Eastern Interior

December 2016

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan
BLM/AK/PL-17-002+1610+F0200

BLM Cover Photos

1. South Unit of the Steese National 

Conservation Area

2. Campsite on a ridge near the headwaters of 

Thomas Creek

3. Caribou above Harrison Creek

4. Packrafter on Birch Creek Wild and Scenic 

River

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 Steese

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, Steese

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................................................................................................1

1.2.3 Environmentally Preferred Alternative........................................................................................5

1.3 Results of Protest Review and Governor’s Consistency Review .......................................................6

1.3.1 Protests.........................................................................................................................................6

1.3.2 Governor’s Consistency Review..................................................................................................6

1.4 Decision..............................................................................................................................................8

1.4.1 Notice of Modifications and Clarifications..................................................................................8

1.4.2 What the Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Provide.....................................9

1.4.3 What the Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Do Not Provide ......................10

1.4.4 Implementation Decisions .........................................................................................................10

1.5 Management Considerations in Selecting the Approved Resource Management Plan....................11

1.5.1 ANILCA Section 810 ................................................................................................................13

1.5.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers..............................................................................................................14

1.6 Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................................................14

1.7 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation.......................................................................................................15

1.8 Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination.......................................................................15

1.9 Availability of the Approved RMP ..................................................................................................15

1.10 Approvals and Signature Page........................................................................................................16

2. Steese Approved Resource Management Plan ...................................................................................17

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................17

2.1.1 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................17

2.1.2 Planning Area Description.........................................................................................................18

2.1.3 Consideration of BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs...............................................................19

2.1.4 Related Plans..............................................................................................................................20

2.1.5 Implementing the Plan ...............................................................................................................20

2.1.6 Maintaining the Plan..................................................................................................................22

2.1.7 Changing the Plan......................................................................................................................22

2.1.8 Plan Evaluation and Adaptive Management..............................................................................22

2.2 Management Decisions ....................................................................................................................23

2.2.1 Access Guidance under Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)............24

2.2.2 Mitigation...................................................................................................................................25

2.2.3 Air and Atmospheric Values......................................................................................................26

2.2.4 Cave and Karst Resources .........................................................................................................27

2.2.5 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................28
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

ii

2.2.6 Fish and Aquatic Species...........................................................................................................29

2.2.7 Non-Native Invasive Species.....................................................................................................36

2.2.8 Paleontological Resources.........................................................................................................37

2.2.9 Soil Resources............................................................................................................................38

2.2.10 Special Status Species..............................................................................................................39

2.2.11 Vegetation Resources...............................................................................................................40

2.2.12 Visual Resources......................................................................................................................42

2.2.13 Water Resources, Wetlands, and Floodplains..........................................................................43

2.2.14 Wilderness Characteristics.......................................................................................................46

2.2.15 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management ................................................................................47

2.2.16 Wildlife Resources...................................................................................................................50

2.2.17 Forest and Woodland Products................................................................................................54

2.2.18 Lands and Realty .....................................................................................................................55

2.2.19 Minerals...................................................................................................................................62

2.2.20 Recreation ................................................................................................................................66

2.2.21 Travel Management .................................................................................................................84

2.2.22 Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................86

2.2.23 Subsistence...............................................................................................................................86

2.2.24 Research Natural Areas............................................................................................................87

2.2.25 Wild and Scenic Rivers............................................................................................................88

Acronyms...................................................................................................................................................89

Glossary .....................................................................................................................................................91

References Cited........................................................................................................................................93

Appendix A. Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations ...................97

A.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................97

A.1.1. Standard Operating Procedures................................................................................................97

A.1.2. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations..........................................................................................98

A.1.3. Standard Operating Procedures..............................................................................................101

Appendix B. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.....................................................................................111

B.1. Watershed Classification ..............................................................................................................111

B.1.1. Watershed Categories.............................................................................................................111

B.1.2. Priority Ranking Factors for Watersheds...............................................................................112

B.2. Monitoring and Adaptive Management........................................................................................118

B.2.1. Monitoring and Evaluation of the Resource Management Plan.............................................118

B.2.2. Adaptive Management ...........................................................................................................118

B.2.3. Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring ......................................................................119

B.3. Watershed Conditions Matrix and Effects Checklist....................................................................120

B.3.1. Watershed Condition Matrix..................................................................................................120

B.3.2. Environmental Baseline and Effects Checklist ......................................................................124

B.4. Future Watershed Adjustments.....................................................................................................126

B.5. Watershed Assessment Process ....................................................................................................126
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

iii

B.5.1. Objectives of Watershed Analysis .........................................................................................126

B.5.2. Appropriate Methodology......................................................................................................126

B.6. Recommended Conservation Measures for Essential Fish Habitat ..............................................127

B.6.1. Roads and Road Maintenance................................................................................................128

B.6.2. Mineral Mining ......................................................................................................................128

B.6.3. Sand and Gravel Mining ........................................................................................................129

B.6.4. Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production .......................................................129

B.6.5. Habitat Restoration/Enhancement..........................................................................................130

Appendix C. Land Tenure and Withdrawals.......................................................................................133

C.1. Land Tenure..................................................................................................................................133

C.1.1. Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria ..........................................................................................133

C.1.2. Zone Definitions.....................................................................................................................134

C.2. Withdrawals..................................................................................................................................135

C.2.1. Process for Withdrawal Revocation.......................................................................................139

C.2.2. Modifying Legislative Withdrawal Steese National Conservation Area ...............................139

C.2.3. Process for New FLPMA Withdrawals..................................................................................140

C.2.4. Recommendations to the Secretary........................................................................................140

Appendix D. Bird Species of Conservation Concern...........................................................................143

Appendix E. Outstandingly Remarkable Values for Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River ..............147

E.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................147

E.2. Methodology .................................................................................................................................147

E.3. Historical Review of Birch Creek.................................................................................................149

E.4. Findings for Birch Creek...............................................................................................................151

Scenic................................................................................................................................................151

Recreational ......................................................................................................................................152

Geologic............................................................................................................................................153

Fish Populations and Habitat ............................................................................................................153

Wildlife Populations and Habitat......................................................................................................154

Cultural .............................................................................................................................................154

Historic..............................................................................................................................................155

Crucial Caribou and Dall Sheep Habitat (Map 5).............................................................................157

Sensitive Caribou Winter Range (Map 6).........................................................................................158

Caribou Migration Corridor (Map 6)................................................................................................158

Literature cited..................................................................................................................................159

Appendix G. Maps..................................................................................................................................161

Tables

Table 1. Land classification within the Steese Planning Area ....................................................................19

Table 2. List of related plans for the Steese Planning Area........................................................................20

Table 3. Priority fish species in the Steese Planning Area..........................................................................30

Table 4. Visual resource management allocations for the Steese Planning Area .......................................43

Table 5. Fire management options for the Steese Planning Area ...............................................................49
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

iv

Table 6. Priority wildlife species and habitats in the Steese Planning Area ...............................................54

Table 7. Summary of Mineral decisions for the Steese Planning Area.......................................................66

Table 8. Matrix of recreation setting classifications and character of the natural landscape for physical 

characteristics (resources and facilities)..............................................................................................69

Table 9. Matrix of recreation setting classifications and character of the social environment (visitor use 

and users) ............................................................................................................................................70

Table 10. Matrix of recreation setting classifications and character of the operational environment 

(administrative and service setting) ....................................................................................................71

Table 11. Steese Planning Area recreation management zones, recreation setting character, and offhighway vehicle designations .............................................................................................................72

Table 12. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Birch Creek Recreation Management 

Zone ....................................................................................................................................................73

Table 13. Implementation framework decision for Birch Creek Recreation Management Zone ...............73

Table 14. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Pinnell Mountain Recreation 

Management Zone ..............................................................................................................................74

Table 15. Implementation framework decision for the Pinnell Mountain Recreation Management Zone.75

Table 16. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Mount Prindle Research Natural Area 

Recreation Management Zone ............................................................................................................76

Table 17. Implementation framework decision for the Mount Prindle Research Natural Area Recreation 

Management Zone ..............................................................................................................................76

Table 18. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Big Windy Hot Springs Research 

Natural Area Recreation Management Zone.......................................................................................77

Table 19. Implementation framework decision for the Big Windy Hot Springs Research Natural Area 

Recreation Management Zone ............................................................................................................77

Table 20. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Preacher Creek Recreation 

Management Zone ..............................................................................................................................78

Table 21. Implementation framework decision for the Preacher Creek Recreation Management Zone ....78

Table 22. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Harrison Creek Recreation 

Management Zone ..............................................................................................................................79

Table 23. Implementation framework decision for the Harrison Creek Recreation Management Zone ....79

Table 24. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Wolf Creek Recreation Management 

Zone ....................................................................................................................................................80

Table 25. Implementation framework decision for the Wolf Creek Recreation Management Zone..........81

Table 26. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Clums Recreation Management Zone

............................................................................................................................................................82

Table 27. Implementation framework decision for the Clums Recreation Management Zone ..................82

Table 28. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Bachelor Creek Recreation 

Management Zone ..............................................................................................................................83

Table 29. Implementation framework decision for the Bachelor Creek Recreation Management Zone....83

Table A-1. Fluid mineral leasing stipulations.............................................................................................99

Table B-1. Ranking factors for Eastern Interior Watershed Assessment..................................................113

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

the Steese Planning Area...................................................................................................................114

Table B-3. High priority restoration watersheds Steese Planning Area....................................................117

Table B-4. Other restoration watersheds Steese Planning Area ...............................................................117

Table B-5. Watershed Assessment Matrix................................................................................................121

Table B-6. Checklist for documenting environmental baseline and effects of action(s) on relevant 

indicators...........................................................................................................................................125

Table C-1. Existing mineral withdrawals in the Steese Planning Area and process for change...............137

Table C-2. Process for New Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) Withdrawals...........140

Table C-3. Withdrawal recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior...............................................141
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

v

Table D-1. Bird species of conservation concern in the Eastern Interior Planning Area..........................144

Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

1

1. Record of Decision

1.1 Introduction

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

Alaska and includes approximately 1,267,000 acres of BLM-managed public land administered 

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

Interior, Steese Approved Resource Management Plan. This decision and plan provide overall 

direction for management of all resources on BLM-managed lands within the Steese Subunit as 

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

Impact Statement (RMP/EIS). Hereafter referred to as the Steese Planning Area. This Approved 

Resource Management Plan replaces the Steese RMP approved in 1986.

1.2 Overview of Proposed Resource Management Plan and 

Final EIS Alternatives

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. 

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 Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement analyzed five alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The following sections 

describe the alternatives as they apply to the Steese Planning Area. 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

2

1.2.2.1 Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Alternative A continues present management practices and present levels of resource use based

on the existing Steese RMP (BLM 1986), the Birch Creek River Management Plan (BLM 

1983), and other management decision documents. Other management decision documents 

include special rules published in the Federal Register (for off-highway vehicle and recreational 

use) and public land orders (PLOs), including Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

17(d)(1) withdrawals. 

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

Section 17(d)(1) of ANCSA and withdrawals under the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Land disposal actions cannot 

occur due to current segregationsfor selection and the lack of decisions identifying lands for 

disposal in the existing land use plan. Four transportation corridors are designated in the Steese 

National Conservation Area. The existing Steese Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) 

which includes only the Steese National Conservation Area will continue under current

management with recreation settings of Primitive, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Research Natural

Area, and Wild and Scenic River. 

Two Research Natural Areas, Mount Prindle and Big Windy Hot Springs, will remain in place. 

No new special designations, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are 

considered. There will be no suitability determinations made for wild and scenic rivers. There 

will be no decisions made to manage certain lands to maintain wilderness characteristics,

although existing management would preserve these characteristics in many areas.

The current off-highway vehicle (OHV) designations will remain in place. Most of the 

planning area is under a Limited designation, including seasonal restrictions on summer 

motorized use in some areas. Research Natural Areas are closed to motorized travel. 

Direction contained in existing laws, regulation, and policy will continue to be implemented,

sometimes superseding provisions in the existing land use plans. The current levels, methods,

and mix of multiple-use management of public land in the planning area will continue, and

resource values will receive attention at present levels. In general, most activities will be 

analyzed on a case-by-case basis when applications are received. Few uses, other than new 

mining claims and mineral leasing, are limited or excluded as long as they are consistent with 

state and federal laws, and existing land use plans.

The existing plan does not identify a set of standard operating procedures or fluid mineral leasing

stipulations. These are developed on a case-by-case basis as applications for permits are received.

1.2.2.2 Alternative B

Alternative B recommends approximately 97 percent of the planning area remain closed to 

mineral leasing and mineral entry, including the Steese National Conservation Area and Birch 

Creek Wild and Scenic river corridor. The plan recommends opening the remaining three percent 

to new mining claims and mineral leasing through partial revocation of PLOs. The Steese ACEC 

is recommended closed to new mineral entry and location, and mineral leasing. Unlike 

Alternative A, this alternative identifies lands suitable for acquisition, disposal, or retention. Wild 

and scenic rivers and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern are identified as right-of-way 

avoidance areas. Two transportation corridors are retained from Alternative A.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

3

The boundary and management of the Steese Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) are 

adjusted from Alternative A. Unlike Alternative A, Birch Creek and adjacent lands outside of the 

Steese National Conservation Area are included in the SRMA. Terminology is updated to match 

current policy. Recreation setting prescriptions are assigned to the SRMA. These settings include 

Primitive, Semi-Primitive, Backcountry, Middlecountry, and Frontcountry settings as defined in 

Tables 8, 9, and 10. There are more acres assigned to the Primitive, Semi-Primitive, and 

Backcountry settings under Alternative B than under Alternatives A, C, D, or E. These three 

settings are similar in management to the Primitive setting under Alternative A.

Most of the planning area is designated as Limited OHV use. Research Natural Areas are closed 

to motorized travel. Limitations on summer use apply to a much larger area than in Alternative 

A. 

Two Research Natural Areas, Mount Prindle and Big Windy Hot Springs, will remain in place. 

Alternative B designates a new Steese ACEC, and identifies specific measures proposed to 

protect or enhance wildlife values within these areas. The Steese ACEC protects caribou range 

and Dall sheep habitat. One eligible river segment, Big Windy Creek (14 miles) is recommended 

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

characteristics are identified and 95 percent these lands are managed to emphasize other 

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

wilderness characteristics. 

Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations outlined in Appendix 

A.2 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS apply.

1.2.2.3 Alternative C

Alternative C recommends 78 percent of the planning area remain closed to mineral leasing and 

mineral entry and location, including 81 percent of the Steese National Conservation Area and 

Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River corridor. The Steese ACEC is recommended closed to new 

mineral entry and location, and mineral leasing. Partial revocation of PLOs is recommended to 

open 22 percent of the planning area to mineral location and mineral leasing. Same as Alternative 

B, lands are identified as suitable for acquisition, disposal or retention and two transportation 

corridors are retained from Alternative A. There are no right-of-way avoidance areas.

As in Alternative B, the Steese National Conservation Area and Birch Creek are identified as a 

SRMA. Setting prescriptions for SRMAs include much fewer acres in a Primitive setting and 

more acres in Semi-Primitive, Backcountry, Middlecountry, and Frontcountry setting 

prescriptions than in Alternative B. There is a greater emphasis on developed recreational 

facilities compared to Alternative B.

As in Alternative B, most of the planning area is designated as Limited OHV use and Research 

Natural Areas are closed to motorized travel. Some areas are limited to designated trails. 

Restrictions on summer motorized use are more extensive than under Alternatives A or D, but less 

than under Alternative B.

As in Alternative B, Mount Prindle and Big Windy Hot Springs research natural areas are 

retained. A new Steese ACEC is designated for caribou and Dall sheep, but is smaller than in 

Alternative B. No rivers are recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. Compared to Alternative B, fewer acres (51 percent) are managed to emphasize other 

resource values and multiple uses while applying management restrictions to reduce impacts to 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

4

wilderness characteristics. The remaining 49 percent are managed to emphasize other resource 

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

As in Alternative B, Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations 

outlined in Appendix A.2 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS apply.

1.2.2.4 Alternative D

Alternative D recommends 46 percent of the planning area remain closed to mineral leasing and 

mineral entry and location. Partial revocation of PLOs is recommended to open 54 percent to 

mineral leasing and mineral location. Approximately 54 percent of the Steese National 

Conservation Area remains closed to new mining claims. The Steese ACEC will remain closed to 

mineral entry and location. None of the existing transportation corridors are retained and no new 

transportation corridors are designated. As with Alternative C, there are no right-of-way 

avoidance areas.

Setting prescriptions for the Steese SRMA includes fewer acres in Semi-Primitive and 

Backcountry settings and more acres in Middlecountry settings than Alternatives B, C, and E. 

Frontcountry settings are the same as Alternatives C and E. There is a greater emphasis on 

developed recreational facilities than under Alternatives A, B, C, and E.

As in Alternatives B and C, most of the planning area is designated as Limited OHV use and 

Research Natural Areas are closed to motorized travel. Generally, travel and trail restrictions are 

less than Alternatives B and C, but more than Alternative A. Some areas are limited to no summer 

motorized use.

As in Alternatives B and C, existing RNAs are maintained. A new Steese ACEC is designated for 

caribou and Dall sheep, but is smaller than in Alternatives B and C. No rivers are recommended 

as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Only 38 percent of the acres 

possessing wilderness characteristics are managed to emphasize other resource values and 

multiple uses while applying management restrictions to reduce impacts to wilderness 

characteristics. The remaining 62 percent are managed to emphasize other resource values and 

multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics.

As in Alternatives B and C, Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Stipulations outlined in Appendix A.2 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS apply.

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. 

Alternative E recommends 98 percent of the planning area remain closed to both mineral leasing 

and mineral location (staking of mining claims). Partial revocation of PLOs is recommended to 

open two percent of the planning area to mineral location and mineral leasing, similar to 

Alternative B. The Steese National Conservation Area and Birch Creek corridor remain closed to 

both mineral entry and mineral leasing. Outside of the National Conservation Area, riparian 

conservation areas, restoration watersheds, and the Steese Special Recreation Management Area 

are recommended closed to mineral entry and mineral leasing to protect fish and aquatic 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

5

resources, water quality, recreation settings. As in Alternatives B, C, and D scattered parcels of 

unmanageable lands are available for disposal. As in Alternative D, none of the existing 

transportation corridors designated under Alternative A are retained and no new corridors are 

designated.

The Steese SRMA is designated. Recreation setting is similar to Alternative C except some areas 

identified as Middlecountry in Alternative C change to Backcountry and Semi-Primitive in 

Alternative E. Same as Alternatives C and D, there would be no right-of-way avoidance areas.

As with Alternatives B, C and D, the two existing RNAs are maintained. Management within 

RNAs would be the same as Alternatives C and D, except the OHV area designation changes 

from Closed to Limited allowing for winter use of snowmobiles.

Unlike Alternatives B, C and D, no new ACECs are designated. Crucial caribou and Dall sheep 

habitat is identified in the Steese National Conservation Area. Management of these crucial 

habitat areas protects caribou range and Dall sheep habitat. 

Approximately 80 percent of the planning area is managed to emphasize other resource values 

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

characteristics. These areas include crucial caribou and Dall sheep habitat, Research Natural 

Areas, riparian conservation areas, and Primitive, Semi-Primitive, and Backcountry recreation 

management zones. The remaining 20 percent is managed to emphasize other resource values and 

multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics.

A Limited OHV area designation is put into place on all lands, including Research Natural Areas. 

More detailed travel decisions for the Steese Planning Area are deferred to a travel management 

plan to be completed within five years of this record of decision. Interim travel management is 

the same as Alternative A with minor changes including: allowing snowmobile use in Research 

Natural Areas and removing prohibitions on the use of hovercraft and airboats.

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.

• 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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

6

• 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.

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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

7

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). 

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:
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

8

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 1.7 million 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 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Steese

Planning Area of the Eastern Interior Planning Area (hereafter referred to as the Steese Approved 

RMP). This Approved RMP replaces the 1986 Steese RMP and amendments. 

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 

resource management plan in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

9 

made minor modifications, clarifications, and corrections to the Proposed RMP 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 BLMadministered land within the Steese Planning Area are presented in Chapter 2, Steese Approved 

RMP. 

1.4.1.1 Modifications 

During the course of reviewing protests and further internal review, the BLM made the following 

modifications to the Proposed Plan: 

Monitoring requirements for Birch Creek WSR are added in section 2.2.13 “Water Resources, 

Wetlands, and Floodplains”. 

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 goal for Research Natural Areas was inadvertently left out of the Proposed RMP. A goal 

consistent with the goal from the No Action Alternative is added to section 2.2.24. 

Tables H.55, H.56, H.57, and H.59 of Appendix H of the Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS have the incorrect recreation setting character listed in the tables. Maps and text in Chapter 2 

of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are correct. Corrected tables can be found in Section 2.2.20 of 

this document. These are implementation level decisions which will undergo additional NEPA 

analysis during development of the recreation management plan. 

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. Map 2, Section 2.2.5, and tables B-2, B-3, 

and B-4 of the Approved RMP were updated to reflect the new hydrologic unit codes. 

Rationale language in section 2.6.2.11 Wilderness Characteristics 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 this 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 Steese 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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

10

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. 

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. 

More detailed travel decisions are being deferred until supplemental rules are promulgated and a 

travel management plan is developed per sections 1.2.2.5 and 2.2.20.

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 resource management plan. 

1.4.4 Implementation Decisions

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

actions that would either be approved either at the same time as the ROD or implemented through 

an additional decision-making process after the ROD. The following decisions are 

implementation decisions and are appealable under 43 CFR Part 4. 

Changing OHV weight limits from gross vehicle weight rating to curb weight, allowing for use of 

hovercraft and airboats, and limitations on placement of traps, bait, and wildlife lures. See 

sections 2.2.16, 2.2.20, and 2.2.21 of the Approved RMP. 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

11

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. 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.

1.5 Management Considerations in Selecting the Approved 

Resource Management Plan

The decision to select the Proposed RMP (Alternative E) 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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

12

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 Steese National Conservation Area was established by ANILCA §401 and special values 

identified in ANILCA §401(b) identifies Birch Creek and caribou range as special values to be 

considered in planning and management of the National Conservation Area. 

The Steese National Conservation Area is a component of the BLM’s National Landscape 

Conservation System (NLCS). The mission of the NLCS is to conserve, protect and restore 

nationally significant landscapes recognized for their outstanding cultural, ecological and 

scientific values. 

Special values in the Steese National Conservation Area include Birch Creek Wild and Scenic 

River, caribou calving grounds and home range, and Dall sheep habitat. While various land uses 

are allowed in the National Conservation Area, the area is managed so that it’s scenic, scientific, 

cultural, and other resources are protected.

Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River was designated by ANILCA §603. Management objectives 

for Birch Creek include: protecting valid existing rights and future rights granted pursuant to 

appropriate Federal and State laws; preserving the river and its immediate environment in a 

natural, primitive condition; preserving its free-flowing condition; protecting water quality; 

providing a high quality primitive recreational opportunity; providing opportunities for 

interpretive, scientific, educational, and wildlands oriented uses; assuring protection of historic 

and ecological values; and maintaining and improving fish and wildlife habitats (BLM 1983). 

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. The Proposed RMP (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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

13

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 

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 §810 evaluation for the decision in this ROD. 

The summary is based on the detailed ANILCA §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 §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 Steese 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 the planning area. Most impacts to subsistence resources and 

uses will be minor, 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, 

“Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations”. Impacts to subsistence 

resources will be expected to be localized and temporary, and will not be expected to impact 

resources at the population level. SOPs and leasing stipulations to protect riparian and aquatic 

habitats will be necessary to mitigate impacts from placer mining. No impacts to access by 

subsistence users will be expected to occur. Availability and distribution of subsistence resources, 

particularly for caribou and moose, may change if hunting pressure increases due to continued 

cross-country access in the Steese National Conservation Area or from new access around Circle. 

Conflicts due to competition are largely issues outside the scope of the Steese Approved RMP. 

Efforts to reduce these conflicts will be accomplished through limits within regulations on 

hunting seasons, bag limits, and methods and means, which are the responsibility of the Federal 

Subsistence Board and Alaska Board of Game. 

1.5.1.2 Notice and Hearings

The ANILCA Sec. 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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

14

accordance with ANILCA Sec. 810(a)(1) and (2) and makes the three determinations required by 

§810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C). The BLM found through its subsistence evaluation on the Eastern

Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS that Alternative D in the Steese Subunit 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 Sec. 810 (a)(1) and (2) in conjunction 

with release of the Eastern Interior Draft RMP/EIS in order to solicit public comment from the 

potentially affected communities and subsistence users.

1.5.1.3 Final Determinations under ANILCA Section 810

Sec. 810(a) of ANILCA 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 Sec. 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. Sec. 3120(a)(3)(A), (B), 

and (C)].

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

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

the determination process as described in ANILCA Sec. 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 Big Windy Creek 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. 

Big Windy Creek possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, geologic and wildlife values. The

varied geologic/hydrologic features and the unique contrasting vegetation resulting from the hot

springs provide outstandingly remarkable scenery. The hot springs also provide unique habitat for 

wildlife. Big Windy Creek is entirely within BLM’s management and is located within the Steese 

National Conservation Area. The Approved RMP includes decisions that will protect Big Windy 

Creek and the surrounding lands. The Steese National Conservation Area is withdrawn from 

mineral entry and closed to mineral leasing. 

1.6 Mitigation Measures

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

harm as described in section 0, 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 the 

Steese travel management plan and recreation area management plan. Additional environmental 

analysis, the subsequent identification of impacts, and the development of mitigating measures 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

15

specific to the resources involved are part of the BLM’s process for developing implementation 

plans for these areas. 

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 section 2.1.8 “Plan Evaluation and 

Adaptive Management” of the Approved RMP. 

1.8 Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination

One of the BLM’s objectives during development of the Eastern Interior, Steese Resource 

Management Plan 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 Resource Management Plan. 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 resource 

management plan 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 

resource management plan 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 Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement (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
Eastern Interior, Steese 

Record ofDecision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

1.10 Approvals and Signature Page 


FIELD MANAGE R:i;COMMENDATION 

Having conside ranfj;e ofreasonable alternatives, associated effects, and public input, I 

recommend tion an implementation ofthe attached Steese Approved Resource 

Managem Ian. 

'l!P'l1~ t. dH!:J 

Date 

Acting Eastern Interior Field Manager Date 

DEC 3 O 20i~ 

DISTRICT MANAGER CONCURRENCE 

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

Plan. 

Date 

STATE DIRECTOR APPROVAL 

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

Management Plan. 

[)l"'c 3 o

16 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

17

2. Steese Approved Resource Management Plan

2.1 Introduction

This Approved RMP replaces the Steese RMP and Record of Decision approved in 1986. The 

Approved RMP adopts management described in Common to all Subunits, decisions described in 

Alternative E, stipulations and standard operating procedures described in Appendix A.4, and 

tables applicable to Alternative E described in Appendix H, 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 Steese 

Planning Area.

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

prepare a resource management plan and associated EIS in the Federal Register on February 29, 

2008 (73 FR 11140). 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 Eastern Interior Draft RMP/EIS in the Federal Register initiated the public 

comment period (77 FR 12835). 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 (78 FR 2397). 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 Eastern Interior Steese Resource Management Plan is to provide a 

comprehensive framework to guide management of public lands and interests within the Steese 

Planning Area. The Proposed Resource Management Plan 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. 

The Resource Management Plan is needed to update existing Steese Resource Management Plan

(BLM 1986), to address current issues, and to meet the requirements of BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook (16021-1).
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

18

Evaluations of the Steese Resource Management Plan showed that the current plan is not 

responsive to issues in the planning area. Major programs that need updating to respond to current 

issues include fisheries, wildlife, travel management, recreation, withdrawals, and minerals. The 

evaluation also found that current plan does not reflect the entire suite of decisions to include in 

land use plans per BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). Decisions missing include 

air quality, non-native invasive plants, and wilderness characteristics. 

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).

2.1.2 Planning Area Description

Within the Steese Planning Area, the BLM administers approximately 1.3 million acres of BLMmanaged land surface estate and approximately 7,000 acres of federal split-estate (Table 1). 

Decisions in the Approved RMP will initially apply to 1,274,000 acres of BLM-managed lands. 

Acreages are approximate and will 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 8,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate beneath private surface.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

19

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 apply to 

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands.

Table 1. Land classification within the Steese Planning Area

Land Status Acres

BLM unencumbered 1,223,000

State-selected lands 35,000

ANCSA Native-selected lands 8,000

Total BLM surface estate 1,267,000

Split Estate (BLM subsurface) 7,000

BLM subsurface estate 1,274,000

2.1.3 Consideration of BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

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

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

• River Management Plan Birch Creek a Component of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. (USDI-BLM 1983)

• Designation of Off Road Vehicle Use Areas for the Steese National Conservation Area 

(53 FR 26891; 1988) 

• Special Rules and Regulations for the Steese National Conservation Area et al. (53 FR 

25696;1988) 

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

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

resource authorizations and actions will conform to, or be consistent with the decisions contained 

in the resource management plan. 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 resource management plan constitutes 

compliance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements for the broad-scale decisions 

made in this resource management plan, the BLM will continue to prepare environmental 

assessments or environmental impact statements where appropriate as part of implementationlevel planning and decision making. 

Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River: Typically, outstandingly remarkable values for Wild and 

Scenic Rivers are identified in a study of the river and listed in the designating legislation. The 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Birch Creek National Wild River completed in 

1975 (DOI 1975) discusses values of the river, but does not formally list the outstandingly 

remarkable values. In 1980, Section 603 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Act designated 

Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River without specifying these values. In cases like this, managers 

typically determine outstandingly remarkable values from study reports and other documentation 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

20

of management activities and intentions as well as incorporating current data and expertise. The 

Eastern Interior Field Manager used the wild and scenic rivers inventory conducted for the 

Eastern Interior planning process to identify outstandingly remarkable values for Birch Creek 

(Appendix E of this document and Appendix E of the Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS). 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values for Birch Creek are scenic, recreation, and fisheries. These are 

described in more detail in Appendix E of this document. 

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 Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan identifies areas potentially suitable for wilderness. The BLM considered these adjacent lands 

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

Alaska Department of Natural Resources Upper Yukon Area Plan identifies management 

guidelines for Fortymile caribou calving areas in Region 1, Middle Fork and Dall sheep habitat in 

the Glacier Mountain area (M-03). Guidelines include avoiding or minimize conflicts with 

caribou calving and Dall sheep, limiting activities during caribou calving season, and protecting

or mitigating impacts to mineral licks and access routes to the licks used by the wildlife. BLM 

considered these guidelines when developing management intent for the crucial caribou and Dall 

sheep habitat. 

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

Management Plan Agency

Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan, 1987

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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

Resource Management Plan Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, 

1994 

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

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) 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

21

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 the Management Decisions section 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 Special Recreation 

Management Areas, 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 Future 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, recommended revocation of existing 

ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals, or development of travel management plans. 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

• Direction in the Approved RMP for development of implementation level plans

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 interim 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 will develop a transportation and travel management plan within five years of the 

ROD. Travel management planning is a public process with opportunities for public involvement. 

The BLM may engage in other implementation planning in the future, such as recreation area 

management plans or watershed management plans. These will require preparation of detailed, 

project level NEPA analysis and include opportunities for public involvement. 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

22

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

life of this RMP, we will conduct detailed project level NEPA analysis including various levels of 

public involvement. We use public comments to help formulate alternatives to be considered in 

the analysis and to develop appropriate stipulations and permit conditions. 

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 Steese 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. 

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 resource 

management plan 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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

23

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

five 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 “Mitigation”, 2.2.3 “Air and Atmospheric Values”, 2.2.5 “Cultural Resources”, 

2.2.6 “Fish and Aquatic Species”, 2.2.7 “Non-native Invasive Species”, 2.2.8 “Paleontological 

Resources”, 2.210 “Special Status Species”, 2.2.11 “Vegetation”, 2.2.213 “Water Resources, 

Wetlands, and Floodplains”, 2.2.14 “Wilderness Characteristics”, 2.2.15 “Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology”, 2.2.16 “Wildlife Resources”, 2.2.22 “Hazardous Materials”, and 

Appendix A “Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations”.

2.2 Management Decisions

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

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

organized by program area. 

This section describes the management decisions with their related terms and conditions which 

define the combination of allowable resource uses and levels of production or protection, the 

program constraints and the general management practices for BLM-managed land within the 

Steese Planning 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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

24

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.

To meet the requirements of ANILCA, decisions in this Record of Decision and Approved RMP

that are covered by sections 811 and 1110 of ANILCA are listed as “Proposed” Supplemental 

Rules. In addition, because transportation and travel management planning is deferred, Proposed 

Interim Supplemental rules are identified to address more immediate issues until the travel 

management plan is completed. After the resource management plan record of decision is signed, 

the BLM will undertake the following process to implement both proposed interim and proposed 

final Supplemental Rules identified in section 2.2.20. 

 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

25

• 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.

The Supplemental Rule process described above will be followed to address any travel 

management plan decisions that are covered by Sections 811 and 1110 of ANILCA. However, the 

public notification in the Federal Register and the ANILCA requirement for hearings will be 

incorporated into the NEPA process.

2.2.2 Mitigation

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

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 Steese Approved RMP. When these types of mitigation measures are not 

sufficient to meet the resource management plan 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 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.20). Compensatory mitigation requirements may apply 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

26

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

27

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, 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 Research Natural Areas and National Landscape Conservation Areas), 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, 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). Incorporate updates or revisions to the CEQ guidance as available.

2.2.4 Cave and Karst Resources

Goal

Manage significant cave and karst systems to protect and maintain their resource, educational, 

scientific, and recreational values in accordance with the Federal Caves Resource Protection Act 

of 1988 and 43 CFR 37.11.

Decisions

Cave-1: Manage Sheep Cave, AK-028-003, as a significant cave.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

28

Cave-2: Management objective: Preserve Sheep Cave for scientific use and values. 

Cave-3: Setting Prescription: Semi-Primitive

Cave-4: Administrative designation: Located within the Steese National Conservation Area (Map 

10). No additional 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 an area. 

Cult-5: Base prioritization of cultural sites for rehabilitation, stabilization, and restoration upon 

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

29

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

30

recreationally important species. Table 3 lists the current priority aquatic fish species that occur in 

the Planning Area. 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.

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 Steese 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

Humpback whitefishAR Coregonus pidschian Subsistence

Round whitefish AR Prosopium cylindraceum 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

Alaska brook lamprey Lampetra alaskense BLM sensitive

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

31

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 71 watersheds in the Steese Planning Area contain BLM-managed fisheries 

habitat. 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. 

The following 21 watersheds are identified as RCAs (Map 2). 

1. Birch Creek (HUC # 190804010207) 

2. Birch Creek (HUC # 190804010212) 

3. Birch Creek (HUC # 190804010601) 

4. Birch Creek (HUC # 190804010606) 

5. Fourteenmile Creek-Yukon River (HUC # 190705041906) 

6. George Creek-Birch Creek (HUC # 190804010903) 

7. Headwaters North Fork Preacher Creek (HUC # 190804011102) 

8. Loper Creek (HUC # 190804011201) 

9. Lower North Fork Preacher Creek (HUC # 190804011105) 

10. McLean Creek-Birch Creek (HUC # 190804010401) 

11. Middle Preacher Creek (HUC # 190804011202) 

12. Middle North Fork Preacher Creek (HUC # 190804011104) 

13. Ninety-eight Pup-Preacher Creek (HUC # 190804011009) 

14. Pitkas Bar (HUC # 190804010408) 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

32

15. Preacher Creek (HUC # 190804011005)

16. Puzzle Gulch (HUC # 190804010506) 

17. Sheep Creek (HUC # 190804010407)

18. Thomas Creek-Birch Creek (HUC # 190804010403)

19. Upper North Fork Preacher Creek (HUC # 190804011103) 

20. Yukon River (HUC # 190705041903)

21. Yukon River (HUC # 190705041904)

Fish-6: The following watersheds are identified as High Priority Restoration Watersheds to be 

managed for active restoration.

1. Harrison Creek (HUC # 190804010406)

2. Twelve-mile Creek (HUC # 190804010205)

3. North Fork Birch Creek (HUC # 190804010206)

4. Volcano-Clums Fork (HUC # 190804010306)

Develop and implement active restoration practices for High Priority Restoration Watersheds. 

High Priority Restoration Watersheds are identified as those watersheds with the highest resource 

values. High Priority Restoration Watersheds would generally require active restoration practices 

to restore physical and biological integrity (High Condition Rating). It is assumed that 

Restoration Watersheds currently exhibit a Low to Moderate Condition Rating.

Desired Future Conditions for Aquatic Habitats

Fish-7: 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 

Appendix B.3.1, Table B-5.

Fish-8: 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-9: 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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

33

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.

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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

34

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.

Fish-10: Provide and coordinate hydrologic data with the State to secure instream flows needed 

to maintain riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic habitats.

Fish-11: 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-12: Locate water removal sites to minimize impacts on priority species and provide for 

attainment of desired conditions for aquatic habitats and species.

Fish-13: 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-14: Complete watershed assessments described in section B.5, “Watershed Assessment 

Process” as necessary for management.

The Following Decisions Apply to Mining Operations on All Watersheds

Fish-15: 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 sensedinformation, or information from adjacent watersheds that exhibit 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

35

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,

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-16: 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 Area Specific Requirements

Fish-17: The management goal in RCAs is to: maintain and provide stream channel integrity, 

ensure riparian proper functioning condition, and achieve desired future conditions for the highvalue 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.

High Priority Restoration Watersheds

Fish-18: The goal is to manage High Priority Restoration Watersheds to restore physical and 

biological integrity (High Condition Rating). Within the planning area, federal funding (greater 

than one million dollars in Abandoned Mine Lands Funds) has been used for the Harrison Creek 

stream channel and floodplain restoration project.

To ensure that this project and any future restoration projects are not adversely impacted, the 

following will apply:

All surface-disturbing activities proposed within the same or upstream watersheds of ongoing or 

completed restoration projects must outline specific measures to adequately mitigate or minimize 

adverse impacts to the restoration project. This may be accomplished by providing a detailed plan 

of operations and a reclamation plan demonstrating the use of current best management practices.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

36

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Management

Fish-19: 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-20: Incorporate additional conservation measures, recommended by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service in site-specific consultation, to minimize impacts to Essential Fish Habitat.

Fish-21: Implement the measures outlined in Appendix G of the 2005 Alaska Essential Fish 

Habitat Environmental Impact Statement as appropriate (see Section B.6, “Recommended 

Conservation Measures for Essential Fish Habitat” of this document).

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.

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 

Steese to implement IPM practices, which may include cultural, biological, mechanical, manual, 

and chemical controls. The plan will incorporate early detection and rapid response efforts and, 

use the Alaska invasiveness risk ranking (Carlson et al. 2008) to prioritize treatments, and include 

prevention practices. Prevention practices may include outreach and education, vehicle, boat, 

OHV, and aircraft cleaning protocols, and use of certified weed-free hay and mulch, 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, along trails, and within the Birch Creek WSR corridor within five years of signing the ROD 

or by management direction. 

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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

37

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.

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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

38

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.

• 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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

39

• 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 

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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

40

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.

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.

SSS-10: In restoration watersheds, improve habitats for Special Status Species, particularly 

riparian and wetland habitats, or other habitats that may support multiple Special Status Species.

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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

41

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 rehabilitated and closed to OHV use to facilitate revegetation. 

Rehabilitate 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.

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 Appendix 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 “Fish and Aquatic Species”.

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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

42

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) 

• 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

Goals 

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. VRM Class 

allocations are described in Table 4 and shown on Map 3. 

VRM Class I: Preservation of the landscape is the primary management goal. This class 

provides for natural ecological changes; it does not, however, preclude very limited 

management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low 

and must not attract attention.

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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

43

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 Steese Planning Area

Area RSC Class VRM Class Acres

Mount Prindle RNA, and Big Windy RNA RMZs Primitive I 3,000

Birch Creek RMZ (inclusive of Birch Creek WSR) Semi-Primitive I 100,000

Pinnell Mountain and Wolf Creek RMZs Semi-Primitive II 421,000

Preacher Creek RMZ Backcountry II 488,000

Bachelor Creek and Clums RMZs Middlecountry IV 120,000

Harrison Creek RMZ Frontcountry IV 114,000

Remaining BLM lands N/A IV 36,000

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.

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Each Wild and Scenic River component will be managed to protect and 

enhance the values for which the river was designated with protection of water quality and 

quantity as a principal goal.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

44

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: Compile summary reports on a rotational basis (every three or four years, or more 

frequently as necessary) for inventory and monitoring data collected to support Birch Creek WSR 

instream flow water rights and water quality.

Water-5: Consistent with the Antidegradation Policy in the Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 

AAC 70.015) all segments of Birch Creek are nominated as Tier 3 waters, also referred to as 

Outstanding National Resource Waters. See 18 AAC 70.015(a)(3).

Water-6: 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 

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-7: Within five years of signing the ROD or by management direction, undertake 

development of a step-down Watershed Management Plan (WMP) for Birch Creek Wild and 

Scenic River watershed, Steese South National Conservation Area, and Preacher Creek 

watershed, Steese North National Conservation Area. 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. Watersheds vary widely 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. Site specific soil and water management determinations (e.g.,
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

45

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.5), 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 WMPs. Additional SOPs and Fluid Mineral 

Leasing Stipulations for land uses may be developedthrough the step-down WMP.

Water-8: 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-9: Prioritization of disturbed stream sites for rehabilitation, stabilization, and restoration 

will 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-10: Utilize available USFWS National Wetlands Inventory database and maps in 

determining wetland classification for a particular site. Where published National Wetlands 

Inventory 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-11: 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.

Water-12: Approach restoration and enhancement of floodplain areas through management of

the entire watershed rather than just focusing on a narrow floodplain-riparian zone. Prior to

initiating restoration measures, a determination must be made of site potential and the primary

causes of a degraded ecological condition. The natural recovery processes operating in an area 

should be evaluated prior to considering structural measures. While stream systems and

watersheds are undergoing major geomorphic or hydrological adjustment, structural measures 

should not be initiated. Consider implementing structural measures only if (1) proper

management prescriptions will not achieve management objectives within the desired time 

frame, (2) costs incurred to achieve accelerated rehabilitation are justified by the benefits to be 

achieved, and(3) natural recovery has not progressed to a point that will stabilize stream banks 

and/or wetlands basins.

Water-13: In setting reclamation priorities for floodplain-wetland areas, consider the extent to 

which the floodplain-wetland may deteriorate if restoration or improvement action is not

immediately implemented. Floodplain-wetland areas that may suffer substantial further 

degradation and have high potential for improvement should be given top priority. Those that 

have been degraded but appear stable may be given lower priority for restoration and 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

46

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-14: To the extent it is economically and operationally feasible the BLM and/or 

cooperating agencies will operate and maintain long-term daily stream gage(s) near the beginning 

and/or end of the 110 mile Birch Creek Wild River Segment, consistent with the latest U.S. 

Geological Survey Standards and Methods. The gage should have satellite telemetry capability 

reporting hourly stage, discharge, water temperature, water turbidity, air temperature, and 

precipitation with data available on a public website. 

Water-15: At the direction of management, monitoring of previously mined high priority 

restoration watersheds, Harrison Creek, Twelve-mile Creek, and Clums Fork will include 

measuring discharge and water quality parameters at least annually. 

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 

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 

approximately 1,009,000 acres. 

Decisions

LWC-1: The following activities, uses, and decisions may occur in areas identified as lands 

where wilderness characteristic will 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 approximately 258,000 acres emphasize other multiple uses as a priority over 

protecting wilderness characteristics.

LWC-3: Manage approximately 1,009,000 acres to emphasize other resources values and 

multiple uses while applying management restrictions to reduce impacts to wilderness 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

47

characteristics. These lands are located within the crucial caribou and Dall sheep habitat, and 

Primitive, Semi-Primitive, and Backcountry recreation management zones (Map 4).

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 this NEPA process. Conduct on-theground 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 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 Steese Planning Area have wilderness characteristics. Given the 

large size of most of wilderness inventory units in the planning area, many land uses could occur 

without impacting naturalness, solitude, or primitive recreation on a landscape scale, or the size 

of the inventory units. Management for other resource drivers such as recreation, wild and scenic 

rivers, vegetation, fish, 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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

48

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-2: Allow fire on the landscape while applying 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. 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 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 during wildland fire 

management activities.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

49

Table 5. Fire management options for the Steese 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.

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 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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

50

2.2.16 Wildlife Resources

Goals

Maintain natural ecosystem functions and the quality and quantity of habitat to support healthy 

populations of wildlife.

Priority will be given to maintaining the value of crucial caribou and Dall sheephabitat and 

ungulate mineral licks.

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.

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: In the Steese National Conservation Area, manage present and historical caribou 

habitat as a primary land use. Emphasis will be placed on managing the area to maintain the

opportunity for the Fortymile caribou herd to utilize both present and historical use areas.

Wild-2: Inventory and monitor caribou range (forage) conditions in the Steese National 

Conservation Area in cooperation with other land and wildlife managers. These efforts will 

include analyses of the impacts of climate change on fire regimes and caribou forage, and 

recommendations for management of Fortymile caribou herd habitats.

Wild-3: In caribou winter range, plan travel management and development of facilities (such as 

maintained trails and cabins), in a manner that would result in a level of off-trail over-snow 

vehicular travel that will maintain continued availability of the area for use by wintering caribou. 

Develop adaptive management standards and strategies. Monitor over-snow motorized use in 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

51

these areas and, if it approaches a level which may result in reduced use by wintering caribou, 

implement changes in maintained trails. If necessary, limited area or season closures may be 

enacted. 

Wild-4: Manage the caribou migration corridor on BLM-managed lands (Map 6) as follows:

• Closed to mineral location, entry, and leasing.

• Limit summer motorized travel to existing routes or designated trails. Route density will

be limited to ensure free movement of caribou between upper Birch Creek, the north 

Steese National Conservation Area, and the White Mountains National Recreation Area 

(NRA). 

• Consider impacts of developments in the corridor, including state and private land, and 

ensure it does not significantly impact the ability of caribou to migrate to historically 

used and biologically important habitats. Through activity level planning, develop a 

management threshold density goal for BLM lands, limiting linear disturbance per unit 

area. Propose a cooperative effort with ADNR and ADF&G to develop a plan (such as a 

Habitat Management Plan) to maintain connectivity and effectiveness of habitat in the 

area.

Wild-5: 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-6: Manage approximately 457,000 acres as crucial caribou and Dall sheep habitat (Map 5) 

to protect caribou calving and postcalving habitat, Dall sheep habitat, and ungulate mineral licks. 

Management of these areas will give priority to maintaining habitat effectiveness—the ability of 

habitats to support Dall sheep and caribou—including the following management:

• Ungulate mineral licks: Within a distance of one mile of designated ungulate mineral 

licks, limit all permitted uses and development of facilities for permitted uses, from May 

10 through August 31 to activities which would not reduce sheep use of licks. 

• Limit density of trails within crucial caribou and Dall sheep habitat to protect values for 

which they were designated.

• Within crucial caribou and Dall sheep habitat cross-country winter use of vehicles 

weighing more than 1,500 pounds curb weight will not be allowed without a permit. 

Cross-country Summer OHV use will not be allowed without a permit. Summer OHV 

travel on BLM approved routes may be allowed where it is compatible with maintenance 

of caribou and Dall sheep habitat effectiveness. These approved routes will be determined 

through travel management planning. 

• Winter motorized use in Dall sheep habitat would be monitored and, if use begins to 

approach a level which may result in altered distribution of Dall sheep, such use may be 

restricted in the future (through alteration of maintained trails or, if necessary, limited 

closures, e.g., limited areas and/or time periods). 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

52

Additional Management Prescriptions in Crucial Caribou and Dall Sheep Habitat for 

Activities Requiring a Permit from the BLM

Wild-7: Applicants proposing to conduct surface-disturbing activities or other intensive activities 

will, at the determination of the AO, be required to submit an approved plan (Caribou and Dall 

Sheep Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan) describing methods to minimize impacts to 

caribou and Dall sheep and their habitat. This plan must describe the proposed project, the design 

and mitigation alternatives considered, the amount and quality of habitat to be affected, the 

mitigation and restoration to be applied, the residual impacts predicted, and the monitoring to be 

undertaken to confirm mitigation success.

Wild-8: Permanent roads will generally not be allowed, although long-term temporary roads may 

be, and roads will generally not be open to the public. Decisions subject to the ANILCA Title XI 

process in the Steese National Conservation Area will be made on a case-by-case basis pursuant 

to Title XI. Roads will be of the lowest practical profile. Road use may be restricted during 

caribou calving, postcalving, or Dall sheep lambing. Road construction will not be permitted if 

other means of access is practical (such as aircraft or winter ice-road). Facilities within crucial 

caribou and Dall sheep habitat that require year-round access will be located in forested areas 

where practical.

Wild-9: Permitted aircraft will follow a minimum flight level of 1,500 feet above ground level, 

except at landing and takeoff and when it would compromise safety. The AO may allow 

exceptions to these access requirements where impacts to caribou and Dall sheep are adequately 

minimized and where other resource considerations are of higher priority.

Wild-10: The footprint of facilities will be minimized. Permittees may be required to co-locate 

facilities and access to minimize habitat loss.

Wild-11: Reclamation and revegetation of disturbed areas will be required to meet performance 

standards set in site-specific reclamation plans with a goal of restoration of caribou and/or Dall 

sheep habitat, such as a required plant cover (percent) within a certain number of years before a 

performance bond is released.

Wild-12: 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. 

• Domestic sheep, goats, and camelids (including alpaca and llama) are not allowed in Dall 

sheep habitat and adjacent lands. Boundaries for adjacent lands will be defined during 

development of travel management plans. 

• Educate the public about the disease risks of using these types of pack animals within 

Dall sheep habitat.

Wild-13: 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-14: Avoid or minimize impacts from projects that could degrade riparian areas and promote 

restoration of riparian areas to achieve Proper Functioning Condition.

Wild-15: 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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

53

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) will be 

given priority consideration in efforts to minimize impacts and restore habitat quality.

Wild-16: 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 standard operating procedures applicable to priority raptor habitats are listed in Appendix 

A. All priority raptor SOPs may be modified based on project-specific analyses. Nest sites of 

other raptors would be similarly managed, although management will generally be less restrictive 

and will be determined in site-specific environmental analyses.

Wild-17: 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”).

Priority Wildlife Species and Habitats

Wild-18: Inventory and monitor priority wildlife species and their habitats within the planning 

area. Species listed in Table 6 and Table D-1 “Bird Species of Conservation Concern” will be a 

conservation priority.

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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

54

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

Priority Species 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

Bird Species of Concern (Appendix D) 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.

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 (non-salvage) on 741,000 acres. 

Forest-5: Do not allow commercial timber sales (non-salvage) on 526,000 acres within the

Birch Creek WSR Corridor, Mount Prindle RNA, Big Windy Hot Springs RNA, and crucial

caribou and Dall sheep habitat.

Forest-6: In addition to requirements outlined in the SOPs (Appendix A), consider the following 

limitations in areas where timber harvest is authorized.

• Require winter harvest to minimize disturbances to soils and ground vegetation.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

55

• 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”. These decisions will have no effect on the ongoing 

land conveyance process or valid selections.

Lands in Zone 1 will be retained under BLM management. Inholdings will be considered for 

acquisition on a willing seller basis.

Lands in Zone 2 will generally be retained, but will 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 are available for disposal. If needed, modify existing public land orders to allow 

for disposal.

Lands-2: Lands currently in Zones 2 and 3 will be reassigned to Zone 1 if they are included in 

future designations of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act by the USFWS.

Zone 1 Lands (Lands Identified for Retention or Acquisition)

Lands-3: Retain lands within the Steese National Conservation Area in accordance with Section 

402(b) of ANILCA; Retain Birch Creek WSR Corridor and Central Administrative Site (PLO 

519) (Map).

Lands-4: Consider acquisition of private land inholdings from willing sellers within areas 

identified as Zone 1.

Lands-5: Consider acquisition of state inholdings within the proclaimed boundary of the Steese 

National Conservation Area, including approximately 15,000 acres of State lands (FM, T. 7N, R.

8E, and FM, T. 10N, R. 13E).

Lands-6: Consider acquisition of lands conveyed to the State between the southern boundary of 

the north Steese National Conservation Area and the Pinnell Mountain Trail (FM, T. 7N, R. 9E, T.

8N, R. 9E, and T. 8N, R. 10E).
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

56

Zone 2 Lands

Lands-7: Consider acquisition, or disposal, including exchange, of scattered parcels around 

Circle for the purposes of consolidation.

Zone 3 Lands (Lands Identified for Disposal)

Lands-8: If federal mining claims located outside of the Steese National Conservation Area and 

Birch Creek WSR Corridor become null and void, and are not conveyed to the State, consider 

these lands for disposal or exchange. If needed, modify existing public land orders to allow for 

disposal.

Rationale: With the ongoing conveyance of State- and Native-selections, the final landstatus in 

the planning 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 would provide 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.

There are many “orphan” federal mining claims within the planning area that are surrounded by 

large blocks of State land as lands under valid federal mining claims cannot be conveyed. Most 

if not all, are State-selected lands for conveyance. If these claims become null and void after the 

State's entitlement is fulfilled (the BLM would not be able to convey additional land to the 

State) or if the State declines to take a parcel, the claims would meet BLM's disposal criteria of 

being impractical or uneconomical to manage.

Land Disposals

Lands-9: 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-10: Lands not to be disposed of include:
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

57

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 will 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.

Lands-11: Reserved federal interests in split-estate lands anywhere in the planning area may be 

considered for conveyance out of federal management.

Lands-12: 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 would 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 will 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-13: Airport and Airway Improvement Act of September 3, 1982 (49 U.S.C. 2215): 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-14: 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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

58

Land Acquisitions

Lands-15: 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 (Map 7). 

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-16: Consider FLPMA leases throughout the planning area, except where prohibited by law 

or public land order. 

Lands-17: 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) will be considered.

Lands-18: 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-19: 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. Authorization of structures within the Steese National Conservation Area and Birch 

Creek WSR Corridor will be issued in accordance with Sections 1310, 1303(b) and 1316 

of ANILCA.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

59

4. Permit authorizations on all other BLM-managed lands will be considered pursuant to 

Section 302 of FLPMA.

5. Military maneuver permits will be considered except in Birch Creek corridor and the

Steese National Conservation Area (Public Law 100-586).

6. Permits for administrative use of BLM-managed lands by the State of Alaska will be 

considered throughout the planning area.

Unauthorized Use

Lands-20: 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-21: 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.

3. Removal of the structure.

Rights-of-Way

Lands-22: Consider Rights-of-way throughout the planning area. There are no right-of-way 

exclusion or avoidances areas. No transportation corridors are designated. 

Lands-23: Locate Rights-of-way (ROWs) near other rights-of-way or on already disturbed areas 

whenever practical and reasonable to do so.

Lands-24: Rights-of-way located within the Steese National Conservation Area, and Birch Creek 

Wild and Scenic River, must be consistent with purposes for which the areas were designated. 

Lands-25: Notwithstanding any decision in this plan and in accordance with ANILCA Title XI, 

rights-of-way for Transportation or Utility Systems will be considered throughout the 

Conservation Systems Units and Steese National Conservation Area. Approval or disapproval of 

these rights-of-way will be consistent with the provisions of ANILCA Title XI and regulations 

found at 43 CFR 36. Rights-of-way authorizations on all other BLM-managed lands will be 

considered, and authorized under Title V of FLPMA in accordance with the regulations found in 

43 CFR 2808.

Lands-26: Provide access to non-federally owned lands adequate to secure the owner the 

reasonable use and enjoyment of such lands as required by section 1323(b) of ANILCA. 

Lands-27: 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).
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

60

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).

Decisions

Lands-28: 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. Wind energy, solar energy, and biomass utilization 

activities will be authorized under the appropriate land use authorization (lease, right-of-way, or 

permit).

Lands-29: The following National Conservation Lands are not available for large-scale wind 

energy site testing, monitoring, and development: Birch Creek WSR Corridor and the Steese 

National Conservation Area. Should a Title XI application be received for large-scale wind 

energy projects in these areas, BLM will consider alternative locations consistent with the Title 

XI process. 

Notwithstanding any decision in this plan and in accordance with ANILCA Title XI, rights-ofway for Transportation or Utility Systems will be considered throughout the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System and Steese National Conservation Area including NLCS units excluded 

from wind energy uses. Any approval or disapproval of these rights-of-way will be consistent 

with the provisions of ANILCA.

Small-scale renewable energy facilities will be considered in these areas if consistent with 

protecting the values for which the areas were designated. Small-scale facilities considered could 

include projects that provide energy to: BLM administrative sites, BLM recreation sites, private 

land inholdings, mine sites, and small communities (less than 250 residents). These projects 

would consist of a few solar panels, a wood-fired boiler, or a few wind turbines and would not 

affect more than 100 acres per NLCS unit over the life of the RMP.

Rationale: BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a) requires the identification of 

existing and potential development areas for renewable energy projects (e.g., wind, solar, and 

biomass) consistent with the goals and objectives for natural resources in the planning area. The 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

61

BLM describes criteria that must be met for economically feasible utility-scale solar, wind and 

biomass development in Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands (BLM 

and DOE 2003). Although Alaska was not included in this report, we applied the criteria to lands 

in the planning area and determined that no lands met the criteria outlined in the assessment.

The primary criterion for commercial solar operations is a solar resource of at least 5 

kWh/m2/day. This criteria is not met anywhere within the planning area (DOE 2008a and 2008b). 

Primary criteria for commercial biomass projects included a biomass power plant and a 

population center with a skilled labor force within 50 miles of the source of the biomass. These 

criteria cannot be met on BLM-managed lands in the planning area.

Primary criteria for utility-scale wind development include a wind power class 4 and above for 

short-term, and class 3 and above for long-term; transmission access within 25 miles; and road 

access within 50 miles. Within the planning area, wind potential on BLM-managed lands is 

generally poor to fair (Class 1–3). There are limited areas of Class 4–7 wind resources in the 

White Mountains NRA and Steese National Conservation Area (DOE 2006, wind energy map). 

However, most BLM lands are not within 25 miles of a major transmission line. Large-scale wind 

farms are connected to the electric power transmission network; small-scale facilities are used to 

provide electricity to isolated locations. It is unlikely that there would be any large-scale wind 

farms in the planning area. It is possible, however, that some small-scale facilities may be 

developed for BLM administrative use, or that the BLM may authorize small-scale facilities to 

promote energy to rural areas.

Geothermal leasing falls under the regulations for fluid leasable minerals and is addressed under 

section 2.2.1.8 Fluid Leasable Minerals.

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-30: Do not recommend to the Secretary of the Interior revocation of the ANILCA section 

402(b) withdrawal in the Steese National Conservation Area, thus keeping this area withdrawn 

from location, entry, and patent under the U.S. mining laws.

Lands-31: Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals within 

the Steese National Conservation Area be partially revoked to remove duplicate withdrawals.

Lands-32: Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that new withdrawals under the authority 

of FLPMA be established on 24,000 acres in the following areas for the purposes of protecting 

sensitive resources, and that existing ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals 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)

1. Approximately 17,000 acres on upper and lower Birch Creek including all lands that are 

within the Birch Creek WSR Corridor, but outside of the one-half mile withdrawn by the 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

62

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act pursuant to ANILCA and areas of lower Birch Creek outside 

the WSR Corridor.

2. Approximately 6,000 acres within riparian conservation areas. 

3. Approximately 1,000 acres on parcels adjacent to the Steese National Conservation Area 

that are within the Steese Special Recreation Management Area.

Lands-33: Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals be 

partially revoked to open approximately 28,000 acres outside the Steese National Conservation 

Area to locatable mineral entry and mineral leasing laws in the areas shown on Map 9. 

Lands-34: In areas this RMP recommends as remaining withdrawn from locatable mineral entry

and where a withdrawal under ANILCA does not exist, do not recommend to the Secretary of the 

Interior revocation of the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals until such time that a new withdrawal 

under the authority of FLPMA is established for the purposes of protecting sensitive resources. 

Lands-35: Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior to modify or partially revoke ANCSA 

17(d)(1) withdrawals to open isolated federal mining claims (federal mining claims surrounded 

by State land that cannot be conveyed) located outside of the Steese National Conservation Area, 

Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River Corridor, crucial caribou and Dall sheep habitats, and riparian 

conservation areas to mineral location and entry. 

Lands-36: 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. (Table 3.36, “Existing Withdrawals to Other Agencies in the 

Planning Area” Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS).

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

63

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 approximately 1,237,000 acres in the Steese National Conservation Area, Birch

Creek WSR, and riparian conservation areas to fluid leasable minerals (Map 9):

FL Min-2: Open all remaining lands, approximately 30,000 acres, to leasing, subject to 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 

“Withdrawals”.

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 approximately 1,237,000 acres in the Steese National Conservation Area, Birch

Creek WSR, and riparian conservation areas to solid leasable minerals, including coal (Map 9).

SL Min-2: Open approximately 30,000 acres to solid leasable minerals subject to BLM Lease 

Terms and SOPs (Appendix A “Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Stipulations”). and 43 CFR 3500. Partial revocation of ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals required to 

open these lands to leasing. See also section 2.2.18.4 “Withdrawals”. 

SL Min-3: All areas open to solid mineral leasing are 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

64

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 is 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, “Standard Operating Procedures and 

Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations”) 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: The Steese National Conservation Area and Birch Creek WSR are withdrawn from

mineral entry pursuant to ANILCA. Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior approximately 

24,800 acres in riparian conservation areas and the Steese SRMA, which are outside of existing 

ANILCA withdrawals for the Steese National Conservation Area and Birch Creek WSR, be 

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry (Maps 8 and 9). See also section 2.2.18.4 “Withdrawals” 

and Appendix C.2, “Withdrawals”. 

L Min-2: Recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that approximately 30,000 acres be opened 

to locatable mineral entry (Maps 8 and 9). Partial revocation of ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals 

required to open these lands to mining. See section 2.2.18.4 “Withdrawals”. 

L Min-3: Mining of locatable minerals will be subject to the surface management regulations 

found in 43 CFR 3809, the SOPs (Appendix A “Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral 

Leasing Stipulations”), and other decisions in this Approved RMP. Surface occupancy under the 

mining laws is subject to regulations contained in 43 CFR 3715. Bonding is 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 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 onthe-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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

65

L Min-6: Isolated federal mining claims located outside of the Steese National Conservation 

Area, Birch Creek wild and scenic river corridor, and riparian conservation areas are

recommended open to locatable minerals. 

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: Close approximately 69,000 acres in the Birch Creek WSR Corridor to salable

minerals.

Min Mat-2: Open all remaining lands in the Steese Planning Area (1,198,000 acres) to salable

minerals.

Min Mat-3: Mining of salable material will be subject to the Mineral Materials Disposal 

regulations found in 43 CFR 3600. Bonding is required in accordance with BLM contract 

regulations.

Min Mat-4: Mineral material sales on selected lands require concurrence of the potential, future 

landowner, and proceeds from the sale placed into escrow.

Min Mat-5: Free Use Permits will not be issued for resources on selected lands.

Min Mat-6: 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 and its successor agency.

Min Mat-7: Material sales on split-estate require concurrence of the surface owner.

Min Mat-8: 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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

66

Table 7. Summary of Mineral decisions for the Steese Planning Area

Type of Mineral Decision Location Acres

Fluid Leasable Open subject to standard 

stipulations, Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Stipulations, and SOPs; Open via 

partial revocation of ANCSA 

17(d)(1) withdrawals

Near Circle, Alaska 30,000

Fluid Leasable Closed Steese National Conservation 

Area, Birch Creek WSR, 

riparian conservation areas, 

Steese Recreation 

Management Area

1,237,000

Solid Leasable Open via partial revocation of 

ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals

Near Circle, Alaska 30,000

Solid Leasable Closed Steese National Conservation 

Area, Birch Creek WSR, 

riparian conservation areas, 

Steese Recreation 

Management Area

1,237,000

Locatable Recommended Open via partial 

revocation of ANCSA 17(d)(1) 

withdrawals 

Near Circle, Alaska 30,000

Locatable Recommended Withdrawn;

currently withdrawn via ANILCA or 

ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals; 

retain ANILCA and replace 

ANCSA 17(d)(1) with FLPMA 

withdrawals where no ANILCA 

withdrawals exist. 

Steese National Conservation 

Area, Birch Creek WSR, 

riparian conservation areas, 

Steese Recreation 

Management Area

1,237,000

Salable Closed Birch Creek WSR 69,000

Salable Open Remainder of planning area 1,198,000

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
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

67

• 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: Designate 1,246,000 acres of lands including the Steese National Conservation Area, the 

Birch Creek WSR Corridor and lands adjacent to the WSR corridor and the conservation area as 

the Steese Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) and manage each recreation 

management zone (RMZ) to protect and enhance the activities, experiences, benefits and desired 

recreational setting characteristics described in Tables 12 through 29 below (Map 11). 

If BLM acquires state inholdings within the Steese National Conservation Area, manage it as part 

of the Steese SRMA. 

Rec-2: Manage SRMAs/RMZs for measurable outcome-focused objectives, as shown in Tables 

12 through 29. Supporting management actions and allowable use decisions are required to 1) 

sustain or enhance recreation objectives, 2) protect the desired recreation setting characteristics, 

and 3) constrain uses, including non-compatible recreation activities that are detrimental to 

meeting recreation or other critical recourse objectives.

Rec-3: Develop a recreation area management plan for the Steese SRMA which includes 

monitoring and evaluation of visitor satisfaction, niche decisions, targeted outcomes, and setting 

character decisions, based on recreation management zone (RMZ) objectives and prescriptions 

(Tables 12 through 29 below). 

Rec-4: On public lands that are not designated as a SRMA, manage to meet basic recreation, 

visitor services, and resource stewardship needs. Address emerging recreation issues as needed. 

Prioritize actions for remediating recreation issues.

Rec-5: Issue special recreation permits on a case-by-case basis when consistent with other 

resource uses and restrictions. 

Implementation Level Decisions

Rec-6: 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-7: 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-8: Establish comparable, cost-effective, and value-based fee systems for services and 

facilities provided to public users in accordance with BLM directives and the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act within SRMAs. 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

68

Rec-9: Conduct periodic accessibility, safety, and condition assessments at developed recreation 

sites, and resolve deferred and corrective maintenance needs.

Rec-10: 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-11: 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.

Rec-12: Tables 8, 9, and 10 define the desired Recreation Setting Character Matrix that applies to 

the planning area. Recreational Setting Characteristics (RSC) are descriptive conditions 

describing management parameters.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

69

Table 8. Matrix of recreation setting classifications and character of the natural landscape for physical characteristics (resources and facilities)

Character of 

Resources and 

Facilities

Primitive 

Classification

Semi-Primitive 

Classification

Backcountry 

Classification

Middlecountry 

Classification

Frontcountry 

Classification

Rural 

Classification

Remoteness Managed for an

extremely high

probability of

experiencing

solitude, closeness

to nature, tranquility,

self-reliance,

challenge, and risk.

Managed for a very high 

probability of 

experiencing solitude, 

closeness to nature,

tranquility, self-reliance, 

challenge, and risk.

Managed for a high 

probability of

experiencing 

solitude, closeness 

to nature,

tranquility, selfreliance, challenge,

and risk.

Managed for a

moderate probability 

of experiencing 

solitude, closeness 

to nature, and

tranquility. Managed

for a moderate 

degree of challenge 

and risk associated 

with the use of 

motorized

equipment.

Managed for the

opportunity to

affiliate with other

users in developed

sites but with some

chance for privacy.

Little challenge and 

risk. On or near 

improved trails or 

roads.

Managed for the

opportunity to

observe and 

affiliate with other 

users in areas 

where

convenience of

facilities is 

important. On or 

near primary

highways, but still

within a rural area.

Naturalness Protect an

undisturbed or

rehabilitated

naturally-appearing

landscape.

Provide a naturallyappearing landscape 

with a low level of

modifications noticeable.

Provide a

predominately

naturally-appearing

landscape with a 

low level of 

modifications

noticeable, none of

which dominate the

natural landscape

features.

Provide for a 

generally natural 

landscape partially 

modified by roads, 

pipelines, etc., with 

usually none

dominating natural

landscape features.

Provide for a

relatively natural

landscape partially

modified by roads, 

pipelines, etc., which 

may dominate 

natural landscape 

features.

Provide for a 

landscape

substantially 

modified by 

structures and

roads that usually

dominate natural

landscape 

features.

Visitor 

Facilities

Maintain minimal

rustic and

rudimentary facilities

that are constructed

for site protection

using natural

materials and are

designed to blend

with the surrounding

landscape.

Maintain rustic and

rudimentary facilities

that are generally

constructed using

natural materials, and 

are designed to blend

with the surrounding

landscape.

Maintain some

naturally appearing

trails and facilities,

such as cabins,

bridges and signs 

for user

convenience, which

usually blend with

the surrounding

landscape.

Maintain marked

trails with

associated

trailheads and

facilities including

cabins, toilets, 

parking areas and 

garbage collection,

which generally

blend with the

surrounding

landscape.

Maintain improved

yet modest facilities

such as

campgrounds,

toilets, trails, and

interpretive signs,

which could attract

attention.

Maintain modern

facilities such as

developed

campgrounds,

group shelters, 

and exhibits, which

generally attract

attention.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

70

Table 9. Matrix of recreation setting classifications and character of the social environment (visitor use and users)

Character of 

Social 

Environment

Primitive 

Classification

Semi-Primitive 

Classification

Backcountry 

Classification

Middlecountry 

Classification

Frontcountry 

Classification

Rural 

Classification

Contacts (with 

other group)

Average number of 

contacts per day 

usually fewer than 

three groups.

Average number 

contacts per day 

usually fewer than four 

groups.

Average number 

contacts per day 

usually fewer than 

seven groups.

Average number 

contacts per day 

usually fewer than 

10 groups.

People are 

generally visible at 

campsites, but are 

usually distant 

enough to prevent 

interactions.

People seem to be 

prevalent, but 

human contact is still 

intermittent.

Group Size Manage for a 

majority of group 

sizes that usually 

average fewer than 

three people per 

group.

Manage for a majority 

of group sizes that 

usually average fewer 

than four people per 

group.

Manage for a 

majority of group 

sizes that usually 

average fewer than 

seven people per 

group.

Manage for a 

majority of group 

sizes that usually 

average fewer than 

10 people per 

group.

Manage for a 

majority of group 

sizes that usually 

average fewer than 

12 people per 

group.

Manage for a 

majority of group 

sizes that usually 

average fewer than 

15 people per group.

Evidence of Use Only footprints are 

typically observed.

Footprints plus slight 

vegetation trampling at 

campsites and on 

travel routes. Winter 

snow trails and/or 

tracks may be present.

Winter snow trails 

and/or tracks may 

be present, but 

generally blend 

with the 

surrounding 

landscape. OHV 

routes may be 

present.

Some landscape 

alternations are 

present but 

generally repeat 

the basic elements 

of the surrounding 

landscape. Surface 

vegetation may 

show wear with 

some bare soils.

Landscape 

alterations are 

generally present 

and may attract 

attention. Well-worn 

soils and vegetation 

may be present. 

Travel routes often 

gravel surfaced for 

erosion control.

Landscape 

alterations are 

present and attract 

attention. Improved 

routes protect soils 

and vegetation, but 

noise, litter, and 

facility impacts are 

possible.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

71

Table 10. Matrix of recreation setting classifications and character of the operational environment (administrative and service setting)

Character of 

Operational 

Environment

Primitive 

Classification

Semi-Primitive 

Classification

Backcountry 

Classification

Middlecountry 

Classification

Frontcountry 

Classification

Rural 

Classification

Motorized Use No trails or 

trailheads managed 

for motorized 

activities. 

Snowmobile and 

other means of 

surface 

transportation, 

motorboat, and 

aircraft activity 

permissible through 

ANILCA 1110(a) 

and 811. 

Restrictions may 

apply in Research 

Natural Areas.

No trails or trailheads 

managed for motorized 

activities. Snowmobile 

and other means of 

surface transportation, 

motorboat, and aircraft 

activity permissible 

through ANILCA 

1110(a) and 811.

Various forms of 

use may be present 

but not 

substantially 

noticeable. Winter 

trails maintained for 

snowmobile use.

Four-wheel drives, 

all-terrain vehicles, 

motorboats, 

snowmobiles and 

aircraft uses are 

common, in 

addition to nonmotorized use.

Two-wheel drive 

vehicle use is 

predominate on 

developed roads 

and highways, 

encounters will be 

regular. Trails and 

trailheads managed 

to accommodate 

summer and winter 

OHV use.

Car and truck 

traffic is 

characteristic and 

will be 

encountered on a 

regular basis. 

Trails and 

trailheads 

managed to 

accommodate 

summer and 

winter OHV use.

Management 

Controls

No visitor controls 

apparent. 

Enforcement 

presence very rare.

Signs at key access 

points on basic user 

ethics. Use restrictions 

may be present. 

Enforcement presence 

rare.

Occasional 

regulatory signing. 

Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions are 

usually in place. 

Random 

enforcement 

presence.

Moderate 

regulatory signing. 

Motorized and 

mechanized use 

restrictions are 

usually in place. 

Periodic 

enforcement 

presence.

Rules clearly posted 

with common 

seasonal or 

weight/type of OHV 

use restrictions. 

Routine 

enforcement 

presence.

Regulations 

prominent. Total 

use can be limited 

by permit, 

reservation, etc., 

Significant 

enforcement 

presence may 

exist.

Visitor Services None are typically 

available on-site.

Basic maps and area 

personnel are rarely 

available to provide onsite assistance.

Basic maps and 

area personnel are 

occasionally 

available to provide 

on-site assistance.

Area brochures and 

maps, plus area 

personnel are 

periodically present 

to provide on-site 

assistance. May 

have information 

and interpretation 

available.

Information 

materials describe 

recreation areas 

and activities. Area 

personnel are 

sometimes 

available.

Everything 

described to the 

left in this row, 

plus area 

personnel perform 

informal on-site 

education.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

72

Table 11. Steese Planning Area recreation management zones, recreation setting character, and offhighway vehicle designations

Name of Recreation 

Management Zone (RMZ) Acres

Recreation Setting 

Character

Off-highway Vehicle 

Area Designation

Birch Creek RMZ 100,000 Semi-Primitive Limited

Pinnell Mountain Trail RMZ 16,000 Semi-Primitive Limited

Mount Prindle RNA RMZ 3,000 Primitive Limited

Big Windy RNA RMZ 160 Primitive Limited

Preacher Creek RMZ 488,000 Backcountry Limited

Harrison Creek RMZ 114,000 Frontcountry Limited

Wolf Creek RMZ 405,000 Semi-Primitive Limited

Clums RMZ 89,000 Middlecountry Limited

Bachelor Creek RMZ 31,000 Middlecountry Limited

Other BLM lands 36,000 N/A Limited

Recreation Management Zones

The following tables outline management decisions and objectives for the nine RMZs in the 

Steese Special Recreation Management Area. These are displayed on Map 11. 

Steese SRMA - RMZ 1 – Birch Creek RMZ

Recreation management zone description: The focus this zone would be to provide high quality, 

multi-day recreational float boat opportunities for users who desire a recreation experience 

characterized by solitude, tranquility, self-reliance, challenge, and risk in a semi-primitive Interior 

Alaska river setting, on one of America’s nationally designated wild rivers. 

Objective: Participants in visitor assessments report an average 4.0 realization of the targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes listed in Table 12 (4.0 on a probability scale where: 1= not at all 

realized and 5= totally realized). 

Recreation setting character is Semi-Primitive. See Tables 8, 9, and 10 for a description of semiprimitive.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

73

Table 12. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Birch Creek Recreation 

Management Zone

Recreation Attribute Outcomes

Activities Primary: Float boating, river camping

Experiences Primary: Escaping crowds; experiencing solitude; experiencing adventure; 

enjoying the sights, sounds, and smells of nature

Secondary: Testing your abilities

Benefits Personal: More exercise-oriented lifestyle; Greater connection with nature; 

Greater sense of adventure; Enhanced sense of competence

Community/Social: Greater awareness of minimal impact recreation; 

Greater opportunities for youth

Environmental: Heightened awareness of the natural world; Greater 

protection of fish and wildlife habitat

Economic: Increased local tourism revenue

Table 13. Implementation framework decision for Birch Creek Recreation Management Zone

Implementation Actions Description

Management The rivers and creeks within this zone would be managed to protect and 

enhance the qualities and characteristics that are found within a SemiPrimitive classification. The primary focus would be to manage this zone for 

non-motorized float-boating and river camping opportunities. Emphasis 

would be placed on providing Semi-Primitive recreation experiences by 

maintaining the naturally-appearing landscape, and by providing minimal 

facility development and visitor services, infrequent social encounters, 

restricted mechanized/motorized use, and minimal administrative presence.

Information and 

Education

Provide outreach to national, state and local float-boaters seeking a SemiPrimitive river recreation experience. Establish a relationship with 

stakeholders to reduce negative environmental impacts by promoting the 

principles of the Leave No Trace program.

Monitoring Monitor and evaluate visitor satisfaction including niche decisions, targeted 

outcomes, and setting character decisions, based on Recreation 

Management Zone objectives and prescriptions.

Administrative Apply administrative actions as needed to create and maintain Semi 

Primitive recreation opportunities, targeted outcomes and setting character.

OHV area designation: LIMITED. 

Specific limitations on OHVs to be developed through travel management 

planning. Travel management plan will be completed within five years of the 

ROD.

General: Special Recreation Permits could be issued in conformance with 

BLM guidance. New restrictions and/or facilities could be developed for the 

purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or enhancing targeted 

outcomes and setting character.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

74

Steese SRMA - RMZ 2 – Pinnell Mountain RMZ

Recreation management zone description: The focus this zone would be to provide high quality, 

backpacking (multi-day) and hiking (day use)opportunities for users who desire a recreation experience

characterized by solitude, tranquility, self-reliance, challenge and risk in a Semi-Primitive Interior Alaska 

setting, on one of America’s National Recreation Trails.

Objective: Participants in visitor assessments report an average 4.0 realization of the targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes listed in Table 14 (4.0 on a probability scale where: 1= not at all 

realized and 5= totally realized).

Recreation setting character is Primitive. See Table 8 for a description of Semi-Primitive.

Table 14. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Pinnell Mountain Recreation 

Management Zone

Recreation Attribute Outcomes

Activities Primary: Backpacking; Hiking/walking

Experiences Primary: Escaping personal pressures; Escaping crowds; Experiencing 

nature; Exploring new and different things; Exercise/physical fitness

Benefits Personal: Improved outlook on life; Improved physical fitness; Improved 

mental health; Greater connection with nature; Enhanced sense of 

competence

Community/Social: Greater awareness of minimal impact recreation; 

Greater opportunities for youth

Environmental: Heightened awareness of the natural world

Economic: Increased local tourism revenue
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

75

Table 15. Implementation framework decision for the Pinnell Mountain Recreation Management Zone

Implementation Actions Description

Management This zone would be managed to protect and enhance the qualities and 

characteristics that are found within a Semi-Primitive classification. The 

primary focus would be to manage for non-motorized backpacking and 

hiking opportunities. Emphasis would be placed on providing Semi-Primitive 

recreation experiences by maintaining the naturally-appearing landscape, 

and by providing minimal facility development and visitor services, infrequent

social encounters, restricted mechanized/motorized use, and minimal

administrative presence.

Information and 

Education

Provide outreach to recreationists seeking a Semi-Primitive recreation 

experience. Establish a relationship with stakeholders to reduce negative 

environmental impacts by promoting the principles of the Leave No Trace 

program.

Monitoring Monitor and evaluate visitor satisfaction including niche decisions, targeted 

outcomes, and setting character decisions, based on Recreation 

Management Zone objectives and prescriptions.

Administrative Apply administrative actions as needed to create and maintain SemiPrimitive recreation opportunities, targeted outcomes and setting character. 

OHV area designation: LIMITED Specific limitations on OHVs to be 

developed through travel management planning. Travel management plan 

will be completed within five years of the ROD.

General: Special Recreation Permits could be issued in conformance with 

BLM guidance. New restrictions and/or facilities could be developed for the 

purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or enhancing targeted 

outcomes and setting character.

Steese SRMA - RMZ 3 – Mount Prindle Research Natural Area RMZ

Recreation management zone description: The focus this zone would be to provide high quality, 

climbing, hunting and research opportunities for users who desire a recreation experience 

characterized by solitude, tranquility, self-reliance, challenge and risk in a Primitive Interior 

Alaska setting.

Objective: Participants in visitor assessments report an average 4.0 realization of the targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes listed in Table 16 (4.0 on a probability scale where: 1= not at all 

realized and 5= totally realized).

Recreation setting character is Primitive. See Table 8 for a description of Primitive.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

76

Table 16. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Mount Prindle Research Natural 

Area Recreation Management Zone

Recreation Attribute Outcomes

Activities Primary: Climbing; Hunting; Nature study (research)

Experiences Primary: Competence testing; Escaping crowds; Experiencing nature

Benefits Personal: Improved outlook on life; Improved physical fitness; Greater 

connection with nature; Enhanced sense of personal freedom

Community/Social: Positive economic contributions to communities

Environmental: Heightened awareness of the natural world; Greater 

protection of distinctive natural landscapes

Economic: Increased local tourism revenue

Table 17. Implementation framework decision for the Mount Prindle Research Natural Area 

Recreation Management Zone

Implementation Actions Description

Management This zone would be managed to protect and enhance the qualities and 

characteristics that are found within a Primitive classification. The primary 

focus would be to manage for non-motorized climbing, hunting and research 

opportunities. Emphasis would be placed on providing Primitive recreation 

experiences by maintaining the naturally-appearing landscape, providing 

minimal facility development and visitor services, providing infrequent social 

encounters, restricted mechanized/motorized use, and minimal 

administrative presence.

Information and 

Education

Provide outreach to researchers, and recreationists seeking a Primitive 

recreation experience. Establish a relationship with stakeholders to maintain 

positive economic contributions to local communities.

Monitoring Monitor and evaluate visitor satisfaction including niche decisions, targeted 

outcomes, and setting character decisions, based on Recreation 

Management Zone objectives and prescriptions.

Administrative Apply administrative actions as needed to create and maintain Primitive 

recreation opportunities, targeted outcomes and setting character. 

OHV area designation: LIMITED 

Specific limitations on OHVs to be developed through travel management 

planning. Travel management plan will be completed within five years of the 

ROD.

General: Special Recreation Permits could be issued in conformance with 

BLM guidance. New restrictions and/or facilities could be developed for the 

purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or enhancing targeted 

outcomes and setting character.

Steese SRMA - RMZ 4 – Big Windy Research Natural Area RMZ

Recreation management zone description: The focus this zone would be to provide high quality 

research opportunities for users who desire an experience characterized by solitude, tranquility, 

self-reliance, challenge and risk in a Primitive Interior Alaska setting containing an undeveloped 

hot springs system, uncommon and isolated plant species, and delicate geologic structures.

Objective: Participants in visitor assessments report an average 4.0 realization of the targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes listed in Table 18 (4.0 on a probability scale where: 1= not at all 

realized and 5= totally realized).
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

77

Recreation setting character is Primitive. See Table 8 for a description of semi-primitive.

Table 18. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Big Windy Hot Springs Research 

Natural Area Recreation Management Zone

Recreation Attribute Outcomes

Activities Primary: Nature study (research)

Experiences Primary: Competence testing; Escaping crowds; experiencing nature

Benefits Personal: Greater connection with nature; Enhanced sense of personal 

freedom

Community/Social: Greater community involvement in land use planning 

process

Environmental: Greater protection of distinctive natural landscapes

Table 19. Implementation framework decision for the Big Windy Hot Springs Research Natural Area 

Recreation Management Zone

Implementation Actions Description

Management This zone would be managed to protect and enhance the qualities and 

characteristics that are found within a Primitive classification. The primary 

focus would be to manage for non-motorized research opportunities. 

Emphasis would be placed on providing Primitive recreation experiences by 

maintaining the naturally-appearing landscape, and by providing minimal 

facility development and visitor services, rare social encounters, restricted 

mechanized/motorized use, and rare administrative presence.

Information and 

Education

Provide outreach to researches seeking a unique and scientific Primitive 

experience. Establish a relationship with stakeholders to increase 

community involvement with BLM’s planning process.

Monitoring Monitor and evaluate visitor satisfaction including niche decisions, targeted 

outcomes, and setting character decisions, based on Recreation 

Management Zone objectives and prescriptions.

Administrative Apply administrative actions as needed to create and maintain Primitive 

recreation opportunities, targeted outcomes and setting character. 

OHV area designation: LIMITED 

Specific limitations on OHVs to be developed through travel management 

planning. Travel management plan will be completed within five years of the 

ROD.

General: Special Recreation Permits could be issued in conformance with 

BLM guidance. New restrictions and/or facilities could be developed for the 

purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or enhancing targeted 

outcomes and setting character.

Steese SRMA - RMZ 5 – Preacher Creek RMZ

Recreation management zone description: The focus this zone would be to provide high quality 

backpacking (multi-day), hiking, climbing, snowmobiling, and gold panning (day use) 

opportunities for users who desire a recreation experience characterized by solitude, tranquility, 

self-reliance, challenge and risk in a Backcountry Interior Alaska setting.

Objective: Participants in visitor assessments report an average 4.0 realization of the targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes listed in Table 20 (4.0 on a probability scale where: 1= not at all 

realized and 5= totally realized).
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

78

Recreation setting character is semi-primitive. See Table 8 for a description of Backcountry.

Table 20. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Preacher Creek Recreation 

Management Zone

Recreation Attribute Outcomes

Activities Primary: Backpacking, hiking, recreational gold panning, climbing, and 

snowmobiling

Experiences Primary: Escaping crowds; Escaping personal pressures; Experiencing 

nature; Experiencing new and different things; Exploration of the area

Benefits Personal: Greater connection with nature; Improved outlook on life; 

Improved physical fitness; Enhanced sense of personal freedom

Community/Social: Positive economic contributions to communities

Environmental: Heightened awareness of the natural world

Economic: Increased local tourism revenue

Table 21. Implementation framework decision for the Preacher Creek Recreation Management Zone

Implementation Actions Description

Management This zone would be managed to protect and enhance the qualities and 

characteristics that are found within a Backcountry classification. The 

primary focus would be to manage for backpacking, gold panning, climbing 

and snowmobiling opportunities. Emphasis would be placed on providing 

Backcountry recreation experiences by maintaining the naturally-appearing 

landscape, and by providing some additional facility development and visitor 

services, periodic social encounters, restricted mechanized/motorized use, 

and periodic administrative presence.

Information and 

Education

Provide outreach to recreationists seeking a backcountry recreation 

experience. Establish a relationship with stakeholders to provide a greater 

level of involvement with BLM’s planning process. 

Monitoring Monitor and evaluate visitor satisfaction including niche decisions, targeted 

outcomes, and setting character decisions, based on Recreation 

Management Zone objectives and prescriptions.

Administrative Apply administrative actions as needed to create and maintain backcountry 

recreation opportunities, targeted outcomes and setting character. 

OHV area designation: LIMITED

Specific limitations on OHVs to be developed through travel management 

planning. Travel management plan will be completed within five years of the 

ROD. 

General: Special Recreation Permits could be issued in conformance with 

BLM guidance. New restrictions and/or facilities could be developed for the 

purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or enhancing targeted 

outcomes and setting character.

Steese SRMA - RMZ 6 – Harrison Creek RMZ

Recreation management zone description: The focus this zone would be to provide hunting, 

photography, wildlife viewing, and OHV opportunities for users who desire a recreation experience 

characterized by self-reliance, challenge, and a relatively low degree of risk in a Frontcountry Interior 

Alaska setting.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

79

Objective: Participants in visitor assessments report an average 4.0 realization of the targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes listed in Table 22 (4.0 on a probability scale where: 1= not at all 

realized and 5= totally realized).

Recreation setting character is Frontcountry. See Table 8 for a description of Frontcountry.

Table 22. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Harrison Creek Recreation 

Management Zone

Recreation Attribute Outcomes

Activities Primary: Hunting; Photography; Wildlife viewing; OHV use

Experiences Primary: Escaping crowds; Escaping personal pressures; Experiencing 

nature

Benefits Personal: Greater connection with nature; Enhanced sense of personal 

freedom

Community/Social: Greater community involvement in the land use 

planning process

Environmental: Heightened awareness of the natural world

Economic: Increased local tourism revenue

Table 23. Implementation framework decision for the Harrison Creek Recreation Management Zone

Implementation Actions Description

Management This zone would be managed to protect and enhance the qualities and 

characteristics that are found within a Frontcountry classification. The 

primary focus would be to manage for hunting, photography, wildlife 

viewing, and OHV opportunities. Emphasis would be placed on providing 

Frontcountry recreation experiences by maintaining the partially modified 

landscape, and by providing improved yet modest levels of facility 

development and visitor services, a routine level of social encounters, 

restricted mechanized/motorized use, and routine administrative presence.

Information and 

Education

Provide outreach to state and local recreationists seeking a Frontcountry 

recreation experience. Establish a relationship with stakeholders to provide 

increased community involvement in the land use planning process.

Monitoring Monitor and evaluate visitor satisfaction including niche decisions, targeted 

outcomes, and setting character decisions, based on Recreation 

Management Zone objectives and prescriptions.

Administrative Apply administrative actions as needed to create and maintain 

Frontcountry recreation opportunities, and targeted outcomes.

OHV area designation: LIMITED

Specific limitations on OHVs to be developed through travel management 

planning. Travel management plan will be developed within five years of 

the ROD.

General: Special Recreation Permits could be issued in conformance with 

BLM guidance. New restrictions and/or facilities could be developed for the 

purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or enhancing targeted 

outcomes and setting character.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

80

Steese SRMA - RMZ 7 – Wolf Creek RMZ

Recreation management zone description: The focus this zone would be to provide hunting, 

photography and wildlife viewing opportunities for users who desire a recreation experience characterized 

by solitude, self-reliance, challenge, and risk in a Semi-Primitive Interior Alaska setting.

Objective: Participants in visitor assessments report an average 4.0 realization of the targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes listed in Table 24 (4.0 on a probability scale where: 1= not at all 

realized and 5= totally realized).

Recreation setting character is Semi-Primitive. See Table 8 for a description of Semi-Primitive.

Table 24. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Wolf Creek Recreation 

Management Zone

Recreation Attribute Outcomes

Activities Primary: Hunting; Photography; Wildlife; Viewing

Experiences Primary: Escaping personal pressures; Escaping crowds; Experiencing 

nature

Benefits Personal: Greater connection with nature; Enhanced sense of 

competence

Community/Social: Greater community involvement in the land use 

planning process

Environmental: Heightened awareness of the natural world

Economic: Increased local tourism revenue
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

81

Table 25. Implementation framework decision for the Wolf Creek Recreation Management Zone

Implementation Actions Description

Management This zone would be managed to protect and enhance the qualities and 

characteristics that are found within a Semi-Primitive classification. The 

primary focus would be to manage for non-motorized hunting, photography 

and wildlife viewing opportunities. Emphasis would be placed on providing 

Semi-Primitive recreation experiences by maintaining the naturallyappearing landscape, and by providing minimal facility development and 

visitor services, infrequent social encounters, restricted 

mechanized/motorized use, and minimal administrative presence.

Information and 

Education

Provide outreach to recreationists seeking a Semi-Primitive recreation 

experience. Establish a relationship with stakeholders to increase 

community involvement in BLM’s planning process.

Monitoring Monitor and evaluate visitor satisfaction including niche decisions, targeted 

outcomes, and setting character decisions, based on Recreation 

Management Zone objectives and prescriptions.

Administrative Apply administrative actions as needed to create and maintain SemiPrimitive recreation opportunities, targeted outcomes and setting character.

OHV area designation: LIMITED

Specific limitations on OHVs to be developed through travel management 

planning. Travel management plan will be completed within five years of the 

ROD.

General: Special Recreation Permits could be issued in conformance with 

BLM guidance. New restrictions and/or facilities could be developed for the 

purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or enhancing targeted 

outcomes and setting character.

Steese SRMA - RMZ 8 – Clums RMZ

Recreation management zone description: The focus this zone would be to provide hunting, 

photography, wildlife viewing, and OHV use opportunities for users who desire a recreation 

experience characterized by self-reliance, challenge, and a lower degree of risk in a 

Middlecountry Interior Alaska setting.

Objective: Participants in visitor assessments report an average 4.0 realization of the targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes listed in Table 26 (4.0 on a probability scale where: 1= not at all 

realized and 5= totally realized).

Recreation setting character is Middlecountry. See Table 8 for a description of Middlecountry.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

82

Table 26. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Clums Recreation Management 

Zone

Recreation Attribute Outcomes

Activities Primary: Hunting; Photography; Wildlife viewing; OHV use

Experiences Primary: Escaping crowds; Escaping personal pressures; Experiencing 

nature

Benefits Personal: Enhanced sense of personal freedom; Greater connection with 

nature

Community/Social: Greater community involvement in the land use 

planning process

Environmental: Heightened awareness of the natural world

Economic: Increased local tourism revenue

Table 27. Implementation framework decision for the Clums Recreation Management Zone

Implementation Actions Description

Management This zone would be managed to protect and enhance the qualities and 

characteristics that are found within a Middlecountry classification. The 

primary focus would be to manage for both non-motorized (hunting, 

photography and wildlife viewing) and motorized (OHV use) opportunities. 

Emphasis would be placed on providing Middlecountry recreation 

experiences by maintaining the partially modified yet generally naturallyappearing landscape, and by providing moderate levels of facility 

development, visitor services and social encounters, restricted 

mechanized/motorized use, and periodic administrative presence.

Information and 

Education

Provide outreach to state and local users seeking a Middlecountry recreation 

experience. Establish a relationship with stakeholders to provide a greater 

level of involvement with BLM’s planning process.

Monitoring Monitor and evaluate visitor satisfaction including niche decisions, targeted 

outcomes, and setting character decisions, based on Recreation 

Management Zone objectives and prescriptions.

Administrative Apply administrative actions as needed to create and maintain Middlecountry recreation opportunities, targeted outcomes and setting character. 

OHV area designation: LIMITED 

Travel management plan will be completed within five years of the ROD.

General: Special Recreation Permits could be issued in conformance with 

BLM guidance. New restrictions and/or facilities could be developed for the 

purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or enhancing targeted 

outcomes and setting character.

Steese SRMA - RMZ 9 – Bachelor Creek RMZ

Recreation management zone description: The focus this zone would be to provide backpacking, 

hiking, gold panning, and OHV use opportunities for users who desire a recreation experience 

characterized by self-reliance, challenge and a moderate level of risk in a Middlecountry Interior 

Alaska setting.

Objective: Participants in visitor assessments report an average 4.0 realization of the targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes listed in Table 28 (4.0 on a probability scale where: 1= not at all 

realized and 5= totally realized).
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

83

Recreation setting character is Middlecountry. See Table 8 for a description of Middlecountry.

Table 28. Primary targeted experience and benefit outcomes in the Bachelor Creek Recreation 

Management Zone

Recreation Attribute Outcomes

Activities Primary: Backpacking; Hiking/walking; Recreational Gold Panning; OHV 

use

Experiences Primary: Escaping personal pressures; Escaping crowds; Experiencing 

nature; Exploring new and different things; Exploration of the area

Benefits Personal: Improved outlook on life; Improved physical fitness; Greater 

connection with nature; Enhanced sense of personal freedom

Community/Social: Positive economic contributions to communities

Environmental: Heightened awareness of the natural world

Economic: Increased local tourism revenue

Table 29. Implementation framework decision for the Bachelor Creek Recreation Management Zone

Implementation Actions Description

Management This zone would be managed to protect and enhance the qualities and 

characteristics that are found within a Middlecountry classification. The 

primary focus would be to manage for backpacking, hiking, gold panning, 

and OHV opportunities. Emphasis would be placed on providing 

Middlecountry recreation experiences by maintaining the partially modified 

landscape, and by providing improved yet modest facility development and 

visitor services, a routine level of social encounters, restricted 

mechanized/motorized use, and routine administrative presence.

Information and 

Education

Provide outreach to recreationists seeking a Middlecountry recreation 

experience. Establish a relationship with stakeholders to maintain positive 

economic contributions to local communities.

Monitoring Monitor and evaluate visitor satisfaction including niche decisions, targeted 

outcomes, and setting character decisions, based on Recreation 

Management Zone objectives and prescriptions.

Administrative Apply administrative actions as needed to create and maintain 

Middlecountry recreation opportunities, targeted outcomes and setting 

character.

OHV area designation: LIMITED

Travel management plan will be developed within five years of the ROD. 

General: Special Recreation Permits could be issued in conformance with 

BLM guidance. New restrictions and/or facilities could be developed for the 

purposes of site protection, visitor safety, and/or enhancing targeted 

outcomes and setting character.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

84

2.2.22 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 in the planning area as Limited to motorized travel activities (43 CFR 

8340.0-5(f), (g) and (h)) (see Table 11). Develop specific limitations through transportation and 

travel management planning. 

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 would be 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.

TM-6: Where authorized, construction of roads or trails may occur in support of mining, rightsof-way, and recreational facilities.

TM-7: Complete a comprehensive transportation and travel management plan for the Steese 

Planning Area within five years of this Record of Decision. Collect additional data as needed to 

support this planning effort. Develop the transportation and travel management plan using a

public process, allowing for additional public and agency input. This process will include

publishing a Federal Register Notice, public scoping meetings and if any closures are proposed, a

formal hearing to address the closure procedures under 43 CFR 36.11 (h) as well as limitations

affecting ANILCA provisions listed in Title VIII and Title XI. Additional NEPA analysis will be 

completed at that time.

Limitations imposed by travel management planning may include: vehicle weight, vehicle width, 

season of use, existing trails, designated trails, permitted access, and game retrieval options.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

85

TM-8: Establish interim management prescriptions until completion of the Travel Management 

Plan: Current management outlined in Alternative A, No Action Alternative (Map 10) with the 

addition of the following limitations: 

Implement a 1,000 pound curb weight and 50 inch width limitation for snowmobiles to replace 

1,500 pound GVWR limitation in the Steese National Conservation Area and Birch Creek WSR

corridor. 

Implement a 1,000 pound curb weight limitation and 50 inch width for summer OHVs to replace 

1,500 pound GVWR limitation in the Steese National Conservation Area.

Birch Creek WSR: Allow use of motorboats, hovercraft, and airboats without specific

authorization. 

The Mount Prindle and Big Windy Hot Springs RNAs will include limitations on OHV use (Map

10), given that the OHV area designation changes from Closed to Limited pursuant to this ROD. 

Limit OHV use in RNAs to winter OHV use only by snowmobiles 1,000 pounds or less in weight 

and 50 inches or less in width. 

Limitations on Travel Management Planning

TM-9: The BLM will develop a step-down travel management plan within five years of the 

Record of Decision. Wildlife management decisions set sideboards on what can be 

considered in the travel management plan. 

Wildlife management prescriptions in crucial caribou and Dall sheep habitat (Map 5) include

limitations on OHV use. These will be implemented through travel management planning. 

Cross-country summer OHV use will not be allowed without a permit.

Wildlife decisions identified in section 2.2.16 of this document have management prescriptions 

that include non-motorized travel management prescriptions. Domestic sheep, goats and camelids 

(including alpaca and llama) are prohibited in Dall sheep habitat and adjacent lands. 

TM-10: 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 will 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 is resulting in resource damage such as trail braiding, usercreated trails, and damage to vegetation, erosion, thermokarsting, changes in vegetation 

composition, and spread of non-native invasive plants. Limiting the use of OHVs by weight, 

seasonal closure, and/or to 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

86

Limiting the use of OHVs by weight, seasonal closure, and/or to existing routes or in some 

cases considering dispersed cross-country travel will help maintain the appropriate

recreational setting. Specific decisions on limitations will be further analyzed in the

transportation and travel management plan.

Weight limitation changes from pounds GVWR to curb weight allows for the same types and

sizes of vehicles allowed under Alternative A. Curb weight is consistent with the generally

allowed uses on adjacent State lands.

2.2.23 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 will 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 SOPs (Appendix A, “Standard Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Stipulations”) will 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.

2.2.24 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).
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

87

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 

sections 2.2.16 and standard operating procedures in Appendix A).

ASUB-3: Implement the SOPs and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations (Appendix A, “Standard 

Operating Procedures and Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations”) 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. 

2.2.25 Research Natural Areas

Goal

Provide areas where natural ecosystems and processes are undisturbed so that they can be studied 

and understood, and to provide an undisturbed area for comparison with other areas so that effects 

of management and use can be assessed. Maintain reference conditions for current and future 

scientific comparison. 

Decisions

RNA-1: Retain two designated Research Natural Areas (RNAs): the Mount Prindle RNA (2,800 

acres) and Big Windy Hot Springs RNA (160 acres).

The RNAs will be redesignated from Closed to Limited OHV use, with the specific OHV use 

limitations determined through the supplemental rule and travel management plan development 

processes as described in section 2.2.21. Summer use of OHVs is prohibited. Natural processes, 

including wildland fire, will be allowed to continue with as little interference as possible. 

Hiking, hunting, and nature appreciation are allowed. The RNAs are closed to mineral entry and 

mineral leasing. No surface-disturbing activities allowed except BLM-authorized research 

projects and primitive hiking trails.

The RNAs will be managed for minimal anthropogenic disturbance. Primitive camping and 

hiking trails will be allowed in theRNAs.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

88

2.2.26 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Goal

Protect outstandingly remarkable river-related values, water quality, and free-flowing condition of 

rivers designated as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Decisions

WSR-1: Manage Birch Creek according to BLM Manual 6400 – Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy 

and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation and Management and ANILCA.

WSR-2: Manage Birch Creek to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, 

water quality and free-flowing condition, and maintain the river’s classification.

WSR-3: Revise or amend the existing Birch Creek River Management Plan to incorporate 

resource protection decisions from this ROD, and to address development of lands and facilities, 

user capacities, and other management practices necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

89

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

OHV off-highway vehicle

PLO public land order

RCA Riparian Conservation Area

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

90
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

91

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 sec. 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

92

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. These are usually enacted by a public land order or legislation.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

93

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). 1983. River Management Plan, Fortymile River. Fairbanks, 

Alaska, December 1983

BLM. 1986. Steese Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan.

BLM. 2004. 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 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. Eastern 

Interior Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. August 2009.

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. 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

94

BLM. 2013. Eastern Interior Supplement to the Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. January 2013. Eastern Interior Resource Area, 

Fairbanks, Alaska. 

BLM. 2016. Eastern Interior Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Eastern Interior Field Office, 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.

IWSRC. 1997. A compendium of Questions and Answers Relating to Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

May 1997. Online at: www.rivers.gov

53 FR 25696. 1988. Special Rules and Regulations for the Steese National Conservation Area et 

al. Federal Register Vol 53, July 8, 1988, page 25696. 

53 FR 26891. 1988. Designation of Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Use Areas for the Steese National 

Conservation Area (Steese NCA). Federal Register Vol 53, July 15, 1988, p 26891-

26892. 

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
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

95

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. 

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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. Stream

Restoration Design, National Engineering Handbook, Part 654.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2016. Interim fire operations guidance to prevent spread of 

aquatic invasive species. Online at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r4/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev3

_016101.

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 (DOI), Alaska Planning Group. 1975. Proposed Birch Creek Wild

and Scenic River Final Environmental Statement.

DOI. 2015. Department of the Interior Manual 600 DM 6 (October 23, 2015).

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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

96

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. 2011. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan, Appendix H Wilderness Review.

USFWS. 2013. Revised Guidelines for Communication Tower Design, Siting, Construction, 

Operation, Retrofitting, and Decommissioning. Arlington, VA, September 27, 2013.

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

97

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. 

These Standard Operating Procedures are implementation level actions. 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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

98

practices, and/or design features for BLM’s consideration during the permitting process. If an 

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

99

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 

Identified caribou 

calving/postcalving and Dall 

Exception: The AO may grant an exception if 

the lessee demonstrates that calving caribou or 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

100

Goal Stipulation 

Areas where Stipulations 

Apply Exception, Modification, Waiver

activities. in Dall 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

101

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. 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

102

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 

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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

103

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.

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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

104

use of air or water craft, utilizing existing roads or trails, or use of low ground pressure 

vehicles.

• 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

105

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

106

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

107

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

108

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

109

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 of 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

110

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

111

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:

1. Protect and maintain intact and healthy aquatic systems.

2. Prevent further degradation of fish habitats that have been adversely affected.

3. Reverse declines in the quality and quantity of aquatic habitats to improve the overall 

health of fish and other aquatic organisms.

4. 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 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

112

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; of these nine are 

in the Steese 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 Resource Management Plan.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

113

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

Watershed Productivity 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/Reference 

Watershed

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

114

Table B-2. Ranking of 12th-level hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds among 10 ranking factors for the Steese Planning Area

Hydrologic 

Unit Code No.

Name of 12th-level

HUC Watershed

AnadromousBLM Special Status SpeciesSubsistenceRecreationIntactWatersh

e

d

ProductEFHThreatened / Endangered SpeciesHigh ValueDiversityRanking Sum

190804010207 Birch Creek 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 3 12

190804010212 Birch Creek 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 3 12

190804020401 McLean Creek-Birch

Creek

1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 3 12

190804010403 Thomas Creek-Birch

Creek

1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 3 12

190804010407 Sheep Creek 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 7

190804010408 Pitkas Bar 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 3 12

190804010506 Puzzle Gulch 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 5

190804010601 Birch Creek 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 3 12

190804010606 Birch Creek 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 3 12

190804010903 George Creek-Birch

Creek

1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 3 12

190804011005 Preacher Creek 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 10

190804011009 Ninetyeight PupPreacher Creek1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 10

190804011102 Headwaters North

Fork Preacher Creek

1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 8

190804011103 Upper North Fork

Preacher Creek

1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 8

190804011104 Middle North Fork

Preacher Creek

1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 10

190804011105 Lower North Fork

Preacher Creek

1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 10
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

115

Hydrologic 

Unit Code No.

Name of 12th-level

HUC Watershed

AnadromousBLM Special Status SpeciesSubsistenceRecreation IntactWatershedProductEFHThreatened / Endangered SpeciesHigh ValueDiversityRanking Sum

190804011201 Loper Creek 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 6

190804011202 Middle Preacher Creek 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 10

190705041903 Yukon 1 River 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 10

190705041904 Yukon 1 River 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 9

190705041906 Fourteenmile1 Yukon River

Creek- 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

116

Restoration Watersheds

To determine the High Priority Restoration Watersheds, the same process used to identify 

Riparian Conservation Areas was employed. Based on the limited number of restoration 

watersheds and the resource values, it was determined that watersheds scoring greater than five 

points would be considered High Priority Restoration Watersheds across all alternatives. These 

watersheds are priority areas for active restoration practices. In these areas, management activities 

will be designed to accelerate the development of self-sustaining, ecologically healthy riparian 

and aquatic ecosystems. 

Using the same ranking process, the remaining restoration watersheds scored less than five 

points. 

Restoration watersheds are listed in the table below and high priority restoration watersheds are 

displayed on Map 2.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

117

Table B-3. High priority restoration watersheds Steese Planning Area

Hydrologic Unit 

Code No.

Name of 12th-level

HUC Watershed

AnadromousBLM Special Status SpeciesSubsistenceRecreationIntactWatersh

e

d

ProductEssential 

Fish

HabitatThreatened / Endangered SpeciesHigh ValueDiversityRanking Sum

190804010206 North Fork Birch Creek 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 6

190804010406 Harrison Creek 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 5

190804010205 Twelve-mile Creek 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 6

190804010306 Volcano Creek-Clums

Fork

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 5

Table B-4. Other restoration watersheds Steese Planning Area

Hydrologic Unit 

Code No.

Name of 12th-level

HUC Watershed

AnadromousBLM Special Status SpeciesSubsistenceRecreationIntactWatersh

e

d

ProductEssential 

Fish 

HabitatThreatened / Endangered SpeciesHigh ValueDiversityRanking Sum

190804010208 Fryingpan Creek 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 4

190804010404 South Fork Harrison

Creek

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3

190804010405 North Fork Harrison

Creek

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3

190804011003 Bachelor Creek 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3

190804010302 Lawson Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

118

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

119

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

120

• 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-5.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

121

Table B-5. 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: 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.

Channel Width 

(ft)

≤5

> 5 ≤10

> 10 ≤15

< 15 ≥20

< 20 ≥25

< 25 ≥50

< 50 ≥75

>75

No. pools per 

mile

184

96

70

56

47

26

23

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

122

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% 

C and E = 21-30%

Rosgen Channel Types 

A and B ≥ 21% 

C and E ≥ 31%

Channel Condition Width-to-depth ratio Rosgen Channel Types Rosgen Channel Types Rosgen Channel Types

and Dynamics A < 10

B < 20

C < 40

E < 7 

F < 35

G < 9 

A < 10-12

B < 20-35

C < 40-60

E < 7-9 

F < 35-70

G < 9-11

A > 12

B > 35

C > 60

E > 9 

F > 70

G > 11

Channel Condition Streambank stability Rosgen Channel Types Rosgen Channel Types Rosgen Channel Types 

and Dynamics A and B > 95% 

C > 90%

E = 100%

A and B 90-95% 

C = 80-90%

E = 95-100%

A and B < 90% 

C < 80%

E < 95%

Channel Condition Floodplain connectivity Off-channel areas are Reduced linkage of wetland, Severe reduction of increase in 

and Dynamics seasonally hydrologically linked 

to main channel; overbank 

flows occur in the frequency 

and magnitude expected for the 

valley bottom or channel type 

setting.

floodplains and riparian areas 

to main channel; overbank 

flows are reduced or increased 

relative to historic frequency, as 

evidenced by moderated 

aggradation or degradation.

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

123

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

124

B.3.2. Environmental Baseline and Effects Checklist

In concert with the results of the baseline habitat assessment for a given watershed, the following 

checklist (Table B-6) 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

125

Table B-6. 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

126

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

127

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

128

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

129

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

130

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

131

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

133

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 in this Approved RMP 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 though 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

134

• 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

135

• 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 subunit, exclusive of Circle lands

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.

Zone 3 – Suitable for Disposal

Lands in Zone 3 will be available for disposal. 

• 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 planning area are under some type of withdrawal 

pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, or some other federal law. Some 

areas are covered by multiple withdrawals. 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.

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 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

136

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 six 17(d)(1) withdrawals cover lands in the Eastern Interior Planning Area. All of the 

public land orders close lands to the mineral leasing laws. Some close the lands to all types of 

mining. Others close the lands to mining for non-metalliferous 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. One other withdrawal of note, Public Land Order 5150 for a utility corridor (the 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline), covers land in the Wickersham Dome area, just outside of the White 

Mountains National Recreation Area. That public land order closes these lands to nonmetalliferous mining, mineral leasing, and State or Native selection.

In addition to the 17(d)(1) withdrawals, some lands in the planning area are withdrawn from the 

mining laws by legislation. Subject to valid existing rights, section 402(b) of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act withdraws the Steese National Conservation Area from location, 

entry, and patent under U.S. mining laws. Subject to valid existing rights, section 1312(b) 

withdraws the White Mountains National Recreation Area from State selection under the Alaska 

Statehood Act or other law, and from location, entry, and patent under U.S. mining laws. Lands 

within one-half mile of Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River, Beaver Creek Wild and Scenic River, 

and the wild segments of the Fortymile Wild and Scenic River, are also withdrawn under the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act, pursuant to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. These 

legislative withdrawals overlap the 17(d)(1) withdrawals.

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. 

Additionally, the White Mountains National Recreation Area, the Steese National Conservation 

Area, and some lands within wild and scenic river corridors are withdrawn from mineral entry 

pursuant to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). In most cases the 

ANILCA withdrawals apply to public lands that are also subject to 17(d)(1) withdrawals. In areas 

withdrawn pursuant to the ANILCA, removal of the 17(d)(1) withdrawals could result in opening 

the area to leasable minerals, but would not open it to locatable minerals unless Congress 

modifies the ANILCA withdrawal to allow for location.

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

137

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

Type of 

Withdrawal Authorization Description Effect Process for Change

Secretarial 

17(d)(1)

PLO 5180 – White 

Mountains NRA and 

Steese National 

Conservation Area

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.

Secretarial 

17(d)(1)

PLO 5186 –

Fairbanks area

Withdrawal for Classification 

and Protection of Public 

Interest in Lands Not Selected 

by State. Amended by PLOs 

5254, 5242, and 5776.

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.

See Process for Change in first row.

Secretarial 

17(d)(1)

PLO 5179 – Birch, 

Beaver, and Fortymile 

WSR corridors, plus 

additional lands. 

Withdrawal in Aid of 

Legislation concerning addition 

to or creation of conservation 

units (wild and scenic rivers); 

modified by PLOs 5192, 5250, 

5251, 5257, 5254, 5657, and 

6092. 

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.

Secretarial 

17(d)(1)

PLO 5184 – lands 

around Circle, AK

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.

Congressional ANILCA 402(b) 43 

U.S.C. 1716(b)

Withdraws Steese National 

Conservation Area

Subject to valid existing rights, 

withdraws lands from location, entry, 

and patent under U.S. mining laws; 

where consistent with land use plan 

mineral development may be permitted 

under the Minerals Leasing Act or the 

Minerals Materials Act. No federal 

lands shall be transferred out of public 

ownership except by exchange 

pursuant to FLPMA.

Secretary can modify to open lands to 

entry, location, and patent under the 

U.S. mining laws. Changes would be 

made through a PLO and opening 

order, similar to the process for 

17(d)(1)
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

138

Type of 

Withdrawal Authorization Description Effect Process for Change

Congressional ANILCA 606(a)(2) 16 Amends section 15 of the Wild Subject to valid existing rights, Only Congress can open lands to 

U.S.C. 1285b and Scenic Rivers Act to withdraws lands from all forms of prohibited activities.

withdraw lands within 1⁄2 mile of appropriation under the mining laws 

bed and banks of Beaver and from operation of the mineral 

Creek and Birch Creek WSR; leasing laws including amendments 

and lands within 1⁄2 mile of bed thereto.

and banks of wild segments of 

the Fortymile WSR.

ANILCA = Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; PLO = public land order; WSR = Wild and Scenic River; FLPMA = Federal Land Policy and Management Act; ANCSA = 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; U.S.C. = United States Code.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

139

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 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. Modifying Legislative Withdrawal Steese National Conservation 

Area

Section 402(b) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act withdraws the Steese 

National Conservation Area from location, entry, and patent under U.S. mining laws, but also 

authorizes the Secretary to open such lands through the planning process. Under Alternatives C 

and D of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM recommended that the Secretary open portions 

of the Conservation Area to mineral location and entry. The process of opening the Conservation 

Area would be similar to that described above for revocation of 17(d)(1) withdrawals, but is a 

moot point because the BLM’s final decision is to not open the National Conservation Area. The 

Conservation Area is also covered by 17(d)(1) withdrawals, Public Land Order 5180 and Public 

Land Order 5179. The record of decision recommends these public land orders be partially 

revoked to remove duplicate withdrawals in the Conservation Area and clean up the land record. 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

140

C.2.3. Process for New FLPMA Withdrawals

The Record of Decision and Approved RMP for the Steese Planning Area recommends new 

withdrawals from mineral location and entry to protect resources (Map 8). 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.

New withdrawals would not be needed in the Steese National Conservation Area as this area is 

withdrawn from mineral location and entry by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act (ANILCA). However, small withdrawals of lands adjacent to the National Conservation Area 

and Birch Creek are recommended. In Birch Creek the ANILCA withdrawal from mineral entry 

and location extends one-half mile from the bed and banks of the river. In some areas the 

designated corridor is wider than the one-half-mile withdrawal. In these areas new Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act withdrawal from mineral location and entry of any lands within the 

designated corridor that are not withdrawn by the ANILCA is recommended. Also riparian 

conservation areas along Birch Creek are recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry and 

location to protect fisheries and aquatic habitat. 

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.2.4. 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.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

141

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

Action Approved Steese RMP

Recommend new FLPMA withdrawals 25,000 acres 

Recommend partial revocation ANCSA 17(d)(1) 

withdrawals affecting the planning area

28,000 acres outside of the Steese National 

Conservation Area and 1,213,000 acres within the 

Steese National Conservation Area and Birch Creek

FLPMA = Federal Land Policy and Management Act; ANCSA = Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; PLO = public land 

order; WSR = Wild and Scenic River
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

142
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

143

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 Steese 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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

144

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

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 featured N/A

Arctic Tern 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

Surfbird N/A N/A N/A N/A Priority
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

145

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

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

Great Gray Owl N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A

Golden-crowned Sparrowf N/A N/A N/A Priority N/A
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

146

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, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

147

Appendix E. Outstandingly Remarkable Values for 

Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River

E.1. Introduction

The following text is excerpted from the Appendix E of the Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS, Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory (BLM 2016).

The following sections describe the outstandingly remarkable values for wild and scenic rivers 

designated by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The Steese Approved RMP 

identifies the outstandingly remarkable values for Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River. 

Outstandingly remarkable values are typically identified in a study prior to the designation, but 

the Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River was designated by the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act without these specific values identified by Congress. In these cases, managers 

typically develop outstandingly remarkable values from study reports and other documentation of 

management activities and intentions as well as incorporating current data and expertise.

Outstandingly remarkable values are defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as those 

characteristics that make the river worthy of special protection. These can include scenery, 

recreation, fish and wildlife, geology, history, culture, and other similar values, which are to be 

considered in determining eligibility for wild and scenic river designation. The Act states:

Each component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall be administered in 

such a manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said 

system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not 

substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values.

E.2. Methodology

Section 1(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires that, in order for a river segment to be 

eligible for inclusion as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, it must 

possess one or more of the following outstandingly remarkable values: scenic, recreational, 

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. More specific guidance on 

identifying outstandingly remarkable values is provided by the Interagency Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Council (IWSRC) and BLM Manual 6400.

The following is a summary of the guidance by the IWSRC in “A Compendium of Questions and

Answers Relating to Wild and Scenic Rivers,” May, 1997 online at www.rivers.gov. An 

outstandingly remarkable value must be river-related; to be considered river-related, a value 

must:

• be located in the river or on its immediate shorelines – within one-quarter mile on either 

side of the river; and,

• contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem; or,

• owe its location or existence to the presence of the river.

The value must be rare, unique, or exemplary in a regional or national context. To be considered 

rare or unique, a value should be a conspicuous example from among a number of similar values 

that are themselves uncommon or extraordinary.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

148

The following standards guide how these values are to be interpreted and applied on BLMmanaged lands. State Directors may (normally as an element of guidance for resource 

management planning) prescribe supplemental standards or criteria for determining outstandingly 

remarkable values as they apply to particular river segments. BLM Manual 6400 provides 

standards to guide how outstandingly remarkable values are interpreted and applied. These are 

described below.

1. Scenery. The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors 

result in notable or exemplary visual features and/or attractions. BLM Visual Resource 

Inventory Handbook, H-8410-1, may be used in assessing visual quality and in evaluating the 

extent of development upon scenic values. The rating area must be scenic quality "A" as 

defined in BLM Visual Resource Inventory Handbook. When analyzing scenic values, 

additional factors, such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural modifications, 

and length of time negative intrusions are viewed, may be considered. Scenery and visual 

attractions may be highly diverse along the majority of the river or river segment.

2. Recreation. Recreational opportunities within the subject river corridor are, or have the 

potential to be, popular enough to attract visitors from throughout or beyond the region of 

comparison or are unique or rare within the region. River-related opportunities include, but 

are not limited to, sightseeing, interpretation, wildlife observation, camping, photography, 

hiking, fishing, hunting, and boating. Such a recreational opportunity may be an 

outstandingly remarkable value without the underlying recreational resource being an 

outstandingly remarkable value (for example, fishing may be an outstandingly remarkable 

value without the fish species being an outstandingly remarkable value). The river may 

provide settings for national or regional usage or competitive events.

3. Geology. The river area contains one or more examples of a geologic feature, process, or 

phenomenon that is unique or rare within the region of comparison. The feature(s) may be in 

an unusually active stage of development, represent a “textbook” example, and/or represent a 

unique or rare combination of geologic features (erosional, volcanic, glacial, and other 

geologic features).

4. Fish. Fish values include either indigenous fish populations or habitat or a combination of 

these river-related conditions.

a. Populations. The river is nationally or regionally an important producers of 

indigenous resident and/or anadromous fish species. Of particular significance is the 

presence of wild stocks and/or federal or state, listed, or candidate, threatened, 

endangered, or BLM sensitive species. Diversity of species is an important 

consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination that it is an outstandingly 

remarkable value.

b. Habitat. The river provides exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species 

indigenous to the region of comparison. Of particular significance is habitat for wild 

stocks and/or federal or state listed or candidate, threatened, endangered, or BLM 

sensitive species. Diversity of habitat is an important consideration and could, in 

itself, lead to a determination that it is an outstandingly remarkable value.

5. Wildlife. Wildlife values include either terrestrial or aquatic wildlife populations or habitat or 

a combination of these river-related conditions.

a. Populations. The river, or area within the river corridor, contains nationally or 

regionally important populations of indigenous wildlife species dependent on the 

river environment. Of particular significance are species considered to be unique to 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

149

the area and/or populations of federal or state listed or candidate, threatened, 

endangered, or BLM sensitive species. Diversity of species is an important 

consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination that it is an outstandingly 

remarkable value.

b. Habitat. The river, or area within the river corridor, provides exceptionally highquality habitat for wildlife of national or regional significance and/or may provide 

unique habitat or a critical link in habitat conditions for federal or state listed or 

candidate, threatened, endangered, or BLM sensitive species. Contiguous habitat 

conditions are such that the biological needs of the species are met. Diversity of 

habitat is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination that 

it is an outstandingly remarkable value.

6. Historical. The river, or area within the corridor, has scientific value or contains a rare or 

outstanding example of a district, site, building, or structure that is associated with an event, 

person, or distinctive style. Likely candidates include sites that are eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places at the national level or have been designated a national historic 

landmark by the Secretary of the Interior.

7. Cultural. The river, or area within the river corridor, contains rare or outstanding examples 

of historic or prehistoric locations of human activity, occupation, or use, including locations 

of traditional cultural or religious importance to specified social and/or cultural groups. 

Likely candidates might include a unique plant procurement site of contemporary 

significance.

8. Other Similar Values. While no specific national evaluation guidelines have been developed 

for the "other similar values" category, assessments of additional river-related values 

consistent with the foregoing guidance may be developed as part of the eligibility process, 

including, but not limited to, hydrological and paleontological resources or scientific study 

opportunities. By way of example, the following evaluation guidelines describe possible 

river-related botanical resources:

Botany. The area within the river corridor contains riparian communities that are ranked 

critically imperiled by state-based natural heritage programs. Alternatively, the river 

contains exemplary examples, in terms of health, resilience, species diversity, and age 

diversity, of more common riparian communities. The river corridor may also contain 

exemplary and rare types of ecological refugia (palm oases) or vegetation habitats 

(hanging gardens or rare soil types) that support river related species. The river may also 

contain river-related plant species that are listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service or appear on the BLM’s sensitive species list.

E.3. Historical Review of Birch Creek

Proposed Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River Final Environmental Statement: This

document was prepared by the Alaska Planning Group of the U.S. Department of the Interior in 

1975 and addressed the impact of designating a portion of Birch Creek as a component of the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Specific values of the river were discussed in the 

section “Description of the Environment,” however no formal determination of ORVs was made. 

The document reviewed 135 miles of the 314 mile-long Birch Creek.

Pertinent statements on the values of the river in the Environmental Statement include:

“Spectacular schist examples are found along the river in rock outcroppings and on

adjacent hillsides where sheer rock walls have resisted the erosive action of the water.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

150

These outcropping and coloration of the exposed bedrock are of outstanding interest to 

the layman as well as the geologist.” (page 30)

“The area adjacent to the lower 35 miles of the proposed Wild River Area has been

identified by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, in the publication Alaska’s

Wildlife and Habitat, as a significant waterfowl molting and nesting area for lesser scaup, 

pintails, widgeons, mallards, green-winged teals, white-winged scoters, buffleheads, 

American goldeneyes, canvasbacks, and shovelers. Trumpeter swans also may nest in the 

area. Canada and white-fronted geese and little brown cranes are common in the wet 

muskeg areas.” (page 41)

“The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines anatum) is known to nest along Birch

Creek. As the peregrine falcon is a threatened species (Threatened Wildlife of the United

States, 1973), the nesting sites found along Birch Creek cliffs are considered quite 

significant.” (page41)

“Other area wildlife of special interest are the timber wolf and American osprey.” (page

41)

“Birch Creek offers outstanding recreational opportunities for non-motorized ‘float-boat’

use for the experienced canoeist (canoeing, kayaking, rafting). It is one of the very few

clearwater rivers in the State with road access at two points on an otherwise undisturbed 

river segment. The recreationist is offered a wilderness experience along the river 

without having to pay the high costs of aircraft transportation—a unique proposition in 

Alaska.” (page 48)

A Proposal for Protection of Eleven Alaskan Rivers, Final Environmental Statement: This 

document was prepared by the Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation 

Service, June 1980. It evaluates the impact of protecting the natural environment within a fourmile corridor along eleven rivers in Alaska, including Birch Creek. No specific values were noted 

for Birch Creek.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) December 1980: Congress 

established the Birch Creek WSR in ANILCA Section 603 in which the Wild and Scenic River 

Act was amended to add the following paragraph:

“Birch Creek, Alaska: The segment of the main stem from the south side of the Steese 

Highway in township 7 north, range 10 east, Fairbanks meridian, downstream to the 

south side of the Steese Highway in township 10 north, range 16 east, to be administered 

by the Secretary of the Interior.”

ANILCA designated Birch Creek as a “wild” pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The values of the river were not discussed. ANILCA further directed the Secretary of the 

Interior to establish detailed boundaries and to prepare a management and development 

plan.

Birch Creek River Management Plan: This document was prepared by the BLM and USFWS, 

December 1983. It determined the detailed boundaries for the river corridor and established a

management and development plan. While values in the river corridor were discussed, ORVs 

were not determined.

Pertinent statements on the values of the river in the River Management Plan include:

“Birch Creek provides for a wide variety of primitive-based recreation opportunities.... 

Attractive, natural campsites are abundant along the river, including the many gravel bars 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

151

as well as upland forested areas. Birch Creek is easily accessible from Fairbanks via the 

State-maintained Steese Highway.” (page 8)

“Scenic viewing opportunities are one of the region’s most valuable recreational 

resources. Occasional cliffs and outcroppings of bedrock contrast with the green mosaic 

formed by surrounding vegetation on low rolling hills.” (page 8)

“A portion of the Circle to Fairbanks Historic Gold Rush Trail, which has been submitted 

for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, passes through the river 

corridor.” (page 23). Note: Upon subsequent review, it was determined that this trail does 

not pass through the river corridor.

E.4. Findings for Birch Creek

The following paragraphs evaluate the scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, cultural, 

historic, and other values for Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River. See section E.2 Methodology

for a description of BLM criteria used to interpret these values.

Scenic

Evaluation of Present Situation

The Birch Creek WSR Corridor lies within the Yukon-Tanana Uplands which has a scenic quality 

of “A” according to BLM’s VRM process. See Appendix D Visual Resource Inventory of the 

Eastern Interior Proposed RMP/Final EIS.

The upper reach of Birch Creek flows through a narrow winding canyon with birch and spruce 

upland. A boater’s focus is on the water course of riffle-pools with small rapids emptying into 

shallow pools; there are opportunities, however, for glimpses of historic structures in an otherwise 

natural landscape. Some shallow gravel bars offer contrast with the water and upland vegetation.

At the confluence with Harrington Creek the river changes character as the channel widens with a 

backdrop of low rounded hills and mountains. Short sections of rapids over a an eight-mile stretch 

through outcropping bedrock create contrast with the water and the varied vegetation types which 

include white and black spruce, birch and aspen, alpine tundra and black spruce bog uplands.

Gravel bars are larger and higher with willow and alder shrubs and congregations of large debris 

along point bars creating unique visual points of interest. Upland banks are also higher in many 

stretches with four-to-six foot drops to water level. There are more opportunities to glimpse 

historic cabins and hike to higher elevations for outstanding views of the river system.

The lower section of Birch Creek enters the Yukon Flats where the river valley widens to miles 

and the river meanders with numerous channels with broad gravel bars. Cliff areas with ice lenses 

and loess soils are evident along this lower stretch. There are also unique areas where trees have 

lodged along the river bed in mid channel and create a bone-yard effect. Diverse vegetative types 

such as closed spruce forest, open low-growing spruce, and treeless bog offers distinctive contrast 

between the water, gravel bars and uplands creating unique views and changing views along 

Birch Creek. The river again approaches the foothills with a more confined meandering channel

with oxbows and sloughs before it finally breaks free into the flats. The viewshed is confined 

again with small cliff-like banks.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

152

Finding

The changes in topography from a headwater stream to a more mature river with meander bends 

and braided systems add diversity to a relatively short river segment. The eight-mile stretch of 

intermittent extruding bedrock with interspersed rapids creates visual contrast with the 

surrounding vegetation, gravel bars and water. The range of foreground hills, middle distant 

mountains, broad flats and foreground hills as one floats down the river creates a mosaic of 

backdrops for floaters. The small number of historical cabins that blend with the landscape and 

are mostly hidden from view add some variety and points of interest to the area. The variety of 

vegetation types and the seasonal colors are an exemplary example for Interior Alaska. Because 

of these characteristics, the scenic value of Birch Creek is found to be outstandingly remarkable.

Recreational

Evaluation of the Present Situation:

Birch Creek, flowing for the most part through the Steese National Conservation Area, offers 

outstanding recreational opportunities for non-motorized “float-boat” use for the experienced 

canoeist (canoeing, kayaking, rafting). It is one of the very few clearwater rivers in the State with 

road access at two points on an otherwise undisturbed river segment. The recreationist is offered a 

multi-day wilderness river experience without having to pay the high costs of aircraft 

transportation. Many rivers in Interior Alaska have extensive motorized use, while Birch Creek 

offers an 8 to 14 day non-motorized float opportunity. It is one of the few accessible rivers that 

offer a floater the experience of all phases of a river, from headwater stream to full meandering 

river with a whitewater experience. Floaters experience solitude, closeness with nature and 

wildlife, escape from personal pressures, everyday demands of life and crowds, and exploration 

of new areas. The chance of seeing wildlife is good with peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and 

beaver being common. Wolf, bear, fox, lynx, and occasionally caribou may be seen.

River floaters demographics are local Fairbanks, Anchorage, national, and international. They 

come to float a multi-day wilderness type experience as a major part of their Alaska destination. 

The clear-water whitewater is unique for open floaters, as well as smaller whitewater craft. 

Hunters from the Lower-48 bring rafts and canoes for the float-hunting opportunities.

International use has occurred in the past and is anticipated to occur again in the future with users 

from Germany the primary user group willing to pay for a guided experience. While floating the 

river, users also enjoy seeing wildlife, fishing, hunting, remote primitive camping, hiking to 

higher vista points, amateur geology, and photography.

Finding

Birch Creek is recognized regionally and nationally as an accessible, freshwater and whitewater 

wild river providing a multi-day primitive floating and camping experience which is considered 

unique. The rivers presentation of diverse geological values is unique within the region that 

includes a stretch of whitewater caused by bedrock outcrops and the changes in river character 

from headwater to mature stream. This creek is a good example of the typical diversity of 

vegetation types and seasonal variations that enhance the river experience. The recreational value 

of Birch Creek is found to be outstandingly remarkable.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

153

Geologic

Evaluation of the Present Situation:

Most of the bedrock along Birch Creek WSR consists of Paleozoic to Late Precambrian 

metamorphic rocks (primarily schist and quartzite) that are among the oldest rocks in Alaska. 

Geologists formerly referred to these rocks as Birch Creek Schist, a name inspired by the 

characteristic outcrops along this river.

Also exposed in cutbanks along Birch Creek are melting ice lenses, part of the permanently 

frozen soils, or permafrost, underlying much of the river valley. Supporting evidence and 

examples of the geologic processes include, but are not limited to:

• Active landslides and thawing permafrost along the river provide opportunities to observe 

dynamic and ongoing geologic processes.

• Birch Creek’s usually clear water is characteristic of certain Interior Alaska rivers that, 

unlike most rivers in the state, drain terrain that did not experience extensive continental 

and/or alpine glaciation.

• Classic exposures of Birch Creek Schist are found in sheer rock walls below Harrison 

Creek and along both banks at Shotgun Rapids.

• Numerous periglacial features, including altiplanation terraces and tors, can be seen from 

the river on nearby ridges.

Finding

Outcrops of schist along the river could be considered “textbook” in that they served as 

inspiration for naming the Birch Creek Schist. However, this rock type is widely dispersed in the 

Yukon-Tanana Upland, and similar bluffs and rapids exist on the region’s other rivers. Similarly, 

the periglacial features, permafrost exposures, and general hydrology of Birch Creek are widely 

distributed in the region. Geology is therefore not an outstanding remarkable value of Birch 

Creek.

Fish Populations and Habitat

Evaluation of the Present Situation

Birch Creek supports 12 known species of fish and has one of the highest diversity of fish in the 

region.

Anadromous species: Birch Creek supports populations of Chinook, chum, and coho salmon. 

Various environmental factors make it difficult to gather population data for Chinook salmon in 

Birch Creek. The relative health of Birch Creek Chinook may be assessed to some extent by the 

health of Yukon River Chinook salmon that are still experiencing below average returns (Volk et 

al. 2009). With below average returns in the Yukon River, all streams providing spawning and 

rearing habitat for Chinook salmon are highly important both locally and regionally.

Resident species: Birch Creek also supports healthy and viable populations of Arctic grayling, 

round and humpback whitefish, sheefish, least cisco, northern pike, burbot, slimy sculpin, and 

blackfish.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

154

Habitat: Major stream-disturbing activities such as placer mining have been active in the Birch 

Creek watershed for over one hundred years. While it is not known to what degree these activities 

affected the various fish populations, Birch Creek does provide critical habitat for up to many fish 

species making it one of the most diverse watersheds in the region.

Finding

Birch Creek has one of the highest diversity of fish of all rivers in the region. This diversity 

makes fisheries an outstanding remarkable value for Birch Creek.

Wildlife Populations and Habitat

Evaluation of the Present Situation

Birch Creek WSR supports a dense nesting population of American peregrine falcons that occur

on riverside cliffs and bluffs. The species was an Endangered Species under the Endangered

Species Act at the time of Birch Creek WSR designation and was delisted in 1999. Similar

densities of nesting peregrines occur on few other rivers in the region (Fortymile WSR and the

Yukon River within Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve).

Peregrine falcons are one component of a complete assemblage of subarctic wildlife species

present along Birch Creek at natural levels of abundance and among habitats and plant

communities essentially unchanged from natural conditions. The riparian habitats supported by

the river are productive and provide key habitat for many species. River corridor and adjacent

habitat combine to support this complete assemblage of species. Other raptors nesting along the

river include frequently-observed red-tailed (Harlan’s) hawks, a few nesting bald eagles, and

occasional osprey. The lower section of the river supports extensive riparian vegetation that is

excellent moose habitat. The many wetlands and oxbow lakes in the lower river corridor also

support important waterfowl and shorebird nesting, including significant waterfowl moltingand

nesting of lesser scaup, pintails, widgeons, mallards, green-winged teals, white-winged scoters,

buffleheads, American goldeneyes, canvasbacks, and shovelers. Trumpeter swans (BLMAlaska

sensitive species) also nest in oxbow and other lakes in the river corridor.

Wolves occur in the area and at least one den site is known to occur in the river corridor. Caribou

of the Fortymile herd travel on the river ice in winter and use the adjacent uplands in winter and 

summer. The river is a popular hunt area (sport and subsistence) for moose and caribou, via float 

boats and (in the lower portion) motorized river boats. The river receives its heaviest use during 

moose hunting season.

Finding

While the wildlife values of Birch Creek are high, they do not constitute an ORV of at

least regional significance. Wildlife values do contribute to the recreational ORV for the 

river as wildlife watching is often component of recreational activities.

Cultural

Evaluation of the Present Situation

There are eight prehistoric sites within or immediately adjacent to the Birch Creek WSR Corridor.

They are all shallow or surface lithic sites; therefore, likely late prehistoric Athabascan sites. 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

155

Most are located on high promontories; therefore, likely hunting lookout sites. One potential

early historic Athabascan village site, which may have once contained a prehistoric component, is

also located inside the corridor. However, the location of this site is known only from historic

documentation, and has never been verified archaeologically, despite repeated attempts by

different researchers over the past four decades. A couple of the sites have features or topographic

settings that may indicate short-term camping locales. None have been evaluated for eligibility to 

the National Register of Historic Places, although field notes indicate that all likely have at least

some buried, undisturbed deposits, which along with other variables may make them eligible to 

the Register.

An evaluation of the topographic settings inside the Birch Creek WSR Corridor indicates that,

although additional prehistoric sites may be found, they will not likely vary in site type from those

already discovered. For example, there is little likelihood of locating a caribou drive line site, or 

a permanent or winter village site, within the corridor. If such rare types of sites were found

inside the corridor, they would likely contribute to culture or prehistory being an ORV in any

future re-evaluation of Birch Creek. Similarly, if prehistoric utilization of riverine resources(e.g.,

salmon) are discovered, such a regionally relatively rare site type would too likely contribute toa

prehistoric ORV re-evaluation for Birch Creek.

Finding

The prehistoric uses of the Birch Creek corridor (such as short-term camping, lookout hunting

sites) are typical of this and many other river settings in the region. None of the known prehistoric

sites are particularly unusual or rare within the region of comparison. While the examples of the

known prehistoric sites do indeed seem typical, or exemplary, of their site types, one cannot argue

that they are “especially good examples” of their types owing to a present lack of quantitative

data at the present time. Cultural, or prehistoric archaeology, is therefore not an ORV.

Historic

Evaluation of the Present Situation

Birch Creek is of interest in the regional history of eastern Interior Alaska because of its 

association with a pre-Klondike gold rush. Gold miners first prospected in the area in the early 

1890s, and the first economically viable gold discovery was made at Pitka’s Bar in 1893 by Pitka 

Pavaloff and Sergei Cherosky, two miners of mixed Russian-Athabascan descent. The following 

year saw a rush or stampede up the creek when about 100 other men descended in the area.

The creek and associated supply town on the Yukon River, Circle City, was virtually emptied of 

miners following the 1896 Klondike gold discovery further up the Yukon River in Canada. 

Mining would resume along tributaries of Birch Creek and in surrounding areas in the years 

following the Klondike strike, and continues through to the present day.

There are about 21 historic-era sites known within or immediately adjacent to the corridor. Of 

these, five have eroded away with no or very little remaining evidence of their existence. Three 

others have been built and occupied within the last 50 years, including one framed building 

covered with corrugated sheet metal that was occupied seasonally nearly every year from 1959-

1993. The remaining 13 are spruce log cabin sites, often with an assortment of outbuildings (e.g., 

doghouses, caches, trash dumps). All but one of these are collapsing, the sole exception a 

refurbished cabin that was likely originally constructed in the 1920s to 1930s. Based upon 

artifacts, some historic documentation, and writings on the walls, these 13 sites date variably 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

156

from the early 1900s through the 1970s or 1980s. Sites with evidence of a post-1959 occupation 

had further evidence of earlier occupations; they were apparently refurbished and reused in later 

times. The remaining cabin ruin sites were all mining and prospecting or trapping related, based 

on historical documentation, artifacts or features at the sites, or comparison to known cabins in 

the comparative region. One of the sites that has eroded away was an early 20th century 

roadhouse, and another was the purported site of a historic Athabascan village.

Of the 13 sites that have components older than 50 years and that have not eroded away, none 

have been evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Field notes 

indicate, however, that most if not all of these sites have undisturbed cultural deposits, which 

along with other variables, may make them eligible to the Register.

As most historic-era sites leave at least some type of surface presence, it is likely that most cabin 

ruins or above-ground structure ruins have been identified inside the corridor. Any undiscovered 

ruin sites will most likely represent more examples of the types already found; that is, 20th 

century mining and trapping related sites. Other historic site types that are probable along Birch 

Creek but have not been discovered are those that leave more ephemeral traces, such as graves, 

mining prospect and other types of sub-surface pits, and short-term camps that do not involve 

permanent buildings (e.g., hunting camps; prospect camps). Examples of rare historic sites that 

may be present in the corridor, and that would likely contribute to history being an outstanding 

remarkable value in any future reevaluation of Birch Creek, include (1) definitive pre-Klondike 

era historic mining/prospecting sites, and (2) any early historic or protohistoric Alaska Native 

sites typifying traditional land use or subsistence practices.

Finding

The historic traces found inside the Birch Creek corridor are typical of this and many other river 

settings in the region. None of the known historic sites are particularly unusual or rare within the 

region of comparison. The known historic sites seem typical, or exemplary, of their site types, of 

which there are hundreds more known scattered throughout the region of comparison, both on 

BLM and non-BLM lands. Taken alone, the historic sites found inside the Birch Creek corridor 

that are exemplary of mining and prospecting and trapping enterprises do not constitute an ORV.

Conclusion

The scenic, recreation, and fish values of Birch Creek WSR are determined to be outstandingly

remarkable.
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

157

Appendix F. Method for Delineating Caribou and Dall 

Sheep Habitats 

This appendix describes the process and information the BLM used to derive habitat polygons 

displayed on Maps 5 and 6. These areas represent portions of habitats to which select 

management decisions apply, and are based on information available during development of the 

RMP.

Crucial Caribou and Dall Sheep Habitat (Map 5)

The Eastern Interior Field Office identified and delineated caribou habitats used during calving 

and postcalving based on agency reports and published literature as well as a spatial analysis of 

data collected by BLM and ADFG from radiocollared female caribou. We similarly delineated 

Dall sheep habitats from telemetry and other data. Because caribou calving habitats have shifted 

through time, we used a combination of historical information and recent telemetry data to 

delineate those habitats that have been most highly used and are likely most important. We 

combined caribou and Dall sheep habitat areas and adjusted delineations to meet management 

objectives. 

The majority of the Steese National Conservation Area (NCA) was utilized for caribou calving 

historically (Valkenburg and Davis 1986). For much of the 20th century, the Steese-Fortymile 

herd calving area was centered on the headwaters of Beaver Creek and Preacher Creek. During 

this time, many Fortymile caribou reportedly calved en route to the White Mountains, (e.g., in 

Birch Creek). In addition, Birch Creek became the primary calving area after the SteeseFortymile herd abandoned the White Mountains calving area. The Clum’s Fork calving area in 

the South Unit Steese NCA was a heavily-used or primary calving area from the mid-1960s 

through 1979 (Valkenburg and Davis 1986). 

We used recent radiocollar data from collared White Mountains caribou (1982-2008, Durtsche 

and Hobgood 1990, J. Herriges, unpublished data) to define calving and postcalving habitat in the 

North unit of the NCA and adjacent White Mountains National Recreation Area (NRA). 

Locations of collared female caribou during May 11- May 27 (representing calving) and May 28 

– June 30 (representing postcalving) were analyzed with a kernel density estimator in a manner 

similar to that used in the Fortymile Caribou Herd Habitat Management Needs Assessment 

(Fortymile Caribou Herd Planning Team 2000) and by Boertje et al. (2012). Some White 

Mountains caribou disperse widely during calving (relative to large herds such as the Fortymile 

that tend to aggregate during calving), and so the 75% isopleths from kernel density estimations 

were chosen to represent the most used (and presumably highest quality) calving and postcalving 

habitats (BLM PRMP, Map 84). This area matched descriptions of the most concentrated 

historical Fortymile caribou calving, except that some White Mountains herd caribou also used an 

area west of Beaver Creek for calving. (See Figure M.3 in the Proposed Resource Management 

Plan, BLM 2016.) 

A spatial analysis of recent (1992-2008) locations of radiocollared Fortymile caribou (see 

Appendix F, Fortymile ROD/Approved RMP BLM 2016) showed an area of concentrated calving 

in the upper Salcha River and adjacent South Fork Birch Creek. We chose the 90% isopleths 

from this analysis to represent calving and postcalving habitats in this area. 

Calving and postcalving use by Fortymile caribou also was reported historically in the upper 

drainages of Birch Creek between the historical Clum’s Fork calving area and the recent 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

158

concentrated calving area in South Fork Birch Creek (Davis et al 1978, Valkenburg and Davis 

1986). This area, which also included mineral licks at and near Big Windy Hot Springs and Dall 

sheep habitat in that area (Lawler et al. 2005), was included in a caribou calving/postcalving 

polygon. 

We delineated Dall sheep habitat by drawing irregular polygons around at least 95% of GPS 

radiocollar relocations obtained in two studies conducted in the White Mountains during 2004-

2009 (BLM and FWS unpublished data) and Birch Creek (Lawler et al. 2005). We excluded 

scattered locations except along known movement routes. We then added a 1⁄4 mile buffer around 

the outside of these polygons.

We delineated known Dall sheep mineral licks identified during radiotelemetry studies, aerial 

surveys, and agency field work (Durtsche et al. 1990, J. Herriges, unpublished data) with a one 

mile buffer around the location of the lick (or primary lick within a group of licks). 

We then combined caribou calving and postcalving habitats and Dall sheep habitat polygons. 

These polygons delineate the areas that, based on information available in 2009, represent the 

primary habitats for caribou during calving and postcalving and Dall sheep (year-round) and 

ungulate mineral licks. 

Additionally we adjusted the draft crucial caribou and Dall sheep habitat polygons during the 

planning process to improve the ability to identify boundaries on the ground and to coincide with 

other management zones. For example, the eastern boundary in Birch Creek was set at 1,000 feet 

back from the bank of Clum’s Fork (to avoid existing Federal mining claims) and the 

southwestern boundary in Preacher Creek was expanded to Bachelor and Preacher creeks to 

coincided with a Recreation Management Zone and include mineral licks and an associated travel 

corridor. 

Sensitive Caribou Winter Range (Map 6)

The entire Steese NCA and White Mountains NRA is suitable for use during winter by caribou of 

the White Mountains and/or Fortymile herds. Non-forested habitats allow snowmobiles to move 

rapidly, unpredictably, and widely across an area, potentially disturbing wintering caribou and 

possibly resulting in caribou avoidance of these areas. 

We identified areas that were recently or historically known to support wintering caribou and also 

contain large expanses of non-forested habitats through analysis of GIS data. The Ducks 

Unlimited/BLM earthcover classification was displayed in the program ArcMap and large areas 

of contiguous non-forested habitats were delineated. 

Caribou Migration Corridor (Map 6)

Until the late 1960’s, most of the Fortymile caribou herd (known then as the Steese-Fortymile 

herd) migrated across the Steese Highway to calving grounds in the headwaters of Beaver and 

Preacher Creeks (Valkenburg and Davis 1986). Historical descriptions of this migration describe 

that most crossings occurred in the area between (and including) Twelvemile Summit and Eagle 

Summit. We drew a corridor between the historical Clum’s Fork calving area and the White 

Mountains herd calving/postcalving area and included both summits. The boundaries of this 

corridor include areas known or likely to be used by migrating caribou and follow ridgelines or 

waterways so that boundaries can be identified on the ground. 
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

159

Literature cited

BLM. 2016. Eastern Interior Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

BLM and USFWS. Unpublished Dall sheep location data 2004-2009, BLM Eastern Interior Field 

Office and USFWS Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. 

Boertje, R. D., C. L. Gardner, K. A. Kellie, and B. D. Taras. 2012. Fortymile caribou herd: 

Increasing numbers, declining nutrition, and expanding range. Alaska Department of Fish 

& Game, Wildlife Technical Bulletin 14, Juneau, AK.

Davis, J. L., R.Shideler, and R.E. LeResche. 1978. Movements and Distribution of the Fortymile 

Caribou Herd. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-17-6 and W-17-7, Job 

3.15R. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 

Durtsche, B.M. and W. Hobgood. 1990. Distribution, movements, and seasonal use areas of 

caribou in the White Mountains National Recreation Area, Alaska, 1982-1988. Bureau of 

Land Management-Alaska Open File Report 29. 9p.

Durtsche, B.M., W. Hobgood, and J. Burris. 1990. Distribution, movements, and seasonal use 

areas of radio-tagged Dall sheep in the White Mountains-Tanana Hills, Alaska, 1983-

1989. Bureau of Land Management-Alaska Open File Report 30. 10p.

Fortymile Caribou Herd Planning Team. 2000. Habitat Management Needs Assessment for the 

Fortymile Caribou Herd. 20 p.

Lawler, J.P., B. Griffith, D. Johnson, and J. Burch. 2005. The effects of military jet overflights on 

Dall’s sheep in interior Alaska. Technical Report NPS/AR/NRTR200550. National Park 

Service. Anchorage, AK.

Valkenburg, P. and J.L. Davis. 1986. Calving distribution of Alaska's Steese-Fortymile caribou 

herd: A case of infidelity? Rangifer, Special Issue No. 1: 315-323
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

160
Eastern Interior, Steese

Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

161

Appendix G. Maps

Map 1 – Land Status

Map 2 – Conservation and Restoration Watersheds

Map 3 – Visual Resource Management

Map 4 – Wilderness Characteristics

Map 5 – Crucial Caribou and Dall Sheep Habitat – Steese and White Mountains

Map 6 – Caribou Migration Corridor and Sensitive Winter Range – Steese and White Mountains

Map 7 – Lands for Retention

Map 8 – Existing Withdrawals and Recommended New FLPMA Withdrawals

Map 9 – Leasable and Locatable Minerals

Map 10 – Interim Travel Management

Map 11 – Recreation Management and Travel Management
BLM back cover photos

1. Musher leads his sled dog team down the frozen Birch 

Creek Wild and Scenic River during the Yukon Quest 

International Sled Dog Race

2. Caribou on ridges above Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River

3. Fox running across tundra on a ridge above Thomas Creek

4. Hiker climbs up a ridge after packrafting on Birch Creek 

Wild and Scenic River

1

2

3

4