Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office) 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The USFWS has provided rationale 

indicating that the nominated ACEC contains a summer feeding ground and migratory habitat for 

humpback whitefish and waterfowl. Additionally, this nomination provides information 

indicating that this area holds cultural value for subsistence use. 

The nominated Mentanontli River ACEC overlaps with the Lake Todatonten Special 

Management Area. This designated area provides a rich habitat for wildlife and waterfowl and is 

used primarily for subsistence hunting by residents of local villages. 

The Mentanontli River is a distinct migration route from lake habitat (Lake Todatonten), where 

fish feed in spring and summer, to riverine habitats in the fall throughout the Upper Koyukuk 

River drainage. 

Lake Todatonten provides a crucial feeding area for humpback whitefish, an important 

subsistence species in the upper Koyukuk River drainage. Congress designated the lake as a 

Special Management Area due to its unusually rich habitat for wildlife and waterfowl. The 

Mentanontli River is the only fish migratory corridor to Lake Todatonten. 

Research on humpback whitefish in the Koyukuk River drainage indicates that fish exhibit 

feeding site fidelity and very few individuals will search for a new feeding habitat once they have 

found one. Therefore, the BLM should implement management measures that would maintain the 

current habitat conditions at Lake Todatonten (e.g., water quality, quantity, and fish passage).

Should land use activities change in the future, the BLM should implement resource protection 

strategies, such as prohibiting in-stream activities that could impact the fisheries, establishing 

significant (100 feet or more) riparian buffers, and managing access. 

There are resources that are shared with the Kanuti NWR, so the BLM should consider working 

directly with the refuge. This cooperation would establish appropriate resource management 

measures for the whitefish that travel in this migratory corridor and feed in the lake. It also would 

established management for migratory birds that may use the lake for breeding, nesting, and 

molting.

Area nominated: As described in the USFWS ACEC nomination form, the Mentanontli River is 

in Township 9 North Range 27, East Kateel River Meridian Sections 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, 22,

25, 26, 27, and 28; Township 10 North, Range 27, East Kateel River Meridian Sections 3, 10, 15, 

21, 22, 28, and 33; Township 11 North, Range 27, East Kateel River Meridian Sections 13, 23,

24, 26, 34, and 35; and Township 18 North, Range 25, West Kateel River Meridian, Sections 30

and 31. The parcel encompasses 15,000 acres, and the Lake Todatonten parcel encompasses 

7,000 acres. The Mentanontli River/Lake Todatonten nomination is 22,000 total acres. See 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 67

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Mentanontli River/Lake Todatonten

Figure 8, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Indian River, and Figure 9, ACECs found to 

Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Indian River.

Values nominated: Fish/riparian, wildlife

Mentanontli River/Lake Todatonten

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes As described in the nomination rationale, the Mentanontli River is a known 

humpback whitefish migration route. Humpback whitefish have been 

documented moving between Lake Todatonten and riverine habitats in the 

upper Koyukuk River drainage. The status of riparian resources has not 

been documented, but, due to lack of disturbance in the nominated ACEC, 

riparian resources are expected to be pristine and fully functional.

Important Yes Key areas for fish are those habitats that support specific life stages and 

provide connectivity. This is because fish move between habitat types as 

part of their life cycle. The Mentanontli River and Lake Todatonten provide 

access and crucial summer feeding habitat for humpback whitefish. Data 

from Brown (2009) suggests that humpback whitefish in the upper 

Koyukuk River drainage use local rather than distant habitats once they 

return to spawn. Furthermore, Brown’s research indicates that humpback 

whitefish will continue to return to the same feeding habitat once they have 

found a suitable location. Radio tagging data demonstrates that Lake 

Todatonten is such a location because it provides a crucial spring and 

summer feeding area for humpback whitefish. The Mentanontli River 

provides the only available migration route to this lake. 

Riparian resources’ ecological functions are integral to the overall condition 

and quality of this important aquatic habitat. This is because they define 

sediment transport processes, biochemical and nutrient cycling, and food 

web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, when viewed 

independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of the BLMmanaged lands in the planning area, which could be considered somewhat 

rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a disproportionate 

number of biological and physical functions on a unit area basis. Because of 

this, protection is warranted in order to satisfy national priorities related to 

water quality, land health, floodplain function, and biodiversity 

maintenance.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No The area was notable for its importance as a molting and nesting site for 

white-fronted geese in the 1990s; however, waterfowl surveys conducted 

since 2000 have reported no geese or only very small numbers of them.

Important No The area was notable for its importance as a molting and nesting site for 

white-fronted geese in the 1990s; however, waterfowl surveys conducted 

since 2000 have reported no geese or only very small numbers of them.

3.3.23 South Todatonten Summit RNA

Background: The BLM designated the South Todatonten Summit RNA in 1986 through the 

ROD for the CYRMP (BLM 1986). 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 68

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

South Todatonten Summit RNA

All lands in the RNA are State selected but low priority. The Lake Todatonten Special 

Management Area and the Lake Todatonten Pingos and Summit RNAs are geographically close 

to one another but do not overlap. However, the Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA does border the 

special management area on the south side for 0.5 mile. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The South Todatonten Summit RNA was

reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC and RNA designation and the unique characteristics

below. 

As stated in the 1983 Central Yukon Management Situation Analysis, the South Todatonten 

Summit RNA was designated because of its unique and valuable features and characteristics

below. The BLM reevaluated this RNA using the rationale used in the original RNA proposal.

Elevations in the nominated South Todatonten Summit RNA range from approximately 238

meters (780 feet) along the stream leaving the area in the north to 414 meters (1,360 feet) on the 

watershed divide between the Lake Todatonten drainage and the creeks feeding the Melozitna 

River drainage to the south.

The summit crater lake had a distinct growth of floating algae on it in late June 1983. The entire 

upper slope and summit supports a stand of large old-growth white spruce; a few of the larger 

trees have begun to die or their trunks have been broken by windstorms. The interior crater wall 

are steeply sloping, perhaps indicating that collapse is accelerating. 

The boundary configuration allows for the inclusion of the main cratered pingo itself, a very 

small buffer area surrounding the pingo, and the watershed and hydrological recharge area on the 

northwest-facing slope above the pingo. The BLM attempted to avoid the mapped route of the 

Tanana-Allakaket Winter Trail; however, there does appear to be some overlap based on maps, 

which is not currently a serious problem. The use or improvement of the trail in the northeast 

portion of Section 8 is not a prospective problem either because both the boundary of the RNA 

and the location of any improved trail could be adjusted to avoid conflicts.

Area nominated: The current South Todatonten Summit RNA is 660 acres. See Figure 8, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Indian River, and Figure 9, ACECs found to Meet the 

Relevance and Importance Criteria – Indian River.

Values nominated: Soil, water, vegetation, geology

South Todatonten Summit RNA

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes As noted in the original designation, the South Todatonten Summit 

RNA has a system of soil and hydrologic processes associated with the 

system of pingos. This system is rare in the planning area and is

sensitive to change.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 69

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

South Todatonten Summit RNA

South Todatonten Summit RNA

Important Yes Soil and water resources in the South Todatonten Summit RNA are 

generally pristine and undisturbed. The soil and water characteristics 

that create the system of pingos are rare to the planning area and are 

highly susceptible to erosion or other soil movement caused by 

disturbance of the ground cover. Adhering to the mandates of the 

Clean Water Act is a national priority.

RNA Characteristics Yes The soil and water characteristics in the South Todatonten Summit 

RNA are unusual to the planning area.

RNA Size No The nature of pingo system features is that they are small. However, if 

multiple pingo systems (e.g., Lake Todatonten Pingos RNA) were

incorporated into the RNA, they would be of adequate size for 

scientific study.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes See Soil above.

RNA Characteristics Yes See Soil above.

RNA Size No See Soil above.

Vegetation Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area would meet the relevance criteria because the pingos and 

their associated vegetation and habitat represent a natural system that 

is sensitive and rare.

Important Yes The pingo-related biological communities are considered 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, or vulnerable. This is because pingos 

are permafrost features that can be altered by changes in climate. The 

pingo geography is unique in that it creates topographic relief on an 

otherwise relatively flat landscape; therefore, islands with specialized 

biological communities depend on slope and aspect.

RNA Characteristics Yes Forested pingos are unique landforms and community types and

include unusual plant assemblages

RNA Size No The nature of pingo system features is that they are small. However, if 

multiple pingo systems (e.g., South Todatonten Summit RNA) were

incorporated into the RNA, they would be of adequate size for 

scientific study.

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The pingos are of geologic interest.

Important No Pingos are always changing, and there is no record of their continued 

existence in this RNA. It is quite possible that this RNA is no longer 

needed for geologic reasons.

RNA Characteristics Yes Pingos are common to the arctic and subarctic environments 

throughout the Northern Hemisphere.

RNA Size NA Not necessary for geology.

3.3.24 Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC

Background: The Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC was designated in 1986 through the ROD for 

the CYRMP (BLM 1986). The original ACEC encompassed about 42,500 acres. Since 

designation, some of the ACEC has been conveyed to the State of Alaska and Native 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 70

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC

corporations. In 2014, through the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM proposed 

expanding the Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC to include an additional 56,800 acres. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC 

was reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the unique characteristics

described below. 

In 1986, the ROD for the CYRMP designated as an ACEC approximately 41 percent of the 

combined watersheds of Clear Creek and Caribou Creek (tributary to the Hogatza River). The 

purpose of the ACEC was to protect the high value summer chum salmon spawning habitat in the 

two drainages.

In 1994, Kretsinger et al. completed a habitat management plan for the ACEC. Tiering off the 

ROD for the CYRMP, the plan outlined management objectives for the 42,500-acre ACEC. Since 

the approval of the plan, many of the State and Native land selections have been formally 

conveyed and the area making up the original ACEC has been reduced to 5,200 acres. Currently, 

about 11,000 acres of BLM-managed land in the combined watersheds of Clear and Caribou 

Creeks are not included in the existing ACEC. In addition, approximately 2,700 acres of BLMmanaged land in the adjoining High Creek watershed and 37,900 acres in the sub-watershed area 

of the main stem Hogatza River are not in the existing ACEC. These areas all provide important 

habitat to chum salmon. 

From 1995 to 2007, salmon escapement was monitored in Clear Creek. The 12-year average 

chum salmon escapement for Clear Creek (from 1995 to 2007, excluding 1998) was 35,418 fish 

(Headlee 1996, VanHatten 1997 and 1998, Esse and Kretsinger 2009, BLM unpublished data). 

Escapement monitoring in Caribou Creek from 2004 to 2007 showed that the four-year average 

chum salmon escapement to be 17,929 fish (BLM unpublished data). An escapement survey by 

air of High Creek in July 1996 reported 789 chum salmon. In addition to chum salmon, Clear and 

Caribou Creeks are known to support both coho and Chinook salmon. Because of the high value 

salmon habitat in the combined drainages of Clear, Caribou, and High Creeks, the BLM 

recommends that the current boundary of the Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC be adjusted to 

include BLM-managed lands within Clear Creek and Caribou Creek, and the adjoining BLMmanaged land in High Creek and the South Hogatza sub-watershed. 

Area nominated: The current Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC is 5,200 acres. The BLM 

proposes expanding it by 56,800 acres to include BLM-managed lands Clear Creek, Caribou 

Creek, and High Creek. Total acreage for the adjusted ACEC boundary would be 62,000 acres. 

Most of the expansion is a mixture of unencumbered BLM-managed land and Native and State

selections. See Figure 10, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Hogatza, and Figure 11, 

ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Hogatza.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 71

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC

Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

spawning in Clear, Caribou, and High Creeks in the ACEC are rare in the 

planning area. They encompass soil, water, riparian, and wetland resources 

and support a unique incubation, rearing, and overwintering habitat. This is

essential for maintaining chum, coho, and Chinook salmon diversity in the 

planning area and Alaska.

Important Yes Soil resources in the Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC are generally pristine 

and undisturbed condition and would be considered unique on a national 

scale; even so, they are not unique in the planning area or region. However, 

permafrost underlies much of the Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC. These 

soils are highly susceptible to erosion or other soil movement caused by 

disturbance of the ground cover and subsequent thawing of permafrost. In 

addition, the unique and fragile soils around the upwelling and downwelling 

areas associated with chum and Chinook salmon spawning control the 

hydrology of the salmon spawning areas. Any disturbance of these soils 

would affect the spawning area’s flow regime and would negatively affect 

salmon egg survival.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the nominated Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC is 

excellent and would be considered unique on a national scale, it is not 

unique in the planning area or region. However, the upwelling and 

downwelling areas in chum and Chinook salmon spawning areas, which 

provide water for incubation and rearing, are unique in the planning area 

and Alaska. Maintaining water quality and temperature and adequate 

streamflows in these spawning areas is crucial in the incubation of salmon 

eggs and maintaining crucial overwintering habitat. Adhering to the 

mandates of the Clean Water Act is a national priority. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated ACEC provides crucial habitat to three species of Pacific 

salmon (coho, chum, and Chinook), with occasional occurrences of a fourth 

species, sockeye salmon (Esse and Kretsinger 2007, ADFG 2014). Other 

species documented in the area are arctic grayling, northern pike, longnose 

sucker, slimy sculpin, burbot, Dolly Varden, arctic lamprey, and round and 

broad whitefish. Riparian resources, which dictate the quality, connectivity, 

and maintenance of the aquatic habitat in the area, are in proper functioning 

condition. 

Important Yes The combination of hydrologic and geologic formative processes in the area 

have created a unique and highly productive aquatic environment, which

provides crucial spawning and rearing habitat to a variety of salmon and 

other species of fish. Of the four species of salmon that inhabit the area, 

chum salmon are the most numerous. The combined average annual 

escapements for chum salmon in Clear and Caribou Creeks are in excess of 

50,000 fish (see data presented previously in the Rational for nomination 

provided by the nominator). Salmon produced in this nominated ACEC 

contribute to the availability and abundance of subsistence fish resources 

harvested in the lower Koyukuk and Yukon Rivers. In addition, these fish 

play a small but important role in the overall genetic health of salmon 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 72

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC

Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC

produced in the Yukon Basin. Lastly, the chum salmon spawning in the 

Clear Creek drainage are on the watch list for BLM special status species. 

This is based on the vulnerability of their spawning habitat to impacts from 

upstream mining.

Riparian resources, through their performance of ecological functions, are 

integral to the overall condition and quality of this important aquatic 

habitat. This is because they define sediment transport processes, 

biochemical and nutrient cycling, and food web maintenance. In addition, 

riparian resources, when viewed independently of other resources, 

constitute only 3 percent of the BLM-managed lands in the planning area, 

which could be considered somewhat rare on a regional basis. Riparian 

resources perform a disproportionate number of biological and physical 

functions on a unit area basis. Because of this, protection is warranted in 

order to satisfy national priorities related to water quality, land health, 

floodplain function, and biodiversity maintenance.

3.3.25 Klikhtentotzna Creek

Background: During scoping for the CYRMP, the BLM proposed designation of an ACEC for 

Kilkhtentotzna Creek, a tributary to Hogatza River. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: Klikhtentotzna Creek was evaluated 

against the rationale provided by the BLM, below. 

Klikhtentotzna Creek is a tributary to the upper Hogatza River and is being nominated for its high 

value summer chum salmon spawning habitat. Based on a BLM escapement survey conducted by 

air in 1996, the number of summer chum salmon spawning in Klikhtentotzna Creek is on par with 

that of Clear and Caribou Creeks (Hogatza River Tributaries ACEC), two streams recognized as 

providing high value spawning habitat to summer chum salmon habitat within the Koyukuk River 

Basin (Barton 1984, Holder and Senecal-Albrecht 1998). During the survey of Klikhtentotzna 

Creek on July 12, 1996, observers documented 11,690 chum salmon. In comparison, a survey of 

Clear and Caribou Creeks a day later documented 16,620 and 10,470 chum salmon. Land status is 

unencumbered BLM-managed land. 

Area nominated: The nominated Klikhtentotzna Creek ACEC is 108,000 acres. See Figure 10, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Hogatza, and Figure 11, ACECs found to Meet the 

Relevance and Importance Criteria – Hogatza.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 73

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Klikhtentotzna Creek

Klikhtentotzna Creek

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

spawning, in the Klikhtentotzna Creek nomination, encompassing soil, 

water, riparian, and wetland resources, are rare to the planning area. It

supports a unique incubation, rearing, and overwintering habitat essential 

for maintaining chum salmon diversity in the planning area and Alaska. 

Important Yes While soil resources in the Klikhtentotzna Creek nomination are generally 

pristine and undisturbed and would be considered unique on a national 

scale, they are not unique in the planning area or region. However, 

permafrost underlies much of the Klikhtentotzna Creek nomination. These 

soils are highly susceptible to erosion or other soil movement caused by 

disturbance of the ground cover and subsequent thawing of permafrost. In 

addition, the unique and fragile soils around the upwelling and downwelling 

areas associated with chum salmon spawning control the hydrology of the 

salmon spawning areas. Any disturbance of these soils would affect the 

spawning area’s flow regime and would negatively affect salmon egg 

survival.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the nominated Klikhtentotzna Creek nomination is 

excellent and would be considered unique on a national scale, it is not 

unique in the planning area or region. The upwelling and downwelling areas 

associated with chum salmon spawning areas, which provide water for 

incubation and rearing, are unique in the planning area and Alaska. 

Maintaining water quality and temperature and adequate streamflows in 

these spawning areas is crucial in the incubation of salmon eggs and 

maintaining crucial overwintering habitat. Adhering to the mandates of the 

Clean Water Act is a national priority. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated ACEC area provides crucial spawning habitat to chum 

salmon. Riparian resources, which dictate the quality, connectivity, and 

maintenance of the aquatic habitat in the area, are in proper functioning 

condition. 

Important Yes As stated above, in the rationale for the nomination, the BLM conducted an

escapement survey by air in 1996 and found thousands of chum salmon 

spawning in Klikhtentotzna Creek. Salmon produced in this nominated 

ACEC contribute to the availability and abundance of subsistence fish 

resources harvested in the lower Koyukuk and Yukon Rivers. In addition, 

these fish play a small but important role in the overall genetic health of 

salmon produced in the Yukon Basin. 

Riparian resources’ ecological functions are integral to the overall condition 

and quality of this important aquatic habitat. This is because they define 

sediment transport processes, biochemical and nutrient cycling, and food 

web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, when viewed 

independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of the BLMmanaged lands in the planning area, which could be considered somewhat 

rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a disproportionate 

number of biological and physical functions on a unit area basis. Because of 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 74

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Klikhtentotzna Creek

Klikhtentotzna Creek

this, protection is warranted in order to satisfy national priorities related to 

water quality, land health, floodplain function, and biodiversity 

maintenance.

3.3.26 Pah River

Background: During the 2014 scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC 

nomination for the Pah River from the Ambler Native Village.

Nominator: Ambler Native Village

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominator: The Ambler Native Village has 

nominated the Pah River as an ACEC because of its significant cultural value and fish and 

wildlife resources and provides the following rationale for the nomination.

This region has a long-standing cultural history of use by the Upper Kobuk River communities, 

the Kuuvanmiut, for subsistence fishing and hunting. The Pah River is an important spawning 

area for Kobuk River sheefish (iconnu) and chum salmon. The sheefish (iconnu) that use the Pah 

River are believed to be a genetically unique population. Caribou from the Western Arctic 

Caribou Herd migrate through this region annually. There is a documented large waterfowl 

population. This area is a unique wetlands ecosystem, supporting fish spawning, waterfowl 

habitat, caribou migration, and cultural subsistence activities. It has been the gathering place for 

Kuuvanmiut over thousands of years. In the Arctic and Subarctic, massive areas of undisturbed 

wetlands are by nature sensitive, due to the extreme length of time that natural processes take, 

particularly to rebound from any damage. The Pah River watershed should be protected from 

adverse impacts that would damage the region, particularly during this time of global climate 

change. Much of this region is characterized by sensitive Arctic and Subarctic wetlands that 

would be severely damaged if certain activities were permitted, such as mining, industrial road 

access, and sport hunting.

Area nominated: The nominated area is the watershed of the Pah River headwaters. The Pah 

River is one of the major tributaries of the Kobuk River. This ACEC would be bounded by the 

Central Yukon Planning Area/Northwest Arctic Borough and the Continental Divide and would 

include 50,600 acres of land. Land status is unencumbered BLM-managed land. See Figure 10, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Hogatza.

Values nominated: Fish/riparian, wildlife, cultural

Pah River

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The BLM has received reports of northern pike and arctic grayling being 

caught in the nominated ACEC by residents living near the Pah River. 

Chum salmon and whitefish species are noted in the State of Alaska’s 

Anadromous Waters Catalog in the lower Pah River. Other data is lacking

to support the presence of fish species in the Pah River headwaters. The 

ADFG does not list any fish inventory reports in the Alaska Freshwater Fish 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 75

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Pah River

Pah River

Inventory for waters in the nominated ACEC. The BLM has not conducted 

fish inventories in the nominated ACEC. The status of riparian resources is 

unknown; however, due to the area’s remote location, riparian resources are 

expected to be pristine and fully functional.

Important No The species of fish and the riparian community that is integral to the 

function of this aquatic habitat are typical of the area, with only locally 

significant qualities.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No Species of terrestrial wildlife that are found in the area occur in a much 

broader area. Although caribou do migrate through that area, the area is 

important but not crucial to their migration and occurs throughout the upper 

Kobuk drainage.

Important No Impacts on wildlife resources in the area would not affect species 

distribution or population dynamics on an ecoregion or statewide level. 

These resources are not rare, irreplaceable, endangered, threatened, or 

necessarily vulnerable to adverse change beyond what all wildlife 

populations and habitats are facing with climate change.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No The Pah River, while significant to the people of the Kobuk, does not 

contain a significant number or density of cultural resources. 

Important No There are no known sites in the Pah River drainage that meet the criteria for 

inclusion on the NRHP. In this region, the Kobuk River is the dominant 

waterway, a source of subsistence resources, and the location of principal

settlements.

3.3.27 Wheeler Creek

Background: During the 2014 scoping process for the CYRMP, ACEC nominations were 

received from the BLM for the Wheeler Creek watershed and from the USFWS 

(Koyukuk/Nowitna NWR) for the Dakli/Wheeler Creek area. The nominated Dakli/Wheeler 

Creek ACEC is encompassed within the BLM’s nomination for the Wheeler Creek ACEC; the 

larger Wheeler Creek ACEC nomination is evaluated here.

Nominators: BLM, USFWS (Koyukuk/Nowitna NWR) 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominators: 

BLM 

Wheeler Creek is a tributary to Dakli River. The ADFG’s aerial escapement data for Wheeler 

Creek indicates that this stream provides high value spawning habitat to summer chum salmon. 

Counts conducted in 1976, 1980, 1983, 1991, and 1995 were 7564, 5544, 8120, 7801, and 15843, 

respectively. The BLM-managed portion of this proposed ACEC is 147,000 acres, which includes 

the watershed area in the planning area and upstream of the Koyukuk NWR.

USFWS

Dakli and Wheeler Creeks provide important spawning and rearing habitat for chum salmon and 

have large numbers of returning adults. The only information available on the creek is aerial 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 76

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Wheeler Creek

survey data, but the data show the creeks are a major producer of chum salmon in the Koyukuk 

River drainage. Aerial survey data can be found at http://sf.adfg.state.ak.us/CommFishR3/Web

site/AYKDBMSWebsite/DataSelection.aspx.

The primary reason for the designation of habitat surrounding Dakli and Wheeler Creeks as an 

ACEC is to protect crucial spawning and rearing habitat for chum salmon. This species is used 

throughout Alaska for subsistence and commercial activities. Specifically, Dakli and Wheeler 

Creek salmon are used in villages from Huslia to the mouth of the Yukon River. This fish 

resource is used extensively in over 17 villages that extend from the mouth of the Yukon River.

Salmon are an important subsistence species throughout the Yukon River watershed. This 

resource is used by many people in villages along the river system, and negative impacts on

spawning and rearing habitats would affect populations beyond a local level. Protecting chum 

salmon spawning and rearing habitat along Dakli and Wheeler Creeks is crucial for the species’ 

longevity.

Congress recognized the importance of salmon by naming the species specifically for 

conservation in the ANILCA. It mandated that salmon’s natural diversity and opportunities for 

subsistence use be maintained. Further, Section 302(5)(B) of the ANILCA ensures water quality 

and quantity in refuges as one of four major purposes for which the refuges were established.

Additionally, the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act identified the “maintenance of 

adequate water quantity and water quality” as one of 10 major principles set forth to conserve and 

protect refuge resources. The USFWS stresses the importance of upholding the refuges to 

maintain water quality and quantity. It highlights the concern that any activities or actions on 

BLM-managed lands next to refuges may compromise the USFWS’s ability to meet these 

mandates.

Management guidelines should be provided to prevent actions that would degrade habitat and

water quality and quantity. The USFWS requests that mining be limited and monitored. Mining 

has a high potential to negatively affect aquatic habitat and communities for long periods, with 

poorly documented restoration success in interior and northern Alaska (Carlson et al. 2000; Karle 

et al. 1998; USKH 2005a, 2005b; Weber 1986.). Resources in these watersheds are sensitive to 

contamination and turbidity and provide essential subsistence requirements for the residents of 

many rural communities. The nominated Dakli/Wheeler Creek ACEC is approximately 25,500

acres. 

Area nominated: The USFWS proposes ACEC designation of the BLM-managed land that 

borders the northern portion of the Koyukuk NWR. The parcel surrounds Dakli and Wheeler 

Creeks and is approximately 50 kilometers (31 miles) northeast of the village of Huslia. The 

BLM proposes designation of the entire Wheeler Creek watershed. The nominated Wheeler 

Creek ACEC is approximately 147,000 acres. See Figure 10, Existing and Nominated 

ACECs/RNAs – Hogatza, and Figure 11, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance 

Criteria – Hogatza.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 77

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Wheeler Creek

Wheeler Creek

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

spawning in the Wheeler Creek nomination, encompassing soil, water, 

riparian, and wetland resources, are rare to the planning area. It supports a 

unique incubation, rearing, and overwintering habitat essential for 

maintaining chum salmon diversity in the planning area and Alaska. 

Important Yes While soil resources in the Wheeler Creek nomination are generally pristine 

and undisturbed and would be considered unique on a national scale, they 

are not unique in the planning area or region. However, permafrost 

underlies much of the Wheeler Creek nomination. These soils are highly 

susceptible to erosion or other soil movement caused by disturbance of the 

ground cover and subsequent thawing of permafrost. In addition, the unique 

and fragile soils around the upwelling and downwelling areas associated 

with chum salmon spawning control the hydrology of the chum salmon 

spawning areas. Any disturbance of these soils would affect the spawning 

area’s flow regime and would negatively affect salmon egg survival.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the Wheeler Creek nomination is excellent and 

would be considered unique on a national scale, it is not unique in the 

planning area or region. The upwelling and downwelling areas associated 

with chum salmon spawning areas that provide water for incubation and 

rearing of salmon are unique in the planning area and Alaska. Maintaining 

water quality and temperature and adequate streamflows in these spawning 

areas is crucial in the incubation of salmon eggs and maintaining crucial

overwintering habitat. Adhering to the mandates of the Clean Water Act is a 

national priority. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Aerial escapement data for Wheeler Creek indicate that this stream provides 

high value spawning habitat for summer chum salmon. Riparian resources 

in the area are in proper functioning condition.

Important Yes Waters draining into Wheeler Creek and the Dakli River provide crucial

spawning and rearing habitat for chum salmon. Those produced in these 

watersheds are used for subsistence and commercial purposes by residents 

of villages, from Huslia to the mouth of the Yukon River. 

Riparian resources’ ecological functions are integral to the overall condition 

and quality of this important aquatic habitat. This is because they define 

sediment transport processes, biochemical and nutrient cycling, and food 

web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, when viewed 

independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of the BLMmanaged lands in the planning area, which could be considered somewhat 

rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a disproportionate 

number of biological and physical functions on a unit area basis. Because of 

this, protection is warranted in order to satisfy national priorities related to 

water quality, land health, floodplain function, and biodiversity 

maintenance.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 78

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA

3.3.28 Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA

Background: The BLM designated the Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA in 1986 through the 

ROD for the CYRMP (BLM 1986). All lands are State-selected, but low priority. PLO 399 

applies. This RNA Includes part of Ishtalitna Creek to allow for water quality comparisons. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: As stated in the Management Situation 

Analysis Central Yukon Planning Area 1983, the Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA was 

designated because of its unique and valuable features and characteristics. This RNA was

reevaluated against ACEC criteria.

The Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs flow into an elongated, nearly stagnant, slough channel pool 

that joins Ishtalitna Creek about 250 meters (820 feet) from the point of emergence. The elevation 

of Ishtalitna Creek next to the hot springs is approximately 335 meters (1,100 feet). The highest 

measured temperature reported for the system is approximately 58 degrees Celsius (136 degrees 

Fahrenheit). 

A steady flow of gas bubbles has been noted in the upper portion of the pool, where a pH

measurement of 8.84 has been reported (Moonman 1982). The pool itself is covered with a thick 

slimy mat of blue-green algae and associated bacterial growth that an iron oxide has formed on. A 

flat marshy area nearly 30 meters (98 feet) wide opens to the east of the pool. The west margin of 

the pool is crowded against a channel bank, which stands 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) above the 

marsh surface. A well-constructed cache, possibly built or repaired in 1981, is found in a white 

spruce forest to the east of the main hot springs pool.

The forest understory is dominated by Mertensia paniculata, Cornus suecica, and Viburnum 

edule and at the open edges of the marsh, Spirea beauvardiana. The marsh itself is dominated by 

the sedge Carex aguatilis, and two other sedges (not yet identified). Parnassia palustris is 

prominent on the wet ground, as are Polemomium acutiflorum, the grass Agrostis scabra, Galium 

trifidum, Trientalis europea, and Moehringia lateriflora. In the open area that is obviously under 

geothermal influence, there are the same raised areas of dry soil. P. acutiflorum is prominent here 

too, along with Erysimum cheiranthoides, Geum macrophyllum, Achillea sibirica, Cerastium 

berringianum, and Epilobium hornmanii. Several of these plant species reported from the

Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs seem, in central Alaska at least, to be restricted to or most common 

at hot springs. 

Area nominated: Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA is currently 1,000 acres. See Figure 12, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Ray Mountains, and Figure 13, ACECs found to Meet 

the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Ray Mountains.

Values nominated: Soil, water, vegetation

Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of soil and hydrologic processes associated with the Ishtalitna 

Creek Hot Springs are rare to the planning area and are sensitive to change. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 79

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA

Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA

Important Yes Soil and water resources in the Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA are 

generally in a pristine and undisturbed condition. The soil and water 

characteristics, which create the Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs, are rare to the 

planning area and are highly susceptible to erosion or other soil movement 

caused by disturbance of the ground cover.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes The soil and water characteristics in the Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA

are unusual to the planning area.

RNA Size No The nature of hot springs is that they are small. However, if multiple hot 

springs (e.g., the McQuesten Creek RNA) were incorporated into the RNA, 

they would be of adequate size for scientific study. 

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes See Soil above. Adhering to the mandates of the Clean Water Act is a 

national priority.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes See Soil above.

RNA Size No See Soil above.

Vegetation Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA meets the relevance criteria for 

vegetation because of the unique assemblages of plants associated with the 

hot springs, as noted in the RNA description. 

Important Yes The Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs RNA meets the importance criteria for 

vegetation because of the unique assemblages of plants associated with the 

hot springs, as noted in the RNA description. 

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes This RNA was identified and should be retained as an RNA because the 

presence of the hot springs is associated with an unusual plant or animal 

association. 

RNA Size Yes Even though the area is relatively small, the area of interest (the hot springs) 

is in a small area that would be encompassed by the current RNA. 

3.3.29 Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers

Background: During the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC 

nomination from the USFWS for the Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers. 

Nominator: USFWS (Kanuti NWR) 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers was nominated 

as an ACEC because of its archaeological, cultural, fish, wildlife, and sensitive/rare natural 

systems (geologic-plant communities).

Historical hunting/fishing/trapping/gathering territory of aboriginal Alaska Natives: the South 

Fork (Koyukuk) Koyukon Athabascan, the Lake Todatonten/Kanuti River band of Koyukon 

Athabascan (Steven Bergman, pers. comm.), and possibly the K'iitł'it Gwich'in.

18 

 

18 http://ankn.uaf.edu/ANCR/Athabascan/AdelinePeterRaboff/Prelim_Study_Western_Gwichin
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 80

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers

Example 1: In a post-fire archaeological survey, Corbett (2006) identified two archaeological 

sites and submitted them to the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. The area of the survey was 

the northern Ray Mountains, primarily within the Kanuti NWR but also on BLM-managed

uplands along the Kanuti-Kilolitna River in the nominated ACEC. This work and more 

widespread historical aboriginal occupancy (see Example 2 below) suggest that uplands in the 

ACEC, particularly those next to streams and rivers, are likely to yield significant densities of 

small archaeological sites (Bill Hedman, BLM Archaeologist, pers. comm.). 

Example 2: In a July 2014 interview, Allakaket Elder Steven Bergman confirmed regular 

seasonal use/occupancy of the nominated Kanuti-Kilolitna River ACEC by his relatives and other 

Alaska Natives as recently as the twentieth century.

The area supports or has supported fish and wildlife species of environmental concern by federal 

or state agencies. See specific examples below.

Example 1: Within the traditional range of the Ray Mountains Caribou Herd, is a small, isolated 

non-migratory herd. 

Example 2: Alaska’s Anadromous Waters Catalog documents the presence of Chinook salmon 

in the Kanuti-Kilolitna River in the ACEC nomination. 

Example 3: The USFWS (Saperstein 1999) and joint USFWS/BLM float trips (Saperstein 2000) 

of the Kanuti-Kilolitna River documented golden eagle occupancy/nesting in the nominated 

ACEC. Other unexplored suitable nesting habitat exists elsewhere in the ACEC. Golden eagle is a

BLM Alaska sensitive species. In addition, these reports indicate that the ACEC supports a 

diversity of other raptors, including northern harrier, merlin, American kestrel, peregrine falcon 

(confirmed nesting), sharp-shinned hawk, great horned owl, and great gray owl.

The nominated ACEC contains parts of the Kilolitna ultramafic body in the Caribou MountainMelozitna ultramafic belt (Patton and Miller 1970). It also supports sensitive or uncommon plants 

and plant communities, based on floristic inventories in nearby areas with similar geology and 

soil profiles. The nominated ACEC contains scenic granite tors. 

Example 1: The Kilolitna ultramafic body “harbors an unusual suite of amphi-Beringian and 

Asian species (some widely disjunct from their nearest locations) in communities suggestive of 

hypothesized cold steppe analogs” (Lipkin 2007), including a BLM-sensitive plant species, 

Koeleria asiatica (oriental junegrass). While Lipkin’s report primarily documents these relict 

plant communities on Kanuti NWR, such flora was found on one site on BLM-managed land in 

the ACEC. Further, the ACEC includes additional unexplored ultramafic sites on BLM-managed

lands next to sites at Kanuti NWR’s southern boundary.

Example 2: ACEC contains scenic granite tors.

The upper reach of the Kanuti River supports numerous resident fish species: arctic grayling 

(Thymallus arcticus), northern pike (Esox lucius), burbot (Lota lota), round whitefish (Prosopium 

cylindraceum), long nose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus)

(Netsch 1975). In the Kanuti NWR, Brown (2006) showed that humpback whitefish (Coregonus 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 81

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers

pidschian), broad whitefish (C. nasus), and least cisco (C. sardinella) are present in the Upper 

Kanuti River, just downstream of the eastern refuge boundary. The Upper Kanuti River is not 

listed as an anadromous stream.

Archaeological/cultural resources: Only a small fraction of the land in the nominated ACEC has 

been subjected to archaeological survey, which was largely focused on upland areas at the Kanuti 

NWR boundary, along the Kilolitna River. Artifacts were found despite very limited sampling, 

and traditional cultural knowledge documents the historic use of the ACEC by Alaska Native 

groups. Given that, it is not unreasonable to suspect that a more widespread and more intensive

archaeological study may yield significant archaeological information, high site densities, and 

additional archaeological sites that are eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. 

Fish/Wildlife Resources (Ray Mountains Caribou Herd): Horne et al. (2014) discuss threats to 

this herd based on its small population, its proximity to Dalton Highway (i.e., easier access), and 

its latitude, meaning that it is more quickly encountered by hunters from the more populated 

south.

Natural system (ultramafic sites): Lipkin (2007) reported that the ultramafic alpine sites on 

Kanuti NWR “contained unusual and apparently undescribed communities that are either rare or 

unknown elsewhere.” Aside from the one BLM ultramafic site that was visited during that survey, 

the flora associated with other ultramafic sites in the ACEC are unknown. The most extensive 

floristic survey of the Ray Mountains (Kessler 1979, in Farquhar and Schubert 1980) occurred 

south and upstream of the nominated ACEC. Other than patchy floristic reconnaissance along the 

Kanuti-Kilolitna River proper (e.g., Lipkin 2007 and Saperstein 2000), the flora of the nominated 

ACEC has been largely undocumented. Significant floristic finds both north (Lipkin, Saperstein) 

and south (Kessler) of the nominated ACEC suggest a possible similar significance in the ACEC. 

Area nominated: Entire or parts of select hydrological (sub) units (i.e., 12-digit HUCs) within 

the Kanuti River watershed. This is specifically those units of the Torment Creek-KanutiKilolitna River and Ishtalitna Creek drainages; these are downstream of the Tozitna River ACEC 

and Tozitna Subunit North ACEC but south of Kanuti NWR, excluding Doyon Regional 

Corporation. Tribal conveyed lands immediately south of the Kanuti NWR boundary. The 

nominated Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers ACEC is 266,000 acres. See Figure 12, Existing and 

Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Ray Mountains.

Values nominated: Fish/riparian, wildlife, cultural

Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG lists the Kanuti-Kilolitna River as anadromous, with Chinook 

salmon found in the ACEC (ADFG 2014). The BLM conducted fish 

inventories in the Kanuti-Kilolitna River within the boundaries of the 

nominated ACEC and captured slimy sculpin and arctic grayling (BLM, 

unpublished report). The status of riparian resources is unknown; however, 

due to the area’s remote location, riparian resources are expected to be 

pristine and fully functional.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 82

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers

Kanuti-Kilolitna Rivers

Important No Species of fish present and the riparian community that is integral to the 

function of this aquatic habitat are typical of the area, with only locally 

significant qualities.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area is important winter range for the Ray Mountains Caribou Herd. 

The area is also documented as being important golden eagle nesting 

habitat, with documented nests in the nominated boundary.

Important Yes The area is large enough that it is important to the Ray Mountains Caribou 

Herd.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No There is insufficient data to designate an area this large as an ACEC, based 

on the presence and significance of cultural resources. Preliminary work 

done in the Kanuti River drainage in 2014 and oral history indicate that the 

nominated ACEC, like many portions of Alaska, has been habitually used 

for thousands of years. Preliminary work indicates a moderate potential for 

encountering significant site densities in upland locales in the nominated 

ACEC. This area was not inventoried in summer 2015 due to intense fire 

activity.

Important No There are no known sites on BLM-managed lands in the nominated ACEC 

that are thought to be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

3.3.30 McQuesten Creek RNA

Background: The BLM designated McQuesten Creek RNA in 1986 through the ROD for the 

CYRMP (BLM 1986). All lands are State-selected, but low priority. Vegetation communities 

from alpine, subalpine, and riparian zones of all aspects are present. 

Nominator: BLM

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: Below is the rationale provided for the 

original RNA nomination, as stated in the 1983 Management Situation Analysis Central Yukon 

Planning Area. The McQuesten Creek RNA was designated because of its unique and valuable 

features and characteristics. This RNA was reevaluated against ACEC criteria.

Elevations vary from just over 975 meters (3,200 feet) at the summit of the side valley watershed 

divide to approximately 380 meters (1,250 feet) on the McQuesten Creek bottomland as it leaves 

the area. There is a low-grade geothermal hot spring system in the bottom of the side valley, 

approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with McQuesten Creek. The geothermal 

system is marked by an elongated meadow in the creek valley in a highly scenic setting. Nearly 

the entire slope surface of the side valley is made up of stone stripes. At the upper elevations of 

the watershed divide, both barren and lichen-covered stone stripes can be seen. In the lower 

elevations, especially on the south-facing slope, the stripes are obscured under a forest canopy 

and understory growth. There are land surface slumps in ice-rich permafrost soils along the creek 

in the side valley, which have influenced the course of the creek. 

The vegetation of the side valley includes black spruce-cladonia lichen woodland on lower 

elevation north-facing slopes. White spruce closed forest (rocky slope variant) dominates the 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 83

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

McQuesten Creek RNA

south-facing slope of the side valley. There are also some areas of black spruce closed forest 

(rocky slope variant) in valley-shaded lowlands. Narrow stands of balsam poplar-willowCalamagrostis are characteristic of the bottomlands of the side valley creek and adjacent 

McQuesten Creek. There is a distinct alder-dominated tree line fringe (both open and closed 

variants) on the upper slopes of the valley. 

The tepid hot spring pools in the side valley contain several, but not all, of the thermophyllic 

algae and bacteria that occur at Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs. A few noteworthy vascular plant 

species in the geothermally influenced zone are Heracleum lanatum, Chrysosplenium tetrandum, 

Eleocharis uniglumis, Glyceria striata, Agrostis scabra, and Cardamine pratensis. Another 

interesting feature of the geothermally influenced meadow zone is the abundance and activity of 

ground-dwelling ant colonies in drier portions. 

The BLM conducted overflights of RNAs in 2014 to identify the hot springs in McQuesten Creek 

Valley. The goal was to make sure the valley is within the RNA boundary, as depicted on the 

master title plats. The BLM could not verify the location of the hot springs from the air, but from 

photos, it appears the spring is within the RNA boundary. 

Recommendations: Research reasons for the current RNA boundary configuration. Consider 

revisions to the RNA boundary to follow the contour of the valley when alternatives are being

developed. Research master title plats and aerial photos to confirm that RNA and associated hot 

springs withdrawal are depicted properly on the master title plats and in GIS data. If necessary, 

submit corrections to the master title plats and GIS data.

Area nominated: McQuesten Creek originates just to the west of Mt. Henry Eakin on the Ray 

Mountains crest and flows nearly due south to the Tozitna River. About halfway up McQuesten 

Creek is an unnamed side valley opening to the west. The watershed of the side valley and 

adjacent McQuesten Creek lowland make up the McQuesten Creek RNA, which is 3,900 acres.

See Figure 12, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Ray Mountains, and Figure 13, ACECs 

found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Ray Mountains.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian, vegetation, geology

McQuesten Creek RNA

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of soil and hydrologic processes associated with the hot springs 

is rare to the planning area and is sensitive to change. 

Important Yes Soil and water resources in the McQuesten Creek RNA are generally 

pristine and undisturbed. The soil and water characteristics that create the 

hot springs are rare to the planning area and are highly susceptible to 

erosion or other soil movement caused by disturbance of the ground cover. 

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes The soil and water characteristics in the McQuesten Creek RNA are unusual 

to the planning area.

RNA Size No The nature of hot springs is that they are small. However, if the Ishtalitna

Creek Hot Springs RNA were incorporated into the McQuesten Creek 

RNA, it would be of adequate size for scientific study. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 84

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

McQuesten Creek RNA

McQuesten Creek RNA

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes See Soil above. Adhering to the mandates of the Clean Water Act is a 

national priority.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes See Soil above.

RNA Size No See Soil above.

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG’s Freshwater Fish Inventory database19 lists slimy sculpin, 

burbot, and Dolly Varden in the McQuesten Creek RNA. Anadromous fish 

species are not documented, although the ADFG (2014) does list 

McQuesten Creek as anadromous (with Chinook salmon rearing habitat) 

three miles downstream of the southern boundary of the RNA. The status of 

riparian resources has not been documented; however, due to lack of 

disturbance in the current ACEC, riparian resources are expected to be 

pristine and fully functional.

Important No The species of fish in this aquatic habitat and the riparian community that is 

integral to its function are typical of the area, with only locally significant 

qualities.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes This area contains a typical representation of a common plant and animal 

association.

RNA Size No The RNA does not encompass sufficient fish habitat to provide for study.

Vegetation Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes McQuesten Creek RNA meets the relevance criteria for vegetation because 

of the unique assemblages of plants associated with the hot springs, as noted 

in the RNA description. 

Important Yes The McQuesten Creek RNA meets the importance criteria for vegetation 

because of the unique assemblages of plants associated with the hot springs, 

as noted in the RNA description. 

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes This RNA was identified and should be retained because the presence of the 

hot springs is associated with “an unusual plant or animal association.” 

RNA Size Yes Even though the area is relatively small, the area of interest (the hot springs) 

is in a small area that would be encompassed by the current RNA. 

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Hot springs are a unique geologic feature.

Important No The geologic features of this RNA are of minor interest because its features 

are also found in multiple locations statewide.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes Hot springs are a common geologic feature; stone stripes are a common 

geologic/ice feature.

RNA Size Yes More than adequate for geology.

 

19 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 85

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Ray Mountains (Tozitna Caribou ACECs Expansion)

3.3.31 Ray Mountains (Tozitna Caribou ACECs Expansion)

Background: The BLM designated the Tozitna Subunit North and South ACECs in 1986 

through the ROD for the CYRMP (BLM 1986). In 2014, through the scoping process for the 

CYRMP, the BLM proposed expanding the Tozitna Subunit North ACEC to include the Tozitna 

Subunit South ACEC, plus additional land, and renaming it the Ray Mountains ACEC. 

All except eight square miles are State-selected. The BLM developed the Tozitna North and 

South ACEC Management Plan in 1988; PLO 5180 applies to most of this area. The existing 

ACEC is closed to mineral leasing and non-metalliferous mineral location but is open to 

metalliferous mineral location. PLO 5173 may apply to a small part of the nominated expansion 

and closes lands to all mining and mineral leasing. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The Tozitna Subunit North and South 

ACECs, and expansion was evaluated against the criteria for ACEC designation and the unique 

characteristics below. 

The Ray Mountains Caribou Herd inhabits the Ray Mountains and southern Kanuti Flats, 

between the Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers. Two ACECs were designated in the BLM’s CYRMP 

(1986) to protect crucial caribou habitat: the Tozitna North ACEC and Tozitna South ACEC. 

These areas were identified as having been traditionally used as calving areas by the Ray 

Mountains Caribou Herd, based on the location data that were available at the time the plan was 

written. However, subsequent data acquired through the BLM’s and ADFG’s regular radio 

tracking suggest that calving occurs in a much broader area. Expanding the ACEC boundaries to 

include additional BLM-managed land and both the Tozitna North and Tozitna South ACECs 

would simplify management of this crucial caribou habitat; also, it would more accurately reflect 

important calving grounds for the Ray Mountains Caribou Herd. 

The BLM designated three ACECs in the Ray Mountains in the 1986 CYRMP: Tozitna River, 

Tozitna South, and Tozitna North. The similarity of these names creates confusion when 

referencing them; to clearly distinguish the area from the Tozitna River ACEC, the BLM

recommends that the area designated to protect caribou habitat be renamed the Ray Mountains 

ACEC. It would include the current boundaries for the Tozitna North and Tozitna South ACECs.

Area nominated: As stated in the 1986 CYRMP, the current Tozitna Subunit North ACEC 

encompasses 129,000 acres. If combined with the Tozitna Subunit South ACEC (currently 62,600

acres) the combination of ACECs and the expansion would total 938,000 acres. See Figure 12, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Ray Mountains, and Figure 13, ACECs found to Meet 

the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Ray Mountains.

Values nominated: Wildlife
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 86

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Ray Mountains (Tozitna Caribou ACECs Expansion)

Ray Mountains (Tozitna Caribou ACECs Expansion)

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Ray Mountains Caribou Herd inhabits the high country in the 

headwaters of the Tozitna River. Members of this heard are large-bodied 

interior Alaska caribou, and are representative of other small, non-migratory 

herds in the planning area.

Important Yes The Ray Mountains Caribou Herd is of local biological importance but its 

success as a herd will not affect broader caribou population dynamics in the 

state. However, small, relic caribou populations are of interest to biologists, 

as they are more susceptible to landscape level changes and local impacts 

and development. This feature of the Ray Mountains herd gives it 

significant qualities beyond the local level. It potentially has qualities that 

make it fragile, sensitive, and irreplaceable; the herd is not endangered or 

threatened, but it is potentially vulnerable to adverse change. It is not rare, 

but it is exemplary of small caribou herds in interior Alaska and unique 

because there are only a few non-migratory herds with ranges north of the 

Yukon River.

3.3.32 Spooky Valley RNA

Background: The BLM designated the Spooky Valley RNA in 1986 through the ROD for the 

CYRMP (BLM 1986). All lands are State-selected, but low priority. There is anecdotal evidence 

of Alaska Native spiritual values. See Figure 12, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Ray 

Mountains, and Figure 13, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Ray 

Mountains.

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: As stated in the Management Situation 

Analysis 1983, the following illustrates the unique and valuable characteristic that this RNA was 

originally evaluated against. 

The crest of the Ray Mountains, the north perimeter of the area, is rimmed with granite and 

granodiorite tors. The unusual geomorphology of the area, its broad expanse of subdued relief in 

a basin or bowl-like structure, may be related to the bedrock types and geologic history of the 

area. A Cretaceous granitic intrusion makes up the central part of the Ray Mountains. This unit is 

surrounded by a baked contact zone of Cretaceous hornfels, augen, or gneiss. If the gneiss were 

more erosion-resistant than the granite, then the constriction of Kobuk Creek to a narrow canyon 

in the gneiss zone is accounted for. 

A constriction in the main stream draining the area has slowed the effective rate of sediment 

removal from the valley. As the valley has matured physiographically, sediment, boulders, and 

colluvium have collected and filled the valley because this material could not be moved through 

the canyon as fast as it was collecting. 

On the upper ridges of Spooky Valley, where rock is being frost-shattered and transported 

downslope, stone stripes and rock polygons are well displayed. Tarlov (1980) observed a 

collapsing massive ground ice exposure in Spooky Valley in the summer of 1978. Exposures of 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 87

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Spooky Valley RNA

such features are, of course, ephemeral. However, in the hummocky area of frost boils in the 

valley, conditions are probably suitable for additional ice wedges and lenses to form, especially 

where there is abundant groundwater infiltration. 

The vegetation of Spooky Valley is snowbed communities, talus slope vegetation complexes, 

hummock and frost boil types, stone stripe and prostrate scrub, and upland rock and fellfield 

barren types (Brock and Burke 1980). Snowbed communities are characterized by Salix 

chamissonis, Cassiope tetragona, Pedicularis capitata, and Carex microchaeta. Talus slopes are 

a complex mixture of dry lichen surfaces on boulders and more mesic habitats between rocks. 

Salix phlebophylla, Ledum palustre, and Diapensia lapponica are common between boulders. 

The tops and sides of hummocks and frost boils support Betulanana, Vaccinium uliginosum, and 

V. vitis-idaea, Ledum palustre, and Lupinus arcticus. Lower surfaces with wet ground are 

dominated by Carex rotundata, Eriophorum angustifolium, and Juncus triglumis. Stone stripes 

support most of the same vegetation types as talus slopes. Areas of favorable exposure and deeper 

soil within most of these vegetation complexes support herb-rich graminoid meadow 

communities, Dryas octopetala communities, or C. tetragona-Anemone narcissfflora-P. capitata

snowbed meadows (Brock and Burke 1980). 

Collectively, these vegetation types represent the low willow closed shrub, dwarf birch closed 

shrub, low willow open low shrub, dryas closed dwarf shrub, mat and cushion sedge tundra, and 

open dryas-lichen tundra type.

Farquhar and Schubert (1980) report a small endemic herd of caribou and 27 other known or 

expected mammal species in the Ray Mountains. Matthews (1980) sighted American golden 

plover in the lower elevation tundra around the Ray Mountains in a 1978 study, and this species 

should be present in the nominated RNA. Wheatears are abundant in favorable habitat in the Ray 

Mountains. They require boulders and bouldery crevices in the ground and tundra streams for 

foraging habitat. Because of its physiographic diversity, Spooky Valley supports the richest 

association of birds in the Ray Mountains. Evidently, it is one of the few or the only suitable areas 

in the Ray Mountains for the semi-palmated sandpiper, cliff swallow, golden eagle, and northern 

shrike (Matthews 1980).

Area nominated: Spooky Valley is formed by three parallel branches of Kobuk Creek (a 

tributary of Gishna Creek, which flows into the Tozitna River) and the generally east-west 

trending crest of the Ray Mountains. Elevations range from approximately 625 meters (2,050 

feet) in the canyon where Kobuk Creek leaves the area to 1,400 meters (4,600 feet) in the 

northeast corner of the RNA. The Spooky Valley RNA is 10,100 acres.

Values nominated: Wildlife, special status species, vegetation, geology

Spooky Valley RNA

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Caribou use the area habitually in the winter.

Important Yes Although the area within the RNA boundary is not vital to the caribou, they 

are found there in the winter. Increased access to the RNA would enable 

increased access to the herd. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 88

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Spooky Valley RNA

Spooky Valley RNA

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes This area contains habitat for semipalmated sandpiper, cliff swallow, golden 

eagle, and northern shrike as well as caribou habitat.

RNA Size Yes The area is likely of sufficient size to capture resources representative of an

RNA. The boundary could be modified to accommodate natural valley 

watershed boundaries (contingent on land status).

Special Status 

Species Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated area meets the criteria for special status species. This is 

because there is at least one record of a BLM sensitive plant species in this 

area, Ranunculus camissonis Schltdl, as well as several BLM watch-listed 

species. Other sensitive species and their respective habitats are also likely 

to occur in the area. 

Important Yes The special status species listed in the relevance statement warrants this 

important area for special status species.

RNA 

Characteristics

No The RNA does not support any threatened or endangered species.

RNA Size Yes The area is likely of sufficient size to capture resources representative of an

RNA. The boundary could be modified to accommodate natural valley 

watershed boundaries (contingent on land status).

Vegetation Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated area meets the importance criteria because of the unique 

mosaic of common and uncommon vegetation communities in this area.

Important Yes The RNA meets the importance criteria because of the unusually high 

concentration of unique community types in this relatively small area (e.g. 

snowbed communities, talus slope vegetation complexes, hummock and 

frost boil types, stone stripe and prostrate scrub, and upland rock and 

fellfield barren types presents a unique opportunity to study and understand

the constituents of the vegetation mosaic in this area.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes This area exhibits an unusual plant or animal association and outstanding or 

unusual geologic, soil, or water features. It contains unique snowbed 

communities, talus slope vegetation complexes, hummock and frost boil 

types, stone stripe and prostrate scrub, and upland rock and fellfield barren 

types as described in the Rationale for Nomination.

RNA Size Yes The area is likely of sufficient size to capture resources representative of an

RNA. The boundary could be modified to accommodate natural valley 

watershed boundaries (contingent on land status).

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes As is typical with geology, the uniqueness of the Spooky Valley is 

underlain by a rich mineral potential for rare earth elements and has been 

overlain by state mining claims.

Important No The features that are seen from the last flight show outcrops of rock 

throughout the valley. This is not a unique feature in Alaska or for that 

matter even the planning area.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes Stone stripes are a common geologic/ice feature.

RNA Size Yes The size is more than adequate for geological study.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 89

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Tozitna River ACEC 

3.3.33 Tozitna River ACEC

Background: The BLM designated the Tozitna River ACEC in 1986 through the ROD for the 

CYRMP (BLM 1986); large parts are State-selected. The BLM has developed an ACEC 

management plan. There is an application for instream flow reservation, and the State has given a 

filing date. A 300-foot withdrawal of the river recommended in the 1986 CYRMP ROD has not 

been implemented. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: In 1986, the BLM designated the Tozitna 

River ACEC to protect salmon spawning habitat and identified acquiring baseline resource data 

as a management objective. To meet this management objective, and to accurately assess 

escapement of Chinook and summer chum salmon in the Middle Yukon River Sub-basin, the 

BLM initiated a salmon enumeration project on the Tozitna River. To this end, it operated a 

counting tower in 2001 and a resistance board weir from 2002 to 2009. An average run of 1,449 

Chinook salmon passed through the weir during years of complete counting in commercial 

fishing seasons, with a low of 494 in 2007 and a high of 1,880 in 2002. An average run of 21,030 

summer chum salmon passed through the weir during years of complete counting, with a low of 

8,470 in 2008 and a high of 39,700 in 2005. A radio-tagging project indicated that the Tozitna 

River is an important area for Chinook salmon spawning, compared to other Middle Yukon River 

tributaries, the Melozitna and the Nowitna Rivers. The Tozitna River’s overall contribution to 

Yukon River stock composition is estimated at around 1.1 percent (Eiler et. al 2004). 

Area nominated: The current Tozitna River ACEC includes 843,000 acres20 . See Figure 12, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Ray Mountains.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian, wildlife

Tozitna River ACEC

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

spawning in the Tozitna River ACEC is rare in the planning area. It

encompasses soil, water, riparian, and wetland resources. The system

supports a unique incubation, rearing and overwintering habitat essential for 

maintaining chum, coho, and Chinook salmon diversity in the planning area

and Alaska. 

Important Yes While soil resources in the Tozitna River ACEC are generally pristine and 

undisturbed and would be considered unique on a national scale, they are 

not unique in the planning area or regionally. However, permafrost 

underlies much of the Tozitna River ACEC. These soils are highly 

susceptible to erosion or other soil movement caused by disturbance of the 

ground cover and subsequent thawing of permafrost. In addition, the unique 

and fragile soils around the upwelling and downwelling areas associated 

with chum, coho, and Chinook salmon spawning control the hydrology of 

 

20 The 1986 CYRMP identified approximately 786,724 acres as the ACEC. The acreage discrepancy is due to 

improved mapping and not a difference in the area intended to be designated as an ACEC. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 90

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Tozitna River ACEC 

Tozitna River ACEC

the salmon spawning areas. Any disturbance of these soils would affect the 

spawning area’s flow regime and would negatively affect salmon egg 

survival. 

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the nominated Tozitna River ACEC is excellent and 

would be considered unique on a national scale, it is not unique in the 

planning area or regionally. The upwelling and downwelling areas 

associated with chum, coho, and Chinook salmon spawning areas that 

provide water for incubation and rearing are unique in the planning area and 

Alaska. Maintaining water quality and temperature and adequate 

streamflows in these spawning areas is crucial in the incubation of salmon 

eggs and maintaining crucial overwintering habitat. Adhering to the 

mandates of the Clean Water Act is a national priority. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG’s Freshwater Fish Inventory database21 lists arctic grayling, 

slimy sculpin, northern pike, longnose sucker, round whitefish, burbot, and 

Dolly Varden in the Tozitna River watershed. Within the ACEC, the ADFG 

also lists the Tozitna River drainage as anadromous, with Chinook salmon 

spawning and rearing, coho and chum salmon spawning, and sheefish

(iconnu), whitefish, and sockeye salmon present (ADFG 2014). With the 

exception of several small private parcels in the drainage, riparian resources 

are in their natural state and are fully functional.

Important Yes The Tozitna River is a highly productive aquatic environment that provides 

crucial spawning and rearing habitat to a variety of salmon and other fish 

species. Of the four species of salmon that inhabit the watershed, chum is

the most numerous. The average annual chum salmon escapement is in 

excess of 20,000 fish. The Tozitna River also has a Chinook salmon 

escapement that averages greater than 1,400 fish per season (see data 

presented previously in the Rationale for nomination provided by the 

nominator). Salmon produced in this ACEC contribute to the availability 

and abundance of subsistence fish harvested in the middle and lower Yukon 

River. In addition, these fish play a small but important role in the overall 

genetic health of salmon in the Yukon Basin.

Riparian resources’ ecological functions are integral to the overall condition 

and quality of this important aquatic habitat. This is because they define 

sediment transport processes, biochemical and nutrient cycling, and food 

web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, when viewed 

independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of the BLMmanaged lands in the planning area, which could be considered somewhat 

rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a disproportionate 

number of biological and physical functions on a unit area basis. Because of 

this, protection is warranted in order to satisfy national priorities related to 

water quality, land health, floodplain function, and biodiversity 

maintenance.

 

21 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 91

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Tozitna River ACEC 

Tozitna River ACEC

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Ray Mountains Caribou Herd inhabits the upper headwaters of the 

Tozitna River and its tributaries and is occasionally documented in the 

valley. Their use of the valley bottom is intermittent and during times when 

they are en route to seasonal ranges. However, areas of most importance to 

wildlife are captured in the nominated Ray Mountains boundary. See the 

evaluation for this area.

Important Yes The non-migratory Ray Mountains Caribou Herd is a unique feature in the 

uplands between the Yukon River and Kanuti flats. However, not all of the 

lands within the Tozitna River ACEC boundary are important caribou 

habitat. See Ray Mountains evaluation.

3.3.34 Dulbi River ACEC 

Background: The Dulbi River ACEC was designated as the Dulbi River Threatened and 

Endangered ACEC in 1986 through the ROD for the CYRMP (BLM 1986). In 2014, through the 

scoping process for the CYRMP, the Louden Tribal Council nominated traditional hunting and 

fishing areas as an ACEC. Some of this nomination overlapped with the existing Dulbi River 

ACEC. Additionally, the BLM proposed expanding the Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC. This 

expansion encompasses part of the Dulbi River ACEC. These evaluations are covered under 

Sections 3.3.36 and 3.3.35. This section evaluates the Dulbi River ACEC based on its original 

purpose, peregrine falcon.

The USFWS removed the arctic peregrine falcon from the Endangered Species List in 1994 and 

removed the American peregrine falcon in 1999. Currently, the peregrine falcon is not a BLM

Alaska sensitive species. Portions of this ACEC are State-selected. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominators: The Dulbi River ACEC was originally 

designated because this area provides crucial habitat for the peregrine falcon. The original ACEC 

extent was reevaluated based on its relevance and importance as peregrine falcon habitat.

Area nominated: The current Dulbi River ACEC is 54,300 acres22 in size. See Figure 14, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Dulbi Galena Wolf.

Values nominated: Wildlife, special status species

 

22 The 1986 CYRMP identified approximately 55,040 acres as the ACEC. The acreage discrepancy is due to 

improved mapping and not a difference in the area intended to be designated as an ACEC. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 92

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Dulbi River ACEC

Dulbi River ACEC

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the 

nominated Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC Expansion. See the evaluation 

for this area. 

Important Yes The area that satisfies the relevance criteria is encompassed within the 

nominated Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC Expansion. See the evaluation 

for this area. 

Special Status 

Species Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No The criterion that the ACEC was established under, peregrine falcons, is no 

longer considered relevant because the species is no longer listed and is not 

a current BLM Alaska sensitive species. 

One of the subunits of the original ACEC appears to provide habitat for an 

Alaska Natural Heritage Program-listed rare species, Chenopodium 

glaucum Linnaeus var. salinum (Standley) B. Boivin, but this species is not 

currently listed on the BLM Alaska’s sensitive species list.

Important No See Relevance above.

3.3.35 Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC (Including Expansion)

Background: The BLM designated Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC in 1986 through the ROD

for the CYRMP (BLM 1986). In 2014, through the scoping process for the RMP, the BLM 

proposed expanding the Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC.

In 1994, the USFWS delisted the arctic peregrine falcon and in 1999 delisted the American 

peregrine falcon. Currently, the peregrine falcon is not a BLM Alaska sensitive species. The west 

section of ACEC is State-selected lands. The Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC Management Plan 

was originally developed in 1986, and management objectives focus on sustaining the caribou 

herd and calving areas and improving caribou habitat. 

Nominator: BLM

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The BLM reevaluated the Galena Mountain 

Caribou ACEC and nominated expansions against the criteria for ACEC designation and the 

unique characteristics below. 

The Galena Mountain Caribou Herd inhabits the Koyukuk Flats and Kokrines Hills north of the 

Yukon River and the village of Galena. The BLM designated an ACEC composed of two 

subunits in its CYRMP (1986) to protect crucial caribou habitat. The current boundaries for these 

subunits reflect areas traditionally used as calving grounds for the Galena Mountain Caribou 

Herd. The herd size is approximately 125 animals and is in decline due to low recruitment23 and

calf survival. Therefore, the BLM recommends that the ACEC boundaries be expanded to include 

BLM-managed lands within the core range of the Galena Mountain Caribou Herd.

 

23 The natural increase in population
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 93

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC (Including Expansion)

Area nominated: The current Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC is 19,400 acres24 in size. The 

Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC Expansion, including the additions proposed by the BLM, 

would total 671,000 acres. See Figure 14, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Dulbi Galena 

Wolf, and Figure 15, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Dulbi 

Galena Wolf.

Values nominated: Wildlife 

Galena Mountain Caribou ACEC (Including Expansion)

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The nominated area meets the relevance criteria for caribou habitat for both 

the Galena and Wolf Mountain herds. Key habitat for caribou has been 

identified in this region, including calving grounds. The BLM continues to 

document key habitat for caribou in this region, where several ACECs have 

been designated and nominated to protect caribou habitat.

Important Yes The nominated area meets the importance criteria for caribou habitat for 

both the Galena and Wolf Mountain herds. Caribou are known to inhabit 

this area in significant numbers, and this area is known to encompass key or 

limited habitat features (e.g., calving grounds and winter range) sensitive to 

development. Protecting this habitat for use by caribou is key to sustaining a 

healthy population.

3.3.36 Traditional Hunting and Fishing Areas for Louden Tribe

Background: During scoping for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC nomination from the 

Louden Tribal Council for areas that the tribe used for traditional hunting and fishing. 

Nominator: Louden Tribal Council

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: Traditional use of animals, fish, plants, and 

wood from accessible lands and waters has been practiced by the indigenous Koyukukon people 

of this region for thousands of years. The historical and cultural significance of this use should 

not be lost considering the brief history of the U.S. government and its present responsible 

management agency, the BLM. For us this lifeway is much more than utilitarian and practical, it 

is our history, culture, and identity as a sovereign people, which we wish to continue into the 

future. 

The abundance, health, and accessibility of fish and wildlife species that we have traditionally 

depended upon are a necessity that must be protected. Its relevance to our lives and culture cannot 

be overstated.

 

24 The 1986 CYRMP identified approximately 24,800 acres as the ACEC. The acreage discrepancy is due to 

improved mapping and not a difference in the area intended to be designated as an ACEC. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 94

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Traditional Hunting and Fishing Areas for Louden Tribe

Due to our ancient and religious ties to the traditional foods accessible to us, all ecological 

processes that support the life of the land and waters is sacred and necessary, now and into the 

future. Anything that harms or degrades the supporting natural processes for maintaining our 

traditional harvest practices on the land and waters is harmful to us and cannot be allowed

It is possible that if some of the mining potential on BLM-managed lands becomes active that it 

could threaten the health of the land and waters we depend upon. These activities should not take 

place in watersheds we are dependent on for traditional harvest. We cannot risk our way of life. 

Climate changes on the landscape are revealing their affects and these must be taken into 

consideration as potential hazards that may affect the traditional harvest species we use. As 

climate change is a global occurrence we cannot stop it, but we must work with land managers to 

try and understand the changes and potential threats and plan for them as best we can with an eye 

to preparing for and adapting while maintaining our traditional way of life.

Our concerns about mining and climate change go beyond our local needs and extend in all 

directions. This is because we see the natural world is an interconnected whole, not separate parts. 

It is all connected: air-water-land-animals-fish-plants-people. We have responsibilities for how 

we use the land, one of which is to do so respectfully so as not to affect things negatively, 

downstream or for the future. The importance of the health of the land and waters for supporting 

healthy moose, fish, and so forth, cannot be overstated.

Our traditional way of life is all of the above descriptions, or at least potentially so in the face of 

mineral development and the unknown effects of climate change. Our village is remote, with few 

employment opportunities, making our traditional use of land and waters crucially important for 

survival and continuing our culture.

The lands and waters we depend on for traditional harvest are necessary for practicing what the 

federal government refers to as our “subsistence priority.” We call it life. The welfare and safety 

of our tribe is dependent upon the health of the lands and waters and we wish to insure that 

management decisions protect our lifeways, now and into the future.

Special protection is required for maintaining all natural processes that support our traditional 

harvest lifeway. Management for protecting ecosystem integrity, functionality, and quality are 

vitally important to supporting and insuring our culture, community health, and way of life.

We believe that mining within the watersheds, which we have used for centuries for traditional 

harvest, and its associated roads, development, waste storage facilities, and other factors pose 

grave threats to our traditional harvest lifeway. We are not sure what BLM can do, management 

wise, in the face of climate change affects that may pose natural hazards and/or safety concerns, 

but we certainly see the potential for changes and disruptions to weather patterns and climatic 

change that may require careful planning and action for protecting traditional harvest practices 

and our community. Some of the potential changes, some already underway are, warming trends 

with dryer weather and increased wildfire, permafrost thaw and groundwater flow changes, 

increased flood events, lakes, stream and river warming, shifting breeding and migration patterns 

of moose, caribou and other harvest species, water quality changes that affect fish migration and 

spawning habitat.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 95

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Traditional Hunting and Fishing Areas for Louden Tribe

Area nominated: Traditional harvest lands and waters used by the Koyukuk Tribe extending up 

the Yukon River to Galena, extending down the Yukon River to Nulato, up the Koyukuk River to 

Huslia, with areas east and west of the Koyukuk River. This nomination includes 43,100 acres.

See Figure 14, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Dulbi Galena Wolf, and Figure 16, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Lower Yukon.

Values nominated: Fish/riparian, , wildlife, cultural

Traditional Hunting and Fishing Areas for Louden Tribe

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No Data is lacking to support the presence of fish species. The ADFG does not 

list any fish inventory reports in the Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory 

database25 for waters in the nominated ACEC. No anadromous species are 

listed for waters of the nominated ACEC in the State of Alaska’s 

Anadromous Waters Catalog (ADFG 2014). The status of riparian resources 

is unknown; however, due to the area’s remote location, riparian resources 

are expected to be pristine and fully functional.

Important No See Relevance above.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No Based on the best available information the area does not meet the 

relevance criteria for wildlife resources or habitat. Although habitat for 

animal species likely exists within the proposed ACEC area, there are 

currently no records that suggest this area is relevant to those resources on a 

landscape scale.

Important No Based on the best available information, the area does not meet the 

importance criteria for wildlife resources or habitat.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No While it may play an important role in local subsistence, there are no known 

cultural resources in this area. The presence of sacred sites or potential 

Traditional Cultural Properties must be considered; however, it is unlikely 

that an entire drainage would be considered a Traditional Cultural Property

or sacred site. This is because these are typically discrete landforms or 

specific locations relating to traditional religious practices or significant 

events in the traditional belief system, such as places of cultural origin. 

Cultural significance should not be confused with subsistence importance 

because subsistence use is accounted for under a unique set of laws and 

regulations.

Important No There are no identified cultural resources in this area that meet the criteria 

for inclusion on the NRHP.

 

25 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 96

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Yukon River Watersheds

3.3.37 Yukon River Watersheds

Background: During scoping for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC nomination from the 

Koyukuk Tribal Council for the watersheds of the Yukon River. 

Nominator: Koyukuk Tribal Council 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominators: Traditional use of animals, fish, plants, and 

wood from accessible lands and waters has been practiced by the indigenous Koyukukon people 

for thousands of years. The historical and cultural significance of this use should not be lost 

considering the brief history of the U.S. government and the BLM. For us this lifeway is much 

more than utilitarian and practical, it is our history, culture, and identity as a sovereign people, 

which we wish to continue into the future. The abundance, health, and accessibility of fish and 

wildlife species that we have traditionally depended upon are a necessity that must be protected. 

Its relevance to our lives and culture cannot be overstated. Due to our ancient and religious ties to 

the traditional foods accessible to us, all ecological processes that support the life of the land and 

waters is sacred and necessary, now and into the future. Anything that harms or degrades the 

supporting natural processes for maintaining our traditional harvest practices on the land and 

waters is harmful to us and cannot be allowed. 

Our concerns about mining and climate change go beyond our local needs and extend in all 

directions. This is because we see the natural world is an interconnected whole. It is all 

connected: air-water-land-animals-fish-plants-people. We have responsibilities for how we use 

the land, one of which is to do so respectfully so as not to affect things negatively, downstream or 

for the future. The importance of the health of the land and waters for supporting healthy moose, 

fish, and so forth, cannot be overstated. Our traditional way of life is of more than local 

significance and special worth, or at least potentially so in the face of mineral development and 

the unknown effects of climate change. Our village is remote, with few employment 

opportunities, making our traditional use of land and waters crucially important for survival and 

continuing our culture. The lands and waters we depend on for traditional harvest are necessary 

for practicing what the federal government refers to as our “subsistence priority.” We call it life. 

The welfare and safety of our tribe is dependent upon the health of the lands and waters and we 

wish to insure that management decisions protect our lifeways, now and into the future. 

This area holds significant historical and cultural value to the Koyukukon people. The fish and 

wildlife species found in this area are important for subsistence use. The ecological process of 

this region support subsistence and tribal traditions. Natural hazards due to climate change and 

BLM mining pose potential threats to this area.

Area nominated: The nominated Yukon River Watersheds ACEC is 104,000 acres. This 

nomination includes many small, scattered plots of land along the Yukon River and its tributaries, 

from south of Kaltag to about 70 miles east of Galena. See Figure 14, Existing and Nominated 

ACECs/RNAs – Dulbi Galena Wolf, and Figure 16, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – 

Lower Yukon.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian, wildlife, cultural
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 97

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Yukon River Watersheds

Yukon River Watersheds

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No While soil resources in the Yukon River Watersheds nomination are 

generally pristine and undisturbed and would be considered unique on a 

national scale, they are not unique in the planning area or region. Similar 

sites and values can be found in other sites in the planning area and Alaska. 

Important No See Relevance above.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No While water quality in the nominated Yukon River Watersheds nomination

is excellent and would be considered unique on a national scale, it is not 

unique in the planning area or region. Similar sites and values can be found 

in other sites in the planning area and Alaska. 

Important No See Relevance above.

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG lists the reach of the Khotol River that runs through the 

nominated ACEC as anadromous, with chum salmon, sheefish (iconnu), 

and whitefish present. A tributary to the South Fork Nulato River in the 

nominated ACEC, at Township 9 South, Range 2 East, Kateel River 

Meridian, is also anadromous. This stream provides Chinook salmon with 

rearing habitat (ADFG 2014). The status of riparian resources is unknown; 

however, due to the area’s remote location, riparian resources are expected 

to be pristine and fully functional.

Important No Species of fish present and the riparian community that is integral to the 

function of this aquatic habitat are typical of the area, with only locally 

significant qualities.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No Based on the best available information the area does not meet the 

relevance criteria for sensitive plan or animal species, vegetation or other 

wildlife resources or habitat. Although habitat for sensitive species and 

other plant and animal species likely exists within the proposed ACEC area, 

there are currently no records that suggest that this area is relevant to those 

resources on a landscape scale.

Important No Based on the best available information the area does not meet the 

importance criteria for sensitive plan or animal species, vegetation or other 

wildlife resources or habitat.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No While this location may play an important role in local subsistence, there 

are no known cultural resources there. The presence of sacred sites or 

potential Traditional Cultural Properties must be considered, but it is 

unlikely that an entire drainage would be considered a Traditional Cultural 

Property or sacred site; these are typically discrete landforms or specific 

locations relating to traditional religious practices or significant events in 

the traditional belief system, such as places of cultural origin. Cultural 

significance should not be confused with subsistence importance because

subsistence use is accounted for under a unique set of laws and regulations.

Important No There are no identified cultural resources in this area that meet the criteria 

for inclusion on the NRHP. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 98

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Bishop Creek

3.3.38 Bishop Creek

Background: During scoping for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC nomination from the 

Koyukuk Tribal Council and the Louden Tribal Council for Bishop Creek. 

Nominators: Koyukuk Tribal Council and Louden Tribal Council

Rational for nomination provided by the nominators: Traditional use of animals, fish, plants, 

and wood from accessible lands and waters has been practiced by the indigenous Koyukukon

people for thousands of years. The historical and cultural significance of this use should not be 

lost considering the brief history of the U.S. government and the BLM. For us this lifeway is 

much more than utilitarian and practical, it is our history, culture, and identity as a sovereign 

people, which we wish to continue into the future. The abundance, health, and accessibility of 

fish and wildlife species that we have traditionally depended upon are a necessity that must be 

protected. Its relevance to our lives and culture cannot be overstated. Due to our ancient and 

religious ties to the traditional foods accessible to us, all ecological processes that support the life 

of the land and waters is sacred and necessary, now and into the future. Anything that harms or 

degrades the supporting natural processes for maintaining our traditional harvest practices on the 

land and waters is harmful to us and cannot be allowed. 

Our concerns about mining and climate change go beyond our local needs and extend in all 

directions. This is because we see the natural world is an interconnected whole. It is all 

connected: air-water-land-animals-fish-plants-people. We have responsibilities for how we use 

the land, one of which is to do so respectfully so as not to affect things negatively, downstream or 

for the future. The importance of the health of the land and waters for supporting healthy moose, 

fish, and so forth, cannot be overstated. Our traditional way of life is of more than local 

significance and special worth, or at least potentially so in the face of mineral development and 

the unknown effects of climate change. Our village is remote, with few employment 

opportunities, making our traditional use of land and waters crucially important for survival and 

continuing our culture. The lands and waters we depend on for traditional harvest are necessary 

for practicing what the federal government refers to as our “subsistence priority.” We call it life. 

The welfare and safety of our tribe is dependent upon the health of the lands and waters and we 

wish to insure that management decisions protect our lifeways, now and into the future. 

Area nominated: The nominated Bishop Creek ACEC is 16,200 acres. See Figure 16, Existing 

and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Lower Yukon.

Values nominated: Fish/riparian, cultural

Bishop Creek

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No Data is lacking to support the presence of fish species. The ADFG does not 

list any fish inventory reports in the Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory 

database26 for waters in the nominated ACEC. No anadromous species are 

listed for waters of the nominated ACEC in the State of Alaska’s 

 

26 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 99

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Bishop Creek

Bishop Creek

Anadromous Waters Catalog (ADFG 2014). The status of riparian resources 

is unknown; however, due to the area’s remote location, riparian resources 

are expected to be pristine and fully functional.

Important No See Relevance above.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No While this location may play an important role in local subsistence, there 

are no known cultural resources in it. The presence of sacred sites or 

potential Traditional Cultural Properties must be considered. It is not likely 

that an entire drainage would be considered a Traditional Cultural Property

or sacred site; these are typically discrete landforms or specific locations 

relating to traditional religious practices or significant events in the 

traditional belief system, such as places of cultural origin. Cultural 

significance should not be confused with subsistence importance; 

subsistence use is accounted for under a unique set of laws and regulations.

Important No There are no identified cultural resources in this area that meet the criteria 

for inclusion on the NRHP. 

3.3.39 Nulato Hills ACEC

Background: The Nulato Hills ACEC was designated as the Threatened and Endangered ACEC

in 1986 through the ROD for the CYRMP (BLM 1986). 

The arctic peregrine falcon was delisted in 1994; the American peregrine falcon was delisted in 

1999 and is not currently a BLM Alaska sensitive species. This ACEC encompasses mostly 

unencumbered BLM-managed lands. It has the same name as the Nulato Hills ACEC for caribou 

in the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area, but they not related.

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The original Nulato Hills ACEC described 

this area as crucial peregrine falcon habitat. The ACEC was reevaluated for the same criteria.

Area nominated: The current Nulato Hills ACEC is 40,700 acres. See Figure 16, Existing and 

Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Lower Yukon.

Values nominated: Special status species

Nulato Hills ACEC

Special Status 

Species Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No The criterion that the ACEC was established under, peregrine falcons, is no 

longer considered relevant. This is because the species is no longer listed

under the Endangered Species Act and is not a BLM Alaska sensitive 

species.

Important No See Relevance above.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 100

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Arms Lake RNA

3.3.40 Arms Lake RNA

Background: The BLM designated the Arms Lake RNA in 1986 through the ROD for the 

CYRMP (BLM 1986). Land status is unencumbered BLM managed. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The Arms Lake RNA was designated in 

1986 and was reevaluated against the criteria for ACEC and RNA designation and rationale 

below. 

The sand dunes in this area were made from a sediment trap that occurred nearly 12,000 years 

ago, after the Pleistocene Ice Age. Wind and water transported and sorted sediment, creating the 

dunes and influencing the making of the tributary streams in this area. The north-facing slope is 

generally permafrost free and supports an impressive and extensive tract of mixed spruce-birch 

forest. The south facing slope is underlain by permafrost and supports black spruce and lichen 

woodland. This area is made up of several lakes, upland pond environments, and dry lakebed 

remnants. 

Near four major transverse dunes in the southwest corner are two excellent examples of parabola 

dunes. The principle vegetation of this area is black spruce-cladonia woodland on the permafrost 

dunes. A thin cap or mantle of up to 20 centimeters (approximately 8 inches) of silt or silt loam

covers the sand, improving the conditions favorable for permafrost to form. 

A pond approximately 400 meters (approximately 1,300 feet) south of Arms Lake is expanding 

due to thermokarst collapse. Tilted and collapsing trees ring this pond. This feature is of interest 

because of questions about the role of permafrost in controlling the origin, persistence, and 

draining of the lakes and ponds of the dune summit here. This area is proposed as a suitable 

habitat for American golden plover during its migration. Some habitat features in this area are 

favorable for the dunlin, and there is a remote chance that the western sandpiper may frequent the 

area. 

Area nominated: The Arms Lake RNA is 10,600 acres and occupies the crest and gradually 

south-sloping exposure of a small watershed on the Chitanana Dunes System. See Figure 17, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Nowitna, and Figure 18, ACECs found to Meet the 

Relevance and Importance Criteria – Nowitna.

Values nominated: Soil, vegetation, geology

Arms Lake RNA

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Arms Lake RNA contains a mosaic of soil types, including the rare and 

unique sand dune complex, which supports a variety of vegetation and 

animal communities.

Important Yes While soil resources in the nominated Arms Lake RNA are generally

pristine and undisturbed and would be considered unique on a national 

scale, they are not unique in the planning area or region. However, the 

mosaic of soil types, including the sand dune complex, is unique in the 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 101

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Arms Lake RNA

Arms Lake RNA

planning area and Alaska. In addition, permafrost underlies much of the 

Arms Lake RNA. Permafrost and sand dunes are highly susceptible to 

erosion or other soil movement caused by disturbance of the ground cover 

and subsequent thawing of permafrost. 

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes The Arms Lake RNA has a mosaic of soil types, including the sand dune 

complex, which is unique in the planning area and Alaska.

RNA Size Yes This RNA, in combination with the Redlands Lake RNA, should be of 

adequate size to provide for scientific study.

Vegetation Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The rare geologic characteristics of parabola dunes, in combination with 

exemplary permafrost-driven lakebed changes, are likely associated with 

unique assemblages and distributions of plant and animal species, as well as 

vegetation succession trajectory changes.

Important Yes The above-mentioned relevance criteria provide a unique opportunity for 

further study of both unique and exemplary systems and species 

assemblages that have not been well explained.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes Sand dunes are a unique geologic feature in interior Alaska. The Arms Lake 

RNA dunes are covered by tundra vegetation, which consists of typical 

species assemblages. Although the presence of sand dunes is somewhat 

unusual, there are other sand dunes in interior Alaska that are more visible 

and accessible than those in this RNA.

RNA Size Yes An argument could be made that a case study of one such area would not be 

meaningful on a landscape level and that additional areas with similar 

characteristics would be good additions. 

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No The sand dunes are of geologic interest, but recent photos taken of the RNA 

show that the sand dunes have ceased functioning as dunes and are now part 

of the tundra.

Important No The sand dunes do not meet the importance criteria because they cannot be 

viewed or studied.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes The sand dunes would be a common geologic feature, if visible, but the 

tundra covering them is a more common feature of the state. The sand 

dunes are an unusual geologic feature for the area, but there are other sand 

dunes throughout the state that are more visible and accessible.

RNA Size Yes The RNA boundary is more than adequate for the study of the tundracovered sand dunes in this area.

3.3.41 Redlands Lake RNA

Background: The BLM designated the Redlands Lake RNA in 1986 through the ROD for the 

CYRMP (BLM 1986). The land status is unencumbered managed BLM. 

Nominator: BLM 

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The Redlands Lake RNA was reevaluated 

against the criteria for ACEC and RNA designation and the unique characteristics below. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 102

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Redlands Lake RNA

This designated RNA has many unique characteristics that qualify it as such. Several factors are 

combined to produce relatively warm water in the lakes of the basin north of the Alaska Range.

This is a low elevation basin, with an extensive area below 1,000 feet. It is in the central part of 

the state, where the warmest summers occur. The dune surfaces are not completely covered with 

vegetation, or at least they are not shaded with forest canopy. As a result, waters feeding the lakes 

are warmed directly by the sun or indirectly by the sun-warmed ground. The lakes themselves are 

relatively shallow, thus easily warmed. Some have variable shorelines, constricting in dry periods 

and expanding back over relatively warm soil surfaces after rains. 

Because of these factors, the dune lake region of central Alaska is limnologically unique. These 

lakes provide attractive recreational and settlement features. Nearly all of the lakes larger than 

300 acres have experienced settlement. Redlands Lake may be the last large lake on or associated 

with the dune fields south of the Tanana and Yukon Rivers that has not experienced shoreline 

development. 

Area nominated: The Redlands Lake RNA is 3,800 acres and is located at the north end of the 

BLM North Kuskokwim ownership block. It is 30 to 40 miles southwest of the confluence of the 

Tanana and Yukon Rivers. See Figure 17, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Nowitna, 

and Figure 18, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Nowitna.

Values nominated: Soil, fish/riparian, vegetation, geology, cultural 

Redlands Lake RNA

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Redlands Lake RNA contains a mosaic of soil types, including the rare 

and unique sand dune complex, which supports a variety of vegetation and 

animal communities.

Important Yes While soil resources in the nominated Redlands Lake RNA are generally 

pristine and undisturbed and would be considered unique on a national 

scale, they are not unique in the planning area or region. However, the 

mosaic of soil types, including the sand dune complex, is unique in the 

planning area and Alaska. In addition, permafrost underlies much of the 

Arms Lake RNA. Permafrost and sand dunes are highly susceptible to 

erosion or other soil movement caused by disturbance of the ground cover 

and subsequent thawing of permafrost. 

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes The Redlands Lake RNA has a mosaic of soil types, including the sand 

dune complex, which is unique in the planning area and Alaska.

RNA Size Yes This RNA, in combination with the Arms Lake RNA, should be of adequate 

size to provide for scientific study.

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes Based on Juday (1983), Redlands Lake is inhabited by northern pike and 

least cisco. Although the status of riparian resources is unknown, due to the 

area’s remote location and previous management as an RNA, riparian 

resources are expected to be pristine and fully functional. 

Important No Species of fish present and the riparian community that is integral to the 

function of this aquatic habitat are typical of the area, with only locally 

significant qualities.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 103

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Redlands Lake RNA

Redlands Lake RNA

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes Fish species are typical for the area. Changes in species composition or 

assemblages may be of interest as part of climate change monitoring and 

concurrent geomorphology changes.

RNA Size Yes It is large enough for the study of fish species.

Vegetation Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The rare geologic characteristics of dunes and associated rare lakes meets 

the relevance criteria, in combination with unique assemblages and 

distributions of plant and animal species and vegetation succession 

trajectory changes. 

Important Yes The above-mentioned relevance criteria provide a unique opportunity for 

further study of both unique and exemplary systems and species 

assemblages that have not been well explained.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes 1. A typical representation of a common plant or animal association: Yes.

2. An unusual plant or animal association: Yes, unique unforested dune 

vegetation (Juday 1983). 

3. A threatened or endangered plant or animal species: None known. 

4. A typical representation of common geologic, soil, or water features: 

Yes (relic sand dunes). 

5. Outstanding or unusual geologic, soil, or water features: Yes, relic 

dunes and shallow warm lakes, which are limnologically unique for 

interior Alaska, as described in Rationale for nomination provided by 

nominator (Juday 1983).

RNA Size Yes The RNA is large enough for the study of vegetation.

Geology Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No The sand dunes are of geologic interest, but recent photos taken of the RNA 

show that the sand dunes have ceased functioning as dunes and are now part 

of the tundra.

Important No The sand dunes do not meet the importance criteria because they cannot be 

viewed or studied.

RNA 

Characteristics

Yes The sand dunes are a common geologic feature, if visible, but the tundra 

covering them is a more common feature of the state. The sand dunes are an 

unusual geologic feature for the area, but there are other sand dunes 

throughout the state that are more visible and accessible.

RNA Size Yes The RNA boundary is more than adequate for studying the tundra-covered 

sand dunes in this area.

Cultural Yes/No Rationale

Relevant No No pedestrian survey was undertaken. While prehistoric use is likely, given 

the size and location of the lake, there are no data that suggest special 

management.

Important No BLM archaeologists who flew over this area in 2014 did not identify typical 

areas of high probability, but sites may exist.

3.3.42 Sethkokna River

Background: During the scoping process for the CYRMP, ACEC nominations for the Sethkokna 

River were received from the BLM and USFWS. Land status of the expansion is a mixture of 

unencumbered BLM-managed and State-selected land (low priority 10). 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 104

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Sethkokna River

Nominators: BLM and USFWS (Koyukuk/Nowitna NWR)

Rationale for nomination provided by the nominators: In the early 2000s, two major multiyear projects were conducted in the Yukon River Basin. The BLM conducted one of these 

projects, the Salmon Production Habitat Survey, in cooperation with the ADFG. It involved 

systematic trapping (using minnow traps) and aerial surveys of all BLM-managed streams or 

segments of streams not previously documented in the State’s anadromous waters catalog. 

The other project was the Yukon River salmon radio telemetry project, which was a multi-agency 

effort begun in 2000 by the ADFG and the National Marine Fisheries Service (Spencer and Eiler 

2004, Eiler et al. 2006). Both projects documented Chinook salmon spawning in the Sethkokna 

River and that the Sethkokna River is the primary producer of Chinook salmon in the Nowitna 

River drainage (R. Brown, USFWS, pers. comm., and BLM unpublished data). 

In 2014, BLM conducted an aerial survey of the Sethkokna River in order to document the 

number and location of adult Chinook spawning in the system. Ninety-eight Chinook and 40 

Chinook redds were observed during the survey. These results, although not representative of the 

true number of salmon that spawn within the drainage, do indicate that the Sethkokna River is a 

primary producer of Chinook salmon within the Nowitna River drainage. The watershed area in 

the planning area is 304,000 acres, 98 percent of which is managed by the BLM. 

Area nominated: The total nominated area is 319,000 acres. The USFWS nomination overlaps 

the BLM nomination but also includes portions of the Titna watershed. The Telsitna-Titna 

nominations are evaluated separately. See Figure 17, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – 

Nowitna, and Figure 18, ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – 

Nowitna.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian

Sethkokna River

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

spawning in the Sethkokna River nomination is rare in the planning area. It

encompasses soil, water, riparian, and wetland resources. The system

supports a unique incubation, rearing, and overwintering habitat essential 

for maintaining Chinook salmon diversity in the planning area and Alaska. 

Important Yes While soil resources in the Sethkokna River nomination are generally in a 

pristine and undisturbed condition and would be considered unique on a 

national scale, they are not unique in the planning area or regionally. 

However, permafrost underlies much of the Sethkokna River nomination. 

These soils are highly susceptible to erosion or other soil movement caused 

by disturbance of the ground cover and subsequent thawing of permafrost. 

In addition, the unique and fragile soils around the upwelling and 

downwelling areas associated with Chinook salmon spawning control the 

hydrology of the salmon spawning areas. Any disturbance of these soils 

would affect the spawning area’s flow regime and would negatively affect 

salmon egg survival.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 105

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Sethkokna River

Sethkokna River

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the nominated Sethkokna River nomination is 

excellent and would be considered unique on a national scale, it is not 

unique in the planning area or regionally. The upwelling and downwelling 

areas associated with Chinook salmon spawning areas that provide water 

for incubation and rearing of salmon are unique in the planning area and 

Alaska. Maintaining water quality and temperature and adequate 

streamflows in these spawning areas is crucial in the incubation of salmon 

eggs and maintaining crucial overwintering habitat. Adhering to the 

mandates of the Clean Water Act is a national priority. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Sethkokna River provides crucial spawning and rearing habitat to 

Chinook salmon. Other species that have been documented in the drainage 

include slimy sculpin, arctic grayling, and burbot (BLM unpublished data). 

Riparian resources in the area are in proper functioning condition. 

Important Yes Only for those waters draining into the Sethkokna River. With the exception 

of the Sethkokna River drainage, water draining directly into the Titna 

River is excluded from consideration. The Sethkokna River is known to 

provide crucial spawning and rearing habitat to Chinook salmon. In addition 

to what was previously documented, the BLM conducted an aerial salmon 

escapement survey in July 2014 and counted 98 Chinook salmon spawning 

over an extensive reach of the Sethkokna River. Although not representative 

of the true number of salmon that spawn in the drainage, these results do 

indicate that the Sethkokna River is a primary producer of Chinook salmon 

in the Nowitna River drainage. 

Riparian resources’ ecological functions are integral to the overall condition 

and quality of this important aquatic habitat. This is because they define 

sediment transport processes, biochemical and nutrient cycling, and food 

web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, when viewed 

independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of the BLMmanaged lands in the planning area, which could be considered somewhat 

rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a disproportionate 

number of biological and physical functions on a unit area basis. Because of 

this, protection is warranted in order to satisfy national priorities related to 

water quality, land health, floodplain function, and biodiversity 

maintenance.

3.3.43 Sulukna River ACEC (Including Expansion) 

Background: The BLM designated the Sulukna River ACEC in 1986 through the CYRMP 

(BLM 1986). In 2014, through the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM and USFWS 

proposed expanding the Sulukna River ACEC to include 380,000 additional acres. The land 

status of this expansion is a mixture of unencumbered BLM, State selected, and Native-selected. 

Most of the State-selected land is low priority, but the upper headwaters are high. 

Nominators: BLM and USFWS (Koyukuk/Nowitna NWR)
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 106

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Sulukna River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Rationale for nomination provided by nominators: The CYRMP designated the ACEC to 

protect the spawning habitat of the unique sheefish (inconnu), thought to be present in the lower 

river (Alt 1974, 1985). In a 2003 cooperative study, the BLM and USFWS documented the 

timing and distribution of inconnu spawners in the Sulukna River. Most of the fish were using an 

area between Mile 16 and Mile 50 to spawn, an area upstream of the uppermost ACEC boundary 

(Kretsinger and Brown 2004). The USFWS, BLM, and ADFG conducted a continuation of the 

2003 telemetry project from 2005 to 2009. Results from this study further refined the spawning 

area to between Mile 16 and Mile 57 and documented that inconnu spawning in the Nowitna 

River drainage is limited to the Sulukna River (R. Brown, USFWS, unpublished data).

The Sulukna River is one of five known spawning habitats for inconnu in the Yukon River basin. 

In 2008 and 2009, the abundance of the spawning population was estimated to be 2,079 and 3,531 

(Esse 2011). In addition to inconnu, the Sulukna River provides habitat to hundreds of coho 

salmon (D. Esse, BLM pers. comm.); fall chum salmon, humpback whitefish, and least cisco are 

known to use the river (Kretsinger and Brown 2004).

The USFWS and BLM jointly manage the Sulukna River watershed. The USFWS manages the 

lower one percent (4,500 acres) of the watershed, and the BLM manages the remainder (399,000

acres). Approximately 2.5 percent of the watershed is currently designated as an ACEC and is 

managed by the BLM. Based on the presence of this rare habitat (there are only five known 

inconnu spawning areas in the Yukon River Basin), he entire Sulukna River watershed upstream 

of the Nowitna River NWR should be included in the existing ACEC. 

Area nominated: The current Sulukna River ACEC is 24,600 acres27 and an additional 380,000

acres has been nominated. The total size of the existing ACEC and the nominated expansion is 

405,000 acres. See Figure 17, Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Nowitna, and Figure 18, 

ACECs found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Nowitna.

Values nominated: Soil, water, fish/riparian, wildlife

Sulukna River ACEC (Including Expansion) 

Soil Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The system of upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

and inconnu spawning, in the Sulukna River ACEC, encompassing soil, 

water, riparian, and wetland resources are rare to the planning area. It

supports a unique incubation, rearing, and overwintering habitat essential 

for maintaining inconnu and Chinook, coho, and chum salmon diversity in 

the planning area and Alaska as a whole. Only parts of the Sulukna River 

watershed have these characteristics; those areas nominated by USFWS that 

flow directly into the Nowitna River do not have this habitat. 

Important Yes While soil resources in the Sulukna River ACEC are generally pristine and 

undisturbed and would be considered unique on a national scale, they are 

not unique in the planning area or region. However, permafrost underlies 

much of the Sulukna River ACEC. These soils are highly susceptible to 

 

27 The 1986 CYRMP identified approximately 10,240 acres as the ACEC. The acreage discrepancy is due to 

improved mapping and not a difference in the area intended to be designated as an ACEC. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 107

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Sulukna River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Sulukna River ACEC (Including Expansion)

erosion or other soil movement caused by disturbance of the ground cover 

and subsequent thawing of permafrost. In addition, the unique and fragile 

soils around the upwelling and downwelling areas associated with salmon 

and inconnu spawning control the hydrology of the salmon and inconnu 

spawning areas. Any disturbance of these soils would affect the spawning 

area’s flow regime and would negatively affect salmon egg survival.

Water Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes See Soil above.

Important Yes While water quality in the nominated Sulukna River ACEC is excellent and 

would be considered unique on a national scale, it is not unique in the 

planning area or region. The upwelling and downwelling areas associated 

with salmon and inconnu spawning that provide water for incubation and 

rearing of salmon are unique in the planning area and Alaska. Maintaining 

water quality and temperature and adequate streamflows in these spawning 

areas is crucial in the incubation of salmon and inconnu eggs and for 

maintaining crucial overwintering habitat. Adhering to the mandates of the 

Clean Water Act is a national priority. 

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Sulukna River provides crucial spawning habitat for sheefish

(inconnu). In addition to inconnu, the Sulukna River provides important 

habitat to hundreds of coho and fall chum salmon, humpback whitefish, and 

least cisco. Riparian resources in the area are in proper functioning 

condition. 

Important Yes Only for those waters draining into the Sulukna River. With the exception 

of the Sulukna River drainage, water draining directly into the Nowitna 

River is excluded from consideration. The Sulukna River is one of five 

known spawning habitats for sheefish (inconnu) in the Yukon River basin. 

In addition to inconnu, the Sulukna River provides important habitat to 

hundreds of coho and fall chum salmon, humpback whitefish, and least 

cisco. 

Riparian resources’ ecological functions are integral to the overall condition 

and quality of this important aquatic habitat. This is because they define 

sediment transport processes, biochemical and nutrient cycling, and food 

web maintenance. In addition, riparian resources, when viewed 

independently of other resources, constitute only 3 percent of the BLMmanaged lands in the planning area, which could be considered somewhat 

rare on a regional basis. Riparian resources perform a disproportionate 

number of biological and physical functions on a unit area basis. Because of 

this, protection is warranted in order to satisfy national priorities related to 

water quality, land health, floodplain function, and biodiversity 

maintenance.

Wildlife Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The Sunshine Mountain Caribou Herd inhabits the lower third (upper 

headwaters of the Sulukna River) of the nominated Sulukna River ACEC 

expansion. This herd is made up of large-bodied Interior Alaska caribou

that are representative of other small, non-migratory herds in the planning 

area. Their range is restricted to the high country west and north of 

McGrath. Generally, the herd can be found in the Sunshine Mountains 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 108

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Sulukna River ACEC (Including Expansion)

Sulukna River ACEC (Including Expansion)

around Vom Frank Mountain, and in the Mystery Mountains.

Important Yes The Sunshine Mountain Caribou Herd is of local biological importance, but 

its success as a herd will not affect broader caribou population dynamics in 

the state. However, small, relic caribou populations are of interest to 

biologists because they are more susceptible to landscape level changes and 

local impacts and development. This feature of the Sunshine Mountain 

Caribou Herd gives it significant qualities beyond the local level. It 

potentially has qualities that make it fragile, sensitive, and irreplaceable. 

The herd is not endangered or threatened, but it is potentially vulnerable to 

adverse change, such as those in habitat and from development. The herd is 

not necessarily rare or endangered, but it is exemplary of small caribou 

herds in interior Alaska. It is unique because there are only a few nonmigratory herds in the state. 

3.3.44 Telsitna-Titna Rivers

Background: During the scoping process for the CYRMP, the BLM received an ACEC 

nomination for the Telsitna-Titna Rivers from the USFWS. The area is made up of unencumbered 

BLM-managed lands. 

Nominator: USFWS (Koyukuk/Nowitna NWR)

Rationale for nomination provided by nominator: The Titna, Telsitna, and Sethkokna Rivers 

provide spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook salmon in the Nowitna Drainage (Eiler et al. 

2004). These tributaries are some of the few Chinook salmon producers in the drainage. Given 

current statewide Chinook salmon returns, all known spawning locations are crucial for the 

persistence of this species. The primary reason for designating as an ACEC the habitat 

surrounding the Titna, Telsitna, and Sethkokna Rivers is to protect crucial spawning and rearing 

habitat for Chinook salmon. This species is used throughout Alaska for subsistence and 

commercial activities.

Salmon are an important subsistence species throughout the Yukon River watershed. Many 

people in villages along the river system use this species, and negative impacts on spawning and 

rearing habitats would affect populations beyond a local level. Protecting Chinook salmon 

spawning and rearing habitat along the Titna, Telsitna, and Sethkokna Rivers is crucial for the 

longevity of this species.

Congress recognized the importance of salmon by naming the species specifically for 

conservation in the ANILCA. This mandated that salmon be maintained in their natural diversity 

and that opportunities for subsistence use be maintained. Further, Section 302(5)(B) of the 

ANILCA ensures water quality and necessary water quantity in NWRs as one of four major 

purposes for which the NWRs were established. Additionally, the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act identified the “maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality” as 

one of ten major principles set forth to conserve and protect refuge resources. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 109

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Telsitna-Titna Rivers

The USFWS stresses the importance of refuges to maintain water quality and quantity. The 

agency is concerned about any activities or actions on BLM-managed lands next to refuges that 

may compromise its abilities to meet these mandates.

Management guidelines should be provided to prevent actions that would degrade habitat and the 

water quality and quantity of the Telsitna-Titna Rivers. The USFWS requests that mining be

limited and monitored. Mining has a high potential to negatively affect aquatic habitat and 

communities for long periods, with poorly documented restoration success in interior and 

northern Alaska (Carlson et al. 2000, Karle et al. 1998, USKH 2005a, 2005b, Weber 1986). 

Resources in these watersheds are sensitive to contamination and turbidity and provide essential 

subsistence requirements for the residents of many rural communities.

Area nominated: The nominated Telsitna-Titna Rivers ACEC is 27,900 acres. The proposal 

would designate two parcels of unencumbered BLM-managed land. They are between the

southeast boundary of the Nowitna NWR and the northwest boundary of Denali National Park. 

Parcel 1 is 5,800 acres and surrounds the Telsitna River. The second parcel, at 22,100 acres, 

surrounds the mouth of the Telsitna River and the midsection of the Titna River. See Figure 17, 

Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Nowitna.

Values nominated: Fish/riparian

Telsitna-Titna Rivers

Fish/Riparian Yes/No Rationale

Relevant Yes The ADFG (2014) documented the Titna River as having Chinook salmon. 

Because no data are available on salmon presence in or use of the Telsitna 

River, its nomination does not meet the relevance criteria at this time.

Riparian resources, that are integral to the health and function of aquatic 

habitat in the nomination area are present and in proper functioning 

condition.

Important No Species of fish present in and the riparian community that is integral to the 

function of this aquatic habitat are typical of the area, with only locally 

significant qualities.

Data available at this time suggest that the primary role of the Titna River is 

as a migratory corridor for adult salmon moving to spawning habitat farther 

upstream in the Sethkokna River and for juvenile salmon migrating 

downstream to the ocean. During the migration of juvenile salmon from the 

Sethkokna River, the Titna River also provides rearing habitat. The length 

of residency and the Titna’s overall value as rearing habitat remain 

undocumented. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 110

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 3 ACEC Evaluations

Telsitna-Titna Rivers

This page intentionally left blank.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 111

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

CHAPTER 4 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, EVALUATION PROCESS,

AND NEXT STEPS

4.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This chapter summarizes the findings of the ACEC evaluations from Chapter 3. Table 3, 

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations, summarizes the existing and nominated ACECs and 

RNAs that were evaluated, the assessed values, and whether the criteria were met (including 

supporting information). Twenty-six ACECs were found to meet both the relevance and 

importance criteria and are displayed in Figures 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 18 (Appendix A). 

Additionally, eight RNAs were found to meet the RNA criteria. Some of the RNAs also meet the 

criteria for designation as ACECs, for a total of 30 areas that meet the ACEC or RNA criteria.

These 30 ACECs and RNAs will be carried forward into the alternatives for the Draft RMP. Their 

evaluations in Chapter 3 demonstrated that they met the relevance and importance criteria for at 

least one resource. The third requirement for ACEC designation, special management attention, 

will be addressed during the future formulation of alternatives (see Section 2.1.3). Additionally, 

during the formulation of alternatives, the acreages of the ACECs may change, as determined by 

the special management attention required for the particular ACEC resource. The size and 

management prescriptions for each ACEC may vary by alternative to reflect a balance between 

the goals and objectives of the alternative and values being protected (BLM Manual 1613.22.B.1-

2). 

Eight areas or nominations did not meet the relevance and importance criteria and will not be 

carried forward for evaluation in the RMP (see Table 3). In addition, six areas or nominations are 

not being carried forward for evaluation in the RMP as they were nominated, but all or portions 

of the nomination may be included in other areas being carried forward for analysis in the RMP. 

These are also noted in Table 3. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 112

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Accomplishment 

Creek 

(Figures 2 and 3)

Nominated

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 0 41,000 41,000 Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Geology No No

Alatna River 

(Figures 8 and 9) Nominated

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 0 5,500 5,500

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife Yes No

Geology No No

Arms Lake RNA

(Figures 17 and 18) Existing

Soil Yes Yes

Yes Yes 10,600 10,600 10,600

Water No No

Fish/Riparian No No

Wildlife No No

Vegetation Yes Yes

Geology No No

Atigun-Sagavanirktok 

River (Figure 2) Nominated

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 0 105,000

0 (41,000 acres 

overlap 

Accomplishment 

Creek, 29,200 

acres overlaps with 

Toolik Lake RNA 

and expansion)

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Geology Yes No

Cultural No No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 113

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Bishop Creek 

(Figure 16) Nominated

Soil No No

No N/A 0 16,200 0 

Water No No

Fish/Riparian No No

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Cultural No No

Dalton Utility 

Corridor 

(Figures 2, 4, and 6)

Nominated

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 0 699,0003

0 (288,000 acres 

overlap multiple

ACECs) 

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species Yes Yes

Vegetation Yes Yes

Geology Yes Yes

Cultural No No

Dulbi River ACEC

(Figure 14) Existing

Soil No No

Yes N/A 54,300 54,300

0 (11,700 acres 

overlap the Galena 

Mountain Caribou 

ACEC and 

expansion)

Water No No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 114

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Galbraith Lake ACEC

(Figures 2 and 3) Existing

Soil No No

Yes N/A 53,900 53,900 53,900

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Geology No No

Cultural Yes Yes

Galena Mountain 

Caribou ACEC 

(Figures 14 and 15)

Nominated 

for 

Expansion

Soil No No

Yes N/A 19,400 671,000 507,000

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Hogatza River 

Tributaries ACEC

(Figures 10 and 11)

Nominated 

for 

Expansion

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 5,200 62,000 60,000

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Indian River ACEC

(Figures 8 and 9) Existing

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 158,000 176,000 176,000

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 115

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Ishtalitna Creek Hot 

Springs RNA 

(Figures 12 and 13)

Existing

Soil Yes Yes

Yes Yes 1,000 1,000 1,100

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian No No

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species

No No

Vegetation Yes Yes

Geology No No

Jim River ACEC

(Figures 6 and 7)

Nominated 

for 

Expansion

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 203,000 476,000 303,000

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife Yes Yes

Geology No No

Cultural Yes Yes

Kanuti Hot Springs 

ACEC (Figure 6) Existing

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 40 40 40 Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Geology Yes No

Kanuti-Kilolitna 

Rivers (Figure 12) Nominated

Soil No No

Yes Yes 0 266,000

0 (264,000 acres 

overlap Ray 

Mountains and 

1,100 acres overlap 

Ishtalitna Creek 

Hot Springs RNA) 

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Geology No No

Cultural No No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 116 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Klikhtentotzna Creek

(Figures 10 and 11) Nominated

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 0 108,000 108,000

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Koyukuk River 

Tributaries 

(Figures 8, 10, and 

16)

Nominated

Soil No No

No N/A 0 174,000

0 (14,100 acres 

overlap Indian 

River ACEC and 

expansion)

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Cultural No No

Lake Todatonten 

Pingos RNA 

(Figures 8 and 9)

Existing

Soil Yes Yes

Yes

Yes if 

combined 

with others

660 660 660

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian No No

Vegetation Yes Yes

Geology Yes No

McQuesten Creek 

RNA 

(Figures 12 and 13)

Existing

Soil Yes Yes

Yes Yes 3,900 3,900 3,900

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation Yes Yes

Geology Yes No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 117

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Mentanontli 

River/Lake 

Todatonten 

(Figures 8 and 9)

Nominated

Soil No No

Yes N/A 0 22,000 22,000

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife No No

Geology No No

Midnight Dome/ 

Kalhabuk 

(Figures 4 and 5)

Nominated

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 0 10,000 10,000

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species No No

Geology No No

Nigu-Iteriak ACEC

(Figure 2) Existing

Soil No No

No N/A 40,200 40,200 0 

Water No No

Fish/Riparian No No

Geology No No

Cultural No No

Nugget Creek ACEC

(Figures 4 and 5) Existing

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 3,300 3,300 3,300

Water No No

Fish/Riparian No No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species No No

Geology No No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 118

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Nulato Hills ACEC

(Figure 16) Existing

Soil No No

No N/A 40,700 40,700 0 

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Pah River (Figure 10) Nominated

Soil No No

No N/A 0 50,600 0 

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Cultural No No

Poss Mountain ACEC

(Figures 4 and 5)

Nominated 

for 

Expansion

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 8,700 25,500 25,500

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species No No

Geology No No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 119

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Ray Mountains

(Figures 12 and 13)

Nominated 

for 

Expansion

Soil No No

Yes N/A

129,000 

(Tozitna 

Subunit 

North) 

and 

62,600 

(Tozitna 

Subunit 

South)

938,000 1,540,000 

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species No No

Geology No No

Redlands Lake RNA

(Figures 17 and 18) Existing

Soil Yes Yes

Yes Yes 3,800 3,800 3,800

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife No No

Vegetation Yes Yes

Geology No No

Cultural No No

Sethkokna River

(Figures 17 and 18) Nominated

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 0 319,000 299,000

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 120

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Snowden Mountain 

ACEC (Figure 4)

Nominated 

for 

Expansion

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 29,700 102,000

0 

(102,000 acres 

overlaps Sukakpak 

Mountain ACEC)

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species No No

Geology Yes Existing: Yes

Expansion: No

South Fork Koyukuk 

River 

(Figures 6 and 7)

Nominated

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 0 417,000 415,000 Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Geology No No

South Todatonten 

Summit RNA

(Figures 8 and 9)

Existing

Soil Yes Yes

Yes

Yes if 

combined 

with 

others

660 660 660

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian No No

Vegetation Yes Yes

Geology Yes No

Spooky Valley RNA

(Figures 12 and 13) Existing

Soil No No

Yes Yes 10,100 10,100 8,800

Water No No

Fish/Riparian No No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species Yes No

Vegetation Yes Yes

Geology Yes No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 121

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Sukakpak Mountain 

ACEC 

(Figures 4 and 5)

Nominated 

for 

Expansion

Soil No No

Yes N/A 3,500 18,700 125,000

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife Yes No

Special Status 

Species No No

Geology Yes Existing: Yes

Expansion: No

Scenic Yes Yes

Sulukna River ACEC

(Figures 17 and 18)

Nominated 

for 

Expansion

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 24,600 405,000 398,000 Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife Yes Yes

Telsitna-Titna Rivers

(Figure 17) Nominated

Soil No No

No N/A 0 27,900 0 

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Toolik Lake RNA

(Figures 2 and 3)

Nominated 

for 

Expansion

Soil No No

Yes Yes 77,200 108,000 106,000

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Special Status 

Species Yes Yes

Vegetation Yes Yes

Geology No No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 122

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Tozitna River ACEC

(Figure 12) Existing

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 843,000 843,000

0 (838,000 acres 

overlap the Ray 

Mountains 

nomination)

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Traditional Hunting 

and Fishing Areas for 

Louden Tribe 

(Figures 14 and 16)

Nominated

Soil No No

No N/A 0 43,100

0 (5,500 acres 

overlap Galena 

Mountain Caribou 

ACEC and 

expansion)

Water No No

Fish/Riparian No No

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Cultural No No

Upper Kanuti River

(Figures 6 and 7) Nominated

Soil No No

Yes N/A 0 232,0004 975,000

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species Yes No

Geology No No

Cultural Yes Yes
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 123

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Upper Teedriinjik

(Chandalar) River 

(Figures 6 and 7)

Nominated

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 0 295,000 296,000

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Cultural No No

West Fork Atigun 

River ACEC 

(Figures 2 and 3)

Nominated 

for 

Expansion

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 9,200 33,500 33,500 

Water No No

Fish/Riparian No No

Wildlife Yes Yes

Special Status 

Species No No

Geology No No

Wheeler Creek 

(Figures 10 and 11) Nominated

Soil Yes Yes

Yes N/A 0 147,000

145,000 (excludes 

nominated lands 

outside the 

watershed)

Water Yes Yes

Fish/Riparian Yes Yes

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 124

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

Table 3

Summary of ACEC and RNA Evaluations 

Area Existing or 

Nominated Value Meets Relevance?1

Meets 

Importance?2

Meets 

ACEC 

Criteria

Meets 

RNA 

Criteria

Existing 

Acres

Nominated 

Acres

Acres Carried 

Forward for 

Analysis in EIS

Yukon River 

Watersheds 

(Figures 14 and 16)

Nominated

Soil No No

No N/A 0 78,200 0 

Water No No

Fish/Riparian Yes No

Wildlife No No

Special Status 

Species No No

Vegetation No No

Geology No No

Cultural No No 1 Yes means that the area meets the relevance criteria for this value; No means the area does not meet the relevance criteria for this value (see Section 2.1.1, Relevance) 2 Yes means that the area meets the importance criteria for this value; No means the area does not meet the importance criteria for this value (see Section 2.1.2, Importance); N/A 

indicates that the area was not evaluated for importance criteria for this value because it does not meet relevance criteria for this value

3

 Portions of the nominated area that overlap with other proposed or existing ACECs meet the criteria. The larger nominated area was not found to meet the criteria in its entirety. 4 The USFWS nominated a 232,000-acre area; the BLM is considering a larger 975,000-acre area that partially overlaps the USFWS nomination.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 125

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

4.2 EVALUATION PROCESS

In compiling a list of areas to be analyzed in this report, the BLM considered the public 

comments received on ACEC modifications, removals, and nominations (Sections 3.1 and 3.2). 

The BLM followed guidance set forth in BLM Manual 1613, 43 CFR 1610.7-2, and 43 CFR 8223 

and considered: 

• Existing ACECs and RNAs

• Areas recommended for ACEC consideration (internal and external nominations) 

• Areas identified through inventorying and monitoring 

• Adjacent designations of other federal and state agencies 

BLM staff, other agencies, or members of the public can nominate ACECs at any time. During 

the RMP revision scoping process, the BLM solicited nominations and comments from the public 

and other agencies. The agency distributed a map of special designation areas at the scoping 

meetings and made the map available on the RMP website, http://www.blm.gov/ak/cyrmp. 

An interdisciplinary team of BLM staff reviewed both new nominations and information on 

existing designations to ensure that all relevant and important values within the planning area 

were considered. Existing RNAs were considered using both the relevance and importance 

criteria for ACECs as well as RNA definitions in 43 CFR 8223. Given the size of the planning 

area, the large number of existing ACECs/RNAs, and the number of nominations, the BLM 

grouped the ACECs into smaller areas to facilitate review and display on maps. Additionally 

many of the nominations overlapped either existing ACECs or other nominations. Figure 1

displays the map extents for groups of ACECs. Multiple nominations for the same area were 

considered together using the largest geographical extent.

4.3 NEXT STEPS

The BLM will carry forward for consideration the areas found to meet both the relevance and 

importance criteria to determine whether any special management would be required (Section 

2.1.3) under alternatives for potential designation and management in the RMP (BLM Manual 

1613.21) as ACECs. The BLM will use public comments obtained through future public 

comment submissions and BLM specialists’ knowledge to make future ACEC determinations. As 

such, the BLM will rely on public comments obtained during additional planning phases that may 

help to inform BLM decisions about designating the future ACECs within the planning area. 

These planning phases are:

1. Public availability of the ACEC report on the RMP website www.blm.gov/cyrmp. 

2. The preliminary alternatives outreach and public comment period on preliminary 

alternatives. Date to be determined. 

3. The public comment period on the Draft Central Yukon RMP/EIS. Date to be 

determined. 

Additional ACEC nominations received before publication of the Draft RMP/EIS will be 

considered if timely enough to allow incorporation into the Draft. Nominations received after 

publication of the Draft RMP/EIS will be evaluated for relevance and importance. Those meeting 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 126

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 4 Summary of Findings, 

Evaluation Process, and Next Steps

the criteria may be considered in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS or deferred until the next planning 

cycle. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 127

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 5 List of Preparers

CHAPTER 5 

LIST OF PREPARERS

Name Role/Responsibility

Cole, Jeanie Primary POC, Team Lead

Esse, David Soil, Water, Air

Faughn, Mark GIS Specialist, Mapping, GIS Data

Hedman, Bill

Hammond, Tim

Cultural, Paleontological

Assistant Field Manager

Jacobson, Shelly Field Manager

Jodwalis, Lisa Visual Resources

Julianus, Erin Wildlife, Subsistence

Karlen, Bob Fish and Riparian

Kretsinger, Carl Fish and Riparian

McClain, Holli Visual Resources

McMillan, Jennifer Special Status Species, Ecology, Vegetation

VandeWeg, Darrel Locatable and Mineral Materials

Estep, Melissa EMPSi, Document Production

Jonker, Jenna EMPSi, GIS Mapping

Krebs, Kate EMPSi, Document Production
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 128

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 5 List of Preparers

This page intentionally left blank.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 129

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 6 References Cited

CHAPTER 6 

REFERENCES CITED

ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2013. Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, 

Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. 

_____. 2014. Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes – 

Interior Region, Effective June 1, 2014. Internet website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov. 

Aigner, J. S., and B. L. Gannon. 1980. Historic and Prehistoric Land Use in Interior Alaska: Delta North 

to Prudhoe Bay. Background report for Archaeological Survey Along the Proposed Natural Gas 

Pipeline from Delta Junction to Prudhoe Bay. 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2010. Dalton Highway Scenic Byway Corridor Partnership 

Plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, 

Interpretation and Education Unit. Prepared for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities, State Scenic Byways Program. March 2010.

Andersen, D. B., C. L. Brown, R. J. Walker, and K. Elkin. 2004. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and 

Contemporary Subsistence Harvest of Non-Salmon Fish in the Koyukuk River Drainage, Alaska. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 282, Juneau. 

Internet website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp282.pdf. 

Armstrong and Halpin. 1980. Cited in: BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management). 1983. Management Situation Analysis, Central Yukon Planning Area. November 

1983. 

Arnett, H. 2005. Harrison Creek Reclamation, Phase 1: An Overview of Issues and Approaches for the 

Reclamation of Placer Mined Lands. Doc. No. WO 769306. Prepared by USKH, Inc., for the 

BLM, Washington, DC.

Barton, L. H. 1984. A Catalog of Yukon River Salmon Spawning Escapement Surveys. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Technical Data Report 121, Juneau, Alaska.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 130

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 6 References Cited

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1986. Resource 

Management Plan and Record of Decision for the Central Yukon Planning Area. September 26, 

1986.

_____. 1989. Utility Corridor Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Record of Decision. BLM, Arctic District Office. September 27, 1989.

_____. 1991. Utility Corridor Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of 

Decision. BLM, Arctic District Office. January 11, 1991.

_____. 2002. Renewal of the Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way Final 

EIS. BLM, Alaska State Office, Anchorage. November 2002.

_____. 2005. Fish Streams along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, A compilation of selected references 

with current TAPS Stationing. Fourth Edition. BLM Alaska Open File Report 105. BLM/AK/ST06/004+6674+990. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, 

Alaska.

Brock and Burke. 1980. Cited in: BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management). 1983. Management Situation Analysis, Central Yukon Planning Area. November 

1983.

Brown, Jerry, and Krieg, R. A. 1983. Guidebook to permafrost and related features along the Elliott and 

Dalton Highways, Fox to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical 

Surveys Guidebook 4. 

Brown, R. J. 2004. A biological assessment of whitefish species harvested during the spring and fall in 

the Selawik River Delta, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Internet 

website: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/fish/Technical_Reports/t_2004_77.pdf. 

_____. 2009. Distribution and Demographics of Whitefish Species in the Upper Koyukuk River 

Drainage, Alaska, with Emphasis on Seasonal Migration and Important Habitats of Broad 

Whitefish and Humpback Whitefish. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries Technical 

Report Number 104, Fairbanks.

_____. 2013. Seasonal migrations and essential habitats of broad whitefish, humpback whitefish, and 

least cisco in the Selawik River Delta, as inferred from radiotelemetry data, 2004-2006. Internet 

website: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/fish/Data_Series/d_2013_3.pdf. 

Brown R. J., C. Brown, N. M. Braem, W. K. Carter, III, N. Legere, and L. Slayton. 2012. Whitefish 

biology, distribution, and fisheries in the Yukon and Kuskokwim River drainages in Alaska: a 

synthesis of available information. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries Data Series 

Report Number 2012-4. Fairbanks, Alaska. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisher

ies/fish/Data_Series/d_2012_4.pdf. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 131

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 6 References Cited

Carlson, J. G. 2012. Abundance and Run Timing of Adult Salmon in the Gisasa River, Koyukuk National 

Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries Data Series 

Report Number 2012-6. Fairbanks. 

Carlson, R. F., R. Trent, K. Karle, A. Tidwell, and B. Shalk. 2000. Development of Improved Techniques 

to Reclaim Placer-Mined Watersheds. Phase I–Assessment of Past Reclamation Activities. Phase 

II–Final Site Selection, Design, Construction and Evaluation of a Demonstration Project. Final 

Report. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Corbett, D. G. 2006. Survey Report of Kanuti NWR BAER Report. USFWS, Division of Visitor Services 

and Fire.

Craig, P. C. 1989. An introduction to anadromous fishes in the Alaskan Arctic. Biological Papers of the

University of Alaska, 24:27-54.

Craig, P., and P. J. McCart. 1974. Fall spawning and overwintering areas of fish populations along routes 

of proposed pipeline between Prudhoe Bay and the Mackenzie Delta 1972-1973. Chapter 3 in P. 

J. McCart, ed. Fisheries research associated with proposed gas pipeline routes in Alaska, Yukon, 

and Northwest Territories. Arctic Gas Biological Report Series Vol. 15.

Craig, T. and P. Leonard. 2009. Dall Sheep Use of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in the Utility 

Corridor Management Area, Alaska. BLM/AK Open File Report 114. November 2009. Internet 

website: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/ofr.Par.14974.File.dat/OFR

114_web_2009.pdf. 

Dillon, J.T., A.G. Harris, J.T. Dutro, D.N. Solie, J.D. Blum, D.L. Jones, and D.G. Howell. 1988. 

Preliminary geologic map and section of Chandalar D-6 and parts of Chandlar C-6 and 

Wiseman C-1 and D-1 quadrangles, Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division 

of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. Report of Investigation 88-5, 1 sheet, scale 1:63,360.

Dillon, John T. 1982. Source of Lode- and Placer-gold deposits of the Chandalar and Upper Koyukuk 

Districts, Alaska. Alaska Open-file Report 158. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. September 1982. 

Eiler, J. H., T. R. Spencer, J. J. Pella, M. M. Masuda, and R. R. Holder. 2004. Distribution and Movement 

Patterns of Chinook Salmon Returning to the Yukon River Basin in 2000-2002. U.S. Department 

of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-AFSC-148. 

Eiler, J. H., T. R. Spencer, J. J. Pella, and M. M. Masuda. 2006a. Stock composition, Run Timing, and 

Movement Patterns of Chinook Salmon Returning to the Yukon River Basin in 2003. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-AFSC-163. 

_____. 2006b. Stock Composition, Run Timing, and Movement Patterns of Chinook Salmon Returning to 

the Yukon River Basin in 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFSAFSC-165. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 132

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 6 References Cited

Esse, D. A. 2011. Characteristics of the Sulukna River Spawning Population of Inconnu Yukon River 

Drainage, Alaska. Thesis for Masters Degree, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Esse, D.A. and C.F. Kretsinger. 2009. Abundance and run timing of adult salmon in Clear Creek, 

Hogatza River, Alaska, 2000-2005. Program Report DIFR BLM/AK/F03000-6500/FY09/1120/

07. Unpublished. Bureau of Land Management, Central Yukon Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Farquhar, N., and J. Schubert (editors). 1980. Ray Mountains, Central Alaska: Environmental Analysis 

and Resources Statement. Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont. 

Fish, J.T. 1998. Radio-telemetry studies of Arctic grayling in the Jim River (Dalton Highway) during 

1997-1998. Fishery Manuscript Report No. 98-4. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

of Sport Fish, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Gilbert, Matthew. 2013. Thazzik Mountain Ancient Land Use Report. Unpublished, based on personal 

communication with F. Burns.

Glesne, R. S., W. K. Carter III, and D. W. Daum. 2011. Lake habitat and fish surveys on Interior Alaska 

National Wildlife Refuges, 1984-1986. Report Number: 2011-12. Internet website: http://www

.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/fish/Data_Series/d_2011_12.pdf. 

Hander, R. F., R. J. Brown, and T. J. Underwood. 2008. Comparison of inconnu spawning abundance 

estimates in the Selawik River, 1995, 2004, and 2005, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Alaska Fisheries Technical 

Report Number 99. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/fish/Technical

_Reports/t_2007_99.pdf. 

Headlee, P.G. 1996. Abundance and run timing of adult salmon and water quality in Clear Creek 

(Hogatza River), Northwest Alaska, 1995. Water Resources Report No. 96-1. Tanana Chiefs 

Conference, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska.

Holder, R. R., and D. Senecal-Albrecht (compilers). 1998. Yukon River Comprehensive Salmon Plan for 

Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 

Horne, Jon S., Tim Craig, Kyle Joly, Glenn W. Stout, Merben R. Cebrian, and Edward O. Garton. 2014. 

Population Characteristics, Space Use and Habitat Selection of Two Non-Migratory Caribou 

Herds in Central Alaska, 1994–2009. Rangifer, Vol. 34, Issue 1. March 2014.

JTC (Joint Technical Committee of the Yukon River US/Canada Panel). 2012. Yukon River salmon 2011 

season summary and 2012 season outlook. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Commercial Fisheries, Regional Information Report 3A12-01, Anchorage.

Juday, Glenn P. 1983. Ray Mountains Proposed Natural Research Areas: Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs, 

McQuesten Creek, and Spooky Valley. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management in 

Alaska.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 133

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 6 References Cited

Karle, K. F., P. E., J. M. Merlie, and R. F. Carlson. 1998. Placer-Mined Site Reclamation Evaluation in 

Alaska. In: Engineering Approaches to Ecosystem Restoration (D. F. Hayes, editor). Proceedings 

of the Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration Conference, Denver, Colorado. Pages 586-

591. 

Kretsinger, C. and R. Brown. 2004. Interim Progress Report: Sulukna River (Nowitna River drainage) 

Inconnu Spawning Habitat Investigation. Unpublished. Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, 

Alaska.

Kretsinger, Carl F., and Susan M. Will. 1995. Indian River ACEC Aquatic Habitat Management Plan. 

BLM, Kobuk District Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. May 1995.

Kretsinger, Carl F., Susan M. Will, Diane R. Hunt, and Matt I. Mahran. 1994. Hogatza ACEC Aquatic 

Habitat Management Plan. BLM, Kobuk District, Alaska. May 1994.

Lipkin, Robert. 2007. Investigation of Potentially Sensitive Plant Communities in the Old Dummy Burn, 

Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2006. Prepared by Alaska Natural Heritage Program, 

Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska-Anchorage.

Lipkin, R., and C. Parker. 1995. Rare vascular plants of the BLM Dalton Highway Utility Corridor. 

Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Anchorage and University of Museum 

Fairbanks. August 1995. 

Matthews. 1980. Cited in: BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 

1983. Management Situation Analysis, Central Yukon Planning Area. November 1983.

McCart, P., P. Craig, and H. Bain. 1972. Report on Fisheries Investigations in the Sagavanirtok River and 

Neighboring Drainages. Aquatic Environmental Limited, Biological consultants. Calgary, 

Alberta, Canada. 

McCart, P. (editor). 1974. Fisheries Research Associated with Proposed Gas Pipeline Routes in Alaska, 

Yukon, and Northwest Territories. Aquatic Environmental Limited, Biological consultants. 

Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Melegari, J.L. 2012. Abundance and run timing of adult fall chum salmon in the Chandalar River, Yukon 

Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2011. Alaska Fisheries Data Series Number 2012-7. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Moonman. 1982. Cited in: BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 

1983. Management Situation Analysis, Central Yukon Planning Area. November 1983.

Mulligan, J. J. 1974. Mineral Resources of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Corridor: U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Information Circular 8626. 24 pp., 9 sheets, scale 1:250,000.

Netsch, N. F. 1975. Fishery resources of waters along the route of the Trans-Alaska pipeline between 

Yukon River and Atigun Pass in north central Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource 

Publication 124, Washington.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 134

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 6 References Cited

Patton, W. W., and T. P. Miller. 1970. Preliminary Geologic Investigations in the Kanuti River Region, 

Alaska. Contributions to Economic Geology. Geologic Survey Bulletin 1312-J. 

Rost, P. J. 1986. Aerial Surveys for Summer and Fall Salmon in the Upper Yukon River Drainage, 1985. 

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fishery Resources Progress Report Number: FY86-9.

Saperstein, L. 1999. Kanuti-Kilolitna River float survey: July 12-20, 19999. US Fish and Wildlife Service 

internal trip report. 

. 2000. USFWS Trip Report. Kanuti-Kilolitna River Float Survey July 1999.

Spencer, T. and J.H. Eiler. 2004. Aerial Tracking Surveys of Sections of the Yukon River Basin. Study 

Number URE-18N-04. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska.

Spindler, M. 2007. Upper Kanuti River float survey. US Fish and Wildlife Service internal trip report.

Tarlov. 1980. Cited in: BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 

1983. Management Situation Analysis, Central Yukon Planning Area. November 1983.

Troyer, K.D. 1993. Sonar enumeration of chum salmon in the South Fork Koyukuk River, 1990. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Fishery Resource Office, Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 19, 

Fairbanks, Alaska.

Underwood, T. J. 2000. Abundance, length composition, and migration of spawning inconnu in the 

Selawik River, Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20:386-393. 

Underwood, T. J., K. Whitten, and K. Secor. 1998. Population characteristics of spawning inconnu 

(sheefish) in the Selawik River, Alaska, 1993-1996, Final Report. Internet website: http://www

.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/fish/Technical_Reports/t_1998_49.pdf. 

USFWS (United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. Kanuti National 

Wildlife Refuge Progress Report FY07-01. Aerial surveys of molting geese on Kanuti National 

Wildlife Refuge. July 2006.

_____. 2007. Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge Progress Report FY07-05. Aerial surveys of geese on 

Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge. May and July 2007.

_____. 2015. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. January 2015. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/

home/arctic-ccp/. 

USKH. 2005a. Harrison Creek Reclamation, Phase I. An Overview of Issues and Approaches for the 

Reclamation of Placer-Mined Lands. Final report. Prepared for the BLM. Pages 1-23. 

_____. 2005b. Harrison Creek Reclamation, Phase I. Issues and Approaches for the Reclamation of 

Placer-Mined Lands. Final report. Prepared for the BLM. Pages 24-A1.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 135

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 6 References Cited

VanHatten, G. K. 2005. Abundance and Run Timing of Adult Salmon in the Kateel River, Koyukuk 

National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2001-2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries 

Data Series Report Number 2005-2. Fairbanks, Alaska.

VanHatten, G.K. 1997. Abundance and run timing of adult summer run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus 

keta) and water quality in Clear Creek (Hogatza River), Northwest Alaska, 1997. Water 

Resources Report No. 97-3. Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska.

_____. 1998. Abundance and run timing of adult summer run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) and 

water quality in Clear Creek (Hogatza River), Northwest Alaska, 1998. Water Resources Report 

No. 98-1. Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Vivant, T. 2005. Eastern North Slope Dolly Varden Stock Assessment. Fishery Data Report No. 05-07. 

ADFG, Division of Sport Fish, Fairbanks, Alaska. March 2005. 

Weber, P. K. 1986. Downstream Effects of Placer Mining in the Birch Creek Basin, Alaska. Technical 

Report No. 86-7. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Division of Habitat. Juneau, Alaska.

Wiswar, D.W. 1997. Abundance and run timing of adult salmon in the South Fork Koyukuk River, Kanuti 

National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1996. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fisheries 

Resource Office, Alaska Fishery Data Series Number 97-5, Fairbanks, Alaska.

_____. 1998. Abundance and run timing of adult salmon in the South Fork Koyukuk River, Kanuti 

National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fisheries 

Resource Office, Alaska Fishery Data Series Number 98-1, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 136

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Chapter 6 References Cited

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A 

Figures
This page intentionally left blank. 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern A-1 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Appendix A Figures

APPENDIX A 

FIGURES

1 Planning Area and ACEC Locator Overview

2 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – North Dalton

3 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – North Dalton

4 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Middle Dalton

5 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Middle Dalton

6 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – South Dalton

7 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – South Dalton

8 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Indian River

9 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Indian River

10 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Hogatza

11 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Hogatza

12 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Ray Mountains

13 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Ray Mountains

14 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Dulbi Galena Wolf

15 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Dulbi Galena Wolf

16 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Lower Yukon* 

17 Existing and Nominated ACECs/RNAs – Nowitna

18 ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria – Nowitna

*There are no ACECs found to meet the relevance and importance criteria in the Lower Yukon 

area.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern A-2 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

November 2015 Appendix A Figures

This page intentionally left blank.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-3 November 2015 Appendix A Figures
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-4

November 2015 Appendix A Figures
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-5
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-6
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-7

November 2015 Appendix A Figures
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-8
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-9

November 2015 Appendix A Figures
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-10
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-11
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-12 
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-13
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-14
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-15
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-16
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-17

November 2015 Appendix A Figures
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-18 
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-19
November 2015 Appendix A Figures Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria

A-20