Eastern Interior

December 2016

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan
BLM/AK/PL-17-004+1610+F0200

BLM Cover Photos

1. Salmon Fork Draanjik River upstream of 

Kevinjik Creek

2. Bluff on the upper Salmon Fork Draanjik 

River above Drifting Snow Creek

3. Moose browsing in wetlands

4. Rock outcrop and cave above Fort Creek, 

Porcupine Plateau

The Bureau of Land Management Today

Our Vision

To enhance the quality of life for all citizens 

through the balanced stewardship of America’s 

public lands and resources.

Our Mission

To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity 

of the public lands for the use and enjoyment 

of present and future generations.

1

2 3 4
Eastern Interior Draanjik 

Record of Decision and Approved 

Resource Management Plan

Prepared by the 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management - Alaska

Eastern Interior Field Office

December 2016

Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

i

Table of Contents

1. Record of Decision..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Overview of Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final EIS Alternatives.................. 1

1.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis .................................. 1

1.2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail .................................................................................. 2

1.2.3 Environmentally Preferred Alternative .......................................................................... 3

1.3 Results of Protest Review and Governor’s Consistency Review.......................................... 4

1.3.1 Protests........................................................................................................................... 4

1.3.2 Governor’s Consistency Review.................................................................................... 5

1.4 Decision ................................................................................................................................ 6

1.4.1 Notice of Modifications and Clarifications.................................................................... 7

1.4.2 What the Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Provide ....................... 7

1.4.3 What the Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Do Not Provide........... 8

1.4.4 Implementation Decisions.............................................................................................. 8

1.5 Management Considerations in Selecting the Approved Resource Management Plan ...... 10

1.5.1 ANILCA Section 810................................................................................................... 11

1.5.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers................................................................................................ 12

1.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................... 12

1.7 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................................... 13

1.8 Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination......................................................... 13

1.9 Availability of the Approved RMP..................................................................................... 13

1.10 Approvals and Signature Page .......................................................................................... 14

2. Draanjik Approved Resource Management Plan................................................................. 15

2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 15

2.1.1 Purpose and Need......................................................................................................... 15

2.1.2 Planning Area Description ........................................................................................... 16

2.1.3 Consideration of BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs................................................. 17

2.1.4 Related Plans................................................................................................................ 17

2.1.5 Implementing the Plan.................................................................................................. 18

2.1.6 Maintaining the Plan .................................................................................................... 19

2.1.7 Changing the Plan ........................................................................................................ 19

2.1.8 Plan Evaluation and Adaptive Management ................................................................ 20

2.2 Management Decisions....................................................................................................... 20

2.2.1 Access Guidance under Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)

............................................................................................................................................... 21

2.2.2 Mitigation..................................................................................................................... 22

2.2.3 Air and Atmospheric Values........................................................................................ 23

2.2.4 Cave and Karst ............................................................................................................. 24

2.2.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 25
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

ii

2.2.6 Fish and Aquatic Species ............................................................................................. 26

2.2.7 Non-Native Invasive Species ....................................................................................... 32

2.2.8 Paleontological Resources............................................................................................ 34

2.2.9 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................. 34

2.2.10 Special Status Species................................................................................................ 36

2.2.11 Vegetation Resources................................................................................................. 37

2.2.12 Visual Resources........................................................................................................ 39

2.2.13 Water Resources, Wetlands, and Floodplains............................................................ 40

2.2.14 Wilderness Characteristics......................................................................................... 41

2.2.15 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management................................................................... 43

2.2.16 Wildlife Resources..................................................................................................... 45

2.2.17 Forest and Woodland Products................................................................................... 47

2.2.18 Lands and Realty........................................................................................................ 48

2.2.19 Minerals...................................................................................................................... 53

2.2.20 Recreation................................................................................................................... 57

2.2.21 Travel Management.................................................................................................... 58

2.2.22 Hazardous Materials................................................................................................... 60

2.2.23 Subsistence ................................................................................................................. 60

2.2.24 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern .................................................................. 61

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 63

Glossary........................................................................................................................................ 65

References Cited.......................................................................................................................... 67

Appendix A. Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations...... 71

A.1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 71

A.1.1. Standard Operating Procedures.................................................................................. 71

A.1.2. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations............................................................................ 72

A.1.3. Standard Operating Procedures.................................................................................. 75

Appendix B. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources......................................................................... 85

B.1. Watershed Classification................................................................................................... 85

B.1.1. Watershed Categories................................................................................................. 85

B.1.2. Priority Ranking Factors for Watersheds.................................................................... 86

B.2. Monitoring and Adaptive Management............................................................................. 90

B.2.1. Monitoring and Evaluation of the Resource Management Plan ................................. 90

B.2.2. Adaptive Management................................................................................................ 90

B.2.3. Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring........................................................... 91

B.3. Watershed Conditions Matrix and Effects Checklist ........................................................ 92

B.3.1. Watershed Condition Matrix ...................................................................................... 92

B.3.2. Environmental Baseline and Effects Checklist........................................................... 96

B.4. Future Watershed Adjustments......................................................................................... 98

B.5. Watershed Assessment Process......................................................................................... 98

B.5.1. Objectives of Watershed Analysis.............................................................................. 98
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

iii

B.5.2. Appropriate Methodology .......................................................................................... 98

B.6. Recommended Conservation Measures for Essential Fish Habitat................................... 99

B.6.1. Roads and Road Maintenance .................................................................................. 100

B.6.2. Mineral Mining......................................................................................................... 100

B.6.3. Sand and Gravel Mining........................................................................................... 101

B.6.4. Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production.......................................... 101

B.6.5. Habitat Restoration/Enhancement ............................................................................ 102

Appendix C. Land Tenure and Withdrawals ......................................................................... 105

C.1. Land Tenure .................................................................................................................... 105

C.1.1. Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria............................................................................. 105

C.1.2. Zone Definitions....................................................................................................... 106

C.2. Withdrawals .................................................................................................................... 107

C.2.1. Process for Withdrawal Revocation ......................................................................... 110

C.2.2. Process for New FLPMA Withdrawals.................................................................... 110

C.2.3. Recommendations to the Secretary........................................................................... 111

Appendix D. Bird Species of Conservation Concern.............................................................. 113

Appendix E. Draanjik Travel Management Plan................................................................... 117

E.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 117

E.2. Scoping and Public Participation..................................................................................... 117

E.3. Travel Management Decisions........................................................................................ 117

E.4. Sign Plan.......................................................................................................................... 118

E.5. Education Plan................................................................................................................. 118

E.6. Rehabilitation .................................................................................................................. 118

E.7. Maps................................................................................................................................ 118

E.8. Roadside and Dispersed Camping................................................................................... 118

E.9. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Enforcement ...................................................................... 118

E.10. Temporary Closures and Restrictions............................................................................ 119

E.11. Supplementary Rules..................................................................................................... 119

Appendix F. Maps ..................................................................................................................... 121

Tables

Table 1. Land classification within the Draanjik Planning Area................................................... 17

Table 2. List of related plans for the Draanjik Planning Area....................................................... 18

Table 3. Priority fish species in the Draanjik Planning Area ........................................................ 27

Table 4. Visual resource management allocations for the Draanjik Planning Area...................... 39

Table 5. Fire Management Options for the Planning Area............................................................ 44

Table 6. Priority wildlife species and habitats in the Draanjik Planning Area.............................. 47

Table 7. Summary of Mineral Allocations for the Draanjik Planning Area.................................. 56

Table A-1. Fluid mineral leasing stipulations ............................................................................... 73

Table B-1. Ranking factors for Eastern Interior Watershed Assessment ...................................... 87

Table B-2. Ranking of 12th-level hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds among 10 ranking 

factors for the Draanjik Planning Area.................................................................................. 88

Table B-3. Watershed Assessment Matrix .................................................................................... 93
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

iv

Table B-4. Checklist for documenting environmental baseline and effects of action(s) on relevant 

indicators............................................................................................................................... 97

Table C-1. Existing mineral withdrawals in the Draanjik Planning Area and process for change

............................................................................................................................................. 109

Table C-2. Process for New Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) Withdrawals

............................................................................................................................................. 111

Table C-3. Withdrawal recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior.................................. 111

Table D-1. Bird species of conservation concern in the Eastern Interior Planning Area............ 114
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

1

1. Record of Decision

1.1 Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Draanjik Planning Area is located in eastern Interior 

Alaska and includes approximately 2,360,000 acres of BLM-managed public land administered 

by the Eastern Interior Field Office. This record of decision approves the attached Draanjik

Approved Resource Management Plan. This decision and plan provide overall direction for 

management of all resources on BLM-managed lands within the Upper Black River Subunit as 

described in the Eastern Interior Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (RMP/EIS, BLM 2016). Hereafter the area is referred to as the Draanjik 

Planning Area. 

On April 30, 2014 the U.S. Board on Geographic Names officially changed the name of the Black

River to Draanjik River. Draanjik is the traditional Gwich'in name for the river and translates as

"caches along the river." The local Gwich'in people are called the Draanjik Gwich'in. 

This Draanjik Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) is the first BLM planning document 

for the Draanjik Planning Area.

1.2 Overview of Proposed Resource Management Plan and 

Final EIS Alternatives

The Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS analyzed five alternatives for the Eastern Interior 

Planning Area which included four planning subunits: Fortymile, Steese, Upper Black River 

(Draanjik) and White Mountains. The alternatives described in this document include alternatives 

considered for the Draanjik Planning Area. 

1.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

1.2.1.1 Livestock Grazing

The BLM did not analyze in detail an alternative that would manage lands in the planning area 

for livestock grazing because there is no foreseeable interest and it would not be practicable. 

There are currently no permitted livestock operations within the planning area. The grazing 

regulations for Alaska (43 CFR 4200) were removed in 1998 due to the lack of demand for 

permits and the lack of land suitable for grazing (63 FR 51853). The BLM does not anticipate any 

applications for livestock grazing in the future, unless it is grazing associated with Special 

Recreation Permits, such as hunting guides using horses. Grazing associated with recreation is 

permitted through the Recreation Program. 

There are no identified areas with high grazing potential in the planning area. Livestock grazing 

on remote BLM lands is not practical due to potential conflicts with wildlife, lack of suitable 

grazing lands, the potential for predation on livestock, and the lack of access for livestock 

operators. Areas close to communities where grazing would be more practical are state or private 

lands. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

2

1.2.1.2 Recommending Wilderness Designation by Congress

The BLM did not analyze in detail an alternative that would recommend wilderness designation 

within the planning area because it is beyond the scope of this planning effort. The BLM has 

conducted an inventory of the planning area to document lands with wilderness characteristics 

and has considered in this plan a full range of reasonable alternatives addressing how BLM will 

manage certain lands with wilderness characteristics for naturalness, solitude, and outstanding 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, where practical.

1.2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS Statement analyzed five alternatives, including the 

No Action Alternative. The following sections describe the alternatives as they apply to the 

Draanjik Planning Area. 

1.2.2.1 Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

The BLM would continue to manage the Draanjik Planning Area without the benefit of a land use

plan. Mineral leasing and new mining claims are precluded by public land orders (PLOs) issued 

under Section 17(d)(1) of ANCSA. Land disposal actions could not occur due to the lack of a land 

use plan. The BLM would not make any suitability determinations made for wild and scenic 

rivers; designate any Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs); or make decisions 

regarding management of wilderness characteristics. No off-highway vehicle (OHV) designations 

exist. Few uses, other than new mining claims and mineral leases, are limited or excluded as long 

as they are consistent with state and federal laws. 

1.2.2.2 Alternative B

Alternative B recommends 100 percent of BLM-managed lands remain closed to mineral leasing 

and mineral entry. Lands near Circle are identified as available for disposal through exchange. 

The planning area would be designated as Limited to OHV use. 

Alternative B designates the Salmon Fork ACEC to protect anadromous fish habitat, bald eagle 

nesting, and rare plant habitats. The Salmon Fork eligible river segment (52 miles) is

recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Lands possessing 

wilderness characteristics are identified and 100 percent these lands are managed to emphasize 

other resource values and multiple uses while applying management restrictions to reduce 

impacts to wilderness characteristics. The Salmon Fork ACEC is identified as right-of-way 

avoidance areas. OHV use in the ACEC would be limited by weight and season of use. 

1.2.2.3 Alternative C

As in Alternative B, Alternative C designates the Salmon Fork ACEC to protect anadromous fish 

habitat, bald eagle nesting, and rare plant habitats. This alternative recommends 100 percent of 

BLM-managed lands in the planning area to be opened to mineral entry. The Salmon Fork ACEC 

however would be closed to mineral leasing. 

Same as Alternative B, lands near Circle are identified as available for disposal through exchange. 

The planning area would be designated as Limited to OHV use. Lands possessing wilderness 

characteristics are identified and 26 percent these lands are managed to emphasize other resource 

values and multiple uses while applying management restrictions to reduce impacts to wilderness 

characteristics. No right-of-way avoidance areas are identified. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

3

1.2.2.4 Alternative D as modified by the Supplement to the Draft Resource 

Management Plan

Like Alternatives B and C, Alternative D designates the Salmon Fork ACEC to protect

anadromous fish habitat, bald eagle nesting, and rare plant habitats. This alternative recommends 

100 percent of BLM-managed lands in the planning area to be opened to both mineral leasing and 

mineral entry, including the ACEC. Relevant values would be protected through the use of 

standard operating procedures and site specific mitigation measures developed during the 

permitting process. 

Same as Alternatives B and C, lands near Circle are identified as available for disposal through 

exchange. The planning area would be designated as Limited to OHV use. Lands possessing 

wilderness characteristics are identified and 100 percent these lands are managed to emphasize 

other resource values and multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics. 

No right-of-way avoidance areas are identified. 

1.2.2.5 Alternative E (Proposed Resource Management Plan)

Alternative E represents the mix and variety of actions that the BLM believes best resolves the 

issues and management concerns in consideration of all values and programs, and is the BLM’s

Proposed RMP and Preferred Alternative. Alternative E is a minor variation of the alternatives 

analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS and is qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed 

therein, falling between Alternatives B and C.

Like Alternatives B, C, and D, Alternative E designates the Salmon Fork ACEC to protect

anadromous fish habitat, bald eagle nesting, and rare plant habitats. This alternative recommends 

77 percent of BLM-managed lands in the planning area to be closed to both mineral leasing and 

mineral entry, including the Salmon Fork ACEC and the upper Draanjik watershed.

Same as Alternatives B, C, and D, lands near Circle are identified as available for disposal 

through exchange. The planning area would be designated as Limited to OHV use. A 

transportation and travel management plan is included as part of the RMP (Appendix E). Specific 

decisions in the Travel Management Plan will be implemented through the supplemental rule 

process. Lands possessing wilderness characteristics are identified and 47 percent these lands are 

managed to emphasize other resource values and multiple uses while applying management 

restrictions to reduce impacts to wilderness characteristics. 

1.2.3 Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality has defined the environmentally preferable alternative as 

the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in Section 101 of 

the National Environmental Policy Act. This section lists six broad policy goals for all federal 

plans, program, and policies:

• Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations.

• Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings.

• Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to 

health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

4

• Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our National heritage, and 

maintain, whenever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of 

individual choice.

• Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of 

living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities.

• Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources. 

Based on these criteria, identification of the most environmentally preferable alternative involves 

a balancing of current and potential resource uses with that of resource protection. Alternative E 

best fulfills that balance; therefore, the BLM finds Alternative E best meets the definition of the 

environmentally preferred alternative.

1.3 Results of Protest Review and Governor’s Consistency 

Review

1.3.1 Protests

The BLM provided a 30-day protest period for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS in accordance with 

43 CFR 1610.5-2. The BLM Director received nine protest letters. All nine protesters were 

determined to have standing to protest, and all nine protests were considered by the Director. The 

protest issues included disposition of mineral withdrawals, areas of critical environmental 

concern, wilderness characteristics, and planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process concerns. Process issues raised in various protests included public comment periods, 

range of alternatives, notice for ACECs, and consultation with Native corporations. 

Several protests took issue with the BLM recommendations to retain ANCSA 17(d)(1) 

withdrawals pending new withdrawals under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA), stating that it may violate the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration 

Act, and that it was inconsistent with ANILCA and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The State 

claimed that retention of ANCSA withdrawals frustrates the State’s ability to fulfill their 

entitlement under the Alaska Statehood Act, by keeping lands closed to State selection. 

Additionally, some protesters claimed that the ANCSA withdrawals impede access to lands and 

resources, inconsistent with provisions of ANILCA that seek to ensure balance between resource 

protection and economic development. Some protesters recommended instead that the BLM 

revoke all ANCSA withdrawals in the planning area and not recommend any new FLPMA 

withdrawals. 

Regarding ACECs, some protests maintained that the proposed ACECs do not meet the relevance 

and importance criteria or need special management, and thus do not qualify as ACECs and 

should not be designated as such. 

One protest claimed that the Proposed RMP violates BLM policy regarding consideration of lands 

with wilderness characteristics. This protest resulted in a clarification discussed in section 1.4.1. 

Following a review of the protests the BLM Director denied each protest, although minor 

corrections and clarifications were made and have been explained in section 1.4.1 Notice of 

Modifications and Clarifications.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

5

A Protest Report addresses each protest in detail, and is available online at: 

https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports

1.3.2 Governor’s Consistency Review

Concurrent with the protest period, the BLM made the Proposed RMP/Final EIS available to the 

Governor of Alaska for a 60-day consistency review as required by 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e). The 

BLM’s planning regulations require that RMPs be “consistent with officially approved or adopted 

resource-related plans, and the policies and procedures contained therein, of other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and resource 

management plans also are consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal laws 

and regulations applicable to public lands” (43 CFR 1610.3-2(a)).

The general requirement in FLPMA and the BLM planning regulations is to coordinate the 

resource management planning process with plans of other agencies, States, and local 

governments to the extent consistent with law (see FLPMA Section 202(c)(9) and 43 CFR 

1610.3-1(a)) and the respective duties to be consistent with both officially approved or adopted 

plans (to the extent those plans are consistent with Federal law or to the maximum extent 

practical; see 43 CFR 1610.3-2(a)(b)). In accordance with FLPMA, the BLM was aware of and 

gave consideration to State, local, and tribal land use plans and provided meaningful public 

involvement throughout the development of the Eastern Interior RMP/EIS.

The BLM is aware that there are specific State laws and local plans relevant to aspects of public 

land management that are separate and independent of Federal law. However, the BLM is bound 

by Federal law; as a consequence, there may be inconsistencies that cannot be reconciled. The 

FLPMA and its implementing regulations require that the BLM’s RMPs be consistent with 

officially approved State and local plans only if those plans are consistent with the purposes, 

policies, and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands.

Where officially approved State and local plans or policies and programs conflict with the 

purposes, policies, and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, there 

will be an inconsistency that cannot be resolved. With respect to officially approved State and 

local government policies and programs (as opposed to plans), this consistency provision applies 

only to the maximum extent practical.

The 60-day Governor’s consistency review period ended on September 28, 2016. The Alaska 

Department of Resources responded on behalf of the Governor on September 28, 2016 with four 

key issues. On October 12, 2016, the BLM Alaska State Director notified the Governor that he 

had determined that only one of these points was within the scope of the Governor’s Consistency 

Review Process which is narrow in scope and intended to address only those situations where the 

Proposed RMP may be inconsistent with officially approved or adopted State or local land use 

plans, policies, or programs. 

The consistency issue raised by Alaska Department of Natural Resources is that the Proposed 

RMP is inconsistent with State land use plans, programs, and policies, largely because the 

Proposed RMP purportedly “preempts” mineral exploration and development throughout much of 

the Eastern Interior Planning Area. The State asserts this is in contrast to approved State plans for 

lands within and near the planning area, which reflect the State’s goals to: “Make metallic and 

non-metallic resources available to contribute to the energy and mineral supplies and economy of 

Alaska”; and “Contribute to Alaska’s economy by making subsurface resources available for 

development” (ADNR letter at pp. 4-7). 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

6

The BLM Alaska State Director believes the Proposed RMP is consistent with the State’s land use 

plans, policies, and programs reflected therein, including the State’s policy to make mineral 

resources available for development because:

1. The Proposed RMP, if implemented, will not preclude development on State lands or 

access across BLM-managed lands to State lands within the planning area. As described 

in #4 below, the Proposed RMP still allows for a wide variety of multiple-uses.

2. The Proposed RMP recommends revoking ANCSA l 7(d)(l) withdrawals on 1.7 million 

acres to open these lands to mineral location, entry, and leasing. This includes 1.1 million 

acres or almost two-thirds of the Fortymile Subunit, most of which is within the 

Fortymile Mining District. Other areas recommended to be opened include 4,000 acres in 

the White Mountains Subunit near the Tower Hills prospect; 547,000 acres in the Upper 

Black River Subunit adjacent to State and State-selected land; and 30,000 acres in the 

Steese Subunit adjacent to State land.

3. As noted in ADNR's letter, the State's Upper Yukon Area Plan identifies approximately 

194,000 acres in the Middle Fork region as habitat lands recognizing use by caribou for 

calving. Likewise, the Proposed RMP designates the Fortymile ACEC for caribou 

calving and Dall sheep and identifies a management prescription for the ACEC and 

additional caribou calving/post-calving areas outside of the ACEC. This is consistent with 

the State's program/policy of identifying areas for habitat use in State land use plans. By 

identifying management prescriptions for crucial caribou and Dall sheep in the Proposed 

RMP, the BLM is following a similar process.

4. Similar to the State's land use plans, the Proposed RMP allows for a wide variety of 

multiple-uses throughout the planning area, including: permits, leases, rights-of-way, 

mineral materials sales, commercial recreation permits, personal and commercial use of 

timber and forest products, casual recreational use, off-highway vehicle use, mining on 

existing federal claims, and once implemented, mineral leasing and staking of new 

mining claims on approximately 547,000 acres.

The BLM State Director did not make any changes to the Proposed RMP in response to the 

Governor’s Consistency Review Process. The Governor was then given 30-days to appeal the 

BLM State Director’s decisions to the BLM Director. On November 8, 2016, the BLM Director 

received an appeal letter from the Governor in accordance with 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e). In his 

December 14, 2016 response, the Director found the recommendations provided in the State’s 

appeal letter do not meet the standard for granting an appeal in accordance with 43 CFR 1610.3-

2(e). The BLM Director’s full response to this appeal will also be published in the Federal 

Register after this ROD is issued. 

1.4 Decision

The BLM hereby approves the attached Draanjik Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the 

Draanjik Planning Area. 

The BLM prepared the Approved RMP under the regulations (43 CFR 1600) implementing the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 

1701, et seq.). The Eastern Interior Final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for this 

RMP in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

7 

1.4.1 Notice of Modifications and Clarifications

The BLM carried forward the text of the Proposed RMP (Alternative E) to incorporate into the 

Approved RMP and Record of Decision. During preparation of the Approved RMP, The BLM 

made minor corrections and clarifications based on review and resolution of protest letters, as 

well as from internal review by the BLM. Modifications and clarifications to the decisions are 

provided below. Specific management decisions for BLM-administered land within the Draanjik

Planning Area are presented in Chapter 2, Draanjik Approved Resource Management Plan.

1.4.1.1 Modifications 

The BLM did not make any modifications to the Proposed Plan. 

1.4.1.2 Clarifications and Corrections

The following clarifications and minor corrections made to the information included in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS are reflected in the attached Approved RMP: 

The Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan was updated in 2016 and fire 

management options were clarified. Table 5 “Fire Management Options for the Planning Area” is 

updated to reflect these revisions. 

The USGS recently updated the watershed boundary dataset. As a result, the hydrologic unit 

codes changed for some of the 6th level watersheds in the Draanjik Planning Area. Map 2, Section 

2.2.5, and table B-2 of the Approved RMP were updated to reflect the new hydrologic unit codes. 

Rationale language in section 2.6.2.11 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS incorrectly stated that the 

BLM would not consider impacts to wilderness characteristics during future site specific NEPA 

analysis. This language was corrected in response to a protest from The Wilderness Society. The 

BLM will comply with all requirements of NEPA and disclose impacts to lands with wilderness 

characteristics in site specific NEPA analysis. Corrected language can be found in section 2.2.14 

of the Approved RMP. 

1.4.2 What the Decision and

Approved Resource Management Plan Provide

This Record of Decision and Approved RMP provide overall direction for management of all 

resources found on BLM-managed lands in the Draanjik Planning Area. 

Decisions in the this document apply to all BLM-managed lands including State- and Nativeselected lands, until such time title is transferred to the State or a Native corporation. Decisions 

also apply to BLM-managed subsurface mineral estate beneath private lands. Acreages presented 

in this document are approximate because the BLM continues to transfer title of lands within the 

planning area. 

This Record of Decision serves as the final decision establishing the land use plan decisions 

outlined in the Approved RMP and is effective on the date it is signed. No further administrative 

remedies are available for these land use plan decisions. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

8 

1.4.3 What the Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Do 

Not Provide

This Record of Decision and Approved RMP do not contain decisions for management of lands 

administered by the State of Alaska, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, or 

the military. 

The Record of Decision and Approved RMP do not authorize any project, approve any 

application, or provide approval for any specific future action within the planning area. All future 

applications will be subject to an environmental analysis process, which will include opportunity 

for public review, identification of potential impacts resulting from the proposed action, 

development and application of mitigating measures (section 2.2.2), and assignment of the 

Standard Operating Procedures in Appendix A as appropriate. 

The Travel management Plan in Appendix E will not take effect until until supplemental rules are 

promulgated per section 1.2.1. 

In addition, many decisions are not appropriate at this level of planning and are not included in 

the Record of Decision and Approved RMP. Examples of these types of decisions include:

Statutory Requirements: The decisions will not change the BLM’s responsibility to comply 

with applicable laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water 

Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the 

Endangered Species Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or any other 

federal law. 

National Policy: The decisions will not change the BLM’s obligation to conform to current or 

future national policy. 

Funding Levels and Budget Allocations: These are determined annually at the national level 

and are outside the scope of the RMP. 

1.4.4 Implementation Decisions

While preparing the Eastern Interior RMP/EIS, the BLM considered various implementation 

actions that would be approved either at the same time as the RMP or through an additional 

decision making process after the RMP. The following decisions are implementation decisions 

and are appealable under 43 CFR Part 4. 

The Draanjik Travel Management Plan and limitations on placement of bait and wildlife lures. 

See Appendix E and sections 2.2.20, and 2.2.21 of the Approved RMP. 

1.4.4.1 Appeal Process for Implementation Decisions

Any party adversely affected by an implementation decision may appeal to the Interior Board of 

Land Appeals within 30 days of receipt of this decision in accordance with the provisions of 43 

CFR Part 4. The publication of the Notice of Availability of the ROD/Approved RMP in the 

Federal Register will be considered the date the decision is received for any party not served with 

the decision. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

9 

The appeal should state the specific implementation decision that is being appealed. The appeal 

must be filed with the Field Manager, at the following address: 

Bureau of Land Management 

Eastern Interior Field Office

222 University Avenue

Fairbanks, Alaska 99709

You may include a statement of reasons when the notice of appeal is filed, or you may file the 

statement of reasons within 30 days after filing the appeal. A copy of the appeal, statement of 

reasons, and all other supporting documents must also be sent to the Office of the Regional 

Solicitor, Alaska Region at the following address: 

Office of the Regional Solicitor 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

4230 University Drive, Suite 300 

Anchorage, Alaska 99508

If the statement of reasons is filed separately, it must be sent to the Interior Board of Land 

Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 801 N. Quincy Street, MS 300-QC, Arlington, Virginia, 

22203. It is suggested that any appeal be sent certified mail, return receipt requested.

1.4.4.2 Request for Stay

If you wish to request a stay of the decision pending the outcome of the appeal, the motion for 

stay must be filed in the office of the Authorized Officer (Eastern Interior Field Office) at the time 

the appeal is filed and must show sufficient justification based on the following standards under 

43 CFR 4.21: 

1. The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied. 

2. The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits.

3. The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted.

4. Whether the public interest favors granting the stay.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

10

1.5 Management Considerations in Selecting the Approved 

Resource Management Plan

The decision to select the Proposed RMP as the Approved RMP is based on the conclusion that it 

best meets the purpose and need and would have more favorable outcomes for various resources 

and programs and relatively low adverse environmental impacts in comparison to the other 

alternatives. 

The purpose of the Proposed RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework to guide 

management of public lands and interests within the planning area. The objectives, land use 

allocations, and management decisions in the Proposed RMP are based on multiple use and 

sustained yield, except where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses 

according to any other provisions of law; it will be managed in accordance with such law, in 

accordance with Section 103 of FLPMA. There are specific considerations within the planning 

area that lead the BLM to focus management on conservation as well as multiple use and

sustained yield: 

The BLM is required to consult with tribal governments per the Department of the Interior Policy 

on Consultation with Indian Tribes (DOI Order 3317, December 1, 2011) and Executive Order 

13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (July 20, 2010). The 

Eastern Interior Field Office engaged in extensive consultation with the Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich’in 

and Chalkyitsik Village Council regarding the Draanjik River and the Salmon Fork ACEC. The 

Approved RMP recognizes the important cultural link between tribes and the Draanjik Planning 

Area, and seeks to protect lands in this area for values important to the tribes. 

ANILCA Title VIII establishes a priority for the "customary and traditional uses" of these 

subsistence resources by all rural residents of Alaska on federal public lands. The law provides 

the opportunity for rural residents to continue to engage in a subsistence way of life. State of 

Alaska law recognizes a subsistence preference for all residents of Alaska (Alaska Statute 16, 

Title 16 and Alaska Administrative Code, Title 5). 

The BLM is tasked with the job of multiple use management, as mandated under FLPMA and 

numerous other laws and regulations that govern the management of public lands for various 

purposes and values. Alternative E was developed to address the diverse resource uses in a fair 

manner and provide a practical and "workable" framework for management of the lands within 

the planning area.

The BLM is responsible for preparing a plan consistent with its legal mandates that reflects its 

collective professional judgment, while incorporating varying viewpoints and ideas. Due to the 

diversity of community needs and stakeholders affected by management of BLM lands, there has 

been both support and opposition to certain components of the Proposed RMP. BLM’s objective 

in choosing Alternative E as the preferred alternative and proposed plan was to address these 

diverse needs and concerns in a fair manner and provide a practical and workable framework for 

management of BLM public lands. 

The Approved RMP provides a balance between those reasonable measures necessary to protect 

the existing resource values and the continued public need for use of the BLM public lands within 

the planning area. Approval of a plan which provided a balance of resource uses and the 

flexibility of management options to meet the concerns for the resources and the socioeconomic 

need was a major factor. Alternative E was selected because it provides management direction 

that will maintain and improve the quality of the resources, while considering needs and demands 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

11

for potential resource development and use. In the end, resource use is managed by integrating 

ecological, economic, and social principles in a manner that safeguards the long-term 

sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the land.

1.5.1 ANILCA Section 810

Section 810(a) of ANILCA requires that a subsistence evaluation be completed on the RMP. 

ANILCA also requires that this evaluation include findings on three specific issues:

1. The effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and needs;

2. The availability of other lands for the purpose sought to be achieved; and

3. Other alternatives that reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of public 

lands needed for subsistence purposes.

The following discussion summarizes the ANILCA Section 810 evaluation for the decision in this 

ROD. The summary is based on the detailed ANILCA Section 810 analysis in Appendix J of the 

Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS for Alternative E. The analysis and conclusions 

presented in the detailed ANILCA Section 810 evaluation in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS also 

apply to the decision in this ROD, because the decision is substantially the same as the Proposed 

RMP (Alternative E) in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The modifications and clarifications 

discussed in Section 1.4.1 “Notice of Modifications and Clarifications” do not change the 

potential impacts on subsistence resources. As a result, the impacts of the decision in this ROD on 

subsistence resources will be no more than those analyzed for Alternative E in the Eastern Interior 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

1.5.1.1 Findings

The Draanjik Approved RMP when considered together with all past present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future cumulative effects discussed in the RMP/EIS will not significantly restrict 

subsistence use by communities in or adjacent to the Draanjik Planning Area. Most impacts to 

subsistence resources and uses will be negligible, and any impacts from the development allowed 

to occur will be minimized by the leasing stipulations and standard operating procedures (SOPs) 

discussed in Appendix A. Any impacts to subsistence resources will be expected to be localized 

and temporary, and will not be expected to impact resources at the population level. No impacts 

to access by subsistence users will be expected to occur.

1.5.1.2 Notice and Hearings

The ANILCA Section 810(a) provides that no “withdrawal, reservation, lease, permit, or other 

use, occupancy or disposition of the public lands which would significantly restrict subsistence 

uses shall be effected” until the federal agency gives the required notice and holds a hearing in 

accordance with ANILCA Sections 810(a)(1) and (2). The BLM found through its subsistence 

evaluation on the Eastern Interior Draft RMP/EIS that Alternative D in the Steese and Fortymile 

subunits when considered together with all past present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

cumulative effects discussed in the RMP/EIS, may significantly restrict subsistence uses. 

Therefore, the BLM undertook the notice and hearing procedures required by the ANILCA 

Section 810 (a)(1) and (2) in conjunction with release of the Draft RMP/EIS in order to solicit 

public comment from the potentially affected communities and subsistence users. For the 

Draanjik Planning Area a finding of will not significantly restrict subsistence uses was found for 

all alternatives, including the Proposed RMP (Alternative E); however, notice was given and two 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

12

sets of hearings were held within the planning area since communities there have an interest in 

the Steese Planning Area. 

1.5.1.3 Final Determinations under ANILCA Section 810

The ANILCA Section 810(a) additionally provides that no “withdrawal, reservation, lease, 

permit, or other use, occupancy or disposition of the public lands which would significantly 

restrict subsistence uses shall be effected” until the federal agency makes the three determinations 

required by the ANILCA Section 810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C). The three determinations that must 

be made are: 1) that such a significant restriction of subsistence use is necessary, consistent with 

sound management principles for the utilization of the public lands; 2) that the proposed activity

will involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to accomplish the purposes of such 

use, occupancy, or other such disposition; and 3) that reasonable steps will be taken to minimize 

adverse impacts to subsistence uses and resources resulting from such actions [16 U.S.C. Section 

3120(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C)].

The Proposed RMP (Alternative E) was found through the ANILCA Section 810(a) process to 

have no significant restriction on subsistence uses including the cumulative case. Therefore the 

determination process as described in ANILCA Sections 810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) is not 

required.

1.5.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS describes the process by which the BLM considered wild and 

scenic river eligibility and suitability. The plan considered the Salmon Fork of the Draanjik to be 

eligible for designation, but this ROD does not determine it to be suitable for designation, instead 

this river will be protected by other means. 

The Salmon Fork possesses outstandingly remarkable wildlife values that include the most 

northern dense nesting population of bald eagles in Alaska. The BLM determined the Salmon 

Fork is is not suitable for designation for several reasons. In 2003, the BLM issued a recordable 

disclaimer of interest to the State of Alaska for the bed of the Salmon Fork from its confluence 

with the Draanjik River upstream approximately 74 river miles to the International Boundary. 

There is no broad, widespread support for designation. 

The uplands along the Salmon Fork are entirely within BLM’s management. The Approved RMP 

includes decisions that will protect the Salmon Fork and the surrounding lands. The river is 

located within the Salmon Fork Area of Critical Environmental Concern designated by this ROD. 

The Approved RMP recommends the Salmon Fork ACEC be withdrawn from mineral entry and 

closed to mineral leasing, and identifies watersheds on the mainstem of the Salmon Fork as 

Riparian Conservation Areas and priority fish habitat. 

1.6 Mitigation Measures

The Draanjik Approved RMP adopts all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental 

harm as described in section 2.2.2, Appendix A, and Appendix B. The BLM will develop 

additional measures to mitigate environmental impacts through subsequent environmental

analysis during the permitting process, and will monitor and enforce mitigation requirements to 

assess and ensure their effectiveness. This will also occur during development of implementation 

plans such as watershed management plans. Additional environmental analysis, the subsequent 

identification of impacts, and the development of mitigating measures specific to the resources 

involved are part of the BLM’s process for developing implementation plans for these areas. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

13

1.7 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation

The BLM planning regulations (43 CFR Part 1610.4-9) call for the monitoring of resource 

management plans on a continual basis with a formal evaluation done at periodic intervals. 

Implementation of the Approved RMP will be monitored over time and plan evaluations 

conducted periodically. Management actions arising from activity plan decisions will be 

evaluated to ensure consistency with the resource management plan objectives. Monitoring and 

the evaluation process are described in more detail in the “Plan Evaluation and Adaptive 

Management” section 2.1.8 of this Approved RMP. 

1.8 Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination

One of the BLM’s objectives during development of the Eastern Interior, Draanjik RMP was to 

understand the views of various members of the public, agencies, organizations, Native 

corporations, tribes and state and local governments by providing opportunities for participation 

in the resource management planning process. The BLM used newsletters, media releases, and 

website postings to offer up-to-date information to interested parties. The BLM will continue to 

actively seek the views of the public, using techniques such as media releases, websites, and 

mailings to request participation and inform the public of project proposals and implementation 

planning. 

The BLM will continue to coordinate both formally and informally, with numerous state, federal, 

tribal, and local agencies and officials interested and involved in management of BLM lands in 

Interior Alaska. The State of Alaska, Village of Chalkyitsik, and Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich’in tribal 

government were cooperating agencies for the Eastern Interior RMP/EIS. The Eastern Interior 

Field Office will continue to consult with federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native 

corporations during implementation of the Approved RMP. The Field Office will continue to 

work with the State of Alaska on various projects and under existing and future memorandums of 

understanding. 

The BLM consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2008 to determine if the RMP

would affect any federally listed threatened or endangered species. The Fish and Wildlife Service

determined that there were no listed species in the planning area, thus the RMP would have no 

effect on listed species. If in the future, listed species occur in the planning area, the BLM will 

consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to approval of any project that may affect any 

federally listed species or its habitat. 

More in-depth information on these efforts is included in Chapter 5, Consultation and 

Coordination in both the Eastern Interior Draft RMP/EIS and Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

1.9 Availability of the Approved RMP

Copies of the Record of Decision and Approved RMP are available on request from the following 

locations: BLM Fairbanks District Office, 222 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709, 

(907) 474-2200 or (800) 437-7021, and on the Eastern Interior RMP website at: 

https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/alaska/eastern-interiorrmp
DEC 3 0 2016 

Eastern Interior, Draanjik 

Record ofDecision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

1.10 Approvals and Signature Page 

FIELD MANAGER RECOMMENDATION 

Having considered a r of reasonable alternatives, associated effects, and public input, I 

recommend adoP. · n and i plementation ofthe attached DraanjikApproved Resource 

Manageme 

' DEC 3 0 2016 

Date 

DISTRICT MANAGER CONCURRENCE 

I concur with the adoption and implementation ofthe Draanjik Approved Resource Management 

Plan. 

DEC 3 O 2Ql6 

Date 

STATE DIRECTOR APPROVAL 

In consideration ofthe foregoing, my decision it to adopt the Draanjik Approved Resource 

Management Plan. 

. i<O~ 

Bud C. Cribley 

Alaska State D= 

Date 

14 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

15

2. Draanjik Approved Resource Management Plan

2.1 Introduction

The Approved resource management plan (RMP) adopts management described in Decisions 

Common to All Alternatives and Subunits, Alternative E Upper Black River Subunit, stipulations 

and standard operating procedures described in Appendix A.4, as presented in the Eastern Interior 

Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), with modifications described in 

section 1.4.1.1 of the Record of Decision. Decisions in this Approved RMP apply to the Draanjik 

Planning Area.

The BLM initiated development of this Approved RMP with publication of a Notice of Intent to 

prepare a RMP and associated EIS in the Federal Register on February 29, 2008. Over the next 8

years, the BLM conducted public outreach, and involved diverse interests as part of plan 

development. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) March 2, 2012 publication of the Notice of 

Availability for the Draft RMP/EIS in the Federal Register initiated the public comment period. 

The BLM also published Hardrock Mineral Leasing in the White Mountains National Recreation 

Area, Supplement to the Eastern Interior Draft RMP/EIS (Supplement) during the Draft RMP/EIS 

public comment period. The EPA’s Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on 

January 11, 2013 initiated the public comment period on the Supplement. The public comment 

periods on both the Draft RMP/EIS and Supplement ended on April 11, 2013. 

The EPA published the Notice of Availability for the Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS in 

the Federal Register on July 29, 2016 (81 FR 49981), initiating the 30-day protest period (43 

CFR 1610.5-2). The protest period ended on August 29, 2016, and the BLM subsequently 

resolved each protest submitted. In doing so, the State Director’s Proposed RMP was upheld in 

each instance. Concurrent with the protest period, the BLM made the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

available to the Governor of Alaska for a 60-day consistency review until September 28 (43 CFR 

1610.3-2(e)). During the 60-day period the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources submitted a letter to the State Director on behalf of the Governor, identifying potential 

inconsistencies of the Proposed RMP with the State’s land use plans, programs and policies. 

However, the BLM determined that the Proposed RMP was consistent with the State’s land use 

plans, programs and policies. 

2.1.1 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Draanjik RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework to guide 

management of public lands and interests within the Draanjik Planning Area. The Approved RMP

incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, and specifies where and under 

what circumstances particular activities will be allowed on BLM-managed public lands. In 

addition to responding to current issues, the Approved RMP makes the required decisions as 

outlined in BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1).

The Approved RMP is needed for lands in the Draanjik Planning Area because the BLM has not 

previously prepared or approved land use plan for this area. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

16

2.1.2 Planning Area Description

Within the Draanjik Planning Area, the BLM administers approximately 2.4 million acres of 

BLM-managed land surface estate and 1,000 acres of federal split-estate (Map 1). Decisions in 

the Approved RMP will initially apply to 2,361,000 acres of BLM-managed lands (Table 1). 

Acreages are approximate and may change because the BLM continues to transfer title to lands 

within the planning area to the State of Alaska and Alaska Native corporations. The Approved 

RMP covers the land classifications described below:

BLM-managed Lands (unencumbered): These are lands that will be retained in long-term 

federal ownership. These lands are not selected by the State of Alaska or by Native 

corporations. 

State-Selected Lands: These are public lands that are selected by the State of Alaska as part 

of the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) of 1980. Until conveyance, State-selected lands outside of National Park System 

lands or National Wildlife Refuges are managed by the BLM. ANILCA (Section 906(f)) 

allows for over selection by the State up to 25 percent of the entitlement. Some State-selected 

lands will eventually be retained in long-term federal ownership. Until these lands are either 

conveyed to the State or the selections removed, the lands are segregated from mineral entry 

(closed to staking of new federal mining claims).

Native-Selected Lands: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 gave 

Alaska Natives an entitlement of 44 million acres to be selected from public lands defined 

and withdrawn by the Act. Some ANCSA corporations filed selections in excess of their 

entitlement and some of the Native-selected lands will be retained in federal ownership. Until 

these lands are either conveyed to the Native corporation or the selections removed, the lands 

are segregated from mineral entry (closed to staking of new federal mining claims).

Mineral Estate: All subsurface mineral estate lying beneath BLM lands is managed by the 

BLM. Conveyances made under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Statehood 

Act include the mineral estate. Conveyances made under other land disposal laws, such as the 

Recreation and Public Purpose Act, do not include the mineral estate. Federal split-estate 

lands are those on which the surface of the land has been patented (that is, transferred to 

private ownership), while the mineral interests are retained by the United States. The rights of 

a surface owner generally do not include ownership of mineral resources such as oil, natural 

gas, or coal. Under the appropriate provisions and authorities of the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920, individuals and companies can prospect for and develop coal, petroleum, natural gas 

and other minerals reserved by the federal government. Within the planning area, the BLM 

manages an estimated 1,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate beneath private surface.

Decisions in the Approved RMP do not apply to State, village and regional Native corporation, 

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and private lands. Decisions will apply to 

BLM-managed subsurface estate, except for subsurface lands under National Park Service and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

17

Table 1. Land classification within the Draanjik Planning Area

Land Status Acres

BLM unencumbered 2,244,000

State-selected lands 96,000

Native-selected lands 7,000

Total BLM surface estate 2,360,000

BLM split estate (federal subsurface estate under private surface) 1,000

Total BLM surface and split estate 2,361,000

2.1.3 Consideration of BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

The following BLM plans and standards relate to management in the Draanjik Planning Area:

• BLM, Alaska Statewide Land Health Standards (USDI-BLM 2004)

• Alaska Interagency Wildfire Management Plan (AWFCG 2016)

In the event there are inconsistencies or discrepancies between previously approved plans and this 

Approved RMP, the decisions in this RMP will be followed. All future resource authorizations 

and actions will conform to, or be consistent with the decisions contained in the RMP. However, 

this plan does not repeal valid existing rights on BLM-managed lands. A valid existing right is a 

claim or authorization that takes precedence over the decisions developed in this plan. If such 

authorizations come up for review and can be modified, they will also be brought into 

conformance with the plan.

While the final environmental impact statement for this RMP constitutes compliance with 

National Environmental Policy Act requirements for the broad-scale decisions made in this RMP, 

the BLM will continue to prepare environmental assessments or environmental impact statements 

where appropriate as part of implementation-level planning and decision making. 

2.1.4 Related Plans

The BLM considered plans developed by federal, State, local and tribal governments that relate to 

management of lands and resources within and adjacent to the Eastern Interior planning area 

during development of the RMP/EIS. Table 2 provides a list of major regional plans that have 

been reviewed in preparation of this RMP/EIS. Some specific items of consideration are 

discussed in the following paragraphs. 

The Yukon Charley Rivers Wilderness Suitability Review identifies lands that are suitable for 

wilderness designation. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

approved in 2015 identifies proposed wilderness areas. The BLM considered these adjacent lands 

when conducting the wilderness characteristics inventory for the Eastern Interior Planning Area.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

18

Table 2. List of related plans for the Draanjik Planning Area

Management Plan Agency

Yukon Flats Comprehensive Conservation Plans U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve Resource 

Management Plan, 1994 and 2008 updates

National Park Service

Yukon Charley Rivers General Management Plan, Land 

Protection Plan, Charley Wild River Management Plan, and 

Wilderness Suitability Review, 1985

National Park Service

Eastern Tanana Area Plan, 2015 State of Alaska, Department of Natural 

Resources

Yukon Tanana Area Plan, 2014 State of Alaska, Department of Natural 

Resources

Upper Yukon Area Plan, 2003 State of Alaska, Department of Natural 

Resources

2.1.5 Implementing the Plan

Plan implementation is a continuous and active process. The BLM will develop an 

implementation plan for the Approved RMP as required by BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) 

WO 2013-014 Revised Guidance for Establishing Implementation Priorities for Land Use Plans 

(11/20/2012). Decisions in this plan will be implemented over a period of years depending on 

budget and staff availability. Decisions presented in Management Decisions section 2.2 of this 

Approved RMP are of three types: Immediate, One-time, and Long-Term.

2.1.5.1 Immediate Decisions

These decisions are the land use planning decisions that go into effect when the ROD is signed. 

These include goals, objectives, allowable uses, and management direction, such as the allocation 

of lands as open or closed for salable mineral sales, designation of Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, and OHV area designations. These decisions require no additional 

analysis and guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation 

decisions in the planning area. Proposals for future actions, such as mineral material sales, land 

adjustments, and other allocation-based actions, will be reviewed against these RMP decisions to 

determine if the proposal is in conformance with the plan.

2.1.5.2 One-Time Decisions and Implementation Plans

These are the types of decisions that are not implemented until additional decision-making and 

site-specific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation of the recommendations to 

withdraw lands from locatable mineral entry under FLPMA and recommended revocation of 

existing ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals. Future one-time decisions require additional analysis and 

decision-making and are prioritized as part of the BLM budget process. Priorities for 

implementing one-time RMP decisions will be based on the following criteria:

• Current and projected resource needs and demands

• National BLM management direction regarding plan implementation 

• Available resources 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

19

2.1.5.3 Long-term Guidance and Direction during the Life of the Plan 

These decisions include the goals, objectives, and management actions established by the plan 

that are applied during site-specific analyses and activity planning. This also includes standard 

operating procedures in Appendix A. This guidance is applied whether the action is initiated by 

the BLM or by a non-BLM project proponent. Long-term guidance and plan direction is 

incorporated into BLM management as implementation level planning and project analysis 

occurs.

2.1.5.4 Public Involvement

The BLM will follow the Supplemental Rule process to implement the Draanjik Travel 

Management Plan and OHV weight and width limitations. This is a public process including 

notice in the Federal Register and public meeting(s) in the region. This process is described in 

Section 2.2.1. 

The BLM may engage in implementation planning in the future, such as watershed management 

plans. This will require preparation of detailed, project level NEPA analysis and include 

opportunities for public involvement. 

As the BLM receives applications for permits or proposes internally driven projects during the 

life of this RMP, detailed project level NEPA analysis will be conducted and various levels of 

public involvement will be available. 

2.1.6 Maintaining the Plan

Land use plan decisions and supporting information can be maintained to reflect minor changes in 

data, but maintenance is limited to refining, documenting, or clarifying previously approved 

decisions. Some examples of maintenance actions include:

• Correcting minor data, and typographical, mapping, or tabular data errors.

• Refining baseline information as a result of new inventory data. 

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records. Plan maintenance does not require 

formal public involvement, interagency coordination, or the environmental analysis required for 

making new land use plan decisions.

The BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, 

monitoring, research, other agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data and/or 

support new management techniques, required operating procedures, and scientific principles. 

Where monitoring shows land use plan actions or Standard Operating Procedures are not 

effective, modifications or adjustments may occur without amendment or revision of the plan as 

long as assumptions and impacts disclosed in the analysis remain valid and broad-scale goals and 

objectives are not changed.

2.1.7 Changing the Plan

The Draanjik Approved RMP may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan 

amendment or plan revision process. A plan amendment may become necessary if major changes 

are needed or to consider a proposal or action that is not in conformance with the plan. The 

results of monitoring, evaluation of new data, policy changes, or changing public needs might 

also provide the impetus for an amendment. Generally, an amendment is issue-specific. If several 

areas of the plan become outdated or otherwise obsolete, a plan revision may become necessary. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

20

Plan amendments and revisions are accomplished with public input and the appropriate level of 

environmental analysis.

2.1.8 Plan Evaluation and Adaptive Management

Evaluation is a process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to determine if 

management goals and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Land use 

plan evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, whether mitigation measures are 

satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of other entities, whether 

there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions should be changed through 

amendment or revision. Monitoring data gathered over time is examined and used to draw 

conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, why. 

Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management 

or to identify what changes need to be made in management practices to meet RMP objectives.

The BLM will use land use plan evaluations to determine if the decisions in the Approved RMP, 

supported by the accompanying environmental analysis, are still valid in light of new information 

and monitoring data. The BLM will generally conduct an evaluation of the Approved RMP every 

5 years, unless unexpected actions, new information, or significant changes in other plans, 

legislation, or litigation triggers an evaluation. The first plan evaluation will be conducted in 

fiscal year 2022 and every five years thereafter for the life of the plan. Evaluations will follow the 

protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) and 43 CFR Part 

1610.4-9 or other appropriate guidance in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated.

As defined by the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, adaptive management is a 

system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes, monitoring to determine if 

management actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating management changes that will 

best ensure that outcomes are met or reevaluated. This process builds on current knowledge, 

observation, experimentation, and learning from experience. A continuous feedback loop allows 

for midcourse corrections in management to meet planned goals and objectives. In addition, the 

process provides a model for adjusting goals and objectives as new information develops and 

when the public recommends management changes.

The Approved RMP is adaptive by the presentation of goals and objectives that focus on reaching 

outcomes rather than identifying inflexible standards and prescriptions that may not be applicable 

in certain situations. When land use plan actions or standard operating procedures are found to be 

ineffective, modifications may occur without amendment or revision of the plan as long as 

assumptions and impacts disclosed in the analysis remain valid and broad-scale goals and 

objectives are not changed. This approach uses on-the ground monitoring, review of scientific 

information, and consideration of practical experience and common sense to adjust management 

and modify implementation of the plan to reach the desired outcome. 

The watershed monitoring process is outlined in Appendix B, section B.3.1. Additional 

description of monitoring is included in various sections of the Approved RMP including

sections: 2.2., 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 2.210, 2.2.11, 2.2.213, 2.2.14, 2.2.15, 2.2.16, 2.2.22, 

and Appendix A.

2.2 Management Decisions

This section presents the goals and objectives, lands use allocations, and management actions 

established for Draanjik Approved RMP in the Eastern Interior Field Office. This section is 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

21

organized by program area. For activities requiring authorization from BLM, the term “allow” 

means that proposals for such use will be considered, and environmental impacts and 

compatibility with objectives will be analyzed. It does not mean that such use is automatically 

approved.

2.2.1 Access Guidance under Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA)

This section provides guidance on implementing Sections 811 and 1110(a) of ANILCA. ANILCA 

provides specific guidance on access for:

• The use of snowmobiles, motorboats and other means of surface transportation 

traditionally used for subsistence purposes by local residents on all federal public lands 

(Section 811). See ANILCA Section 102(3) for the definition of “public lands.”

• The use of snowmachines, motor boats, airplanes and non-motorized surface 

transportation methods for traditional activities and travel to and from homesites, on 

conservation system units, national recreation areas, and national conservation areas 

(Section 1110).

Pursuant to ANILCA Sections 811 and 1110, such uses are subject to reasonable regulation. The 

National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have developed regulations to 

implement Section 811 of ANILCA. While the BLM has not developed similar regulations, a 

process similar to those promulgated by the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service will be followed.

The BLM will ensure that rural residents engaged in subsistence uses shall have reasonable 

access to subsistence resources (ANILCA Section 811(a)) and will implement restrictions and 

closures to the use of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation 

traditionally employed for subsistence purposes by local rural residents (ANILCA Section 811(b)) 

only if the Authorized Officer determines that such use is causing or is likely to cause an adverse 

impact on public health and safety, resource protection, protection of historic or scientific values, 

subsistence uses, conservation of endangered or threatened species, or other purposes, values, and 

uses for which the lands are being managed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

or designated by ANILCA1 (such as a wild and scenic river, national recreation area, or national 

conservation area, if applicable).

The BLM will follow the regulations implementing Section 1110 of ANILCA, as found in 43 

CFR Part 36. The BLM will implement restrictions and closures to use of snowmachines, 

motorboats, aircraft, and non-motorized surface transportation methods (for example, domestic 

dogs, horses, and other pack or saddle animals) for traditional activities only if the Authorized 

Officer makes a finding, pursuant to 43 CFR 36.11(h), that such use would be detrimental to the 

resource values of the area.

The decision in the ROD includes the step-down transportation and travel management plan for 

the Draanjik Planning Area in Appendix E. The Supplemental Rule process described below will 

be followed to address any travel management plan decisions that are covered by Sections 811 

and 1110 of ANILCA. This rule process will be completed following approval of this ROD and 

Approved RMP.

 1 Closure criteria pursuant to National Park Service regulations at 36 CFR 13.460(b) and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife regulations at 50 CFR 36.12(b).
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

22

To meet the requirements of ANILCA, decisions in this ROD and Approved RMP that are 

covered by Sections 811 and 1110 of ANILCA are listed as “Proposed” travel management 

prescriptions After the ROD is signed, the BLM will undertake the following supplemental rule

process for travel management prescriptions proposed in the transportation and travel 

management plan:

• Publish and provide notice of proposed Supplemental Rules in the Federal Register and 

other formats and locations reasonably calculated to inform residents in the affected 

vicinity.

• Allow a minimum of 60-days for the public comment period on the proposed 

Supplemental Rules.

• Hold public hearings in the affected vicinity and other locations as deemed appropriate by 

the BLM.

• Respond to comments and publish the final Supplemental Rules in the Federal Register.

• Make the final Supplemental Rules known by the following methods (at a minimum):

♦ Supplemental Rules and maps with relevant information will be available for public 

inspection at the BLM office and at other places convenient to the public, and 

locations and formats reasonably calculated to inform residents in the affected 

vicinity.

♦ Post signs at appropriate sites.

♦ List Supplemental Rules and show relevant maps on BLM brochures and websites.

2.2.2 Mitigation

The BLM will apply mitigation measures to BLM-authorized activities within the Draanjik

Planning Area in order to achieve land use plan goals and objectives while continuing to honor 

the BLM multiple-use mission. The BLM is directed to implement mitigation measures by 

Presidential Memorandum: Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and 

Encouraging Related Private Investment (November 3, 2015) and Department of the Interior 

Manual 600 DM 6 (October 23, 2015). The BLM is currently developing a mitigation manual and 

handbook.

The sequence of mitigation action will be the mitigation hierarchy identified by the White House 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.20). This hierarchy prioritizes mitigating 

impacts at the time and location of the implementation-level activities (such as land-use 

authorizations), which must be in conformance with the land use plan goals and objectives.

Mitigation would be achieved through impact avoidance, minimization, rectification, and 

reduction over time of the impact, including those measures described in laws, regulations, 

policies, and the Draanjik Approved RMP. When these types of mitigation measures are not 

sufficient to meet the RMP goals and objectives, additional measures to compensate for residual 

impacts may be required.

The mitigation approach will incorporate the following general principles:

1. Avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or eliminate the impact over time, and compensate. The 

sequence of mitigation action will be the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, rectify, 

reduce or eliminate over time, compensate), as identified by the White House Council on 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

23

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.20). Compensatory mitigation requirements may apply 

to implementation-level activities whose impacts the agency cannot adequately avoid, 

minimize, rectify, reduce or eliminate over time (residual impacts) to meet land use plan 

goals.

2. Regional Mitigation Approach. A regional approach to mitigation would include preparing 

a prioritized assessment of degraded areas in need of restoration and areas important for 

preservation across the relevant landscape. This prioritized list would provide the basis for 

mitigation required for implementation level activities and focuses on attaining the maximum 

mitigation benefit on a landscape basis.

3. Monitor mitigation projects and measures and make adaptive changes. The BLM land 

use authorization decision documents that require compensatory mitigation as a condition of 

the permit approval should identify project level monitoring and adaptive management 

requirements. This will ensure the mitigation and adaptive management requirements are 

implemented as designed, remain effective during the life of the project’s impact, and 

management is adjusted as necessary based on lessons learned and new science.

4. Use the best available science. The best available scientific principles, standards and 

practices for mitigation shall be used when determining implementation level mitigation 

requirements.

5. Be consistent and fair. The mitigation program should apply consistently across activities 

that result in direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts within the planning area.

6. Durability. The BLM should ensure that mitigation conducted outside the area of impact, 

will at a minimum, be effective for as long as the land-use authorization affects the resources 

and values.

7. Additionality. A compensatory mitigation measure that improves the baseline conditions of 

the impacted resource, and is demonstrably new and would not have occurred without the 

compensatory mitigation measure.

2.2.3 Air and Atmospheric Values

Goals

All direct or authorized emission-generating activities, such as placer mining or BLM facilities 

development, occurring on BLM-managed lands within the planning area will comply with 

federal and State air quality laws and regulations.

Protect and maintain air quality of BLM-administered lands consistent with federal and State 

attainment, nonattainment, or maintenance classification status for atmospheric emissions and 

pollutants, including noise, smoke management, and visibility.

Coordinate, cooperate, and consult with federal, Tribal, State, and local regulatory agencies, and 

with other appropriate land management agencies, to resolve air resource issues that may impact 

BLM-administered lands.

Collaborate with other federal, State and local regulatory agencies, Tribal governments, user 

groups, and BLM offices to support a coordinated Air Resource Management Program consistent 

with a science-based adaptive management approach to air resource management.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

24

Decisions

Air-1: Implement interagency wildland fire smoke effects mitigation measures adopted by the 

Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group. Consider smoke effects on human health, 

communities, recreation, and tourism in all wildland and prescribed fire management activities.

Air-2: Ensure BLM activities, programs, and projects comply with all applicable federal, State, 

Tribal, and local air quality laws, statutes, regulations, standards, and state implementation plans, 

including applicable general and transportation conformity regulations within EPA designated 

nonattainment or maintenance areas, consistent with the Clean Air Act and FLPMA.

Air-3: Inventory, model, analyze, and monitor air resources on an annual, biannual, or quarterly 

schedule, or as directed by resource managers, to evaluate conditions and trends and their 

potential impacts on and from BLM-authorized activities, consistent with science-based adaptive 

management.

Air-4: Where BLM activities, programs, and projects or BLM-authorized activities have the 

potential to impact visibility, BLM will evaluate the extent of the potential impact and consider 

mitigation. Areas where BLM may analyze potential visibility impacts include mandatory Federal 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I and adjacent areas, wildland/urban interface areas, 

National Landscape Conservation System units, and in or near areas that contain special natural 

resources.

Air-5: When BLM programs, projects, and/or use authorizations have the potential to affect 

existing resources that may be sensitive to noise such as public health and safety, wildlife, 

heritage resources, wilderness, wildland/urban interface areas, and other special value areas (such 

as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and National Landscape Conservation Areas), BLM 

will consider noise and its potential impacts on the public and the environment, as well as any 

appropriate mitigation measures, during the planning and authorization review process.

Air-6: Where applicable, BLM will utilize guidance in the June 23, 2011 MOU Air Quality 

Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions through the National Environmental 

Policy Act Process, among the USDA, DOI, and the EPA and will incorporate updates or 

revisions as available.

Air-7: Ensure BLM activities, programs, and projects utilize CEQ issued guidance (December 

2014), providing direction for federal agencies on when and how to consider the effects of GHG 

emissions and climate change in their evaluation of all proposed federal actions in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the CEQ regulations implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA (CEQ Regulations 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 1500-

1508). Updates or revisions to the CEQ guidance will be incorporated as available.

2.2.4 Cave and Karst

Goal

Manage significant cave and karst systems to protect and maintain their resource, educational, 

scientific, and recreational values.

Decisions

Cave-1: Manage Fort Creek Cave (#AK-028-001) and Cave #AK-028-002 as significant caves. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

25

Cave-2: Management Objectives: Manage significant caves to prevent resource damage andto

provide for visitor health and safety. 

Cave-3: Setting Prescription: Primitive

Cave-4: Administrative designation: Located within the Salmon Fork ACEC (Map 9). No 

additional administrative designation recommended. 

2.2.5 Cultural Resources

Goals 

Identify, preserve and protect significant cultural resources by a variety of means; including site 

avoidance or conservation, site stabilization, monitoring, public awareness programs, and/or data 

recovery to ensure that these resources are available for appropriate uses by present and future 

generations. 

Identify and manage cultural resources for a variety of present and future uses, including 

scientific use, conservation for future use, public use, traditional use, and experimental use, or 

else discharge from further management.

Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused 

deterioration, or potential conflict with other resources by ensuring that all authorizations for land 

and resource use comply with “Section 106” National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) [54 USC 

306108]. 

Decisions

Cult-1: Designate all cultural sites for scientific use.

Cult-2: Provide permits for archaeological investigation (following 43 CFR 7), along with any 

other authorizations for individuals or institutions conducting archaeological investigations on 

public lands, and ensure that artifacts remain in federal custody.

Cult-3: Avoid impacts to cultural resources by project redesign, project abandonment, and/or 

mitigation of adverse impacts through scientific recovery and analysis. When impacts to cultural 

resources cannot be avoided, complete a Determination of Eligibility to the State Historic 

Preservation Office to determine a site’s significance and eligibility to the National Register of 

Historic Places, and follow prescribed NHPA "Section 106" [54 USC 306108] consultation for all 

sites determined eligible. If a site is determined eligible, develop a memorandum of agreement 

(MOA) to mitigate the action.

Cult-4: Conduct pro-active field survey for cultural resources (“Section 110” of NHPA), when 

funding allows. Base prioritization of NHPA "Section 110" field surveys and inventories [54 USC 

306102(b)(1)] on (1) a reasonable combination of expected development activities on the public 

land, (2) “values” related to the resource itself, such as rareness, uniqueness, density on the 

landscape, and other characteristics inherent in the resource itself, and (3) a record of previous 

cultural surveys in the area. 

Cult-5: Base prioritization of cultural sites for rehabilitation, stabilization, and restoration on the 

“value” of the resource (i.e., NRHP eligible; uniqueness; rarity), along with other recreational or 

public uses, and other BLM land or resource use considerations. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

26

Cult-6: Systematically monitor threatened sites on an established schedule, and monitor other 

sites as opportunities or funds become available.

Cult-7: Allow for both destructive and non-destructive cultural resource data recovery by 

qualified BLM personnel for both "Section 106" mitigative projects as well as non-"Section 106", 

research oriented projects, where “destructive” refers to archaeological excavation and extensive 

sub-surface testing and non-destructive refers to mapping, photography, and other means of nondisturbance site recordation.

Cult-8: Maintain an inventory of archaeological sites and localities for the planning area. The 

locations of these sites and localities are protected by federal law from disclosure to the public, 

certain exceptions aside, so as to better protect them.

2.2.6 Fish and Aquatic Species

Goals

The following goals are consistent with the National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP 2006) and 

BLM Instruction Memorandum 2009-141:

Maintain water quality that satisfies state standards and provides for stable and productive 

riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

Maintain stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime (including the 

elements of timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport) under which the 

riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed.

Manage instream flows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, which promote the 

stability and effective function of stream channels, and the ability to effectively route flood 

discharges.

Maintain natural timing and variability of the water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. 

Manage for diversity and productivity of native plant communities in riparian zones.

Manage riparian vegetation to:

• Provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of intact natural 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems;

• Provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the riparian and aquatic 

zones; and,

• Help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristic 

of those under which the communities developed.

Manage habitat to support populations of well-distributed native plant, vertebrate, and 

invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities.

Decisions

Priority Species

Fish-1: Where priority species are present, manage and monitor habitats to promote selfsustaining populations. Priority aquatic species are those species utilized for subsistence, 

designated as BLM sensitive, federally listed under the Endangered Species Act, and/or 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

27

recreationally important species. Table 3 lists the current priority aquatic species that occur with 

the Draanjik planning area. 

Fish-2: Cooperate and coordinate with state agencies, federal agencies, Native organizations, and 

other groups to ensure efficient and effective program implementation toward conservation of 

native and desired, non-native aquatic species.

Table 3. Priority fish species in the Draanjik Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Priority Status

Chinook salmon (King)A Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Subsistence, recreation

Chum salmonA Oncorhynchus keta Subsistence, recreation

Coho salmonA Oncorhynchus kisutch Subsistence, recreation

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus Subsistence, recreation

Broad whitefishAR Coregonus nasus Subsistence

Humpback whitefishAR Coregonus pidschian Subsistence

Whitefish(unidentified)AR Coregoninae Subsistence

Least ciscoAR Coregonus sardinella Subsistence

SheefishAR Stenodus leucichthys Subsistence, recreation

Northern pike Esox lucius Subsistence, recreation

Burbot Lota lota Subsistence, recreation

A = Anadromous fish species

AR = Species that may be either anadromous or resident species

Desired Future Conditions for Aquatic Species

Fish-3: Develop and implement appropriate management practices to maintain the following 

desired future conditions for aquatic species:

• Maintain habitats historically occupied by native aquatic species (fish, invertebrates, 

plants and other aquatic-associated species) to promote continued occupation.

• Develop and implement habitat management plans and strategies for special status fish 

and aquatic species that include specific habitat and population management objectives 

designed for conservation, as well as management strategies necessary to meet those 

objectives.

• Monitor spatial extents of habitat disturbances to ensure disturbances are less than the 

area occupied by priority species, in order to preserve population structure and life 

history strategies.

• Cooperate to ensure aquatic habitats are managed consistently with federal, state and 

Native fish population goals.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

28

Priority Habitats

Fish-4: Identify and manage for priority habitats. Priority habitats are those habitats that support 

any life stages of priority aquatic species, which includes both resident and anadromous fish 

species. Due to the extensive amounts of aquatic habitat in the planning area considered priority 

habitats, the BLM identified the highest priority areas for aquatic species.

Approximately 116 watersheds in the Draanjik Planning Area contain BLM-managed fisheries. 

An analytical approach was developed to categorize and evaluate watershed resource values. This 

process is described in Appendix B Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. In summary, the process 

categorized all watersheds containing BLM land as either Conservation or Restoration 

Watersheds based on watershed integrity and historic land use. Conservation Watersheds were 

those that have processes and functions that occur in a relatively undisturbed and natural 

landscape setting. Restoration Watersheds were those where biological and physical processes 

and functions do not reflect natural conditions because of past and long-term human-caused land 

disturbances. Within these categories, the watersheds were further evaluated to identify those with 

the highest aquatic habitat resource values using a ten factor rating system (Appendix B 

“Fisheries and Aquatic Resources”). The Conservation and Restoration Watersheds with the 

highest values were further categorized as Riparian Conservation Areas and High Priority 

Restoration Watersheds, respectively.

Fish-5: Identify high priority conservation watersheds as Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) 

and monitor these areas. These watersheds contain the highest fisheries and riparian resource 

values within the planning area. In these watersheds, riparian-dependent resources receive 

primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific requirements described below 

under Management of Watersheds. 

Manage the following watersheds as Riparian Conservation Areas (Map 2). 

1. Bear Mountain Creek (HUC # 190801060404) 

2. Draanjik (HUC # 190801060802) 

3. Big Duck Lake-Draanjik (HUC # 190801060804) 

4. Big Sitdown Creek (HUC # 190705040903) 

5. Fourteenmile Creek-Yukon River (HUC # 190705041906) 

6. Grayling Fork Draanjik (HUC # 190801060504) 

7. Grayling Fork Draanjik (HUC # 190801060502) 

8. Grayling Fork Draanjik (HUC # 190801060705) 

9. Grayling Fork Draanjik (HUC # 190801060701) 

10. Headwaters Little Black River (HUC # 190801070105) 

11. Headwaters Kandik River (HUC # 190705040902) 

12. Indian Grave Creek (HUC # 190705040906) 

13. Kandik River (HUC # 190705040908) 

14. Little Black River (HUC # 190801070106) 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

29

15. Little Black River (HUC # 190801070109)

16. Little Black River (HUC # 190801070404)

17. Lower Kevinjik Creek (HUC # 190801061309)

18. Outlet Runt Creek (HUC # 190801061005)

19. Salmon Fork Draanjik (HUC # 190801061107)

20. Salmon Fork Draanjik (HUC # 190801061403)

21. Salmon Fork Draanjik (HUC # 190801061105)

22. Tetthajik Creek (HUC # 190801061207)

23. Unnamed Tributary - Draanjik (HUC # 190801060704)

24. Unnamed Tributary - Draanjik (HUC # 190801060702)

25. Unnamed Tributary - Draanjik (HUC # 190801060703)

26. Unnamed Tributary - Kandik (HUC # 190705040901)

27. Yukon River (HUC # 190705041903)

28. Yukon River (HUC # 190705041904)

Desired Future Conditions for Aquatic Habitats

Fish-6: Identify desired future habitat conditions for fish and aquatic resources. The desired

future conditions for aquatic habitats and species must consider an integrated suite of aquatic

(including both abiotic and biotic components), riparian (including riparian-associated terrestrial

species), and hydrologic (including uplands) conditions. It is desirable that most watersheds,

generally should be in or making progress toward a High Condition Rating as described in 

Section B.3.1, “Watershed Condition Matrix”.

Fish-7: Utilize habitat metrics to help design appropriate management actions or mitigate

proposed activities at the site-specific project level, in attempt to move watersheds toward a High

Condition Rating. If certain metrics highlight a concern in a watershed, then analysis should 

disclose how proposed management actions would be designed to take into account the concerns, 

and/orwhen the proposed action would lead to achieving objectives. Metric criteria values are not

absolute criteria, and are rated in regards to a functional condition or ecological/biological

condition.

Desired Future Condition Metrics for Aquatic Habitats

Fish-8: Within all watersheds the desired condition is to provide aquatic habitat to support native

vertebrate and invertebrate populations at natural levels. Stream channel conditions are stable and 

consistent with the surrounding landform and watershed.

Desired stream and riparian habitat conditions are listed below. Many of these values are interim

goals based on professional judgment; however, future monitoring of reference aquatic systems

will be integrated to refine desired condition targets based on the Adaptive Management and 

Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Processes (Section B.2.1, “Monitoring and

Evaluation of the RMP”). The refined targets will be established based upon the upper percentile

of values, and stratified by channel type and other factors; such as aspect and elevation.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

30

1. Habitat Connectivity: Native fish species have access to historically occupied habitats.

2. Water Temperature: Cold Water Biota: Habitat complexity provides daily,seasonally,

annually and spatially variable water temperatures within expected normal ranges.

Consistent with Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70) temperatures may not

exceed 20 degrees C. at any time. The following maximum temperatures are not

exceeded:

a. Migration routes 15 degrees C.

b. Spawning areas 13 degrees C.

c. Rearing areas 15 degrees C.

d. Egg and fry incubation 13 degrees C.

3. Turbidity: Stream stability levels facilitate balanced sediment aggradation and

degradation within the watershed, thereby maintaining seasonally consistent turbidity 

levels. Turbidity levels would not exceed those outlined in the Alaska Water Quality 

Standards (18 AAC70).

4. Pool Frequency: Pool frequency would approximate Rosgen (1996) estimates based on

channel type.

5. Width to Depth Ratio: Less than or equal to 12:1 for confined channel types (Rosgen

channel types A, E and G); less than 20:1 for moderately confined channel types (Rosgen

channel type B); and less than 40:1 for unconfined channel types (Rosgen channel types 

C andF).

6. Channel Substrate Condition: Spawning gravel surface fines (<0.06 mm) in pool tails <5

percent (Bryce et al. 2008).

7. Large Woody Debris (applies to forested systems): Near-natural patterns in size and

amount of in-channel, large woody debris and potential wood on stream banks and

floodplain.

8. Streambank Stability: Streambank stability greater than 95 percent for A and B and E

channel types; greater than 90 percent for C channel types within 80 percent of any

stream reach. Streambank stability would be evaluated using the BLM Multiple Indicator

Monitoring technique or other appropriate methodology.

9. Riparian and Riparian Conservation Area Vegetation: Riparian and wetland areas in 

Proper Functioning Condition. Conditions reflect natural disturbances processes. Desired 

conditions generally mature to late seral community types as outlined in Winward 2000. 

Percent of riparian vegetation in the greenline dominated by late seral community types

or anchored rocks/logs is greater than 80 percent (good-excellent ecological condition). 

Over 80 percent of the plant community type along the streambank provides high bank

stability, deep fibrous roots, good resistance to streambank erosion or is comprised of 

anchored rocks/logs. The riparian vegetationprovides adequate shade, large wood debris 

recruitment, and connectivity.

Management of Watersheds

These decisions apply to all watersheds unless otherwise noted.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

31

Fish-9: Provide and coordinate hydrologic data with the State to secure instream flows needed to 

maintain riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic habitats.

Fish-10: Implement the standard operating procedures in Appendix A on a project specific basis 

to achieve the goals, meet the Desired Future Conditions for aquatic habitats and species, and 

maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship.

Fish-11: Locate water removal sites to minimize impacts on priority species and provide for

attainment of desired conditions for aquatic habitats and species.

Fish-12: Utilize the watershed matrix to assist in site-specific project impact analysis (Appendix 

B “Fisheries and Aquatic Resources”) and mitigate impacts identified as potentially degrading to 

the watershed Condition Rating.

Fish-13: Complete watershed assessments Section B.5, “Watershed Assessment Process” as

necessary for management.

The Following Decisions Apply to Mining Operations on All Watersheds

Fish-14: To avoid unnecessary and undue degradation of public land under notice level mining 

operations and mining operations requiring a plan of operations, the 43 CFR 

3809.420(b)(3)(ii)(E) requires the rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife habitat. The fisheries and 

wildlife habitat rehabilitation performance standard requires the operator to rehabilitate or repair 

damage caused to fisheries or wildlife habitat.

Further, 43 CFR 3809.420(a)(3) requires operations and post-mining land use to comply with the 

applicable BLM land use plans and activity plans, and with coastal zone management plans under 

16 U.S.C. 1451, as appropriate. The following section outlines planning area and locationspecific goals that need to be the focus of a fisheries rehabilitation plan submitted under 43 CFR 

3809.301 and 3809.401 in order to meet the fisheries rehabilitation requirement under 43 CFR 

3809.420(b)(3)(ii)(E).

For purposes of this plan, the rehabilitation of fisheries habitat is defined as providing aquatic and 

riparian habitat characteristics that will support fish such that the species and life stage

composition and density that occurred prior to disturbance is reestablished. Given the complexity 

of fisheries habitat rehabilitation in Alaska, reclamation plans will include detailed descriptions of

measures to achieve the following three objectives:

1. A stable channel form that is in balance with the surrounding landform such that channel

features are maintained and the stream neither aggrades nor degrades. To achieve this the

operator must design a post-mining stream channel using morphological characteristics

of the pre-disturbance channel and floodplain (e.g., bankfull and floodprone dimension, 

meander pattern, design flows and velocity, riffle to pool ratio, substrate particle size).

These characteristics could be derived from field surveys of the area, remotely sensed

information, or information from adjacent watersheds that exhibit similar characteristics 

as thewatershed proposed for mining. A key reference used on the national scale for 

alluvial channel design is The National Resources Conservation Service’s Stream 

Restoration Design, National Engineering Handbook, Part 654 (NRCS 2007 Chapter 9);

2. Sufficient riparian vegetation or anchored rocks/logs to effectively dissipate stream

energy, prevent soil erosion, stabilize streambanks, provide essential nutrient input, and

maintain water quality and floodplain function; and,
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

32

3. Provide instream habitat complexity similar to that of pre-disturbance levels by the use of

instream structures (e.g., vortex rock weirs, cross-vane structures, installation of root

wads).

By focusing on these three objectives, the probability of fisheries habitat rehabilitation success is

increased. Typically, the operator would satisfy these requirements through the development of a 

site-specific reclamation plan. Bond release will be based on meeting specific measurable

objectives outlined in a reclamation plan (43 CFR 3809.401(b)(3)).

Fish-15: Develop monitoring and associated reporting requirements as part of site-specific plans

(i.e., Plan of Operation) to measure impacts and subsequent reclamation success levels. Use 

monitoring data to adaptively manage existing and future plans of operation to make measurable

progress toward desired future conditions in subsequent years following reclamation.

Riparian Conservation Areas and ACEC-specific Requirements

Fish-16: The management goal in RCAs and the Salmon Fork ACEC is to: maintain and provide 

stream channel integrity, ensure riparian proper functioning condition, and achieve desired future 

conditions for the high-value fish and aquatic resources, and yet allow for surface-disturbing 

activities.

To increase the likelihood of fisheries habitat rehabilitation within these watersheds, which 

represent the highest value fisheries resources within the planning area, additional baseline data 

pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.401 (c) (1) will be required. Within these areas baseline hydrological 

data that is adequate to characterize seasonal flow patterns and discharge will be required from 

the operator. The BLM will be available to advise operators on the exact type of baseline data and 

detail needed to meet this requirement. In addition reclamation requirements in site-specific 

reclamation plans, will be designed to result in rehabilitation of habitats within an accelerated 

time frame (e.g., less than five years). To achieve fisheries habitat rehabilitation within five years, 

rigorous revegetation and streambank stabilization techniques and a high level of monitoring and 

maintenance will be required.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Management

Fish-17: Analyze BLM-authorized actions that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat either 

directly or indirectly and coordinate with the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to 50 

CFR §§ 600.905-.930.

Fish-18: Incorporate additional conservation measures, recommended by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service in site-specific consultation, to minimize impacts to Essential Fish Habitat.

Fish-19: Implement the measures outlined in Appendix G of the 2005 Alaska Essential Fish 

Habitat Environmental Impact Statement as appropriate (Section I.6, “Recommended 

Conservation Measures for Essential Fish Habitat”).

2.2.7 Non-Native Invasive Species

Goals

Prevent the introduction and spread of noxious and non-native invasive species on and adjacent to 

BLM-managed lands.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

33

Decisions

NIS-1: Use integrated pest management (IPM) practices to control or eradicate noxious and nonnative invasive species.

NIS-2: Within five years of signing the ROD or by management direction, develop a step-down 

Invasive Species Strategic Management Plan for the Eastern Interior planning area, including the 

Draanjik, to implement IPM practices, which may include cultural, biological, mechanical, 

manual, and chemical controls. The plan would incorporate early detection and rapid response 

efforts and, using the Alaska invasiveness risk ranking (Carlson et al. 2008) to prioritize 

treatments, include prevention practices. Prevention practices may include outreach and 

education, vehicle, boat, OHV, and aircraft cleaning protocols, and use of certified weed-free 

gravel and seed. Additional SOPs and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations for land uses may be 

developed through the step-down plan.

NIS-3: Complete inventory and mapping for noxious and non-native invasive plants at disturbed 

sites and along trails as needed. Anthropogenic disturbance on the landscape is the primary driver 

for conducting inventory for invasive plants. Inventory in the upper Draanjik will be conducted at 

management direction and may be an appreciably longer time scale than five years. 

NIS-4: Conduct inventory for other non-native invasive species, including insects, pathogens, and 

other pests, as they are detected moving toward the planning area.

NIS-5: Monitor all inventory and control sites on a rotational basis (every two to three years 

depending on severity of infestations and treatment method).

NIS-6: Continue to support data management through the Alaska Exotic Plant Information 

Clearinghouse (AKEPIC) database and the BLM national database (National Invasive Species 

Management Information System).

NIS-7: Work with the Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management in Alaska, the 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska Invasive Species Working Group and other 

agencies, organizations, and groups to coordinate inventory, monitoring, prevention, and control 

of noxious and non-native invasive species within the planning area.

NIS-8: Adapt management of non-native invasive plants to address climate change and other 

management issues as new information becomes available.

NIS-9: Minimize the introduction and spread of noxious and non-native invasive plants through 

use of Alaska certified weed-free products for any action requiring stabilization, reclamation, 

restoration, or revegetation. When certified products are not available, use native seed and locally 

produced products.

NIS-10: Comply with the most current BLM Alaska Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species 

Management policy.

NIS-11: Employ measures outlined in the most current Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Management Plan (ADF&G 2002) and the most current Interim Fire Operations Guidance to

Prevent Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species (USFS 2016) to reduce the introduction and spread of 

Aquatic Nuisance Species.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

34

2.2.8 Paleontological Resources

Goals

Manage, protect, and preserve paleontological resources using scientific principles and expertise 

to ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations.

Ensure that proposed land uses initiated or authorized by the BLM avoid or mitigate inadvertent 

disturbance to federal and non-federal paleontological resources.

Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of paleontological resources through 

educational and outreach programs.

Decisions

Paleo-1: Require permits for individuals or institutions conducting paleontological investigations 

for vertebrate fossils and some rare invertebrates on public lands and ensure that fossils remain in 

federal custody.

Paleo-2: Prior to projects that may result in extensive surface or sub-surface disturbance in areas 

likely to contain significant paleontological resources, conduct an inventory for paleontological 

resources. At times, this may be done in conjunction with the inventory for cultural resources but 

supplemental paleontological expertise may be needed in other cases.

Paleo-3: Comply with federal laws (National Environmental Policy Act; Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act; Paleontological Resources Preservation Act) and regulations for the 

preservation of paleontological resources by avoiding impacts to significant paleontological 

resources through project redesign, project abandonment, and/or mitigation of adverse impacts 

through scientific recovery and analysis.

Paleo-4: Enable scientific use of paleontological resources by qualified non-BLM personnel for 

scientific research and public education. Allow the removal of significant paleontological 

resources by means of a BLM-issued permit, which requires that such resources remain the 

property of the United States and are preserved for the public in an approved repository.

Paleo-5: Inventory public lands for paleontological resources. Maintain an inventory of 

paleontological sites and localities. Monitor paleontological sites in danger of alteration or 

destruction from natural- or human-made causes. Develop partnerships as feasible to achieve 

these ends.

2.2.9 Soil Resources

Goals

Ensure that watersheds are in (or are making significant progress toward) a properly functioning 

physical condition that includes their upland, riparian, wetland, and aquatic areas. The infiltration 

and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability of upland soils are appropriate to the 

watershed’s soil, climate, and landform (BLM 2004c).

• Protect the soil surface from erosion; avoid detention of overland flow; maintain 

infiltration and permeability consistent with the potential/capability of the site.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

35

• Promote moisture storage by soil and plant conditions consistent with the 

potential/capability of the site.

• Hydrologic, vegetative, and erosion/depositional processes support physical functioning, 

consistent with the potential or capability of the site.

• Stream channel, lake bed, shoreline characteristics are appropriate for the landscape 

position.

Ensure that water and nutrient cycling and energy flow support healthy, productive, and diverse 

natural communities. Water and nutrient cycling and energy flow occur effectively to support 

healthy, productive, diverse communities at levels appropriate to the potential/capability of the 

site.

Minimize soil erosion and sedimentation associated with storm water discharge from disturbed 

sites, particularly where soils and overburden are stripped and stockpiled for an extended period 

of time.

Decisions

Soil-1: Design all BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities to reduce soil erosion and 

minimize impacts to soil profiles. Where permitted operations result in surface disturbance, return 

land to its pre-disturbance condition to the extent possible. Implement SOPs (Appendix A 

“Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations”) to reduce soil impacts 

from surface-disturbing activities.

Soil-2: Where permitted surface disturbing operations result in a total land disturbance of equal to 

or greater than one acre an Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for Storm 

Water discharge, will normally be required and would include developing and following a Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan to manage materials, equipment, and runoff from the site. Most 

construction, materials, and placer mine operations would be eligible for coverage under a 

construction or multi-sector industrial activity general permit.

• The Alaska Construction General Permit (ACGP) (AKR100000, Effective May 2011) 

authorizes storm water discharges from large and small construction activities that result 

in a total land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre and where those discharges 

enter waters of the United States (U.S.). Construction operations must meet specific Best 

Management Practices requirements and water quality standards for turbidity.

• The Multi-Sector General Permit for Storm Water Discharge associated with Industrial 

Activity (MSGP) (AKR060000, Effective April 2015) requires industrial facilities to

implement control measures and develop site-specific storm water pollution prevention 

plans to comply with Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements and 

meet water quality standards for turbidity. Requirements in Subpart G apply to storm

water discharges associated with industrial activity from Metal Mining facilities, 

including mines abandoned on federal lands. Coverage is required for metal mining 

facilities that discharge storm water contaminated by contact with, or that has come into 

contact with, any overburden, raw material, intermediate product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product located on the site of the operation.

It is anticipated that most materials sites and placer mining operations will need multi-sector 

industrial activity general permit coverage to address storm water discharge from their industrial 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

36

activities. Permit coverage is required from the commencement of surface disturbing activities 

until final stabilization.

2.2.10 Special Status Species

Goals

Manage animal and plant resources and habitats consistent with the conservation needs of Special 

Status Species (BLM Manual 6840) in a manner that will not contribute to the need to list any 

species under the Endangered Species Act and to ensure progress towards recovery of any listed 

threatened or endangered species.

Manage BLM Alaska sensitive species habitats so that actions do not contribute to species decline 

or contribute to federal listing.

Prevent damage from proposed land uses to habitats supporting Special Status Species.

Identify, conserve, and monitor Special Status Species and habitats to ensure that self-sustaining 

populations of these species continue to persist in the planning area (i.e., without the need for 

population supplementation or habitat restoration efforts). Ensure that habitats support healthy, 

productive, and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals.

Decisions

SSS-1: Develop a Special Status Species management plan in cooperation with ADF&G. This 

plan would determine inventory and monitoring needs, priorities and methods, and recommend 

management actions necessary to conserve these species. Increased inventory may lead to 

removal of some species from the Special Status Species list.

SSS-2: Develop and implement appropriate site-specific and programmatic management 

practices to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sensitive species and their habitats.

SSS-3: If impacts to Special Status Species (populations and habitats) cannot be avoided, the 

applicant (or the BLM for internal actions) will develop mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

SSS-4: Require the project proponents to complete surveys for Special Status Species when it is 

determined that the project will impact or may possibly impact potential habitat. The mitigation 

hierarchy will be implemented if Special Status Species are found during inventories.

SSS-5: Where sensitive status plant species are located, implement measures to protect these 

populations or individuals through site-specific buffers or management prescriptions, such 

prohibiting surface occupancy or ground disturbance in occupied habitats, where appropriate. Site 

new roads and trails away from sensitive plant populations and minimize summer cross-country 

OHV travel where sensitive plants are located.

SSS-6: Monitor BLM sensitive plant species populations. Where disturbance to individuals or 

habitat is documented, remove the source of the disturbance to a location that avoids continued 

damage or implement mitigation to reduce the damage.

SSS-7: Cooperate with partners in inventory and monitoring of rare plant and animal species to 

improve the knowledge of statewide abundance, distribution, and trends of sensitive species and 

the development of management strategies at a regional scale.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

37

SSS-8: Where it is found that Special Status Species habitat is likely to be negatively affected by 

use (i.e., such use is likely to result in a significant local or regional decline in species 

distribution, abundance, or productivity), such uses will be redirected to other locations, or other 

mitigation actions that will be effective in preventing local population impacts will be 

implemented in accordance with BLM 6840 Manual.

SSS-9: Ensure reclamation and restoration plan objectives incorporate the needs of Special Status 

Species where habitat potential exists.

2.2.11 Vegetation Resources

Goals

Ensure that watersheds (including their upland, riparian, wetland, and aquatic areas) are making 

significant progress toward or are in proper functioning condition.

Ensure that water and nutrient cycling, and energy flow support healthy, productive, and diverse 

natural communities.

Ensure that habitats support healthy, productive, and diverse populations and communities of 

native plants and animals.

In disturbed areas, rapidly re-establish native plant communities, with locally adapted plants. 

(Recognizing that temporary establishment of non-native plants may occasionally be necessary to 

stabilize sites, control erosion, or facilitate eventual establishment of native plants).

Desired Outcome

Veg-1: Maintain the current nature of the vegetation in the planning area which has a natural 

diversity of species, communities, and seral stages largely undisturbed, except by natural forces.

Decisions

Veg-2: Manage wildland fire to achieve natural fire regimes and ecosystem processes dependent 

upon fire. Use prescribed fire in select areas to improve wildlife habitat.

Veg-3: In response to shifting fire regimes resulting from climate change, fire management may 

be implemented to achieve wildlife habitat objectives (e.g., meeting habitat needs for subsistence 

species) or to facilitate ecosystem adaptation to climate change (e.g., addressing spread of 

invasive plants).

Veg-4: All firelines will be repaired and closed to OHV use to facilitate revegetation. Repair 

firelines by spreading original soil and vegetation on the disturbed ground, except in specific 

circumstances where seeding or planting may be necessary. Protect vegetation from damage 

caused by summer OHV use. In specific circumstances where firelines are routed and constructed 

so that they meet pre-determined travel management needs and maintain resource values, the

Authorized Officer (AO) may determine that an exception is appropriate and retain suitable 

firelines as OHV or snowmobile routes. Fire lines built on existing roads or OHV trails will be 

returned to conditions suitable for original use.

Veg-5: Manage lichen-rich plant communities as high value habitats due to the slow growth 

potential of lichen and its great importance to caribou.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

38

Veg-6: When developing travel management plans, minimize impacts through appropriate 

restrictions on cross-country OHV use. Monitor vegetation for impacts that may be caused by 

OHVs.

Veg-7: Reduce disturbance of vegetation by minimizing footprint of surface-disturbing activities, 

consolidating access to minimize the number of routes, and requiring prompt reclamation and 

revegetation.

Veg-8: Avoid disturbance of the vegetative mat unless it is not feasible to do so. Plans for 

revegetation of surface disturbances will be addressed during authorization of an action (as 

outlined in A.1.1 “SOP Veg-1”).

Veg-9: Utilize and encourage natural revegetation of disturbed sites as the generally preferred 

method of revegetation (in situations where this is adequate to prevent erosion and will result in 

rapid establishment of plant cover). In some circumstances, however some combination of 

seeding, planting, and transplanting of adult plants or vegetation mats, or fertilizing may be 

necessary.

Veg-10: Native species will be utilized whenever possible if seeding or planting is necessary. 

Temporary establishment of non-native plants may occasionally be approved by the Authorized 

officer when it is determined to be necessary to stabilize sites, control erosion, or facilitate 

eventual establishment of native plants. Vegetation treatment and revegetation requirements are 

described in SOP Veg-1 in Appendix A Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Stipulations).

Veg-11: Manage riparian and wetland areas to achieve proper functioning condition, or if not at 

proper functioning condition, to enhance condition rating. Management strategies to achieve 

proper functioning condition are described in section 2.2.6.

Veg-12: Inventory vegetation community composition across the planning area and monitor 

changes related to climate and fire regime (size, frequency, and severity).

Veg-13: In addition to mapping of fire perimeters, map unburned inclusions within fire 

perimeters and fire severity on fires 1,000 acres or greater using Monitoring Trends in Burn 

Severity standards established by U.S. Geological Service and U.S. Forest Service, or similar 

interagency standards. .

Veg-14: Monitor the area of surface disturbance and areas effectively reclaimed, allowing an 

estimate of cumulative un-reclaimed surface disturbance.

Veg-15: Map priority habitats and plant communities to facilitate conservation planning and the 

mitigation of impacts to priority habitats and plant communities.

Veg-16: Conduct watershed assessments as outlined in Appendix B “Fisheries and Aquatic 

Resources”.

Priority Plant Species and Communities

Veg-17: The priority plant communities listed below constitute a small proportion of the planning 

area, yet support a number and variety of plant and animal species and ecosystem processes.

• Aspen/steppe bluffs (most often occurring as river bluffs)
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

39

• Riparian communities

• Wetlands (with a focus on wetlands other than the widespread mesic black spruce and 

tussock and shrub tussock vegetation types) 

• Tall shrub communities

• Sparsely plant covered calcareous substrate (e.g., limestone)

• Lichen-rich habitats

Veg-18: Priority plant species are plants on the BLM Alaska Sensitive Species and BLM Alaska 

Watch lists.

Veg-19: In areas of potentially sensitive habitats, prepare and utilize ecological mapping to 

identify unique, rare, or high-value plant species, communities, and habitats and to allow 

development of mitigation. 

2.2.12 Visual Resources

Goal 

Maintain and manage visual resource values in accordance with Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) Classes.

Decisions

VRM-1: Designate all BLM-managed lands into one of the following VRM Classes (Table 4 and 

Map 3) and manage to meet assigned VRM class objectives 

VRM Class II: The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. 

Activities or modifications of the environment should not be evident or attract the attention of 

the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements of form, line, color and texture 

found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

VRM Class IV: The objective of this class is to provide for management activities which 

require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. Changes may attract 

attention and be dominant landscape features, but should reflect the basic elements of the 

existing landscape. Class IV rating is generally reserved for areas where the visual intrusions 

dominate the view shed but are in character with the landscape.

Table 4. Visual resource management allocations for the Draanjik Planning Area 

Areas VRM Class Acres

Salmon Fork ACEC and RCAs II 1,114,000

Remaining lands IV 1,246,000
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

40

2.2.13 Water Resources, Wetlands, and Floodplains

Goals

Watersheds: Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properlyfunctioning

physical condition, including their upland, riparian, wetland, and aquatic components; soil and

plant conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release of water that are in

balance with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity, and

timing and duration of flow.

Water Quality: Protect, restore, and maintain the natural chemical, physical, and biological

quality of surface and ground waters, wetlands, and floodplains influenced by BLM resource

management activities. Ensure full compliance with applicable federal and state laws and 

executive orders.

Water Quantity: Protect, restore, and maintain the natural flow regime, water levels, and

integrity of surface and ground waters influenced by BLM resource managementactivities.

Water Rights: Ensure availability of surface and ground water for public land management

purposes by acquiring and protecting federal reserved water rights and water rights obtained 

through state-based administrative and judicial systems. Ensure full compliance with applicable 

federal and state laws.

Science-based Adaptive Management: Coordinate, cooperate, and consult with federal, tribal, 

state, and local agencies, private landowners, and stakeholder organizations in order to foster a 

unified, science-based adaptive management approach to water resource management.

Assessment and Monitoring: Provide a unified framework for BLM’s science-based watershed 

approach to management of natural and developed water systems consistent with federal and state 

water quality and quantity assessment methods, including monitoring, sampling, and reporting 

protocols.

Decisions

Water-1: Ensure BLM activities, programs, and projects comply with all applicable federal, 

State, Tribal, and local water quality, wetland, and floodplain laws, statutes, regulations, 

standards, and state implementation plans, consistent with executive orders, the Clean Water Act 

and FLPMA.

Water-2: Develop regional scale water quantity and water quality monitoring strategies in 

cooperation with other federal and State agencies consistent with science-based adaptive 

management.

Water-3: Focus management on entire watersheds using an ecosystem approach involving all 

interested landowners and affected parties when feasible.

Water-4: Where permitted surface disturbing operations result in a total land disturbance of equal 

to or greater than one acre an Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for Storm 

Water discharge, will normally be required and would include developing and following a Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan to manage materials, equipment, and runoff from the site. Most 

construction, materials, and placer mine operations would likely be eligible for coverage under 

the Alaska Construction General Permit (ACGP) (AKR100000, Effective May 2011) or the 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

41

Multi-Sector General Permit for Storm Water Discharge associated with Industrial Activity 

(MSGP) (AKR060000, Effective April 2015). Permit coverage would be required from the 

commencement of surface disturbing activities until final stabilization.

Water-5: Within five years of signing the ROD or by management direction, undertake 

development of a step-down Watershed Management Plan (WMP) for the Draanjik watershed.

Watershed planning helps address water quality problems in a holistic manner by fully assessing

the potential contributing causes and sources of pollution including uplands, then prioritizing

restoration and protection strategies to address these problems. The objectives and management 

shall be tailored to the conditions, conflicts, capability and improvement potential, and land use 

considerations on a watershed-specific basis. Site specific soil and water management

determinations (e.g., watershed, floodplain-wetland, or riparian rehabilitation techniques,

monitoring techniques and schedule, and the design and placement of improvements) will be

developed in the interdisciplinary Watershed Management Planning phase for resource programs.

The “Watershed Assessment Matrix” (Table B.1), depicting range of desired conditions for

aquatic habitats would be incorporated in the Watershed Management Plan as well as other

science-based watershed assessment tools. Relevant new science and new empirical water 

resource data would also be incorporated in the WMP. Additional SOPs and Fluid Mineral 

Leasing Stipulations for land uses may be developed through the step-down watershed 

management plan. 

Water-6: Systematically inventory, model, analyze, and monitor water resources on an 

established schedule in order to evaluate conditions and trends and their potential impacts on and 

from BLM-authorized activities consistent with science-based adaptive management principles.

Water-7: Prioritization of disturbed stream sites for rehabilitation, stabilization, and restoration 

would be based upon an interdisciplinary team site assessment and other BLM land or resource 

use considerations. Consider the extent to which the site may deteriorate if restoration or 

improvement action is not immediately implemented. Areas that may suffer further degradation 

and have potential for improvement should be given top priority. Those that have been degraded 

but appear stable may be given lower priority for restoration and improvement. Other factors, 

such as special status species, water quality, competing water uses, fisheries, and recreation 

values should also be considered when establishing priorities.

Water-8: Utilize available USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database and maps in 

determining wetland classification for a particular site. Where published (NWI) maps are not 

available other federal or State wetland maps will be utilized. Where federal or State maps are not 

available BLM or other agency personnel with wetland expertise will use published federal 

guidance to determine wetland classification. 

Water-9: Procedures for implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management are set 

forth as an 8-step decision-making process outlined in Part II of the 1978 Water Resources 

Council Guidelines. When an action is proposed in a floodplain, the 8-step procedural process 

will be addressed and integrated in developing land use authorizations. 

2.2.14 Wilderness Characteristics

Goal 

In areas identified for minimization of impacts to wilderness characteristics (Map 4), retain 

wilderness characteristics including naturalness, solitude, and outstanding opportunities for 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

42

primitive and unconfined recreation to the extent possible while allowing for other multiple use 

activities.

Objective

Reduce impacts of multiple-use activities to maintain naturalness, outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation, and supplemental values on 1,114,000 

acres.

Decisions

LWC-1: The following activities, uses, and decisions could occur in areas identified as lands 

where wilderness characteristic would be maintained. Allowable activities are not limited to 

activities and uses listed below. The listed activities are those protected under ANILCA.

• Cross-country snowmobile travel with adequate snow cover

• Motorboat use 

• Airplane use, including primitive, unimproved landing areas 

• Temporary structures and equipment placement related to hunting, fishing, and trapping 

• Public use cabins and other small facilities for visitor safety and recreational use

• Limited OHV use

• Access for subsistence use and commercial activities including rights-of-way or other 

types of permits

LWC-2: Manage 1,246,000 acres to emphasize other multiple uses as a priority over protecting 

wilderness characteristics.

LWC-3: Manage 1,114,000 acres to emphasize other resources values and multiple uses while 

applying management restrictions (conditions of use, mitigation measures) to reduce impacts to 

wilderness characteristics (Map 4). These lands are located within the Salmon Fork ACEC 

(section 2.2.24) and riparian conservation areas (section 2.2.6). 

LWC-4: Do not manage any lands to protect wilderness characteristics as a priority over other 

resource values and multiple uses.

LWC-5: Monitor wilderness characteristics through the NEPA process. Conduct on-the-ground 

or aerial monitoring in conjunction with monitoring for other resources. 

Rationale: BLM Manual 6320 outlines three outcomes of considering wilderness characteristics 

in the land use planning process, including, but not limited to: (1) emphasizing other multiple 

uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics; (2) emphasizing other multiple uses 

while applying management restrictions (conditions of use, mitigation measures) to reduce 

impacts to wilderness characteristics; and (3) the protection of wilderness characteristics as a 

priority over other multiple uses. The Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS considered

outcomes (1) and (2). The BLM will consider wilderness characteristics during site specific 

NEPA analysis and project permitting. The purpose of doing this is to analyze the effects of the 

proposed action to the inventoried condition of the lands. In areas managed as (1) the Authorized 

Officer may choose not to specifically mitigate impacts to the wilderness character in keeping 

with the allocation decision in the Approved RMP, although mitigation for other resources may 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

43

have the effect of reducing impacts to wilderness characteristics. For example requiring site 

reclamation and revegetation to reduce erosion would contribute to maintaining naturalness of the 

site. Under (2) measures will be applied to reduce impacts to size, naturalness, opportunities for 

solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Through a wilderness characteristics inventory, the Eastern Interior Field Office determined that 

99 percent of BLM lands in the Draanjik Planning Area have wilderness characteristics. Given 

the large size of these wilderness inventory units many land uses could occur that would not 

impact naturalness, solitude, or primitive recreation on a landscape scale, or the size of the units.

Management for other resource drivers such as riparian habitat, wetlands, Salmon Fork ACEC, 

vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife are complementary to maintaining wilderness characteristics.

ANILCA allows certain uses in Wilderness areas in Alaska. Since these uses are allowed in 

designated Wilderness, these uses could also occur on lands with wilderness characteristics while 

still maintaining those characteristics. In the planning area, maintaining wilderness characteristics 

is consistent with ANILCA-protected uses and facilities, including: snowmobile and motorboat 

use; other means of surface transportation traditionally employed for subsistence purposes; 

airplane landings; temporary structures related to hunting, fishing and trapping; and public use 

cabins (ANILCA Sections 811, 1110, 1315(d), and 1316(a)).

2.2.15 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Goals

Protection of human life is the single overriding priority. Other priorities are based on the values 

to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of protection.

Respond to all wildfires, with an emphasis on firefighter and public safety, and ensure that costs 

are commensurate with the values to be protected.

Use wildland fire, and other treatments to maintain or restore ecological systems and to meet land 

use and resource management objectives.

Prevent human caused wildfires.

Reduce risk and costs of wildfire by managing wild fires to meet resource objectives and 

implementation of fuels management projects.

Reduce adverse effects of wildland fire management activities.

Decisions

Fire-1: Cooperate and collaborate with other federal, state, and Native land managers, and with 

other suppression organizations to address issues and concerns related to wildland fire 

management in Alaska and to implement operational decisions. 

Fire-1: Allow fire on the landscape. Apply four wildland fire management options for initial 

response: Critical, Full, Modified, and Limited. Ensure that assigned wildland fire management 

options are ecologically and fiscally sound, operationally feasible, and sufficiently flexible to 

respond to changes in fire conditions, land use patterns, resource information, new technologies, 

and new scientific findings. Throughout the planning area, fire may be managed for multiple 

objectives. These wildland fire management options will be revisited by the Field Office annually 

and changed as needed to ensure the most effective initial response from the protection agency. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

44

Option changes will be documented on the official map atlases maintained by the Alaska 

Interagency Coordination Center and the respective Protection Zone/Area.

Common indicators for changing fire management options include:

• A value to protect appears on the landscape (i.e. new neighborhood, structures is 

determined to have historic value, critical caribou habitat mapping); a value to protect 

disappears from the landscape.

• A non-standard response was required for a wildfire the year previous and justifies the 

need for a change in that area.

• A fire or other disturbance changes the fuel structure.

• Another agency proposes an inter-agency change involving the BLM for the previously 

described reasons.

The designation of a management option pre-selects initial response strategies to accomplish 

established land use and resource objectives. Initial fire response for each fire management option

is listed in Table 5.

Fire-3: Implement the Standard Operating Procedures listed in Appendix A Standard Operating 

Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations during wildland fire management activities.

Table 5. Fire Management Options for the Planning Area

Management

Options Critical Full Modified Limited

Initial Fire

Response

(AWFCG 2016)

Mobilize 

resources to 

protect the area 

and/or sites and 

suppress the fire 

without 

compromising 

public or 

firefighter safety.

Mobilize 

resources to 

protect the area 

and/or sites and 

suppress the fire 

without 

compromising 

public or 

firefighter safety.

Pre -conversion date:

Mobilize resources to 

protect the area and/or 

sites and suppress the 

fire without 

compromising public or 

firefighter safety.

Post-conversion date:

Conduct surveillance, 

assessment, and site 

protection as warranted.

Conduct 

surveillance, 

assessment, and 

site protection as 

warranted.

Priority for 

firefighting 

resources

1 2 3 4

Fire-4: In addition to these wildland fire management options, some actions will be taken to 

protect specific sites that have been identified for special fire management protection. Sitespecific actions may be taken to protect structures, cultural and paleontological sites, small areas 

of high resource value, and threatened and endangered species habitat to give suppression 

agencies more specific guidance for small sites.

Fire-5: Monitor vegetative communities for cumulative effects of wildland fire, suppression 

activities, and effects of excluding fire.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

45

Fire-6: The desired future condition for BLM-managed lands is to be in Fire Regime Condition 

Class 1, which represents landscapes still within the natural historical range of variation in fire 

regime.

In response to shifting fire regimes resulting from climate change, fire management may be 

implemented to achieve wildlife habitat objectives (e.g., meeting habitat needs for subsistence 

species) or to facilitate ecosystem adaptation to climate change (e.g., addressing spread of 

invasive plants).

Fire-7: Fuels management activities assist in achieving resource objectives. Prescribed burning, 

mechanical, chemical, and manual treatments may also be used. Projects may be implemented in 

support of scientific research and in cooperation with BLM cooperators and partners.

Fuels treatments are prioritized to:

1. Reduce the risk to human life and inhabited property. Highest priority for fuel treatments 

would be those communities surrounded by hazardous fuels.

2. Reduce the risk and cost of wildland fire suppression in areas of hazardous fuels buildup.

3. Achieve other resource objectives such as habitat needs.

4. Achieve desired future condition of Fire Regime Condition Class 1.

2.2.16 Wildlife Resources

Goals

Maintain natural ecosystem functions and the quality and quantity of habitat to support healthy 

populations of wildlife.

In cooperation with ADF&G, monitor wildlife populations and habitats and manage BLM lands 

to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife populations. Ensure optimum, self-sustaining 

populations and a natural abundance and diversity of wildlife resources.

Maintain and protect subsistence resources and opportunities. Determine how management 

actions, guidelines, and allowable uses prescribed in response to the other issues will affect 

subsistence opportunities and resources. Monitor populations and habitats to ensure opportunities 

for subsistence harvest of wildlife.

Minimize impacts to wildlife species and their habitats from BLM-authorized activities on BLMmanaged lands.

Protect habitats important to wildlife population maintenance by the avoidance of possible 

adverse effects of land use activities, through mitigation and by reserving specific areas from 

certain land use activities.

Maintain a diversity and abundance of wildlife habitat that will provide resilience in adaptation to 

changing climate.

Ensure opportunities for wildlife viewing, fishing, hunting, and trapping.

Locate trails and recreational development to avoid conflicts with important and priority wildlife 

habitat and environmentally sensitive areas.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

46

Maintain and restore riparian and wetland areas so that they provide habitat diversity and healthy 

riparian and aquatic conditions for riparian and wetland dependent species and other wildlife 

species.

Decisions

Wild-1: Manage habitat for migratory birds to emphasize avoidance or minimization of negative 

impacts, and to restore and enhance habitat quality pursuant to Executive Order 13186, Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act, and Memorandum of Understanding between BLM and USFWS to Promote 

Conservation of Migratory Birds (2010). Bird species of concern are listed in Table D-1, “Bird 

Species of Conservation Concern in the Eastern Interior Planning Area” and include: USFWS 

Bird Species of Conservation Concern, BLM Alaska Sensitive Species, Featured Species in the 

Alaska State Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and Boreal Partners in Flight Priority Species. 

Habitats that support several of these species, (including riparian and wetland habitats) would be 

given priority consideration in efforts to minimize impacts and restore habitat quality.

Wild-2: Minimize impacts to known nesting sites of priority raptors from actions authorized by 

the BLM. Priority raptor species are peregrine falcon, gyrfalcon, bald eagle and golden eagle. 

Specific SOPs applicable to priority raptor habitats are listed in Appendix A Standard Operating 

Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations. All priority raptor SOPs may be modified 

based on project-specific analyses. Nest sites of other raptors would be similarly managed, 

although management would generally be less restrictive and would be determined in site-specific 

environmental analyses.

Wild-3: Employ industry-accepted best management practices to prevent raptors and other birds 

from colliding with or being electrocuted by utility lines, alternative energy structures, towers, 

and poles (Appendix A Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations).

Wild-4: Maintain health of Dall sheep by maintaining effective separation (WAFWA 2012) 

between Dall Sheep and domestic animals that pose a risk to Dall sheep health, including sheep, 

goats, llamas, alpacas, and other camelids. Prohibit the use of domestic goats, sheep, alpacas, 

llamas, and other similar species in conjunction with BLM-authorized activities occurring in Dall 

sheep habitat.

Wild-5: Educate the public about the disease risks of using these pack animals within Dall sheep 

habitat.

Wild-6: Protect important wildlife habitats through special restrictions where necessary, 

including yearlong or seasonal activity restrictions and minimum altitudes for aircraft use 

(Appendix A Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations).

Wild-7: Avoid or minimize impacts from projects that could degrade riparian areas and promote 

restoration of riparian areas to achieve Proper Functioning Condition.

Wild-8: Develop a caribou habitat management plan for the historical range of the Fortymile 

caribou herd. In cooperation with other land managers and ADF&G, utilize a combination of onthe-ground inventory and remote sensing of caribou habitat, along with caribou habitat use and 

distribution data, to develop the plan.

Wild-9: Inventory and monitor caribou range (forage) conditions in the Steese National 

Conservation Area in cooperation with other land and wildlife managers. These efforts would 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

47

include analyses of the impacts of climate change on fire regimes and caribou forage, and 

recommendations for management of Fortymile caribou herd habitats.

Priority Wildlife Species and Habitats

Wild-10: Inventory and monitor priority wildlife species and their habitats within the planning 

area. Species listed in Table 6, “Priority Wildlife Species and Habitats in the Eastern Interior

Planning Area” and Table D-1 “Bird Species of Concern” would be a conservation priority in the 

planning area.

Monitor populations of priority and subsistence wildlife species in cooperation with ADF&G and 

USFWS. Identify important habitats for priority species and monitor changes. Work towards 

development of adaptive management plans that will identify levels of change at which 

management actions will be implemented. Other important species and habitats include denning 

and seasonal high use areas for bears and furbearers, nesting habitats for other raptors, waterfowl, 

and shorebirds, and winter concentration areas for small game.

Table 6. Priority wildlife species and habitats in the Draanjik Planning Area

Priority Species, Draanjik Planning 

Area Seasonal Habitats Listed in Order of Priority

Caribou Calving/post-calving (including mineral licks)

Summer (including insect-relief habitat)

Migration/movement routes

Pre-calving

Fall/winter

Dall sheep Mineral licks (summer)

Lambing

Movement routes

Summer

Winter

Moose Calving

Mineral licks

Late winter

Rutting

Riparian and willow shrub habitats

Peregrine falcon, gyrfalcon, bald eagle, 

golden eagle

Nesting

Prey gathering

All special status species identified by 

the BLM State Director

Yearlong

Martin and Lynx Yearlong

2.2.17 Forest and Woodland Products

Goals

Maintain and restore the health, productivity, and biological diversity of forest and woodland 

ecosystems.

Consistent with other resource values, provide personal use of wood and special forest products 

for local consumption and opportunities for commercial harvest.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

48

Decisions

Forest-1: Allow harvest of dead or downed wood for recreational uses, including camping on all 

lands. 

Forest-2: Allow harvest of special forest products for personal use on all lands.

Forest-3: Consider personal use of timber, commercial use of forest products, and commercial 

timber salvage sales on all lands. 

Forest-4: Consider commercial timber sales for non-salvage purposes (large and small) on all 

lands except within the Salmon Fork ACEC (623,000 acres). 

Forest-5: In addition to requirements outlined in the standard operating procedures (Appendix 

A), consider the following limitations in areas where timber harvest is authorized. 

• Require winter harvest to minimize disturbances to soils and ground vegetation. 

• Disperse slash generated from timber harvest activities.

• Set a maximum stump height for harvested trees.

2.2.18 Lands and Realty

2.2.18.1 Land Tenure

Goals 

Retain public lands with high resource values. Adjust land to consolidate public land holdings, 

acquire lands with high public resource values, and meet public and community needs.

Acquire and maintain access to public lands, where needed, to improve management efficiency 

and facilitate multiple use and the public’s enjoyment of these lands in coordination with other 

federal agencies, state and local governments, and private landowners.

Decisions

Lands-1: Those lands to be retained, acquired, or disposed of are identified as Zone 1, 2, or 3, in 

Appendix C, Land Tenure and Withdrawals. Zone 1 lands are displayed on Map 5. These 

decisions have no effect on the ongoing land conveyance process or valid selections.

Lands in Zone 1 would be retained under BLM management. Inholdings would be considered for 

acquisition on a willing seller basis.

Lands in Zone 2 would generally be retained, but would be available for acquisition or disposal, 

whichever is appropriate to enhance public resource values, improve management capabilities, or 

reduce the potential for land use conflict. 

Lands in Zone 3 would be made available for disposal. If needed, modify existing public land 

orders to allow for disposal.

Lands-2: Lands currently in Zones 2 and 3 would be reassigned to Zone 1 if they are included in 

future designations of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act by the USFWS.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

49

Lands-3: The Draanjik Planning Area, with the exception of lands around Circle, is identified as

Zone 1 for retention. Consider acquisition of private inholdings from willing sellers.

Lands-4: The remaining lands are identified as Zone 2. Consider acquisition or disposal including 

exchange of scattered parcels around Circle for the purposes of consolidation (Map 5). No lands

are identified as Zone 3. 

Rationale: With the ongoing conveyance of State- and Native-selections, the final landstatus in 

the Circle area is uncertain. Once the conveyances are complete and the entitlements are 

fulfilled, there may be scattered parcels of BLM-managed lands that are impractical or

uneconomical to manage. The zoning method described above provides the flexibility to either 

dispose of or acquire land for the purposes of blocking up land patterns and reducing the number 

of scattered parcels of BLM-managed lands. 

Land Disposals

Lands-5: Use the authorities listed below to dispose of lands in Zones 2 and 3: 

FLPMA Sales: Public lands located in Zones 2 or Zone 3 that meet one or more of the following 

criteria may be disposed of by FLPMA Sales (43 CFR 2710.0–3): 

1. A tract acquired for a specific purpose that is no longer required for that or any other 

federal purpose. 

2. A tract whose disposal would serve important public objectives, such as expansion of 

communities and economic development, that cannot be prudently or feasibly achieved 

on other than public lands, and that outweighs other public objectives and values. 

Examples of those other public objectives and values, which would normally be used as 

justification to maintain such a tract in federal management, include (but are not limited) 

to recreation and scenic values.

3. A tract of land which, because of its location or other characteristics, is difficult and 

uneconomical to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management 

by another federal department or agency. 

Lands identified for disposal under this authority that are State- or Native-selected would have to 

be adjudicated before the BLM will entertain a sale. If these lands become unencumbered during 

the life of the plan, they will then be suitable for disposal under this authority and have been 

properly identified through the planning process. 

Lands-6: Lands not to be disposed of include:

1. Lands withdrawn from the public land laws or segregated by State- or Native-selection. 

Disposal can occur once the segregation is removed or if the withdrawal is modified or 

revoked.

2. Lands located within valid mining claims or that are of record under Section 314 of 

FLPMA would not be disposed of unless BLM policy is changed in the future to allow 

for their disposal. Lands with federal mining claims that become null and void may be 

disposed of. 

3. Lands identified as land tenure Zone 1. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

50

Lands-7: Reserved federal interests in split-estate lands anywhere in the planning area may be 

considered for conveyance out of federal management.

Lands-8: Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.): R&PP disposal 

would be considered on Zone 2 and 3 lands throughout the planning area in accordance with the 

following:

1. Lands identified for disposal under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) that 

are selected by either the State of Alaska or a Native corporation would have to be fully 

adjudicated before the BLM will entertain a sale. If these lands become unencumbered 

within the life of the plan, then they would be suitable for disposal under this authority.

2. In most instances, the BLM will first lease lands under this Act and only convey the lands 

after the project is constructed in compliance with an approved development and 

management plan. Tracts proposed as sanitary landfills will always be sold; they would 

not be leased.

3. Any lands conveyed under this act which are being used for solid waste disposal (sanitary 

landfill) or for any other purpose that the Authorized Officer determines may include the 

disposal, placement, or release of any hazardous substance (such as wastewater treatment 

facility, shooting range, firefighter training facility) will be conveyed with a limited 

reversion clause. The limited reversion clause will prohibit reversion to the federal 

government of any portion of the land if such portion has been used for solid waste 

disposal or for any other purpose that the Authorized Officer determines may include the

disposal, placement, or release of any hazardous substance. With regard to such sites all 

provisions of 43 CFR 2743 shall be followed.

Lands-9: Airport and Airway Improvement Act of September 3, 1982 (49 U.S.C. 2215): The 

BLM will process airport conveyances as requested by the Federal Aviation Administration. Each 

conveyance will contain appropriate covenants and reservation(s) requested by Federal Aviation 

Administration. As a condition to each conveyance, the property interest conveyed will revert to 

the federal government in the event the lands are not developed for airport or airway purposes or 

are used in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the conveyance.

Lands-10: Exchanges: Consider mutually benefiting public interest land exchanges. Exchanges 

are authorized in Alaska by FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1716), Section 22(f) of ANCSA, and Section 

402(b) of ANILCA. When considering public interest, full consideration will be given to efficient 

management of public lands and to securing resource management objectives. Exchanges will not 

be actively sought out until State and Native entitlements are fulfilled.

Land Acquisitions

Lands-11: When and where appropriate, lands may be acquired by purchase, exchange, or 

donation, from willing owners/sellers, to further the programs of the Secretary of the Interior. The 

BLM may acquire less than fee title to property if management goals can be achieved by doing so 

(43 CFR 2100 and BLM Acquisition Handbook H-2100-1). Acquisition of a conservation 

easement is an example of acquiring less than fee title.

Consider acquisition of land from willing sellers in Zone 1 areas (inholdings) and in Zone 2 areas 

for consolidation of land patterns. Specific acquisition needs are identified under each subunit.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

51

2.2.18.2 Land Use Authorizations

Goals

Meet public needs for land use authorizations (such as rights-of-way, leases, and permits) while 

minimizing adverse impacts to other resource values.

Prevent, control, and eliminate unauthorized use (trespass) on BLM-managed lands.

Decisions

Lands-12: Consider FLPMA leases throughout the planning area, except where prohibited by law 

or public land order.

Lands-13: All FLPMA leases will be at fair market value. Cabins or permanent structures used 

for private recreation may not be authorized. Proposals for commercial use leases of cabins (such 

as guiding or trapping) would be considered.

Lands-14: R&PP leases will not be used for the purpose of authorizing solid waste disposal sites 

(sanitary landfills) or for any other purpose that the Authorized Officer determines may include 

the disposal, placement, or release of any hazardous substance (such as wastewater treatment 

facility, shooting range, firefighter training facility). Existing leases for solid waste disposal sites 

or other uses which the Authorized Officer determines may include the disposal, placement, or 

release of any hazardous substance will be converted to patents without a reversionary clause. 

R&PP lease proposals on selected land must include a letter of non-objection from the selecting 

entity. R&PP leases and disposal will be considered on Zone 2 and 3 lands.

Permits

Lands-15: Permits are used to authorize short-term occupancy, use, or development of a site 

under Section 302 of FLPMA (43 CFR 2920) or under ANILCA. Consider land use permits 

throughout the planning area with the following limitations:

1. Cabin or permanent structure permits are not issued for private recreation uses.

2. Cabins and other structures for commercial trapping will be authorized by short term 

(three year maximum) Section 302 permits renewable at the discretion of the Authorized 

Officer. The applicant must provide proof of substantial commercial trapping activity. 

3. Consider permits for administrative use of BLM-managed lands by the State of Alaska.

Unauthorized Use

Lands-16: Address and resolve unauthorized use and/or unauthorized occupancy of the public 

lands (Trespass) in accordance with the regulations found in 43 CFR 9220.1-2 and the guidance 

provided by BLM’s Realty Trespass Abatement Handbook H-9232-1.

Lands-17: Trespass cabins may become the property of the U.S. Government and be managed as 

administrative sites, emergency shelters or public use cabins (BLM 1989b). Possible management 

actions on trespass cabins include:

1. Authorization by lease or permit for legitimate uses, if consistent with goals and 

objectives for the area.

2. Relinquishment to the U.S. for management purposes.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

52

3. Removal of the structure.

Rights-of-Way

Lands-18: Rights-of-way would be considered throughout the planning area in accordance with 

the regulations found in 43 CFR 2808. There are no rights-of-way exclusion or avoidance areas. 

Lands-19: Locate rights-of-way near other rights-of-way or on already disturbed areas whenever 

practical and reasonable to do so.

Lands-20: Provide access to non-federally owned lands, including ACECs, adequate to secure 

the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment of such lands as required by Section 1323(b) of 

ANILCA. Access across ACECs is not precluded by ACEC designation. Proposals for access 

across ACECs to private lands will be considered and evaluated on the basis of environmental 

impacts.

Lands-21: Consider additional communication site development on public land to support 

resource development and ancillary needs. Consider communication site rights-of-way 

throughout the planning area. Ensure coordination between existing and potential communication 

site users, and maximum utilization of existing sites (43 CFR 2800).

Implementation Level Decisions

Authorizations for use of State- or Native-selected land

Native-selected: Prior to issuance of a use authorization, the views of the concerned Native 

region(s) or village(s) will be obtained and considered consistent with 43 CFR 2650.1. If the 

corporation objects to the proposal, the BLM may proceed with authorization only if the State 

Director determines that the proposal is deemed to be in the public’s best interest. Monies 

received for any use authorization on Native-selected lands would go into an escrow account.

State-selected: In accordance with Section 906(k) of ANILCA, BLM must receive a letter of 

concurrence prior to issuance of any use authorization on State selected lands. BLM may then 

incorporate State-recommended terms and condition of the use authorization, if in compliance 

with federal laws and regulations. If the State objects, BLM would not issue the use authorization.

2.2.18.3 Renewable Energy

Goal

Encourage the development of renewable energy sources consistent with other decisions in this 

plan and with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the BLM Energy and Mineral Policy (August 

26, 2008).

Decision

Lands-21: Consider applications for wind energy, solar energy and biomass utilization activities. 

Small-scale renewable energy facilities used to provide energy to isolated locations will be 

considered throughout the planning area. Authorize wind energy, solar energy, and biomass 

utilization activities under the appropriate land use authorization (lease, right-of-way, or permit).
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

53

2.2.18.4 Withdrawals 

Goal 

Where the BLM determines withdrawals from the public lands laws are not necessary, those lands 

would be open to the public land laws.

Decisions

Lands-22: Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that PLO 5173 and any other 

applicable ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawal be partially revoked to open 547,000 acres to 

locatable mineral entry and mineral leasing laws in the areas shown on Map 7. 

Lands-23: Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that withdrawals under the authority of 

FLPMA be established on 1,813,000 acres in the following areas for the purposes of protecting 

sensitive resources, and that existing ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals (public land order 5173 and 

others as applicable) be partially revoked for the respective areas upon establishment of new 

FLPMA withdrawals. Recommended new withdrawals under FLPMA would only withdraw lands 

from locatable mineral entry and location. These withdrawals would not affect conveyance of 

validly selected lands. (Appendix C) 

• Approximately 623,000 acres in the Salmon Fork ACEC (Map 9).

• Approximately 491,000 acres in Riparian conservation areas (Map 2).

• Approximately 699,000 acres in the Draanjik River watershed (Map 7) 

Lands 24: Recommend retaining federal agency withdrawals (e.g., NOAA, military, GSA, 

FAA) until no longer required by the agency. Regulations in 43 CFR 2370 and following will 

govern the process for an agency to relinquish lands or interest in lands, in whole or in part, 

when no longer needed. Once an agency has filed a completed notice of intent to relinquish to 

the BLM and appropriate General Services Administration (GSA) regional office the BLM will 

follow the appropriate regulations and the Authorized Officer will make a determination as to 

suitability of the lands or interest in lands for return to the public domain. If the lands or interest 

in lands are determined suitable for return to the public domain the Authorized Officer will 

notify the holding agency that the Department of the Interior accepts accountability and 

responsibility for the property in accordance with procedures found in 43 CFR 2374. If the lands 

or interest in lands are determined to be unsuitable for return to the public domain the Authorized 

Officer will request concurrence from the appropriate officer of the GSA and upon receipt of the 

concurrence will notify the holding agency to report as excess property the lands and 

improvements or interest in lands to the General Service Administration in accordance with 

procedures found in 43 CFR 2374. 

2.2.19 Minerals

2.2.19.1 Fluid Leasable Minerals

Goals 

The public lands and federal mineral estate would be made available for orderly and efficient 

exploration, development and production of fluid leasable mineral resources (includes oil, natural 

gas, tar sands, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal steam), unless withdrawal or other 

administrative action is justified in the national interest. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

54

When authorizing fluid leasable minerals actions, to the extent possible, ensure that goals to 

protect other resource values in the planning area are met.

Decisions

FL Min-1: Close 1,813,000 acres in the Salmon Fork ACEC, Draanjik watershed, and riparian 

conservation areas to fluid leasable minerals (Map 7). 

FL Min-2: Open remainder of the planning area, 547,000 acres, to fluid mineral leasing, subject 

to BLM Standard Lease Terms, Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations, and Standard Operating 

Procedures (Appendix A). Fluid mineral (oil and gas, geothermal and coal bed natural gas) 

leasing and development will be considered in areas open to leasing, subject to additional NEPA 

analysis. Partial revocation of ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals is required to open these lands to 

leasing. See also section 2.2.18.4. 

FL Min-3: In split-estate situations, requirements in Appendix A prescribed for federal mineral 

development apply only to the development of federal subsurface minerals because the BLM 

does not have authority over surface management requirements.

FL Min-4: All open areas are also open to geophysical exploration. Areas closed to fluid mineral 

leasing may be considered for geophysical exploration. Geophysical exploration activities are 

subject to SOPs (Appendix A).

2.2.19.2 Solid Leasable Minerals

Goals 

The public lands and federal mineral estate will be made available for orderly and efficient 

exploration, development, and production of solid leasable mineral resources and non-energy 

leasable minerals, unless withdrawal is justified in the national interest.

When authorizing solid leasable minerals actions, to the extent possible, ensure that goals to 

protect other resource values in the planning area are met.

Decisions

SL Min-1: Close the Salmon Fork ACEC, Draanjik watershed, and riparian conservation areas

(1,813,000 acres) to solid leasable minerals, including coal (Map 7).

SL Min-2: Open the remainder of the subunit, 547,000 acres to solid leasable minerals subject to

43 CFR 3500, BLM standard leasing stipulations and SOPs in Appendix A. Partial revocation of 

ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals required to open these lands to leasing. See also section 2.2.18.4. 

SL Min-3: All areas open to solid mineral leasing are also be open to coal resource inventory and 

exploration. Areas closed to solid mineral leasing may be considered for coal inventory and 

exploration. 

SL Min-4: Defer a decision on coal leasing because the coal screening process (as identified by 

43 CFR 3420.1-4) has not been completed in the planning area. If an application for a coal lease 

is received, the appropriate land use and environmental analysis, including the coal screening 

process, would be conducted to determine whether or not the coal areas are acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing and development under 43 CFR 3420.1-4. An RMP amendment will be 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

55

needed before coal leasing could occur. Only those BLM-managed public lands that have 

development potential may be identified as acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing.

If this RMP is amended to allow for coal leasing, develop an agreement between the State of 

Alaska and the Office of Surface Mining defining the regulatory role of the State in accordance 

with 30 CFR 745. 

SL Min-5: Oil shale could be leased in areas that are open to fluid mineral leasing; areas closed 

to fluid mineral leasing are also closed to oil shale leasing. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct lease sales in states that show an interest. 

Leasing would be unlikely, as there are no known occurrences of oil shale on BLM lands in the 

planning area. 

SL Min-6: In split-estate situations, the SOPs (Appendix A) apply only to the development of the 

federal subsurface minerals. The BLM does not have authority over surface management 

requirements.

2.2.19.3 Locatable Minerals

Goal 

Maintain or enhance opportunities for mineral exploration and development, while maintaining 

other resource values.

Decisions

L Min-1: Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that 1,813,000 acres in the Salmon Fork 

ACEC, Draanjik watershed, and riparian conservation areas be withdrawn from locatable mineral 

entry (Map 6).

L Min-2: Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that the remainder of the planning area, 

approximately 547,000 acres be opened to locatable mineral entry (Map 7). Partial revocation of 

ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals required to open these lands to mining. 

L Min-3: Mining of locatable minerals will be subject to the surface management regulations 

found in 43 CFR 3809, the SOPs (Appendix A), and other decisions in this Approved RMP. 

Surface occupancy under the mining laws is subject to regulations contained in 43 CFR 3715. 

Bonding would be required in accordance with BLM's policy. 

L Min-4: Mining-related disturbances will be rehabilitated, on active and inactive workings, as 

required by 43 CFR 3809 and in accordance with SOPs and BLM's policy. 

L Min-5: All operations would require the filing of a Plan of Operations or Notice of Operations 

with the BLM (43 CFR 3809). Plans of Operation must be approved prior to commencement of 

on-the-ground activities. SOPs (Appendix A Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral 

Leasing Stipulations) will be utilized to minimize surface impacts and to facilitate rehabilitation 

and revegetation of mined areas.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

56

2.2.19.4 Salable Minerals

Goals

Make lands, including federally administered surface/minerals and split-estate, available for 

mineral material disposal.

When authorizing salable minerals actions, to the extent possible, ensure that goals to protect 

other resource values in the planning area are met.

Decisions

Min Mat-1: All lands within the Draanjik Planning Area are open to salable mineral disposal.

Min Mat-2: Mining of salable material will be subject to the Mineral Materials Disposal 

regulations found in 43 CFR 3600. Bonding will be required in accordance with BLM contract 

regulations.

Min Mat-3: Mineral material sales on selected lands will require concurrence of the potential, 

future landowner, and proceeds from the sale placed into escrow.

Min Mat-4: Free Use Permits would not be issued for resources on selected lands.

Min Mat-5: Material sales on un-certificated Native allotments will not be permitted (43 CFR 

3601.12(b)). Material sales on certificated Native allotments are the purview of the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) and its successor agency.

Min Mat-6: Material sales on split-estate require concurrence of the surface owner.

Min Mat-7: Mineral materials sales are not permitted on pre-1955 mining claims (Public Law 

167) and are subject to non-interference with the mining operation on post-1955 mining claims.

Table 7. Summary of Mineral Allocations for the Draanjik Planning Area

Type of Mineral Decision Acres

Fluid Leasable Open subject to standard stipulations, Fluid 

Mineral Leasing Stipulations, and SOPs; Open 

via partial revocation of ANCSA 17(d)(1) 

withdrawals

547,000

Fluid Leasable Closed 1,813,000

Solid Leasable Open via partial revocation of ANCSA 17(d)(1) 

withdrawals

547,000

Solid Leasable Closed 1,813,000

Locatable Recommended open via partial revocation of 

ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals

547,000

Locatable Recommended withdrawn; currently withdrawn 

via ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals; replace 

17(d)(1) with FLPMA withdrawals.

1,813,000

Salable Open 2,360,000

Salable Closed 0
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

57

2.2.20 Recreation

Goal

Provide for multiple recreational uses of the public lands. This includes facilitating a wide range 

of beneficial outcomes by managing for desired recreational activities, settings and experiences. 

This helps support local economic stability, while sustaining recreation resources and other 

sensitive resource values.

Land Use Plan Decisions

Follow BLM program direction for managing recreation on public lands by incorporating “The 

BLM’s Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services” (BLM 2003), BLM Manual 8320 Planning 

for Recreation and Visitor Services (BLM 2011), applicable sections of Appendix C of the Land 

Use Planning Handbook, and other BLM directives that are related to recreation management.

Land Use Planning decisions for Recreation and Visitor Services include:

• Designation of recreation management areas (RMAs)

• Establishment of recreation and visitor service objectives for each RMA

• Identification of land use planning level supporting management actions and allowable 

use decisions for each RMA.

• Limitation of target shooting prohibiting recreational shooting within one-quarter mile of 

developed recreational facilities. This includes (but is not limited to) campgrounds, 

cabins, waysides, trailheads, and administrative sites.

• Limitation of target shooting prohibiting recreational shooting on, from, or across the 

drivable surface of any trail, travel route, or travel way.

Management Actions

Rec-1: Manage 2,360,000 acres as public lands not designated as recreation management areas. 

No recreation management areas are designated in the Draanjik Planning Area. 

Rec-2: Manage lands to meet basic recreation, visitor services, and resource stewardship needs.

Address emerging recreation issues as needed. Prioritize actions for remediating recreation issues.

Rec-3: Issue special recreation permits on a case-by-case basis when consistent with other 

resource uses and restrictions. 

Implementation Level Decisions

Rec-4: Support events that emphasize collaborative outreach and public awareness to promote 

public stewardship, such as National Public Lands Day or National Trails Day. Utilize volunteer 

participation and recruit and train volunteers to provide effective visitor contact assistance.

Rec-5: Establish and maintain information kiosks with site maps, brochures, interpretive and 

educational information, important contacts, and site regulations. Develop and maintain a website 

of BLM recreation sites and areas that provide access information and available opportunities.

Rec-6: Conduct periodic accessibility, safety, and condition assessments at developed recreation 

sites, and resolve deferred and corrective maintenance needs.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

58

Rec-7: Establish, maintain and/or expand partnership agreements that are mutually beneficial to 

the BLM and to the public to enhance comprehensive planning, collaborative management, and 

funding.

Rec-8: BLM policy is to allow the safe use of public lands for recreational activities including the 

use of firearms for hunting and shooting sports, and trapping. Dispersed recreational use for 

trapping and shooting in a safe manner will be allowed, except as follows:

1. Trapping and placement of bait and wildlife lures (scents) is prohibited within onequarter mile of any developed sites. This includes, but is not limited to: campgrounds, 

cabins, waysides, trailheads, and administrative sites without authorization. Trapping 

includes, but is not limited to, the use of marten pole sets, snares, conibear, or leg hold

traps.

2. No one may set up a bear bait station within one-quarter mile of any publicly maintained

road or trail.

2.2.21 Travel Management

Goal

Provide opportunities for a range of motorized and non-motorized uses on public lands while 

protecting resources and minimizing conflicts among various users

Decisions

TM-1: Designate all lands as Limited to motorized travel activities (43 CFR 8340.0-5(f), (g) and 

(h)) subject to weight and width limitations described under Travel Management Prescriptions

below.

Limited: “...an area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. 

These restrictions may be of any type, but can generally be accommodated within the following 

type of categories: Numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles; time or season of vehicle use; 

permitted or licensed use only; use on existing roads and trails; use on designated roads and trails; 

and other restrictions.”

TM-2: The following are exempt from OHV decisions: any fire, military, emergency, or law 

enforcement vehicle used for emergency purposes; and any vehicle whose use is expressly 

authorized by the Authorized Officer, or otherwise officially approved (43 CFR 8340.0–5).

TM-3: Manage OHV use in accordance with BLM’s Travel and Transportation Handbook H8342.

TM-4: Where off-road vehicles are causing or will cause considerable adverse effects upon soil, 

vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historic resources, threatened or 

endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources, the affected 

areas shall be closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect until the adverse effects 

are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent recurrence. (43 CFR 8341.2)

TM-5: Public land routes, roads or trails determined to cause considerable adverse impacts or to 

constitute a nuisance or threat to public safety would be considered for relocation or closure and 

rehabilitation after appropriate coordination with applicable agencies and partners.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

59

TM-6: Where authorized, construction of roads or trails may occur in support of mining, rightsof-way, and recreational facilities.

TM-7: A travel management plan has been defined for the Draanjik Planning Area (Appendix E). 

Issue a supplemental rule to implement portions of the Draanjik Travel Management Plan not 

already covered by existing regulations (e.g., 43 CFR 8342) including the proposed travel 

management prescriptions listed below. See section 2.2.1 for more information on the 

supplemental rule process. 

Travel Management Prescriptions

All forms of non-motorized use are allowed.

Cross-country winter use (October 15 through April 30) of snowmobiles 50 inches or less in 

width, and weighing 1,000 pounds curb weight and less is allowed throughout the planning area.

Cross-country summer use (May 1 through October 14) of vehicles up to 64 inches or less in 

width and weighing 1,500 pounds curb weight and less is allowed throughout the planning area.

Aircraft use is unrestricted, with the following provisions: Minimal clearing of rocks, downed 

logs, and brush is allowed; construction or formal improvement of landing areas may occur by 

permit only; and, use of gravel bars and winter snow areas is allowed, subject to reasonable 

provisions to protect resource values.

Use of motorized boats is unrestricted.

A permit or approved Plan of Operations would be required for all other vehicle use.

New restrictions could be developed for the purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or 

maintaining an unconfined and primitive type of recreation consistent with the existing 

wilderness characteristics. Any new restrictions would be subject to the supplemental rule process 

described in Section 2.2.1.

TM-8: R.S. 2477 rights are determined through a process that is entirely independent of the 

BLM's planning process. Consequently, travel management planning should not take into 

consideration R.S. 2477 assertions or evidence. Travel management planning should be founded 

on an independently determined purpose and need that is based on resource uses and associated 

access to public lands and waters. At such time as a decision is made on R.S. 2477 assertions, the 

BLM will adjust its travel routes accordingly.

Rationale: Recreational OHV use can result in resource damage such as trail braiding, usercreated trails, damage to vegetation, erosion, thermokarsting, changes in vegetation composition, 

and spread of non-native invasive plants. Limiting the use of OHVs by weight, season of use, 

and/or to existing or designated routes are nationally accepted methods for protecting resources 

from damage by OHV use. Interior Alaska is a fragile landscape with seasonally frozen ground 

and permafrost making summer use of OHVs difficult. Traveling on ice-rich permafrost areas 

causes thawing, ground degradation and vegetation damage.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

60

2.2.22 Hazardous Materials

Goal

Protect public health and safety and environmental resources by minimizing environmental 

contamination from chemical, biological, and radiological sources on federal property or BLMoperated facilities.

Decisions

HazMat-1: Environmental remediation activities would follow the State of Alaska and federal 

environment regulations and laws, which outline the cleanup standards for contaminated sites. 

Clean up levels/standards may be implemented based on the future land use determination.

HazMat-2: The standard operating procedures and fluid mineral leasing stipulations (Appendix 

A) would apply to BLM-authorized activities to minimize the probability of contamination on 

public lands when hazardous materials are utilized.

HazMat-3: Educate permittees on the importance of developing site-specific best management 

practices that minimize the potential for release of hazardous materials to the environment.

HazMat-4: Monitor land use activities to identify potential contaminated sites as an integral part 

of maintaining healthy lands. Design cleanup actions to limit and reduce the environmental 

liabilities for the BLM.

2.2.23 Subsistence

Goals

Maintain sufficient quality and quantity of habitat to support healthy populations of important

subsistence species, including moose and caribou.

Effectively manage subsistence resources and uses by working with the local Regional Advisory 

Councils, ADF&G, and subsistence users. Implementation of a “rural priority” will be made by 

the Regional Advisory Council and Federal Subsistence Board through regulations, in 

coordination with federal and State land and wildlife management agencies. Agencies, including 

the BLM, will aid in enforcing the priority for rural subsistence use on federal public lands.

Provide for reasonable access to subsistence resources by federally qualified subsistence users as 

directed in ANILCA.

Minimize displacement of subsistence resources from traditional subsistence harvest areas (i.e., 

displacement of resources that may occur as a result of activities permitted by the BLM).

Maintain consistent subsistence management with adjacent land managers/owners.

Decisions

ASUB-1: At the project or permitting level, develop measures that serve to minimize impacts to 

subsistence uses, users, and/or resources. This may include avoidance of specific areas or 

limitations on season of use.

ASUB-2: Protect important Fortymile caribou herd and White Mountains caribou herd calving 

and post-calving areas by restricting land use activities during times caribou are present (see 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

61

section 2.2.16 and Appendix A, Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Stipulations).

ASUB-3: Implement the SOPs and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations (Appendix A) to assure 

that physical and legal access to and movement corridors for subsistence resources are maintained 

when activities are permitted and to minimize displacement of subsistence resources.

ASUB-4: Comply with ANILCA Section 810 during analysis of all land use proposals. The 

management of federal public lands is to cause the least adverse impact possible on rural 

residents who depend on subsistence uses of the resources of such lands (ANILCA Section 802).

ASUB-5: Require infrastructure (such as roads, power lines, other ROW, buildings, pipelines, 

towers) be constructed in a manner that it does not unreasonably impede access to subsistence 

resources. Restrict development of infrastructure or land disturbance in areas of high subsistence 

resource values or traditional harvest areas, where these activities will significantly restrict access 

by subsistence users. 

2.2.24 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Goals 

Maintain the values of the Salmon Fork ACEC as fish habitat, bald eagle nesting habitat, and

habitat for rare flora.

Maintain habitat effectiveness – the ability of the habitats to support nesting bald eagles and rare

flora – in the Salmon Fork ACEC.

Maintain stream channel integrity, ensure riparian proper functioning condition, and achieve

desired future conditions for fish and aquatic habitat in the Salmon Fork ACEC.

Decisions

ACEC-1: Designate 623,000 acres as the Salmon Fork ACEC to protect relevant and important 

values including bald eagle nesting habitat, priority fish habitat, and rare flora (Map 9).

ACEC-2: Manage limestone habitats and steep south facing slopes and bluffs to minimize 

impacts on rare flora.

ACEC-3: Maintain water quality to support nesting bald eagles and salmon habitat. 

ACEC-4: Coordination and notification with the Government of Canada is required prior to 

development affecting caribou habitat. 

ACEC-5: Provisions should be made in management to allow the caribou herd to continue to 

utilize the winter habitats in the area.

ACEC-6: Avoid or minimize the size, extent, duration, and level of activities in concentrated 

seasonal use areas. Additional limitations on OHV use (such as seasonal restrictions) may be 

instituted to reduce impacts to natural resources. 

ACEC-7: Recommend closing the ACEC to locatable mineral entry. Close the ACEC to mineral 

leasing. 

ACEC-8: Implement a limited OHV designation.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

62
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

63

Acronyms

AAC Alaska Administrative Code

AO Authorized Officer

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPS National Park Service

NRA National Recreation Area

PLO public land order

OHV off-highway vehicle

RCA Riparian Conservation Area

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

U.S. United States

U.S.C. United States Code

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WSR Wild and Scenic River
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

64
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

65

Glossary

all-terrain vehicle (ATV): A wheeled vehicle other than a snowmobile that is defined as having a 

curb weight of 1,000 pounds or less, maximum width of 50-inches or less, steered using

handlebars, travels on three or more low-pressure tires, and has a seat designed to be straddled by 

the operator.

avoidance, mitigation: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of 

an action. (40 CFR 1508.20) (e.g., May also include avoiding the impact by moving the proposed 

action to a different time or location.)

compensatory mitigation: Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute 

resources or environments. (40 CFR 1508.20)

compensatory mitigation projects: Specific, on-the-ground actions (mitigation measures) to 

improve habitats (e.g., chemical vegetation treatments)

compensatory mitigation sites: The durable areas where compensatory mitigation projects will 

occur.

curb weight: The weight of a vehicle with a full tank of fuel and all fluids full, but with no 

people or cargo loaded. “Curb weight” is synonymous with “wet weight” and “operating weight”.

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR): The total weight of the vehicle plus the maximum loaded 

carrying capacity of the vehicle as specified by the manufacturer (i.e., GVWR = weight of vehicle 

+ fuel + passengers + cargo, as per manufacturers limitations). Pull-behind trailers are not 

included in the GVWR calculation for the vehicle.

in-kind, mitigation: In-kind mitigation is the replacement or substitution of resources or values 

that are of the same type and kind as those impacted. (e.g., greater sage-grouse winter habitat is 

lost, and greater sage-grouse winter habitat is enhanced or conserved.).

motorized vehicles: Vehicles that are propelled by motors or engines, such as cars, trucks, offhighway vehicles (OHV), motorcycles, and snowmobiles.

off-highway vehicle (OHV): Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or 

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: 1) any non-amphibious 

registered motorboat; 2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle being used 

for emergency purposes; 3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorizing 

officer, or otherwise officially approved; 4) vehicles in official use; and 5) any combat or 

combat support vehicle when used for national defense (CFR 43 §8340.05(a)). OHVs generally 

include dirt motorcycles, dune buggies, jeeps, four-wheel drive vehicles, snowmobiles, and 

ATVs. OHV is synonymous with Off-Road Vehicle (ORV), Utility Type (or Terrain) Vehicle 

(UTV), and All Terrain Vehicle (ATV). Aircraft are not OHVs.

out-of-kind, mitigation: Out-of-kind is the replacement or substitution of resources or values 

that are not the same type and kind as those impacted, but are related or similar. (e.g., greater 

sage-grouse winter habitat is lost, but new greater sage-grouse nesting habitat is enhanced or 

conserved.)
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

66

over-Snow vehicle: An over-snow vehicle is defined as a motor vehicle that is designed for use 

over snow that runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow. An oversnow vehicle does not include machinery used strictly for the grooming of non-motorized trails.

rectify, mitigation: Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment. (40 CFR 1508.20)

reduce or eliminate over time, mitigation: Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by 

preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (40 CFR 1508.20)

Research Natural Area (RNA): An area that is established and maintained for the primary 

purpose of research and education because the land has one or more of the following 

characteristics: 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; or 5) outstanding or unusual geologic, 

soil, or water features. Uses of RNAs are defined in 43 CFR 8223.1.

residual impact: Impacts from a land-use authorization that remain after applying avoidance, 

minimization, rectification, and reduction/elimination measures; also referred to as unavoidable 

impacts.

scientific use: This category of cultural resource use may be applied to any cultural property in 

the planning area available for consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study at the 

present time, using currently available research techniques. Study includes methods that may 

result in the property’s physical alteration.

snowmachine, snowmobile: A motorized vehicle that is designed for use over snow that runs on 

a track or tracks and uses a ski or skis for steering, has a curb weight of 1,000 pounds or less, 

maximum width of 50-inches or less, steered using handlebars, and has a seat designed to be 

straddled by the operator. A snowmobile does not include machinery used strictly for the 

grooming of non-motorized trails.

utility type (or terrain) vehicle (UTV): Any recreational motor vehicle other than an all-terrain 

vehicle, motorcycle, or snowmobile designed for and capable of travel over unpaved roads, 

traveling on four or more low-pressure tires, a curb weight of 1,500 pounds or less, and maximum 

width is 64 inches or less. Utility type vehicles do not include vehicles specially designed to carry 

a person with disabilities.

withdrawal: Federal land set aside and dedicated to a present, governmental use; public land set 

aside for some other public purpose, e.g., pending a determination of how the land is to be used; 

an action approved by the Secretary or a law enacted by Congress that closes land to specific uses 

under the public land laws (usually sale, settlement, location, and entry), or limits use to maintain 

public values or reserves area for particular public use or program, or that transfers jurisdiction of 

an area to another federal agency. Withdrawals are usually enacted by a public land order or 

legislation.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

67

References Cited

Alaska Wildfire Coordinating Group (AWFCG). 2016. Alaska Interagency Wildfire Management 

Plan. 66 p. Accessed 9/13/2016 online at 

http://afsfire/content/admin/agencyadministratorguide/Appendices/Appendix%20A%20-

%20Policy%20and%20Planning/Alaska%20Interagency%20Policy%20and%20Planning/

01c.%202016%20Alaska%20Interagency%20Wildland%20Fire%20Managment%20Plan

.pdf

Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). 2001. Memorandum of Agreement Between 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities for the Design, Permitting, and Construction of Culverts for Fish 

Passage. Online at: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/lands/habitatrestoration/fishpassage/pdfs/dot_adfg_fish

pass080301.pdf

ADF&G. 2002. Alaska’s Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. Juneau, AK. 103 p. 

Accessed 12/09/2009 online at 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=invasive.main.

ADF&G. 2005. Streambank Revegetation and Protection, A Guide for Alaska Revised 2005. 

Online at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=streambankprotection.main

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian 

Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, 

APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2004c. Alaska Statewide Land Health Standards and 

Guidelines. Instruction Memorandum No. AK 2004-023.

BLM. 2005. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Rel. 1-1667.

BLM. 2008. Exceptions, Waivers, and Modifications of Fluid Minerals Stipulations and 

Conditions of Approval, and Associated Rights-of-way Terms and Conditions. IM No. 

2008-032. November 19, 2007. Bureau of Land Management, Washington DC. 

BLM. 2008. BLM Manual 9100 Engineering. Section 9112 Bridges and Major Culverts. June 4, 

2008. Bureau of Land Management, Washington DC. 

BLM. 2009a. Analysis of the Management Situation for the Eastern Interior RMP.

BLM. 2009b. Guidance on the Bureau of Land Management Fisheries Program and the National 

Fish Habitat Action Plan. IM No. 2009-141. June 15, 2009, Washington DC.

BLM. 2012. Eastern Interior Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement. February 2012. Eastern Interior Resource Area, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

BLM. 2013. Eastern Interior Supplement to the Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. January 2013. Eastern Interior Resource Area, 

Fairbanks, Alaska. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

68

BLM. 2016. Eastern Interior Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. July 2016. Eastern Interior Resource Area, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Carlson, M. L., I. V. Lapina, M. Shephard, J. S. Conn, R. Densmore, P. Spencer, J.Heys, J. Riley, 

J. Nielsen. 2008. Invasiveness Ranking System for Non-Native Plants of Alaska. USDA, 

Forest Service Alaska Region, R10-TP-143.63 FR 51853. 1998. Grazing Administration, 

Alaska, Livestock: Final Rule: Bureau of Land Management. Federal Register Vol. 63, 

September 29, 1998, pp 51853-51855. Available online at: 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-09-29/pdf/98-25974.pdf

73 FR 11140. 2008. Notice of Intent To Prepare a Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement for BLM-Alaska’s Eastern Interior Planning Area. Bureau of Land 

Management. Federal Register Vol 73, No 41, February 29. pp 11140-11142.

77 FR 11154. 2012. Notice of Availability for the Eastern Interior Draft Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Alaska. Bureau of Land Management. Federal 

Register Vol 77, No 37, February 24, 2012. pp 11154-11155

77 FR 12835. 2012. . Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Federal Register Vol 77, No 42, March 2. p. 12835.

78 FR 2397. 2013. Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Federal Register Vol 78, No 8, January 11. p. 2397

78 FR 2425. 2013. Notice of Availability of a Supplement to the Eastern Interior Draft Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Leasing of Hardrock Minerals in 

the White Mountains National Recreation Area, AK. Bureau of Land Management. 

Federal Register Vol 78, January 11, 2013, pp 2425-2426

80 FR 52. 2015. Notice of Availability of Additional Information on Proposed Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and Associated Resource Use Limitations Identified in the Draft 

Eastern Interior Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

Alaska. Bureau of Land Management. Federal Register Vol 80, No 1, January 2. pp. 52-

53

81 FR 50009. 2016. Notice of Availability of the Eastern Interior Proposed Resource 

Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, Alaska. Bureau of Land 

Management. Federal Register Vol 81, No 146, July 29. pp 50090-50010.

81 FR 49981. 2016. Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Federal Register Vol 81, No 146, July 29. pp 49981-49982

National Fish Habitat Action Plan. 2006. Online at http://fishhabitat.org/documents/plan/ 

National_Fish_Habitat_Action_Plan.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making ESA Determinations of Effect for 

Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Portland, OR.

NMFS. 2004. Draft National Gravel Extraction Policy. 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/pdf/gravelguidance.pdf. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

69

NMFS. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in 

Alaska.

Oregon Water Resource Research Institute (OWRRI). 1995. “Gravel Disturbance Impacts on 

Salmon Habitat and Stream Health”. Volume 1. Summary Report. Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, OR. (Also available Volume II: Technical Background Report). 

Available from Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR (503-378-3805).

Presidential Memorandum: Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and 

Encouraging Related Private Investment (November 3, 2015). 

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach 

to Salmonid Conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research 

Services Corp., Corvallis, OR. (Available from the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Portland, OR).

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2015. Department of the Interior Manual 600 DM 6 

(October 23, 2015).

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2016. Interim fire operations guidance to prevent spread of 

aquatic invasive species. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r4/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev3

_016101U.S. 

USFS. 1996. The Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis – Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed 

Scale. Version 2.3. Revised August 1996. Portland, Oregon

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980. FWS/OBS80/09. Gravel Removal Guidelines Manual for Arctic and Subarctic Floodplains. June 

1980. Prepared by Woodward Clyde Consultants. Contract Number FWS-14-16-0008-

970. Performed for the Water Resources Analysis Project, Office of Biological Services. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 20240.

USFWS. 2009. Land Clearing Timing Guidance for Alaska. Plan Ahead to Protect Nesting Birds. 

July 2009. Anchorage, Alaska. 

USFWS. 2013. Revised Guidelines for Communication Tower Design, Siting, Construction, 

Operation, Retrofitting, and Decommissioning. Arlington, VA, September 27, 2013.

USFWS. 2011. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan, Appendix H Wilderness Review.

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) -Wild Sheep Working Group. 

2007. Recommendations for Domestic Sheep and Goat Management in Wild Sheep 

Habitat, June 21, 2007.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

70
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

71

Appendix A. Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid 

Mineral Leasing Stipulations

A.1. Introduction

The BLM has developed guidelines to protect resources called “Standard Operating Procedures” 

and “Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations” (Leasing Stipulations) as part of this planning process. 

These guidelines were guided by the standards and guidelines included in the Alaska Statewide 

Land Health Standards (IM AK 2004-023) and by the goals outlined in this Approved RMP. The 

Standard Operating Procedures are requirements, procedures, management practices, or design 

features that the BLM will use to protect resources. Leasing Stipulations are requirements to 

reduce impacts to natural resources from fluid mineral exploration and development. The 

Standard Operating Procedures and Leasing Stipulations generally do not restate requirements 

that already exist in regulations or laws, including state laws. Regulations or laws may require 

conditions that are more stringent than those presented in this section. Chapter 6 of the Analysis 

of the Management Situation for the Eastern Interior RMP (BLM 2009a) includes a partial list of 

mandates and authorities pertaining to federal lands.

A.1.1. Standard Operating Procedures

Standard Operating Procedures apply to all actions, whether implemented by the BLM or 

authorized by the BLM and implemented by another individual, organization or agency on public 

land. These were based on the best information available during development of the Eastern 

Interior Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.

The BLM will apply the Standard Operating Procedures to BLM actions and BLM-authorized 

activities including, but not limited to: Federal Land Policy and Management Act leases and 

permits; special recreation permits; oil and gas activities; renewable energy activities; mining 

plans of operation; and, authorizations for rights-of-way. For fluid mineral leasing activities, 

Standard Operating Procedures would apply in addition to the Standard Lease Terms and Leasing 

Stipulations. Only those Standard Operating Procedures concerning resources that are potentially 

affected by the action will be applied to authorized permits and authorizations. For example, 

Standard Operating Procedures protecting caribou habitat would not apply to projects that are not 

located in caribou habitat. They may be modified through site-specific analysis of subsequent 

authorizations, but still must meet the goals and objectives of the Approved RMP. Standard 

Operating Procedures will continue to evolve as better resource information is gained and/or 

changes in technology become available. Modifications to Standard Operating Procedures may be 

appropriate if other measures are taken to protect resources that would result in the same or 

reduced impact.

Standard Operating Procedures are considered during the site-specific analysis that occurs during 

activity level planning and if adopted, are applied as conditions of approval to land use 

authorizations and permits.

Standard Operating Procedures are not selected as a condition of the permitted activities if the 

applicant has included them as part of the proposal or has identified an alternative, such as 

adoption of an acceptable best management practice to meet stated resource management 

objectives. Applicants are encouraged to consider alternative methods, best management 

practices, and/or design features for BLM’s consideration during the permitting process. If an 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

72

applicant does not include alternatives for agency consideration, the Standard Operating 

Procedures identified will be incorporated into an approval for a proposed activity.

The Authorized Officer or their representative is responsible for ensuring that the intent of the 

Standard Operating Procedures presented in this Approved RMP are followed and that permittees 

comply with the conditions of their authorization. Non-compliance will be documented and a 

notice will be sent to the permittee, along with corrective actions and a time frame in which the 

actions are to be completed.

A.1.2. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations (Leasing Stipulations) are specific to fluid mineral activity, 

including exploration, development, and production. These Leasing Stipulations are included in a 

lease in addition to the Standard Lease Terms. Fluid minerals include oil and gas, geothermal, 

and coal bed natural gas. Leasing Stipulations constitute significant restrictions on the conduct of 

operations under a lease.

Additional site-specific Leasing Stipulations may be added, if determined necessary, through 

further analysis. Since no fluid leasing is assumed during the life of this plan, leasing may only 

occur following additional environmental analysis. Additional stipulations may be developed at 

that time.

Leasing Stipulations may be excepted, modified or waived by the Authorized Officer pursuant to 

43 CFR 3101.1-4 and WO-IM-2008-032. The environmental analysis prepared for fluid mineral 

development (such as Applications for Permit to Drill or sundry notices) will address proposals to 

except, modify, or waive a Leasing Stipulation. To except, modify, or waive a stipulation, the 

environmental analysis would need to show that: (1) the circumstances or relative resource values 

in the area had changed following issuance of the lease; or (2) less restrictive requirements could 

be developed to protect the resource of concern; or (3) operations could be conducted without 

causing unacceptable impacts; or (4) the resource value of concern does not occur within the 

lease area. An exception exempts the holder of a lease from the Leasing Stipulation on a one-time 

basis. A modification changes the language or provisions of a Leasing Stipulation, either 

temporarily or for the term of the lease. A waiver permanently exempts the Leasing Stipulation.

Compliance with Leasing Stipulations is monitored by the Authorized Officer or their 

representative. Non-compliance may result in monetary fines or operation shut-down.

Standard Lease Terms

All fluid mineral leases will include the Standard Lease Terms contained in BLM Form 3100-11, 

Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas, U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, October 1992 or 

later addition. The Standard Lease Terms provide the lessee the right to use the leased land to 

explore for, drill for, extract, remove, and dispose of fluid mineral deposits located under the 

leased lands. The Standard Lease Terms also require that operations be conducted in a manner 

that minimizes impacts to the land, air, water, cultural, biological, and visual elements of the 

environment, as well as other land uses or users.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

73

Table A-1. Fluid mineral leasing stipulations

Goal Stipulation

Areas where Stipulations 

Apply Exception, Modification,Waiver

Prevent avoidable damage 

from proposed land uses to 

habitats supporting Special 

Status Species animals and 

plants, and their habitats.

Stipulation 1: The lease area may 

contain or be identified with Special 

Status Species or their habitats. BLM 

may require applicants to avoid or 

minimize impacts to these species 

pursuant to BLM policy and 

Endangered Species Act 

consultation.

Areas open to fluid mineral

leasing

Exception: None

Modification: None

Waiver: None

When authorizing fluid leasable 

minerals actions ensure that 

goals to protect other resource 

values in the planning area are 

met to the extent possible.

Stipulation 2: Upon abandonment or 

expiration of the lease, all fluid 

mineral related facilities will be 

removed and sites rehabilitated as 

near to the original condition as 

practicable, subject to review of the 

AO.

Areas open to fluid mineral

leasing

Exception: The AO determines that it is in the 

best interest of the public to retain some or all

facilities.

Modification: None

Waiver: None

When authorizing fluid leasable 

minerals actions ensure that 

goals to protect other resource 

values in the planning area are 

met to the extent possible.

Stipulation 3: Exploratory drilling will 

be limited to temporary facilities such 

as ice pads, ice roads, ice airstrips, 

and temporary platforms.

Areas open to fluid mineral

leasing

Exception: The AO may grant an exception if 

the lessee demonstrates that construction of

permanent facilities such as gravel airstrips,

storage pads, and connecting roads are 

environmentally preferable or that exploring from 

temporary facilities is not practical or 

economically feasible.

Modification: None

Waiver: None

Maintain and protect aquatic 

habitat to support populations 

of well-distributed native fish 

populations.

Stipulation 4: Drilling is prohibited in 

fish-bearing lake and rivers and 

streams within the active floodplain.

Fish bearing rivers, streams, 

and lakes

Exception: The AO may grant an exception if 

the lessee demonstrates that impacts would be 

minimal or there is no feasible or prudent 

alternative.

Modification: None

Waiver: None

Minimize impacts to wildlife 

species from BLM-authorized 

Stipulation 5: No exploration activities 

from May 10 through June 1 in Dall 

Identified caribou 

calving/postcalving and Dall 

Exception: The AO may grant an exception if 

the lessee demonstrates that calving caribou or 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

74

Goal Stipulation 

Areas

Apply

where Stipulations 

Exception, Modification,Waiver

activities. sheep habitats and from May 15 

through July 15 in caribou 

calving/postcalving habitat. 

Construction of production facilities 

and production activities may occur 

(no work over rigs).

sheep habitats Dall sheep are not currently using the area.

Modification: Season may be shortened or 

extended based on actual occupancy of the area.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if caribou 

migratory patterns change and the areas are no 

longer used for calving.

Minimize impacts to wildlife Stipulation 6: No exploration or Areas open to fluid mineral Exception: The AO may grant an exception if 

species from BLM-authorized development activities within 500 leasing the lessee demonstrates that impacts would be 

activities. meters of active priority raptor nests 

from April 15 through August 15 (only 

March 15 through July 20 for 

gyrfalcon nests).

minimal or there is no feasible or prudent 

alternative.

Modification: Season may be adjusted based 

on actual nest occupancy.

Waiver: None

Minimize impacts to wildlife Stipulation 7: No motorized ground- Areas open to fluid mineral Exception: The AO may grant an exception if 

species from BLM-authorized vehicle use or facility construction leasing the lessee demonstrates that impacts would be 

activities. within a half mile of any known 

priority raptor nests from April 15 

through August 15 (only March 15 

through July 20 for gyrfalcon nests).

minimal or there is no feasible or prudent 

alternative.

Modification: Season may be adjusted based 

on actual nest occupancy.

Waiver: None
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

75

A.1.3. Standard Operating Procedures

The following is a complete list of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that BLM will

apply during implementation of the Approved RMP. These SOPs have been renumbered thus 

numbers do not exactly match the numbers in the Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

A.1.3.1. Cultural and Paleontology

SOP C-1 Mitigation measures will be considered for all actions that may potentially affect 

cultural resources. If the AO determines mitigation measures are necessary to protect and 

conserve known cultural resources, a mitigation plan will be approved by SHPO and 

implemented by the AO. Mitigation plans will be reviewed as part of Section 106 consultation for 

National Register of Historic Places eligible or listed properties. The extent and nature of 

recommended mitigation will be commensurate with the significance of the cultural resource 

involved and the anticipated extent of the damage. Costs for mitigation will be borne by the land 

use applicant.

SOP C-2 If damage to known significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided, the 

applicant (or the BLM for internal actions) will perform scientific examination of the impacted 

significant paleontological resources followed by mitigation approved by the AO. This may 

include the professional collection and analysis of significant specimens by scientists.

A.1.3.2. Fish and Aquatic Species

SOP FA-1 No low water crossings (fords) will be permitted in priority fish species spawning 

habitat, during times of active spawning and when immobile life stages of fish are present (eggs 

and alevins) unless it is determined that impacts would be negligible.

SOP FA-2 New, replacement, and reconstructed stream crossing structures (such as bridges and 

culverts) will be designed to:

• Convey flood flows consistent with the purpose and period of use of the structure (e.g. 

seasonal or year-round) under natural conditions consistent with BLM manual 9112;

• Preserve or improve fish passage;

• Maintain channel integrity;

• Provide slope protection e.g. riprap) on both the inlet and outlet end of culverts and on 

approach embankments of bridges; and,

• Incorporate adjacent reclamation (such as willow cuttings, wattles, brush layering) on the 

disturbed areas up and downstream of the abutments.

SOP FA-3 Application of pesticides and other toxicants will occur in a manner that does not 

measurably inhibit the attainment of desired conditions or adversely impacts priority aquatic 

species.

SOP FA-4 All water intakes will be screened and designed to prevent fish intake and mortality.

SOP FA-5 Streams altered by channeling, diversion, or damming will be restored to a condition 

that maintains or improves aquatic and riparian habitats to pre-disturbance levels. 

SOP FA-6 Baseline geomorphic and hydrologic data will be required prior to surface-disturbing 

activities with the potential to affect stream channel integrity; reduce riparian functioning 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

76

condition; or, reduce the Watershed Condition Rating. The BLM will be available to advise 

operators on the exact type of information and detail needed to meet this requirement.

A.1.3.3. Forestry

SOP Forest-1 Commercial timber sale authorizations will require the proper site preparation to 

ensure natural regeneration of timber stands.

SOP Forest-2 For commercial timber sales and personal use timber permits the requirement for a 

buffer will be considered to prevent disturbance of priority fish species habitat, sedimentation into 

streams, impairment of visual resource qualities, or to protect outstandingly remarkable values of 

wild and scenic rivers. Buffer widths will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

SOP Forest-3 For commercial timber sales and personal use timber permits the requirement for 

winter only operations will be considered in order to avoid construction of new roads and to 

reduce impacts to soils, vegetation, and riparian areas.

A.1.3.4. Hazardous Materials and Waste Management

SOP Hazmat-1 All solid wastes, including incinerated ash, will be removed by the permittee 

from public lands and disposed of within an Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

(ADEC) approved facility, unless otherwise specified. Solid waste combustibles may be 

incinerated in a contained and controlled manner, however, burn restrictions may apply during 

high-risk wildland fire seasons. Burial of solid waste is not authorized on public lands.

SOP Hazmat-2 Pit privies must be at least 100 feet from any water body. The AO may require a 

larger separation distance in order to protect high-value resources. No septic system will be 

installed without AO approval. Gray water must be filtered before being released to the surface 

and must be discharged in a way that does not cause erosion. Gray water may not be released to 

any water body.

SOP Hazmat-3 All hazardous materials and petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POLs) will be stored 

in containers that are compatible to the material being stored. Containers will be labeled with the 

responsible party’s name, contents of the container, the date the product was purchased, and the 

date the container was filled.

SOP Hazmat-4 Storage of POLs at any site will require secondary containment. The containment 

area must be constructed to hold at least 110 percent of the largest container, lined with an 

impermeable liner that is free of cracks or gaps, compatible with the contents stored, and 

sufficiently impervious to contain leaks, or spills. The containment area must be covered to 

eliminate the collection of rainwater within the containment area. The AO may also require a 

Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan.

SOP Hazmat-5 If refueling cannot be avoided within the riparian zone or within 100 feet of a 

water body, a catch basin and POL-type absorbent pads will be utilized to collect any overflow.

SOP Hazmat-6 Leaking equipment must have a drip basin placed under the leak area and the 

basin must be protected from the collection of rain water to ensure no release to the surrounding 

environment. When maintenance to equipment has the potential to release fluids, an impermeable 

liner must be utilized to ensure that spills are contained.

SOP Hazmat-7 All spills will be contained and cleaned up upon discovery. Spills that are 

reportable to ADEC will also be reported to the AO in the same time frame.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

77

A.1.3.5. Mineral Materials

SOP MM-1 Use existing upland material sources that meet suitability and economic needs 

whenever possible. Sales or permits for in-stream gravel extraction within an active channel will 

not be allowed in priority fish species spawning habitat.

SOP MM-2 When authorizing mineral material sale sites, avoid habitats critical to local fish or 

wildlife populations (such as fish spawning and overwintering, calving areas, or raptor nesting 

sites). Avoid key geomorphic features, such as the river cut banks and associated riparian zones; 

springs; active channels of small, single channel rivers; and, wetlands.

SOP MM-3 When authorizing mineral material sale sites, avoid priority plant species and 

communities. If sales are authorized in vegetated areas all overburden, vegetation mats and debris 

will be saved and appropriately stored for use during site reclamation to facilitate vegetative 

recovery.

SOP MM-4 When scraping gravel in active or inactive floodplains, maintain buffers that will 

constrain active channels to their original locations and configurations.

A.1.3.6. Soils

SOP Soils-1 Stockpiled soil and overburden will be spread over mine tailings and stabilized to 

minimize erosion. The shape of contoured tailing and overburden should approximate the shape 

of surrounding terrain.

SOP Soils-2 Roadways will be ditched on the uphill side. Culverts or low water crossings will be 

installed at suitable intervals. Spacing of drainage devices and water bars will be appropriate for 

the road gradient and soil erodibility of the site.

SOP Soils-3 Design roads and trails for minimal disruption of natural drainage patterns.

SOP Soils-4 Roads and trails should avoid areas with unstable or fragile soils.

SOP Soils-5 Overland moves and heavy equipment use:

• Whenever possible, overland moves that are a part of permitted operations will occur 

during winter when frost and snow cover is sufficient to minimize vegetation and soil 

disturbance and compaction. The AO will determine the date when sufficient frost and 

snow cover exists and no overland moves should occur until these conditions are met.

• Design and locate winter trails and ice roads for overland moves to minimize compaction 

of soils and breakage, abrasion, compaction, or displacement of vegetation.

• Clearing of drifted snow is generally allowed, to the extent that vegetative ground cover 

is not disturbed.

• Offsets of winter trail/ice road locations may be required to avoid using the same route or 

track each subsequent year.

• When access is required in snow-free months, routes that utilize naturally hardened sites 

will be selected to avoid trail braiding and wetlands will be avoided. The permittee will 

employ vehicle types and methods that minimize vegetation and soil disturbance, such as 

use of air or water craft, utilizing existing roads or trails, or use of low ground pressure 

vehicles.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

78

• The use of heavy machinery in saturated soil conditions will be limited to low ground 

pressure designated machinery.

SOP Soils-6 At sites where stockpiled soil quantities are insufficient to distribute over the entire 

disturbed area, specific areas in each zone should be selected, to receive organic material. Use 

organic material from adjacent areas if practicable. At sites where organic material is not 

available, stockpiles of fine inorganic material may be used in place of the organics.

SOP Soils-7 Prudent use of erosion control measures, including diversion terraces, riprap, 

matting, temporary sediment traps, and water bars will be employed as necessary to control soil 

erosion. The type and location of sediment control structure, including construction methods, will 

vary by site-specific characteristics.

SOP Soils-8 Areas disturbed during project operation or construction will be restored to as near 

pre-project conditions as practical. Wetland topsoil will be selectively handled. Mulching, erosion 

control measures, and fertilization may be required to achieve acceptable stabilization of surface 

materials. Inter-seeding, secondary seeding, or staggered seeding may be required to accomplish 

revegetation objectives. Follow-up seeding or corrective erosion control measures may be 

required on areas of surface disturbance which experience reclamation failure. Corrective erosion 

control measures could include, but are not limited to, broadcasting woody debris, planting viable 

portions of live shrubs (sprigging), and transplanting live vegetation from adjacent areas.

SOP Soils-9 The BLM recognizes that there may be more than one correct way to achieve 

successful reclamation of soil and water resources, and a variety of methods may be appropriate 

to the varying circumstances. The BLM will continue to allow applicants to use their own 

expertise in recommending and implementing construction and reclamation projects. These 

allowances still hold the applicant responsible for final reclamation standards of performance. 

The BLM will review the applicant’s reclamation plan and if needed, incorporate conditions of 

approval to enhance success and mitigate impacts.

SOP Soils-10 Reclamation of disturbed soils is expected to be accomplished as soon as possible 

after the disturbance occurs with efforts continuing until the site is stabilized.

SOP Soils-11 Reduce disturbance of soils by minimizing footprint of surface-disturbing activities, 

consolidating access to minimize the number of routes, and requiring prompt implementation of 

methods to mitigate soil erosion.

SOP Soils-12 Where practicable and feasible, avoid disturbance of the vegetative mat and 

permafrost soil areas.

SOP Soils-13 Natural revegetation of disturbed sites is the generally preferred method for 

restoration/stabilization of disturbed soils. Where erosion is problematic or rapid establishment of 

plant cover is desired, utilize a combination of seeding, planting, and transplanting of adult plants 

or vegetation mats, and/or fertilizing as necessary to mitigate soil erosion.

SOP Soils-14 When developing travel management plans, minimize impacts through appropriate 

restrictions on cross-country OHV use. Monitor soils for impacts that may be caused by OHVs.

SOP Soils-15 For long-term storage of soil stockpiles provide protective cover such as organic 

mulch, herbaceous vegetation, jute matting, or other erosion-preventative fabric.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

79

A.1.3.7. Vegetation and Non-Native Species

SOP Veg-1 All vegetation treatments and revegetation of surface disturbance will require an 

approved site-specific plan designed to achieve desired conditions and prevent the introduction of 

non-native invasive plants (invasive plants). These plans should describe current vegetative 

conditions: including plant community composition, structure, cover, seral stages, soil 

descriptions, age class distribution if applicable, and presence of invasive plants, desired 

vegetative conditions (based on the ecological capability of the site), treatment methods, 

measures for preventing introduction and spread of invasive plants, and monitoring actions. 

Whenever possible, treatments will use native vegetation and seed. Non-native vegetation and 

seed may be used with specific approval from the AO, and in the following cases (1) where native 

species are not available in sufficient quantities; (2) where native species are incapable of 

maintaining or achieving the objectives; or, (3) where non-native species are essential to the 

functional integrity of the site. Seed must meet Alaska certification standards (11 AAC 34.020 

Prohibited and Restricted Noxious Weeds) and any amendments to the existing seed laws or new 

seed legislation.

SOP NIS-1 To eliminate, minimize, or limit the spread of noxious and non-native invasive plants, 

only feed and mulch (hay cubes, hay pellets, or straw, for example) certified as weed-free through 

the Alaska Weed-Free Forage certification program (or other programs with approval of the AO) 

will be authorized on BLM lands. Where Alaska certified sources are not available, locally 

produced forage and mulch may be used with approval from the AO. If no certified weed-free or 

local sources are available, other products may be used with the approval of the AO.

SOP NIS-2 To eliminate, minimize, or limit the spread of noxious and non-native invasive plants, 

only gravel and material certified as weed-free through the Alaska Weed-Free Gravel certification 

program will be authorized on BLM lands. Where weed-free gravel and materials are not 

available other sources may be used, with the approval of the AO.

SOP NIS-3 Fire management actions, including prescribed fire operations, wildland fire 

suppression and fire rehabilitation efforts, will protect burned and adjacent areas from the 

introduction and spread of non-native invasive plants. Protection may include the use of washing 

stations with a containment system.

SOP NIS-5 All actions implemented or authorized by the BLM will include measures to prevent 

the introduction and spread of non-native invasive species, if applicable to the site. Operators 

shall prevent and control invasive and non-native plant and noxious weed introduction or spread. 

Operators will be responsible for control and/or eradication of new infestations of non-native 

plants or noxious weeds and are advised to conduct a pre-disturbance site assessment of the 

presence of non-native plants or noxious weeds.

A.1.3.8. Water and Riparian

SOP Water-1 Where instream operations are authorized; streams must be diverted using an 

appropriately sized bypass channel that is stable and resistant to erosion.

SOP Water-2 In mining operations and fluid mineral leasing operations, all process water and 

ground water seeping into an operating area must be treated appropriately (i.e., use of settling 

ponds) prior to re-entering the natural water system.

SOP Water-3 Settling ponds will be cleaned out and maintained at appropriate intervals to 

comply with state and federal water quality standards. Fine sediment captured in the settling 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

80

ponds will be protected from washout and left in a stable condition at the end of each field season 

to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to the environment during periods of non-operation.

SOP Water-4 All permitted operations will be conducted in such a manner to not block any 

stream or drainage system, or inhibit fish passage.

SOP Water-5 Structural and vegetative treatments in riparian and wetland areas will be 

compatible with the capability of the site, including the system's hydrologic regime, and will 

contribute to maintenance or restoration of proper functioning condition.

SOP Water-6 Projects requiring the withdrawal of water will be designed to maintain sufficient 

quantities of surface water and contributing groundwater to support fish, wildlife, and other 

beneficial uses.

SOP Water-7 State-designated stream crossings will be used where possible for vehicle travel. 

Stream crossings can be found on the Alaska Department of Fish and Game website under the 

General Permits Index-Authorized Vehicle Stream Crossings

SOP Water-8 Rivers and streams will be crossed by vehicles in locations that minimize impacts 

to stream channels, stream banks, and riparian vegetation.

SOP Water-9 When a stream must be crossed, the crossing will be as close to possible to a ninety 

degree angle to the stream. Stream crossings will be made at stable sections in the stream channel, 

which have low sensitivities to disturbance and low streambank erosion potential.

SOP Water-10 Disturbed stream banks will be recontoured and revegetated (or other protective 

measures will be taken) to prevent soil erosion into adjacent waters and provide stream bank 

stability. Active stream bank revegetation or other stabilization techniques (e.g., ADF&G 2005) 

will be required for all erosion-prone areas (such as stream bank and near stream areas) and active 

seeding and/or fertilization will be required for sites with little to no organic content (i.e., 

essentially bare mineral soil).

SOP Water-11 Streams altered by channeling or diversion will be restored to a condition that will 

allow for proper functioning of stream channels, riparian zones, wetlands and watersheds. Active 

streams will be returned to their natural watercourse or a new channel will be created that 

approximates the old natural channel.

SOP Water-12 To the extent feasible and practicable, channeling, diversion, or damming that will 

alter the natural hydrological conditions will be avoided. This is not intended to preclude 

activities which by nature must occur within floodplain-riparian areas, such as placer mining.

SOP Water-13 Structural and vegetative treatment in riparian and wetland areas will be 

compatible with the capability of the site, including the system's hydrologic regime, and will 

contribute to maintenance or restoration of proper functioning condition.

A.1.3.9. Wetlands and Floodplains

SOP Wetland-1 Protect, restore, and maintain wetland-floodplain, ecosystems to achieve a 

healthy and proper functioning condition that assures physical and biological diversity, 

productivity, and sustainability.

SOP Wetland-2 Coordinate, cooperate, and consult with federal, tribal, state, and local agencies, 

private landowners, and stakeholder organizations in order to foster a unified, science-based 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

81

adaptive management approach to wetland-floodplain management in a watershed/ecosystem 

context.

SOP Wetland-3 Provide a unified framework for BLM’s science-based watershed approach to 

management of wetland-floodplain systems consistent with federal and state assessment methods, 

including monitoring, sampling, and reporting protocols.

SOP Wetland-4 Use educational and outreach programs to promote stewardship, conservation, 

and appreciation of wetland-floodplains.

SOP Wetland-5 Wetland-floodplain sites vary in physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics, resource conditions, and local use impacts. Therefore, the objectives and 

management designed for an area shall be tailored to the conditions, conflicts, capability and 

improvement potential, and land use considerations on a watershed-specific basis. Wetlandfloodplain mitigation measures developed using an interdisciplinary approach should be 

achievable, specific, and measurable.

SOP Wetland-6 Management actions should permit the natural functions of streams, including 

flood energy dissipation, bank building, stream-channel maintenance, filtration of sediment and 

other contaminants, water-storage, and aquifer recharge to operate without significant alteration. 

To accomplish these actions or functions, it is necessary to evaluate the interrelationships between 

wetland-floodplain systems and the hydrologic and geomorphic processes of the watershed.

SOP Wetland-7 Structural and vegetative treatment in floodplains, riparian zones and wetland 

areas will be compatible with the ecological capability of the site, including the system's 

hydrologic regime, and will contribute to the maintenance or restoration of natural and proper 

functioning conditions.

SOP Wetland-8 Avoid overland heavy equipment moves through wetlands in spring and summer. 

Stipulations and mitigating measures are provided on a case-by-case basis to ensure wetland 

conservation and practical management.

SOP Wetland-9 Identify, encourage, and support research and studies needed to ensure that 

floodplain-wetland area management objectives can be properly defined and met. Incorporate 

research finding into the planning and management of floodplain-wetland ecosystems.

A.1.3.10. Wildland Fire Management

SOP FM-1 The BLM will not be held responsible for protection of permittees' structures or their 

personal property from wildland fire. It is the responsibility of permittees and lessees to mitigate 

and minimize risk to their personal property and structures from wildland fire, following the 

conditions in their permit.

SOP FM-2 Gas-powered equipment must be equipped with manufacturer approved and 

functional spark arrestors.

SOP FM-3 To avoid the potential impacts to aquatic life, the application of fire chemicals 

including retardant will be avoided within 300 feet of waterbodies. Deviations are acceptable 

when life or property is threatened and fire chemicals reasonably expected to alleviate the threat. 

The AO may approve a deviation if potential damage to natural resources outweighs the impact to 

aquatic resources.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

82

SOP FM-4 To the extent practicable, select the location for incident bases, camps, helibases, and 

so on to avoid riparian areas.

A.1.3.11. Wildlife

SOP Wild-1 Design pipelines and associated roads to allow the free movement of wildlife and 

the safe, unimpeded passage of the public while participating in traditional subsistence activities. 

The currently accepted design practices are: 1) Above-ground pipelines will be elevated a 

minimum of seven feet, measured from the ground to the bottom of the pipeline at vertical 

support members, to facilitate human and wildlife movement under the pipe; 2) In areas where 

facilities or terrain may funnel caribou movement, ramps over pipelines or buried pipelines may 

be required; and, 3) Where practicable, maintain a minimum distance of 500 feet between aboveground pipelines and roads.

SOP Wild-2 Prior to development of large facilities, the AO may require development of an 

ecological land classification map of the development area. The map will integrate 

geomorphology, surface form, and vegetation at a scale, level of resolution, and level of 

positional accuracy adequate for detailed analyses of development alternatives and facility siting 

options. The map will be prepared in time to plan one summer season of ground-based wildlife or 

vegetation surveys, if deemed necessary by the AO, before approval of facility location and 

construction.

SOP Wild-3 Whenever possible, operations that require vegetation removal will avoid the 

migratory bird nesting period of May 1 to July 15 (USFWS Advisory: Land Clearing Timing 

Guidance for Alaska Plan Ahead to Protect Nesting Birds. July 2009). If NEPA analysis reveals 

that this would unacceptably compromise project objectives or logistical feasibility, potential 

impacts must be identified, and mitigation applied that are appropriate to the magnitude and 

duration of expected effects. Assessments would focus on species of concern, priority habitats, 

and key risk factors. Permittees/project proponents will be reminded that it is their responsibility 

to comply with provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

SOP Wild-4 Employ industry accepted best management practices to prevent raptors and other 

birds from colliding with or being electrocuted by utility lines, alternative energy structures, 

towers, and poles (APLIC 2006, http://www.aplic.org/). If possible bury utility lines in important 

bird areas. Where raptors are likely to nest in human-made structures (such as cell phone towers) 

and such use could impede operation or maintenance of the structures or jeopardize the safety of 

the raptors; equip the structures with either (1) devices engineered to discourage raptors from 

building nests, or (2) nesting platforms that will safely accommodate raptor nests without 

interfering with structure performance.

SOP Wild-5 Guy-wired apparatus, regardless of purpose, will be marked in accordance with the 

guidance provided by the USFWS Revised Guidelines for Communication Tower Design, Siting, 

Construction, Operation, Retrofitting, and Decommissioning, dated September 27, 2013, or a 

more current or contemporaneous version of that guidance.

SOP Wild-6 Activities will not be authorized between May 15 and July 15 if the activity will 

interfere with caribou calving and postcalving activities (May 10 through June 1 for Dall sheep 

lambing). However, ongoing mineral production activities will be allowed throughout these time 

periods. In these areas and time periods, aircraft associated with activities that require BLM 

authorization will maintain an altitude of at least 1,500 feet above ground level (except for 

takeoffs and landings), unless doing so would endanger human life or violate safe flying 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

83

practices. These seasonal restrictions can be modified when caribou or Dall sheep do not occupy 

the area.

SOP Wild-8 Within the Fortymile and White Mountains caribou calving and postcalving ranges 

(Map 84 PRMP), mineral exploration activities will not be authorized from May 15 through July 

15 unless the AO determines that caribou no longer occupy the specific area of the proposed 

operations. This seasonal restriction can be modified based on actual caribou occupancy of area.

SOP Wild-9 All reasonable precautions will be taken to avoid attracting wildlife to food and 

garbage. Garbage from all BLM-authorized activities will be removed and properly disposed to 

prevent habituation of wildlife or alteration of populations. The BLM may require food and 

garbage to be stored in bear-proof containers or by methods that make it unavailable to bears or 

other wildlife.

SOP Wild-10 To prevent the entrapment of small animals, particularly birds, all hollow pipes or 

tubes that are 2 to 10" in diameter will be filled or capped prior to installation (unless fixed 

horizontally).

Priority Raptor SOPs

Priority raptor species are peregrine falcon, gyrfalcon, bald eagle, and golden eagle. Nesting 

seasons are defined as: From April 15 through August 15 for bald eagles, golden eagles, and 

peregrine falcons; and, from March 15 through July 20 for gyrfalcons. Nesting season dates apply 

to SOP Wild-11 through SOP Wild-16. Exceptions to these raptor SOPs may be applied by the 

AO in situations where no practicable alternative exists; disturbance is adequately mitigated by 

site characteristics such as topography or vegetation, or by known tolerance of nesting birds to 

activities at the location; or where raptors establish nests near previously constructed facilities.

SOP Wild-11 To minimize the direct loss of priority raptor foraging habitat, all reasonable and 

practicable efforts will be made to locate permanent facilities as far from priority raptor nests as 

practicable and to minimize habitat loss. Of particular concern for avoidance are ponds, lakes, 

streams, wetlands, and riparian habitats

SOP Wild-12 To minimize disturbance to nesting priority raptors, aircraft authorized by the BLM 

are required to maintain an altitude of at least 1,500 feet above ground level when within one-half 

mile of priority raptor nesting sites during nesting season. This protection is not intended to 

restrict flights necessary to conduct wildlife surveys satisfying wildlife data collection 

requirements.

SOP Wild-13 To reduce disturbance to nesting priority raptors, campsites authorized by the 

BLM, including short- and long-term camps and agency work camps, must be located at least 500 

meters from any known priority raptor nest site during the nesting season.

SOP Wild-14 Authorized human activity within 500 meters of priority raptor nest sites will be 

minimized during the nesting season. The cumulative number of authorized visits (defined as 

each day in which work is done within 500 meters of a nest site) to any nest site per nesting 

season, by all authorized users, must be limited to three visits per nest site.

SOP Wild-15 To reduce disturbance impacts to priority raptors, motorized ground-vehicle use 

must be minimized within one mile of any known priority raptor nest during the nesting season. 

Such use is prohibited within one-half mile of nests during the nesting season.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

84

SOP Wild-16 Construction within one-half mile of known priority raptor nests is prohibited 

during the nesting season. No facilities that will be used or accessed during the nesting period 

(including the area of associated human activity by facility users) can be constructed within onehalf mile of known priority raptor nesting sites.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

85

Appendix B. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

B.1. Watershed Classification

Watersheds within the Eastern Interior Planning Area were categorized as either conservation or 

restoration watersheds. Within these two categories, BLM Alaska evaluated and prioritized 

watersheds based on 10 factors developed by the fisheries program staff and based on fisheries 

science, BLM policy, and law. One of the key policy considerations is outlined in BLM 

Instruction Memorandum (IM) WO 2009-141(BLM 2009b), which outlines BLM’s commitment 

to the National Fish Habitat Action Plan that established four goals:

3. Protect and maintain intact and healthy aquatic systems.

4. Prevent further degradation of fish habitats that have been adversely affected.

5. Reverse declines in the quality and quantity of aquatic habitats to improve the overall health 

of fish and other aquatic organisms.

6. Increase the quality and quantity of fish habitats that support a broad natural diversity of fish 

and other aquatic species.

This programmatic approach is consistent with the National Fish Habitat Action Plan goals and 

provides managers and the public with a clear understanding of fisheries resource values and their 

spatial arrangement within the planning area. Management emphasis remains long term, 

recognizing that short-term impacts may be acceptable as long as they will have discountable or 

negligible effects on the condition indicators, and will not preclude the long-term improvement of 

fisheries habitat conditions. If watershed processes are to be restored over time, it is critical that 

management actions do not individually or cumulatively impact progress toward indicator 

attainment.

B.1.1. Watershed Categories

Approximately 1,178 sixth-level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Watersheds exist within the 

Eastern Interior Planning Area. Of these, approximately 520 contain BLM land. The BLM 

categorized these watersheds into two primary categories: Conservation and Restoration. 

Approximately 158 watersheds contained only minor amounts of BLM land or no fisheries 

habitat; therefore these watersheds were excluded from consideration as conservation or 

restoration watersheds. The BLM categorized the remaining 366 watersheds in the Eastern 

Interior Planning Area based on the following:

Conservation watersheds have processes and functions that occur in a relatively undisturbed and 

natural landscape setting. Hydrologic function, such as sediment amounts and stream flow 

regimes resulting from disturbance, are within a natural range of frequency, duration, and 

intensity. Waters are meeting designated or existing beneficial uses. Land uses and human 

activities do not strongly influence aquatic and hydrologic functions, as indicated by low road 

density and few stream crossings. Based on these criteria, 347 watersheds were placed in this 

category.

Management strategies will emphasize natural disturbance regimes, recognizing that active 

management may be required to conserve physical and biological processes and patterns. For 

example, road and trail maintenance to minimize erosion and the resulting sediment additions to 

nearby streams and waterbodies is essential within conservation watersheds.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

86

Restoration Watersheds are those where biological and physical processes and functions do not 

reflect natural conditions because of past and long-term human-caused land disturbances. The 

common effects of these disturbances are a long-term (decades) increase of sediment deposition 

in streams, loss of large woody debris recruitment to stream channels, and abnormal hydrologic 

patterns (water flows). Additive impacts from human disturbances and periodic natural events, 

such as large wildland fires, landslides, and floods, exacerbate abnormal watershed and biological 

conditions. Based on these criteria, 19 watersheds were placed in this category for the entire 

Eastern Interior Planning Area. However, none of these restoration watersheds are located in the 

Draanjik Planning Area. 

Active management will generally be required to restore the physical and biological function to 

their natural range of frequency, duration, and intensity. Identifying and assessing the impacts on 

habitat will allow managers to focus restoration efforts in the most effective manner to achieve 

hydrologic and biological recovery.

B.1.2. Priority Ranking Factors for Watersheds

To identify the highest resource value aquatic habitats for conservation and restoration, the BLM 

Alaska developed a priority ranking system. Priority ranking for each conservation or restoration 

watershed was based on a variety of factors. Primary issues considered in ranking status were 

priority fish species presence (diversity), resource uses (subsistence and recreation), habitat 

conditions, and productivity. These ranking criteria and associated point system are outlined 

below.

Following the evaluation of the 363 sixth-level HUC watersheds, the numeric scores were totaled. 

The highest scoring watersheds were reviewed by fisheries staff and recommended for 

consideration as either Riparian Conservation Areas or High Priority Restoration Watersheds 

during development of the Eastern Interior RMP/EIS.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

87

Table B-1. Ranking factors for Eastern Interior Watershed Assessment

Value Definition Score

Endangered Species Act

Aquatic Resources

Federally listed aquatic species are present. 3 Points

Subsistence Fisheries Use

Areas 

Using the best available information, determine

if areas within the watershed include fish

subsistence harvest areas.

2 Points

BLM Aquatic Special Status

Species (BLM SSS)

Using the best available information, determine

if Aquatic (riparian obligate) BLM species of

management concern, BLM Alaska sensitive

species, or BLM Alaska watch species occur in

the watershed.

2 Points

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

Present or Directly Affected

Using the ADF&G Anadromous Catalog, GIS

data, and/or professional knowledge, determine

if anadromous species occur in the watershed.

2 Points*

*1 point if stream mouth

in close proximity to EFH 

Fish Species Diversity Based on reports and/or professional

knowledge, determine the number of fish 

species occurring in the watershed.

1 Species = 1 Point

2-4 Species = 2 Points

>5 Species = 3 Points

WatershedProductivity Fish population or the level of spawning activity

is comparatively low or high based on stream

size.

1(low)-3(high) Points

Anadromous Species

Present 

Using the ADF&G Anadromous Catalog GIS

data and/or professional knowledge, determine

if anadromous species occur in the watershed.

1 Point

Important Recreational

Fisheries

Using the best available information, determine

if areas within the watershed include important

recreational fisheries.

1 Point

Intact/ReferenceWatershed Is the watershed unaffected by historic or

current land use practices?

1 Point

High Value Habitat Type

(spawning/overwintering)

Based on reports and/or professional

knowledge, determine if high-value habitats 

occur in the watershed.

1 Point

Riparian Conservation Areas 

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) are specific conservation watersheds that contain the 

highest fisheries and riparian resource values within the planning area. In these watersheds, 

riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to 

specific standard operating procedures (Appendix A). These areas are designed to be managed 

using a variety of techniques which may be essential to achieving or maintaining desired riparian 

and aquatic conditions. 

Based on the themes of the alternatives and analysis of the dataset, watershed scores were 

identified that would dictate the number of proposed RCAs in each alternative of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. Alternative B and E proposed the highest number of Riparian Conservation 

Areas, including all conservation watersheds scoring five or more total points. Alternative C 

proposed a moderate number of Riparian Conservation Areas, including all watersheds scoring 

eight or more total points. Alternative D proposed the least number of Riparian Conservation 

Areas, including only those watersheds that scored 11 or more total points. Conservation 

Watersheds scoring five or more points are listed in the table below and displayed on Map 2.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

88

Table B-2. Ranking of 12th-level hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds among 10 ranking factors for the Draanjik Planning Area

Hydrologic 

Unit Code No.

Name of 12th-level

HUC Watershed

AnadromousBLM Special Status SpeciesSubsistenceRecreationIntactWatersh

e

d

ProductEFHThreatened / Endangered SpeciesHigh ValueDiversityRanking Sum

190801060404 Bear Mountain Creek 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5

190801060502 Grayling Fork Draanjik 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5

190801060504 Grayling Fork Draanjik 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5

190801060701 Grayling Fork Draanjik 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5

190801060702 unnamed Tributary 

Draanjik

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5

190801060703 unnamed Tributary 

Draanjik

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5

190801060704 unnamed Tributary 

Draanjik

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5

190801060705 Grayling Fork Draanjik 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5

190801060802 Draanjik 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 6

190801060804 Big Duck Lake-Draanjik 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5

190801061005 Outlet Runt Creek 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 7

190801061105 Salmon Fork Draanjik 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 11

190801061107 Salmon Fork Draanjik 1 0 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 13

190801061207 Tetthajik Creek 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 8

190801061309 Lower Kevinjik Creek 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 8

190801061403 Salmon Fork Draanjik 1 0 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 13

190801070105 Headwaters Little Black 

River

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5

190801070106 Little Black River 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

89

Hydrologic 

Unit Code No.

Name of 12th-level

HUC Watershed

AnadromousBLM Special Status SpeciesSubsistenceRecreation IntactWatershedProductEFHThreatened / Endangered SpeciesHigh ValueDiversityRanking Sum

190801070109 Little Black River 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5 

190801070404 Little Black River 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5 

190705040901 unnamed TributaryKandik

1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 8 

190705040902 Headwaters Kandik 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 2 11

190705040903 Big Sitdown Creek 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 8 

190705040906 Indian Grave Creek 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 8 

190705040908 Kandik River 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 11

190705041903 Yukon River1 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 10

190705041904 Yukon River 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 9

190705041906 Fourteenmile CreekYukon River

1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 10

1 These watersheds overlap both the Steese Planning Area and the Draanjik Planning Area
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

90

B.2. Monitoring and Adaptive Management

B.2.1. Monitoring and Evaluation of the Resource Management Plan

BLM planning regulations require the monitoring and evaluation of resource management plans 

at appropriate intervals. After approval of the plan and signing of the Record of Decision, an 

implementation schedule will be completed and will incorporate monitoring plans. Monitoring 

data will be used to assess resource conditions, identify resource issues and conflicts, determine if 

resource objectives are met, determine trends for achievement of desired conditions, and 

periodically refine and update desired conditions and management strategy.

Monitoring is an essential component of natural resource management because it provides 

information on the relative success of management strategies. The implementation of the resource 

management plan will be monitored to ensure that management actions follow prescribed 

management direction (implementation monitoring), meet desired objectives (effectiveness 

monitoring) and are based on accurate assumptions (validation monitoring).

Monitoring will be coordinated with other appropriate agencies and organizations to enhance the 

efficiency and usefulness of the results across a variety of administrative units. The approach will 

build on past and present monitoring work. In addition, specific monitoring protocols, criteria, 

goals, and reporting formats will be developed.

B.2.2. Adaptive Management

Adaptive management requires knowledge of the current conditions, potential or capability of 

riparian sites and streams, current management and effects of the management on the resources,

and management changes that may be made to move the current condition toward the desired 

condition. Single indicators of conditions or trend are usually not adequate to make informed 

decisions. Information on the condition and trend of the vegetation, streambanks, aquatic 

resources, and knowledge of current management practices can help establish “cause-and-effect” 

relationships that are important to make appropriate decisions. Such information allows 

refinement and development of more realistic, locally-derived project or activity design, 

standards, or criteria.

Monitoring is an integral component of many management approaches, such as adaptive 

management and ecosystem management. Adaptive management is based on monitoring that is 

sufficiently sensitive to detect relevant ecological changes. The success of adaptive management 

also depends on the accuracy and credibility of information obtained through inventories and 

monitoring. Close coordination and interaction between monitoring and research are important 

for the adaptive management process to succeed. Data obtained through systematic and 

statistically valid monitoring can be used by scientists to develop research hypotheses related to 

priority issues. Conversely, the results obtained through research can be used to further refine the 

protocols and strategies used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the 

resource management plan.

Monitoring results will provide managers with the information to determine whether an objective 

has been met, and whether to continue or modify the management direction. Findings obtained 

through monitoring, together with research and other new information will provide a basis for 

adaptive management changes to the plan. The monitoring process and adaptive management 

share the goal of improving effectiveness and permitting response to increased knowledge and a 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

91

changing landscape. The monitoring program will not remain static. The monitoring plan will be 

periodically evaluated to ascertain that the monitoring questions and standards are still relevant, 

and will be adjusted as appropriate. Some monitoring items may be discontinued and others may 

be added as knowledge and issues change

B.2.3. Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring

The basics of resource management plan-level monitoring will (1) determine if the plan, project, 

or activities are implemented correctly and are achieving desired results, (2) provide a mechanism 

for accountability and oversight, (3) evaluate the effectiveness of recovery and restoration efforts, 

and (4) provide a feedback loop (adaptive management) so that management direction may be 

evaluated and modified. Management considerations for monitoring include the following:

• Focus monitoring on key questions that inform decision-making and allow adjustments to 

management.

• Monitoring emphasis and intensity should be commensurate with the importance of the 

question asked. For example, if adaptive decision-making is used, it will be important to 

monitor the key parameters to the degree necessary to support the current course of action 

or to trigger an alternate approach.

• Plan-level monitoring should make use of, and not duplicate, broad-scale monitoring 

programs. To the extent practicable, monitoring done at the plan scale should be 

compatible with, and complementary to, broader and finer scale monitoring.

• Monitoring should be coordinated with, and where possible consolidated with, similar 

efforts of other agencies.

• Outcome-based management approaches rely on monitoring for their success. These 

approaches typically require a different level and type of monitoring than prescriptive 

approaches.

• Monitoring commitments in plans should be feasible and achievable.

Monitoring is a process of gathering information through observation and measurement to ensure 

that project design criteria and mitigation are implemented and to determine if goals and 

objectives are achieved. The two types of monitoring identified are implementation and 

effectiveness. Specifics of these types of monitoring are:

• Implementation monitoring is used to determine if management practices are 

implemented as identified in an activity plan, environmental assessment, environmental 

impact statement, biological assessment, or biological opinion.

• Effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if management practices, as designed and 

executed, are effective in meeting project goals and objectives as defined in an activity 

plan, environmental assessment, environmental impact statement, biological assessment, 

or biological opinion.

The results of monitoring will be summarized and shared, as requested, with state and federal 

agencies, Native groups, and other members of the public.

The design criteria and mitigation would be monitored on a specific action or subsample of 

activity or project. Agency representatives overseeing the actions would do the monitoring, as 

well as an interdisciplinary or multiparty team, through a combination of any of the following 

methods:
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

92

• Review environmental assessment, biological assessment, and biological opinion

identified project specifications and terms and conditions to ensure that monitoring is 

provided for in contract or plans of operation (project design and mitigation criteria).

• Review project designs and plans of operation; review contract administration reports 

(daily diaries).

• Review activities on the ground before, during, and after implementation.

• Where appropriate, photograph conditions before projects begin, during implementation, 

and after completion.

The Eastern Interior Field Office implementation and effectiveness monitoring strategy will 

include the use of databases and reporting mechanisms. Monitoring protocols will be in accord 

with appropriate BLM Technical Bulletins or other acceptable monitoring methods which would 

address the desired conditions and habitat metrics included in the Matrix of Pathways.

Acceptable monitoring methods would be adaptive and include protocols that have been generally 

approved and accepted by state, federal, and other groups to document existing desired 

conditions.

B.3. Watershed Conditions Matrix and Effects Checklist

B.3.1. Watershed Condition Matrix

This watershed assessment matrix is adapted from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 

1996) and is linked to the desired future condition for aquatic habitats. This matrix should be 

used during watershed assessments to determine existing watershed condition ratings. The three 

condition rating classes are (1) High, (2) Moderate, and (3) Low. The order of the pathways 

begins with the overall watershed scale indicators at the top and then focuses down through the 

channel conditions, and finally specific habitat elements.

The purpose of the watershed assessment matrix is to provide a rating for baseline conditions;

these may be modified with new information or science that is applicable to conditions occurring 

in the planning area. This matrix may be updated, modified, or replaced with another watershed 

assessment tool if new science or new area or watershed resource data indicates changes are 

needed. For example, the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Program is currently 

developing predictive models based on data collected across BLM lands in Alaska using a 

probabilistic sample design. These models will allow the comparison of data from impacted 

stream segments or watersheds to what would be expected based on natural variability within a 

pristine watershed. This information will significantly improve the watershed assessment matrix, 

which depicts the range of desired conditions in a watershed and is shown in Table B-3, 

“Watershed Assessment Matrix.”
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

93

Table B-3. Watershed Assessment Matrix

Pathway Metric High Condition Moderate Condition Low Condition

Watershed Watershed road/track density <1 mile per square mile 1-3 mile per square mile >3 miles per square mile

Watershed Streamside road/track density <1 mile per square mile 1-2 mile per square mile >2 mile per square mile

Watershed Riparian vegetation condition Percent of riparian vegetation 

in the greenline dominated by 

late seral community types or 

anchored rocks/logs is >80%. 

The riparian vegetation 

provides adequate shade, large 

wood debris recruitment, and 

connectivity.

Percent of riparian vegetation 

in the greenline dominated by 

late seral community types or 

anchored rocks/logs is 50-79%. 

The riparian vegetation 

provides adequate shade, large 

wood debris recruitment, and 

connectivity.

Percent of riparian vegetation 

in the greenline dominated by 

late seral community types.

Habitat Elements Spawning gravel Surficial fine sediment (< 0.06 

mm) is <5%.

Surficial fine sediment (< 0.06 

mm) is 5–10%.

Surficial fine sediment (< 0.06 

mm) is >10%.

Habitat Elements Large woody debris Near-natural levels of acting 

and potential large wood debris

Acting levels of large wood 

debris are near-natural, 

potential levels are below nearnatural, or vice versa.

Both acting and potential levels 

of large wood debris are below 

near-natural levels.

Habitat Elements Pool frequency:

Channel Width (ft) / No. pools 

per mile

≤5 / 184

> 5 ≤10 / 96

> 10 ≤15 / 70

< 15 ≥20 / 56

< 20 ≥25 / 47

< 25 ≥50 / 26 

< 50 ≥75 / 23

>75 / <23

Meets pool frequency 

occurrence

Meets pool frequency 

standards but large woody 

debris recruitment or other 

pool-creating factors are 

inadequate to maintain pools 

over time.

Does not meet pool frequency 

standards.

Habitat Elements Pool quality (based on 2008 

BLM MIM a methodology or 

equivalent)

Pool quality rating >80 Pool quality rating 60-80 Pool quality rating <60
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

94

Pathway Metric High Condition Moderate Condition Low Condition

Habitat Elements Refugium Adequate habitat refugia exist 

within watershed (number, size, 

condition, species 

requirements, and 

connectivity).

Limited habitat refugia exist 

within watershed (number, size, 

condition, species 

requirements, and 

connectivity).

Inadequate habitat refugia exist 

within watershed (number, size, 

condition, species 

requirements, and 

connectivity).

Habitat Elements Percent surface fines 

(< 6 mm)

Rosgen Channel Types 

A and B ≤ 10%

Rosgen Channel Types 

A and B = 11-20% 

Rosgen Channel Types 

A and B ≥ 21% 

C and E = 21-30% C and E ≥ 31%

Channel Condition 

and Dynamics

Width-to-depth ratio Rosgen Channel Types

A < 10

B < 20

C < 40

E < 7 

F < 35

G < 9 

Rosgen Channel Types

A < 10-12

B < 20-35

C < 40-60

E < 7-9 

F < 35-70

G < 9-11

Rosgen Channel Types

A > 12

B > 35

C > 60

E > 9 

F > 70

G > 11

Channel Condition 

and Dynamics

Streambank stability Rosgen Channel Types 

A and B > 95% 

C > 90%

E = 100%

Rosgen Channel Types 

A and B 90-95% 

C = 80-90%

E = 95-100%

Rosgen Channel Types 

A and B < 90% 

C < 80%

E < 95%

Channel Condition 

and Dynamics

Floodplain connectivity Off-channel areas are 

seasonally hydrologically linked 

to main channel; overbank 

flows occur in the frequency 

and magnitude expected for the 

valley bottom or channel type 

setting.

Reduced linkage of wetland, 

floodplains and riparian areas 

to main channel; overbank 

flows are reduced or increased 

relative to historic frequency, as 

evidenced by moderated 

aggradation or degradation.

Severe reduction of increase in 

overbank flows occur relative to 

the frequency and magnitude 

expected for the valley bottom 

or channel type setting; wetland 

area drastically reduced and 

riparian vegetation/succession 

altered significantly.

Water Quality State Standards (turbidity, 

temperature, etc.)

Meets all Alaska State 

Standards

Slight deviation/exceedance 

from standards; may adversely 

affect fish aquatic habitat

Slight deviation/exceedance 

from standards; may adversely 

affect fish aquatic habitat

Habitat Access Physical barriers – adults Any human-made barriers 

present in watershed allow full 

upstream and downstream fish 

passage at all flow (no barrier).

Any human-made barriers 

present in watershed are a 

partial barrier to upstream or 

downstream fish passage.

Any human-made barriers 

present in watershed are a full 

barrier to upstream or 

downstream fish passage at all 

flows.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

95

Pathway Metric High Condition Moderate Condition Low Condition

Habitat Access Physical barriers- juveniles Any human-made barriers Any human-made barriers Any human-made barriers 

present in watershed allow full present in watershed are a present in watershed are a full 

upstream and downstream fish partial barrier to upstream or barrier to upstream or 

passage at all flow (no barrier). downstream fish passage. downstream fish passage at all 

flows.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

96

B.3.2. Environmental Baseline and Effects Checklist

In concert with the results of the baseline habitat assessment for a given watershed, the checklist 

in Table B-4 should be used to determine the effects of site-specific actions on aquatic habitats. 

These indicators are a suite of metrics that collectively influence aquatic habitat quality and the 

health of cold-water fish populations. These indicators should not be used individually to 

determine if a given action should or should not be authorized. This checklist is a decision 

support tool to aid biologists with impact analysis and the associated identification of appropriate 

mitigation measures. For some metrics, data may not be available, for other metrics extensive 

information may exist. A summary rationale associated with each indicator baseline rating and the 

effect determination should be attached to the completed checklist.

The environmental baseline consists of ratings of high, moderate, or low condition. For the 

purposes of this checklist, the following definitions apply:

• “Restore” means to change the function of the indicator for the better, or that the 

restoration rate is increased.

• “Maintain” means that the function of an indicator will not be degraded and the natural 

rate of restoration for this indicator will not be impaired.

• “Degrade” means to change the function of the indicator for the worse, or that the natural 

rate of restoration will be impaired.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

97

Table B-4. Checklist for documenting environmental baseline and effects of action(s) on relevant indicators

Pathway Indicator

High Environmental

Baseline Condition

Moderate

Environmental 

Baseline Condition

Low Environmental 

Baseline Condition

Effect of 

Action: 

Restore

Effect of 

Action: 

Maintain

Effect of 

Action: 

Degrade

Watershed Conditions

Watershed road/trackdensity

Streamside road/track density

Riparian vegetation condition

Channel Conditions

Width-to-depth ratio

Streambank stability

Floodplain connectivity

Water Quality

Temperature

Turbidity

Habitat Access

Physical barriers – adults

Physical barriers- juveniles

Habitat Elements

Cobble embeddedness

Large woody debris

Pool frequency

Pool quality

Refugium

Percent surface fines
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

98

B.4. Future Watershed Adjustments

Future identification of aquatic species as “special status” (federally listed under the Endangered

Species Act or BLM Sensitive) in the planning area would result in an evaluation of specific 

watersheds used by the species or considered necessary for recovery to determine if additional 

Riparian Conservation Areas are appropriate. Currently, no watersheds within the planning area 

are considered to be necessary for the recovery of special status aquatic species. Therefore no 

Riparian Conservation Areas were identified based on the presence of special status aquatic 

species.

The intent of this approach to adding future Riparian Conservation Areas is to provide high 

quality habitat for rare species and support expansion and recolonization of these species to 

adjacent watersheds. These areas should conserve key processes likely to influence the 

persistence of populations or metapopulations. Additions to, deletions from, or modifications of

special status aquatic species Riparian Conservation Area watersheds would be based on new 

information, revisions to the BLM Alaska Sensitive Species List, or as species are listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. In general, these additions would be accomplished through the 

development of activity plans, such as fisheries habitat management plans, which would outline 

management goals and objectives. As with other Riparian Conservation Areas, management 

activities would emphasize achieving or maintaining the riparian and aquatic values, including 

key processes, for which they are managed.

B.5. Watershed Assessment Process

The purpose of a watershed assessment is to develop and document an understanding of the 

ecological structures, functions, processes, and interactions occurring at the watershed scale (5thand 6th-level hydrologic unit code). This process is designed to describe past and current 

conditions, and develop restoration or management recommendations. The ultimate goal is to 

provide guidance for management actions that would sustain or improve the health and 

productivity of natural resources.

B.5.1. Objectives of Watershed Analysis

• Evaluate cumulative watershed effects – watershed analysis enhances the ability to 

estimate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of management activities.

• Define watershed restoration needs, goals and objectives (if needed) – provide guidance 

on the general type, location, and sequence of appropriate activities within a watershed.

• Monitor the effectiveness of watershed protection measures – process for adaptive 

management feedback loop.

• Provide sufficient watershed context for understanding and carrying out land use 

activities with a geomorphic context – important tool used in meeting ecosystem 

management objectives.

B.5.2. Appropriate Methodology

The Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis—Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale Version 

2.3 (USFS 1996) was used as a general guide to develop a framework for conducting watershed 

assessments; however, other processes can be used or developed to satisfy the objectives outlined 

above. For example, a more rapid watershed assessment process emphasizing remote sensing data 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

99

analysis coupled with stream survey data (e.g., riparian condition, stream habitat, water quality, 

fish species diversity) may optimize assessment efficiency and identify areas requiring more field 

intensive inventories.

The following six-step process is not issue-driven but focuses on analysis topics, along with 

specific watershed problems and concerns. This analysis is not a decision making process but will 

help identify opportunities for future management actions, including planning, project 

development, and regulatory compliance. Below is a summary the six steps taken to develop an 

ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale.

Step 1 – Characterization of the Watershed: Identify the dominant physical, biological, and 

human processes or features of the watershed that affect ecosystem functions or conditions, 

including the relationship between these ecosystem elements and those occurring in the river 

basin and/or watersheds. When characterizing the watershed, team members identify the most 

important land allocations, plan objectives, and regulatory constraints that influence resource 

management in the watershed.

Step 2 – Identification of Issues and Key Questions: Focus the analysis on the key elements of 

the ecosystem that are most relevant to the management questions and objectives, human values, 

or resource conditions within the area.

Step 3 – Description of Current Conditions: Develop more detailed information relevant to the 

issues and key questions identified in Step 2. Step 3 is where the current range, distribution, and 

condition of the relevant ecosystem elements are documented.

Step 4 – Description of Reference Conditions: Explain how ecological conditions have changed 

over time as a result of human influence and natural disturbances. A reference is developed for 

later comparison with current conditions over the period that the system evolved and with key 

management plan objectives.

Step 5 – Synthesis and Interpretation of Information: Compare existing and reference 

conditions of specific ecosystem elements and to explain significant differences, similarities, or 

trends and their causes. The capability of the system to achieve key management plan objectives 

is also evaluated.

Step 6 – Recommendations: Identify management recommendations that address resource 

problems noted in this analysis and then to change the current watershed conditions toward the 

desired future condition for this area. Recommendations, monitoring needs, and data gaps are 

identified and described. These are recommendations based on the data currently available. This 

is an ongoing process and alternative or additional recommendations may be made in the future.

B.6. Recommended Conservation Measures for Essential Fish 

Habitat

The following are recommended conservation measures for essential fish habitat. These are based 

on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and 

Conservation in Alaska, Appendix G - Non-fishing Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and 

Recommended Conservation Measures (NMFS 2005).
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

100

B.6.1. Roads and Road Maintenance

1. To the extent practicable, avoid locating roads near fish-bearing streams. Roads should be 

sited to avoid sensitive areas such as streams, wetlands, and steep slopes.

2. Incorporate appropriate erosion control and stabilization measures into road construction 

plans to reduce erosion potential.

3. Build bridges when possible. If culverts are used, they should be sized, constructed, and 

maintained to match the gradient and width of the stream, to accommodate design flood 

flows, and they should be large enough to provide for migratory passage of adult and juvenile 

fishes. If appropriate, consider using the culvert guidelines contained in the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities Fish Pass Memorandum of Agreement, August 2001 online at 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/lands/habitatrestoration/fishpassage/pdfs/dot_adfg_fishpass

080301.pdf.

4. Locate stream crossings in stable stream reaches.

5. Design bridge abutments to minimize disturbances to stream banks and place abutments 

outside of the floodplain whenever possible.

6. To the extent practicable, avoid road construction across alluvial floodplains, mass wastage 

areas, or braided stream bottom lands unless site-specific protection can be implemented to 

ensure protection of soils, water, and associated resources.

7. Avoid side-casting of road construction and maintenance materials on native surfaces and into 

streams.

8. To the extent practicable, use native vegetation in stabilization.

B.6.2. Mineral Mining

The following measures are adapted from recommendations in Spence et al. (1996), National 

Marine Fisheries Service (2004), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (1998). They 

should be viewed as options to avoid and minimize impacts and promote the conservation, 

enhancement, and proper functioning of essential fish habitat.

1. To the extent practicable, avoid mineral mining in waters, riparian areas, and floodplains 

containing essential fish habitat.

2. Schedule necessary in-water activities when the fewest species and least vulnerable life 

stages of federally managed species will be present.

3. Use an integrated environmental assessment, management, and monitoring package in 

accordance with state and federal law and regulations. Allow for adaptive operations to 

minimize adverse effects on essential fish habitat.

4. Minimize spillage of dirt, fuel, oil, toxic materials, and other contaminants into essential fish 

habitat. Prepare a spill prevention plan if appropriate.

5. Treat wastewater (acid neutralization, sulfide precipitation, reverse osmosis, electrochemical, 

or biological treatments) and recycle on site to minimize discharge to streams. Test 

wastewater before discharge for compliance with federal and state clean water standards.

6. Minimize opportunities for sediments to enter or affect essential fish habitat. Use methods 

such as contouring, mulching, and construction of settling ponds to control sediment 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

101

transport. Monitor turbidity during operations, and cease operations if turbidity exceeds 

predetermined threshold levels. Use methods such as turbidity or sediment curtains to limit 

the spread of suspended sediments and minimize the area affected.

7. If possible, reclaim rather than bury, mine wastes that contains heavy metals, acid materials, 

or other toxic compounds, if leachate can enter essential fish habitat through groundwater.

8. Restore natural contours and plant native vegetation on-site after use to restore habitat 

function to the extent practicable. Monitor the site for an appropriate time to evaluate 

performance and implement corrective measures if necessary.

9. Minimize the aerial extent of ground disturbance (such as through phasing of operations), and 

stabilize disturbed lands to reduce erosion.

B.6.3. Sand and Gravel Mining

Individual gravel extraction operations should be judged in the context of their spatial, temporal, 

and cumulative impacts. Potential impacts to habitat should be viewed from a watershed 

management perspective. The following recommended conservation measures for sand and 

gravel mining are adapted from National Marine Fisheries Service (2004) and Oregon Water 

Resource Research Institute (1995). They should be viewed as options to avoid and minimize 

impacts and promote the conservation, enhancement, and proper functioning of essential fish 

habitat.

1. To the extent practicable, avoid sand and gravel mining in waters containing essential fish 

habitat. Many factors influence site selection for a gravel or sand mining site. Because of the 

need to incorporate technical, economic, and environmental factors, siting decisions should 

be considered on a case-by-case basis (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980).

2. Identify upland or off-channel (where the channel will not be captured) gravel extraction sites 

as alternatives to gravel mining in or adjacent to essential fish habitat, if possible.

3. Design, manage, and monitor sand and gravel mining operations to minimize potential direct 

and indirect impacts to essential fish habitat, if operations in essential fish habitat cannot be 

avoided. This includes, but is not limited to, migratory corridors, foraging and spawning 

areas, stream and river banks, and intertidal areas.

4. Minimize the areal extent and depth of extraction.

5. Include restoration, mitigation, and monitoring plans, as appropriate in sand/gravel extraction 

plans.

B.6.4. Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production

As part of pre-project planning, identify all species of concern regulated under federal or state 

fishery management plans that inhabit, spawn, or migrate through areas slated for exploration, 

development, or production. Pay particular attention to critical life stages, and develop options 

that avoid and minimize adverse effects from any associated activities. Modify the project design, 

timing, or location and use adaptive management.

1. Avoid the discharge of produced waters into marine waters and estuaries. Reinject produced 

waters into the oil formation whenever possible.

2. Avoid discharge of muds and cuttings into the marine and estuarine environment. Use 

methods to grind and reinject such wastes down an approved injection well or use onshore 

disposal wherever possible. When not possible, provide for a monitoring plan to ensure that 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

102

the discharge meets Environmental Protection Agency effluent limitations and related 

requirements.

3. To the extent practicable, avoid the placement of fill to support construction of causeways or 

structures in the nearshore marine environment.

4. As required by federal and state regulatory agencies, encourage the use of geographic 

response strategies that identify essential fish habitat and environmentally sensitive areas. 

Identify appropriate cleanup methods and response equipment.

5. To the extent practicable, use methods to transport oil and gas that limit the need for handling 

in environmentally sensitive areas, including essential fish habitat.

6. Ensure that appropriate safeguards have been considered before drilling the first development 

well into the targeted hydrocarbon formations whenever critical life history stages of 

federally managed species are present.

7. Ensure that appropriate safeguards have been considered before drilling exploration wells 

into untested formations whenever critical life stages of federally managed species are 

present. If possible, avoid such work entirely during those time frames.

8. Oil and gas transportation and production facilities should be designed, constructed, and 

operated in accordance with applicable regulatory and engineering standards.

9. Evaluate impacts to essential fish habitat during the decommissioning phase of oil and gas 

facilities, including possible impacts during the demolition phase. Minimize such impacts to 

the extent practicable.

B.6.5. Habitat Restoration/Enhancement

The following recommended conservation measures should be viewed as options to avoid and 

minimize adverse impacts and promote the conservation, enhancement, and proper functioning of 

essential fish habitat.

1. Use best management practices to minimize and avoid potential impacts to essential fish 

habitat during restoration activities. Best management practices should include, but are not 

limited to, the following:

a. Use turbidity curtains, hay bales, and erosion mats to protect the water column.

b. Plan staging areas in advance, and keep them to a minimum size.

c. Establish buffer areas around sensitive resources; flag and avoid rare plants, 

archaeological sites, etc.

2. Remove invasive plant and animal species from the proposed action area before starting 

work. Plant only native plant species. Identify and implement measures to ensure native 

vegetation or revegetation success.

3. Establish temporary access pathways before restoration activities to minimize adverse 

impacts from project implementation.

4. Avoid restoration work during critical life stages for fish such as spawning, nursery, and 

migration. Determine these periods before project implementation to reduce or avoid any 

potential impacts.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

103

5. Provide adequate training and education for volunteers and project contractors to ensure 

minimal impact to the restoration site. Train volunteers in the use of low-impact techniques 

for planting, equipment handling, and any other activities associated with the restoration.

6. Conduct monitoring before, during, and after project implementation to ensure compliance 

with project design and restoration criteria. If immediate post-construction monitoring reveals 

that unavoidable impacts to essential fish habitat have occurred, ensure that appropriate 

coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service occurs to determine appropriate 

response measures, possibly including mitigation.

7. To the extent practicable, mitigate any unavoidable damage to essential fish habitat within a 

reasonable time after the impacts occur.

8. Remove and, if necessary, restore any temporary access pathways and staging areas used in 

the restoration effort.

Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

105

Appendix C. Land Tenure and Withdrawals

C.1. Land Tenure

During the land use planning process, the BLM identifies lands for either disposal or retention. 

Lands are to be retained in federal ownership unless it is determined that disposal of a particular 

parcel will serve the national interest (Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Section 

102(a)(1)).

The BLM may dispose of lands through a variety of authorities, provided they meet the criteria in 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Disposal authorities include (1) exchanges and 

sales under the Act; and (2) transfers to other governmental units for public purposes. Parcels 

identified as Zone 3 are those that are potentially suitable for disposal through public land sales. 

Lands identified as Zone 2 are potentially suitable for exchange. Land exchanges are a tool that 

enables the BLM and other landowners to improve land management, consolidate ownership, and 

protect environmentally sensitive areas. By exchanging public land that is isolated and difficult to 

manage, the BLM is able to acquire other lands with importance for recreation, wildlife, fisheries, 

wetlands, habitat for threatened and endangered species, wilderness, open space, scenic, cultural 

and other resource conservation purposes. Land exchange allows the BLM to reposition lands 

into more manageable units and to meet community expansion needs.

Even where land use plans identify lands for potential disposal, the BLM must still complete 

many procedural requirements before these lands can be for sale or exchange. These processes 

and legal requirements can be costly and time-consuming. In some cases, the process can result in 

a decision not to dispose of the public lands. The BLM will make a final determination on 

suitability for disposal when there is actually a proposal to implement a disposal action under this 

Record of Decision and Approved RMP.

C.1.1. Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and other laws, Executive 

Orders, and Departmental and BLM policies, the BLM will consider the following factors when 

evaluating opportunities for disposal or acquisition of lands or interests in lands. This list is not 

all inclusive, but represents the major factors to consider.

General Land Tenure Adjustment Evaluation Factors

• Improves manageability of specific areas

• Maintains or enhances important public values and uses

• Consolidates federal mineral estate or reunites split surface and mineral estates

• Facilitates development of energy and mineral potential

• Reduces difficulty or cost of public land administration

• Provides access to land for public recreation and other uses

• Amount of public investments in facilities or improvements and the potential for 

recovering those investments

• Suitability of land for management by another federal agency
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

106

• Significance of decision in stabilizing or enhancing lifestyles, business, social, and 

economic conditions

• Meets long-term public management goals

• Facilitates national, state, and local BLM priorities or mission statement needs

• Consistent with cooperative agreements and plans or policies of other agencies

• Facilitates implementation of other aspects of the approved resource management plans

Acquisition Criteria

• Secures lands adjacent to other Zone 1 lands

• Facilitates access to public land and resources retained for long-term public use

• Secures threatened or endangered or sensitive plant and animal species habitat

• Protects riparian areas and wetlands

• Contributes to biodiversity

• Protects high-quality scenery

• Enhances the opportunity for new or emerging public land uses or values

• Facilitates management

• Protects significant cultural resources and sites eligible for inclusion on the National 

Register of Historic Places

• Provides land for BLM administrative sites

Disposal Criteria

• Lands of limited public value

• Widely scattered parcels that have no significant values and are difficult for the BLM to 

manage beyond custodial administration

• Lands with high public values for proper management by other federal agencies, or by 

state and local governments

• Land that would aid in aggregating or repositioning other public lands or public land 

resource values, where the public values to be acquired outweigh the public values to be 

exchanged

C.1.2. Zone Definitions

Zone 1 – Retention and Acquisition

Retain lands in Zone 1 under BLM administration. Consider acquisition of inholdings in Zone 1 

areas, from willing landowners, using the appropriate acquisition authority. Acquired lands would 

be managed the same as surrounding lands after acquisition. Lands in Zone 1 include:

• National Landscape Conservation System designated lands

• National Recreation Areas

• National Recreation Trails
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

107

• Areas of critical environmental concern

• Research natural areas

• Developed recreation and administrative sites

• Designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered species

• Riparian conservation areas

• Most of Draanjik Planning Area, exclusive of Circle lands (Map 5) 

Zone 2 – Suitable for Consolidation 

Lands in Zone 2 will be available for acquisition and disposal, including exchange, to enhance 

public resource values, improve management capabilities, or reduce the potential for land use 

conflict. For example: Isolated parcels may result from Native- and State-selected lands that are 

not conveyed and lands relinquished under withdrawal by federal agencies. Zone 2 lands consist 

of all lands not listed in the descriptions of Zone 1 and Zone 3 lands. In the Draanjik Planning 

Area Zone 2 lands include checkerboard lands east of Circle, Alaska. 

Zone 3 – Suitable for Disposal 

Lands in Zone 3 will be available for disposal. These lands will include but are not limited to 

those parcels or areas described below. There are no zone 3 lands identified in the Draanjik 

Planning Area. 

• Lands that are either not practical to manage, or are uneconomical to manage (because of 

their intermingled location and nonsuitability for management by another federal 

agency).

• Federal mining claims that are outside of Zone 1 lands and outside of large blocks of 

BLM-managed lands that become null and void (mining claims that are surrounded by 

large blocks of state land and thus difficult to manage). 

• Survey hiatuses (gap or space unintentionally left, when describing adjoining parcels of 

land).

• Encroachments (trespass or intrusion onto another’s property). 

• Lands subject to Public Land Order 1613 (Alaska highway right-of-way adjustments).

• Reserved federal interests in split-estate lands may be considered for conveyance out of 

federal ownership. 

C.2. Withdrawals 

Virtually all of BLM-managed lands within the Draanjik Planning Area are under some type of 

withdrawal pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The BLM reviews all 

withdrawals and makes recommendations in the resource management plan to retain, modify, or 

revoke withdrawals.

Section 3.3.8 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS provides more background information on existing 

withdrawals. The purpose of this Appendix is to provide a more in depth discussion for some of 

the withdrawals and the process for modifying or revoking these withdrawals. There are two 

primary types of withdrawals: public land orders issued by the Secretary of the Interior and 

legislative withdrawals implemented by Congress through legislation.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

108

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

withdraw and reserve public lands for study and classification. This was done through a series of 

public land orders issued between 1972 and 1975. These are referred to as ANCSA 17(d)(1) 

withdrawals. The public land orders generally closed the lands to all forms of appropriation under 

public laws, including mining and mineral leasing. The withdrawals kept the lands unencumbered 

for selection by ANCSA corporations, and prevented the creation of new third-party interests that 

would interfere with land conveyance. The withdrawals also allowed the BLM time to study and 

classify the lands.

Portions of two to three 17(d)(1) withdrawals cover lands in the Draanjik Planning Area (Table C1). All of the public land orders close lands to the mineral leasing laws. Some close the lands to 

all types of mining. Others, such as public land order 5180, close the lands to mining for nonmetalliferous minerals, but allow for metalliferous mining. Additionally, most of these 17(d)(1) 

public land orders were modified several times. The modifications generally opened lands to state 

selection, or added additional lands to the withdrawal. 

Modifying or revoking the 17(d)(1) withdrawals would open some lands in the planning area to 

mineral leasing and mining of various types of locatable minerals. In some areas however, lifting 

the 17(d)(1) withdrawals would not have an immediate effect. Lands selected by the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act corporations and the State of Alaska would remain "segregated" 

(unavailable) to mineral leasing or locatable mineral entry (staking of mining claims). If the 

selections in these areas are relinquished, the lands would then be available for location. In the 

Draanjik Planning Area, selected lands are located primarily near Circle, Alaska. 

A common misconception is that a withdrawal is needed to close lands to leasable minerals. The 

BLM can close lands to leasable minerals through a land use plan decision. Withdrawals are only 

needed to close lands to location and entry for locatable minerals under the Mining Law of 1872. 

Because the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 17(d)(1) public land orders closed lands to 

leasing under the Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, any planning recommendations to open areas to 

leasing do not become immediately effective and will require the revocation or modification of 

the withdrawal. Revocation or modification orders are signed by the Secretary of the Interior.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

109

Table C-1. Existing mineral withdrawals in the Draanjik Planning Area and process for change

Authorization Description Effect Process for Change

PLO 5180 – White 

Mountains NRA, Steese 

National Conservation 

Area, Yukon Flats NWR

Withdrawal for Classification and for 

Protection of Public Interest in 

lands; amended by PLOs 5193, 

5242, 5250, 5251, 5254, 5257, 

5321, 5391, 5418, 5657, 6092.

Subject to valid existing rights, closes 

described lands to location and entry under 

the mining laws (except for location of 

metalliferous minerals) and to leasing under 

the mineral leasing laws.

To open described lands to public land laws, 

the Secretary of the Interior issues a new 

PLO (which partially revokes the existing 

PLO) and opening order; The new PLO 

becomes effective the date of publication in 

the Federal Register. The Final EIS 

associated with the RMP provides NEPA 

compliance for the revocation order/opening 

order. No additional public notification is 

required.

PLO 5173 –Draanjik / 

Fortymile planning 

areas

Withdrawal for selection by 

Regional Corporation; amended by 

PLOs 5252, 5321, 5391, and 5657

Subject to valid existing rights, closes 

described lands to location and entry under 

the mining and to leasing under the mineral 

leasing laws.

See Process for Change in first row.

PLO 5184 – Draanjik / 

Fortymile planning 

areas (Circle lands)

Withdrawal for Classification or 

Reclassification of some areas 

withdrawn by Section 11 of ANCSA

Subject to valid existing rights, closes 

described lands to location and entry under 

the mining and to leasing under the mineral 

leasing laws.

See Process for Change in first row.

PLO = public land order; WSR = Wild and Scenic River; FLPMA = Federal Land Policy and Management Act; ANCSA = Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

110

C.2.1. Process for Withdrawal Revocation

After a Record of Decision recommending revocation for one or more public land orders is 

issued, the BLM would follow the general process outlined below to implement the revocation. In 

most cases, it would be a partial revocation as these public land orders extend beyond the 

planning area boundaries and the Record of Decision only addresses those portions of the public 

land orders within the planning area. After the Record of Decision is issued, no further public 

notice is required to proceed with the revocation. The Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

covers the environmental impacts of opening lands to the public land laws and provides 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The revocation is affected by issuing a new public land order, which either replaces the existing 

public land order or amends it. As part of this new public land order, an opening order is also 

issued. Once approved by the Secretary, this combination of a new public land order and opening 

order opens the lands described in the public land order to the referenced public land laws. The 

following steps outline the process: 

1. BLM Alaska drafts a new public land order including a legal land description that 

describes the areas where the existing public land order would be revoked. Land 

descriptions are separated into paragraphs describing the action (such as opening lands to 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act sales, mineral leasing laws, or the Mining Law 

of 1872) that would apply to each legal description. 

2. BLM Alaska submits this public land order/opening order and related documents through 

the Director of the BLM to the Secretary of the Interior for review and approval. Related 

documents include pertinent portions of the administrative record for the Eastern Interior 

Resource Management Plan, such as the Section 810 analysis. 

3. The Secretary’s Office reviews the public land order package and submits it to the 

Secretary for signature.

4. Once signed, the public land order and opening order are published in the Federal 

Register. The actions take effect on the publication date of the public land order. 

5. If any of the lands opened by the new public land order are selected by the State or 

Native corporations, these lands would remain closed until the selections were 

relinquished or the lands conveyed.

C.2.2. Process for New FLPMA Withdrawals

The Record of Decision and Approved RMP for the Draanjik Planning Area recommends new 

withdrawals from mineral location and entry to protect resources (Map 6). The BLM will follow a 

separate withdrawal process to implement these decisions. The requirements for the withdrawal 

process are covered at 43 CFR 2300 and involve filing a petition/application with the Secretary of 

the Interior and the completion of reports and studies, including a mineral potential report. In 

Alaska, any new withdrawals over 5,000 acres are subject to Section 1326 of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act, which states: 

...the President or the Secretary may withdraw public lands in the State of Alaska 

exceeding five thousand acres in the aggregate, which withdrawal shall not become 

effective until notice is provided in the Federal Register and to both Houses of Congress. 

Such withdrawal shall terminate unless Congress passes a joint resolution of approval 

within one year after the notice of such withdrawal has been submitted to Congress.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

111

In the Daanjik Planning Area, new withdrawals are recommended in the Salmon Fork ACEC, 

riparian conservation areas, and the upper Draanjik watershed. 

Table C-2. Process for New Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) Withdrawals

Authority Description Effect Process for Change

FLMPA 204 New withdrawals from mineral 

location and entry under FLPMA 

are recommended in this 

Approved Resource 

Management Plan. Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act

withdrawals would be retained 

until new withdrawals are in 

effect (approved by Congress). 

FLPMA withdrawals are subject 

to review and renewal every 20 

years.

Withdraw lands from 

location and entry 

under U.S. mining law. 

Secretary of the Interior 

approves public land order

withdrawing lands; 

Published in Federal 

Register, if over 5,000 

acres submitted to 

Congress; Terminates if 

Congress does not 

approve within one year of 

notification. 

C.2.3. Recommendations to the Secretary

Revocation of all 17(d)(1) withdrawals is recommended, but in some areas revocation would be 

delayed until the new withdrawal is in place. Recommended withdrawal acres in the following 

table are estimated through Geographic Information Systems data and generally rounded to the 

nearest 1,000 acres. Acres may change before any withdrawal recommendations are implemented 

because the BLM will continue to convey land to the State and Native corporations in the 

planning area until land entitlements are met. Additionally, the BLM’s withdrawal database used 

to calculate these acreages has some errors.

Table C-3. Withdrawal recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior

Action Approved Draanjik RMP

Recommend new FLPMA withdrawals 1,813,000 acres in the Salmon Fork ACEC, riparian 

conservation areas, and upper Draanjik watershed 

(Map 6) from mineral entry and location.

Recommend partial revocation ANCSA 17(d)(1) 

withdrawals affecting the planning area

547,000 acres in the Draanjik Planning Area, outside 

of the areas listed above. 

FLPMA = Federal Land Policy and Management Act; ANCSA = Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; PLO = public 

land order.

Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

113

Appendix D. Bird Species of Conservation Concern

The Eastern Interior Field Office compiled the following list of bird species of conservation 

concern during development of the Eastern Interior Proposed RMP and Final EIS. This list 

applies to the entire Eastern Interior Planning Area and was not revised for the Draanjik Planning 

Area. This list will change over time as the various agencies and organizations update their lists 

and as more knowledge is gained on the distribution of species of conservation concern in Alaska.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

114

Table D-1. Bird species of conservation concern in the Eastern Interior Planning Area

Bird Species

BLM Alaska Sensitive 

Speciesa

USFWS Birds of 

Conservation 

Concernb

Alaska State Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

Featured Speciesc

Boreal Partners in 

Flight Priority 

Speciesd

Shorebird and 

Waterfowl 

Conservation

Planse

Gray-cheeked Thrush N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Olive-sided Flycatcher Sensitive N/A featured Priority N/A

Trumpeter Swan Sensitive N/A N/A N/A N/A

Blackpoll Warbler Sensitive N/A featured Priority N/A

Townsend's Warbler N/A N/A featured Priority N/A

American Peregrine

Falcon

N/A BCR4 featured N/A N/A

Golden Eagle Sensitive N/A N/A N/A N/A

Buff-breasted Sandpiper N/A N/A featured N/A Priority

Smith's Longspur N/A N/A featured Priority N/A

Rusty Blackbird Sensitive N/A featured Priority N/A

Solitary Sandpiper N/A BCR4 featured N/A Priority

Short-billed Dowitcherf N/A BCR4 N/A N/A Priority

Hudsonian Godwitf N/A BCR4 N/A N/A Priority

Short-eared Owl Sensitive N/A featured N/A N/A

Arctic Tern N/A N/A featured N/A High Risk

Whimbrelf N/A BCR4 N/A N/A Priority

Horned Grebe N/A BCR4 N/A N/A

Lesser Yellowlegs N/A BCR4 N/A N/A Priority

Upland Sandpiper N/A BCR4 N/A N/A Priority

American Golden Plover N/A N/A N/A N/A Priority
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

115

Bird Species

BLM Alaska Sensitive 

Speciesa

USFWS Birds of 

Conservation 

Concernb

Alaska State Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

Featured Speciesc

Boreal Partners in 

Flight Priority 

Speciesd

Shorebird and 

Waterfowl 

Conservation

Planse

Surfbird N/A N/A N/A N/A Priority

Mallard N/A N/A N/A N/A High Priority

Lesser Scaup N/A N/A N/A N/A High Priority

Northern Pintail N/A N/A N/A N/A High Priority

American Wigeon N/A N/A N/A N/A Mod.High Priority

Canvasback N/A N/A N/A N/A Mod.High Priority

Redhead N/A N/A N/A N/A Mod.High Priority

Common Goldeneye N/A N/A N/A N/A Mod.High Priority

Long-tailed Duck N/A N/A featured N/A Mod.High Priority

Black Scoter N/A N/A N/A N/A Mod.High Priority

White-winged Scoter N/A N/A N/A N/A Mod.High Priority

Surf Scoter N/A N/A N/A N/A Mod.High Priority

Gyrfalcon N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Sharp-tailed Grouse N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

American Dipper N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Northern Shrike N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

White-winged Crossbill N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Bohemian Waxwing N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Black-backed

Woodpecker

N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Boreal Owl N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Varied Thrush N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Hammond's Flycatcher N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

116

Shorebird and 

USFWS Birds of Alaska State Wildlife Boreal Partners in Waterfowl 

BLM Alaska Sensitive Conservation Conservation Strategy Flight Priority Conservation

Bird Species Speciesa Concernb Featured Speciesc Speciesd Planse

Great Gray Owl N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Golden-crowned N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Sparrowf

a. Species listed by the BLM Alaska State Director as BLM sensitive species.

b. Species listed as a Bird of Conservation Concern in Bird Conservation Region 4 (interior AK) (BCR4).

c. Species listed in the Alaska State Wildlife Conservation Strategy (SWCS) as a featured species. 

d. Species listed by the Alaska Boreal Partners in Flight as Priority Species in AK.

e. Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan Priority Species, Waterbird Conservation Plan for the Americas High Risk Species, or North American Waterfowl Management Plan High 

or Moderately High Continental Priority Species

f. Not likely found in planning area in significant numbers
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

117

Appendix E. Draanjik Travel Management Plan

E.1. Introduction

Located approximately 180 miles northeast of Fairbanks and encompassing 2.6 million acres of 

BLM-managed lands, the Draanjik Planning Area is undeveloped and very remote. The lands 

have had very limited intrusion due to the remoteness and lack of access. There are no roads, 

although there are likely a few winter trails, especially near the village of Circle. Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 17(b) Easements are indicated around Circle and in the south 

east portion of the planning area but they have not been inventoried. Remote cabins along various 

rivers are generally used as season dwellings for subsistence fishing camps. There are a few 

Native allotments located primarily along rivers. Other facilities found in the southern portion of 

the planning area include three unimproved airstrips on private lands and brushed lines that 

remain from past oil and gas exploration. The limited evidence of human use is substantially 

unnoticeable and the area has been affected primarily from the forces of nature and has retained 

its primeval character.

Use of the lands in the upper Draanjik is primarily for subsistence purposes. Hunting, fishing, 

trapping and gathering of edible plants and berries for the adjacent villages of Fort Yukon,

Chalkyitsik, and to some degree the village of Circle. Most use occurs in the fall and winter 

months. Access is by river, airplane or snowmobile. Some OHV use occurs and the OHVs are 

typically brought in by boat access which limits the size and weight of the OHVs. Aircraft are 

unrestricted in the Draanjik and use would generally occur on gravel bars, ridge tops and winter 

snows.

E.2. Scoping and Public Participation

Alternative development for the Draanjik travel management decisions were conducted as part 

the Easter Interior Resource Management Plan (RMP) process. The RMP planning process 

included scoping meetings in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Central, Fort Yukon and Chalkyitsik. 

Comments received indicated a concern about continued access for subsistence resources.

E.3. Travel Management Decisions

The Off Highway Vehicle Area Designation for the Draanjik Planning Area per 43 CFR 8342.1 

criteria is LIMITED.

No route designations were made for the Draanjik due to the remote nature of the area, lack of 

connective trails and lack of access. Primary travel is for subsistence purposes. The typography, 

permafrost, soil types and limited access are best served with dispersed cross country travel. 

Limitations for weight and width would reduce potential for impacts to soil, water, vegetation, 

fish, and wildlife throughout the area in the event that OHV use increased over the life of the 

plan.

All forms of non-motorized use are allowed.

Cross-country winter use (October 15 through April 30) of snowmobiles 50 inches or less in 

width, and weighing 1,000 pounds curb weight and less is allowed throughout the entire planning 

area.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

118

Cross-country summer use (May 1 through October 14) of vehicles up to 64 inches or less in 

width and weighing 1,500 pounds curb weight and less is allowed throughout the entire planning 

area. 

Aircraft use is unrestricted, with the following provisions: Minimal clearing of rocks, downed 

logs, and brush would be allowed; construction or formal improvement of landing areas would 

occur by permit only; and, use of gravel bars and winter snow areas would be allowed, subject to 

reasonable provisions to protect resource values.

Use of motorized boats is unrestricted.

A permit or approved Plan of Operations is required for all other vehicle use.

New restrictions could be developed for the purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or 

maintaining an unconfined and primitive type of recreation consistent with the existing 

wilderness characteristics. New restrictions are subject to the supplemental rule process outlined 

in section E.11. 

E.4. Sign Plan

Given the geographic location of the Draanjik, lack of foreseeable use beyond subsistence and 

lack of designated routes, no formal sign plan will be developed for the Draanjik. 

E.5. Education Plan

Upon completion, supplementary rules pertaining to weight and width limitations will be posted 

on the BLM’s website, at the Fairbanks District Office and mailed to affected villages, the 

Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich’in Tribal Government (formerly Native Village of Fort Yukon), and 

Chalkyitsik Village Tribal Government.

E.6. Rehabilitation 

There are no designated travel networks in the Draanjik. All existing user created trails will be 

considered for use. As such, no rehabilitation plan for closed trails is needed. 

E.7. Maps

See Map 8. Additional maps will be developed as needed during the supplemental rule process. 

E.8. Roadside and Dispersed Camping

There are no roads in the Draanjik and a plan for roadside camping considerations in not needed. 

Dispersed camping would occur in the Draanjik and is allowable with no restrictions. The area is 

not designated as Special Recreation Management Area. Recreation management in the Draanjik

is limited to custodial actions only. 

E.9. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Enforcement

Monitoring will occur with overflights during high use periods such as hunting. Observations will 

include type of mechanized travel and proliferation of routes intensities. Enforcement actions will 

be issued for use of vehicles over the weight and width limitations.
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

119

The area may see an increase in hunt guide activities. These activities would utilize aircraft and 

require a Special Recreation Permit and subject to NEPA analysis. These activities will have 

stipulations to mitigate any impacts. 

E.10. Temporary Closures and Restrictions

Where OHV activities are causing considerable adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, 

wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or endangered species, 

wilderness sustainability, other authorized uses, or other resources, BLM may implement 

temporary closures under the authority of 43 CFR 8341.2 and 8364.1 The purpose of a temporary 

closure and restriction are to protect public health and safety, or prevent undue or unnecessary 

resource degradation due to unforeseen circumstances and will not be used in lieu of permanent 

closures.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) provides specific guidance on 

access for the use of snowmobiles, motorboats and other means of surface transportation 

traditionally used for subsistence purposes by local residents on all federal public lands (Section 

811). See ANILCA Section 102 (3) for the definition of “public lands”. ANILCA also provides 

specific guidance on the use of snowmobiles, motor boats, airplanes and non-motorized surface 

transportation methods for traditional activities on conservation system units, national recreation 

areas, and national conservation areas (Section 1110).

Pursuant to ANILCA Sections 811 and 1110, such uses are subject to reasonable regulation. The 

NPS and USFWS have developed regulations to implement Section 811 of ANILCA. While the 

BLM has not developed similar regulations, a process similar to those promulgated by NPS and 

USFWS will be followed.

The BLM will ensure that rural residents engaged in subsistence uses shall have reasonable 

access to subsistence resources (ANILCA Section 811(a)) and will implement restrictions and 

closures to the use of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation 

traditionally employed for subsistence purposes by local rural residents (ANILCA Section 811(b)) 

only if the Authorized Officer determines that such use is causing or is likely to cause an adverse 

impact on public health and safety, resource protection, protection of historic or scientific values, 

subsistence uses, conservation of endangered or threatened species, or other purposes, values, and 

uses for which the lands are being managed under FLPMA or designated by ANILCA (e.g. Wild 

and Scenic River, National Recreation Area, National Conservation Area, if applicable).

The BLM will follow the regulations implementing Section 1110 of ANILCA, as found in 43 

CFR Part 36. The BLM will implement restrictions and closures to use of snowmobiles, 

motorboats, aircraft, and non-motorized surface transportation methods (e.g. domestic dogs, 

horses, and other pack or saddle animals, etc.) for traditional activities only if the Authorized 

Officer makes a finding, pursuant to 43 CFR 36.11(h), that such use would be detrimental to the 

resource values of the area.

E.11. Supplementary Rules

This travel management plan will be implemented through a Supplemental Rule. The BLM 

will undertake the following supplementary rule making process:
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

120

1. Publish and provide notice of proposed Supplemental Rules in the Federal Register 

and other formats and locations reasonably calculated to inform residents in the 

affected vicinity. 

2. Allow a minimum of 60-days for the public comment period on the proposed 

Supplemental Rules. 

3. Hold public hearings in the affected vicinity and other locations as deemed 

appropriate by the BLM. 

4. Respond to comments and publish the final Supplemental Rules in the Federal 

Register. 

5. Make the final Supplemental Rules known by the following methods (at a minimum): 

a. Supplemental Rules and maps with relevant information will be available for 

public inspection at the BLM Fairbanks District Office and at other places 

convenient to the public, and locations and formats reasonably calculated to 

inform residents in the affected vicinity. 

b. Signs will be posted at appropriate sites. 

c. BLM brochures and websites will list Supplemental Rules and show relevant 

maps. 
Eastern Interior, Draanjik

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

121

Appendix F. Maps

Map 1 – Land Status 

Map 2 – Conservation Watersheds

Map 3 – Visual Resource Management

Map 4 – Wilderness Characteristics

Map 5 – Lands for Retention 

Map 6 – Recommended New FLPMA Withdrawals

Map 7 – Leasable and Locatable Minerals

Map 8 – Travel Management

Map 9 – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
BLM back cover photos

1. Village of Chalkyitsik

2. Oxbow bend, upper Draanjik River

3. Successful moose hunt, Draanjik River. Alaska 

Dept. of Fish and Game/James Van Lanen

4. Autumn on the Salmon Fork Draanjik River 

1

2

3

4