.

Analysis of Management Situation

Central Yukon Resource Management Plan

Prepared by

U.S. Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Central Yukon Field Office
 

Fairbanks, Alaska
 

April 2016
 
_

_

_

_

Analysis of Management Situation ii

Table of Contents
 

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
 

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

1.1.1. Purpose of and Need for the Resource Management Plan ..................................... 1
 

1.1.2. Purpose of the Analysis of the Management Situation .......................................... 1
 

1.1.3. Planning Area Description ..................................................................................... 1
 

2. Area Profile ............................................................................................................................... 4
 

2.1. Resources ........................................................................................................................ 5
 

2.1.1. Air Quality and Climate ......................................................................................... 5
 

2.1.1.1. Climate ........................................................................................................ 5
 

2.1.1.2. Air Quality .................................................................................................. 6
 

2.1.2. Soil Resources ...................................................................................................... 11
 

2.1.2.1. Indicator .................................................................................................... 12
 

2.1.2.2. Current Condition ..................................................................................... 13
 

2.1.2.3. Trends ........................................................................................................ 13
 

2.1.2.4. Forecast ..................................................................................................... 14
 

2.1.3. Water Resources ................................................................................................... 15
 

2.1.3.1. Indicator .................................................................................................... 16
 

2.1.3.2. Current Condition ..................................................................................... 17
 

2.1.3.3. Trends ........................................................................................................ 18
 

2.1.3.4. Forecast ..................................................................................................... 18
 

2.1.4. Vegetative Communities ...................................................................................... 19
 

2.1.4.1. Indicator .................................................................................................... 25
 

2.1.4.2. Current Condition ..................................................................................... 29
 

2.1.4.3. Trends ........................................................................................................ 30
 

2.1.4.4. Forecast ..................................................................................................... 30
 

2.1.5. Nonnative Invasive Species ................................................................................. 31
 

2.1.5.1. Indicator .................................................................................................... 31
 

2.1.5.2. Current Condition ..................................................................................... 35
 

2.1.5.3. Trends ........................................................................................................ 38
 

2.1.5.4. Forecast ..................................................................................................... 40
 

2.1.5.5. Key Features ............................................................................................. 41
 

2.1.6. Riparian–Wetland Resources ............................................................................... 41
 

2.1.6.1. Indicator .................................................................................................... 43
 

2.1.6.2. Current Condition ..................................................................................... 44
 

2.1.6.3. Trends ........................................................................................................ 44
 

2.1.6.4. Forecast ..................................................................................................... 45
 

2.1.6.5. Key Features ............................................................................................. 45
 

2.1.7. Fish and Aquatic Species ..................................................................................... 46
 

2.1.7.1. Indicator .................................................................................................... 46
 

2.1.7.2. Current Condition ..................................................................................... 47
 

2.1.7.3. Trends ........................................................................................................ 50
 

2.1.7.4. Forecast ..................................................................................................... 51
 

2.1.7.5. Key Features ............................................................................................. 52
 

April 2016 Table of Contents
_

Analysis of Management Situation iii

2.1.8. Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 52
 

2.1.8.1. Indicator .................................................................................................... 53
 

2.1.8.2. Current Condition ..................................................................................... 53
 

2.1.8.3. Trends ........................................................................................................ 67
 

2.1.8.4. Forecast ..................................................................................................... 69
 

2.1.9. Special Status Species .......................................................................................... 71
 

2.1.9.1. Indicator .................................................................................................... 72
 

2.1.9.2. Current Condition ..................................................................................... 73
 

2.1.9.3. Trends ........................................................................................................ 77
 

2.1.9.4. Forecast ..................................................................................................... 77
 

2.1.9.5. Key Features ............................................................................................. 77
 

2.1.10. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .......................................................... 81
 

2.1.10.1. Indicator .................................................................................................. 83
 

2.1.10.2. Current Condition ................................................................................... 83
 

2.1.10.3. Trends ...................................................................................................... 83
 

2.1.10.4. Forecast ................................................................................................... 84
 

2.1.11. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 84
 

2.1.11.1. Indicator .................................................................................................. 84
 

2.1.11.2. Current Condition ................................................................................... 86
 

2.1.11.3. Trends ...................................................................................................... 96
 

2.1.11.4. Forecast ................................................................................................... 96
 

2.1.11.5. Key Features ........................................................................................... 97
 

2.1.12. Paleontological Resources ................................................................................. 98
 

2.1.12.1. Indicator .................................................................................................. 98
 

2.1.12.2. Current Condition ................................................................................. 100
 

2.1.12.3. Trends .................................................................................................... 101
 

2.1.12.4. Forecast ................................................................................................. 101
 

2.1.12.5. Key Features ......................................................................................... 101
 

2.1.13. Visual Resources .............................................................................................. 102
 

2.1.13.1. Indicator ................................................................................................ 102
 

2.1.13.2. Current Condition ................................................................................. 103
 

2.1.13.3. Trends .................................................................................................... 104
 

2.1.13.4. Forecast ................................................................................................. 105
 

2.1.13.5. Key Features ......................................................................................... 105
 

2.1.14. Wilderness Characteristics ............................................................................... 106
 

2.1.14.1. Indicator ................................................................................................ 106
 

2.1.14.2. Current Condition ................................................................................. 110
 

2.1.14.3. Trends .................................................................................................... 114
 

2.1.14.4. Forecast ................................................................................................. 115
 

2.1.14.5. Key Features ......................................................................................... 117
 

2.2. Resource Uses ............................................................................................................. 117
 

2.2.1. Facilities ............................................................................................................. 117
 

2.2.2. Forest and Woodland Products .......................................................................... 118
 

2.2.2.1. Current Level and Location of Use ......................................................... 119
 

2.2.2.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand ............................................................ 121
 

2.2.2.3. Key Areas or Areas of High Potential .................................................... 122
 

2.2.3. Lands and Realty ................................................................................................ 123
 

2.2.3.1. Current Level and Location of Use ......................................................... 124
 

2.2.3.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand ............................................................ 129
 

April 2016 Table of Contents
_

_

_

_

_

Analysis of Management Situation iv

2.2.3.3. Key Areas or Areas of High Potential .................................................... 129
 

2.2.4. Energy and Minerals .......................................................................................... 129
 

2.2.4.1. Leasable Minerals ................................................................................... 130
 

2.2.4.2. Locatable Minerals .................................................................................. 130
 

2.2.4.3. Salable Minerals ...................................................................................... 148
 

2.2.5. Renewable Energy ............................................................................................. 151
 

2.2.6. Recreation and Visitor Services ......................................................................... 152
 

2.2.6.1. Recreation and Visitor Services .............................................................. 154
 

2.2.6.2. Environmental Education and Interpretation .......................................... 161
 

2.2.7. Travel Management ........................................................................................... 162
 

2.2.7.1. Current Level and Location of Use ......................................................... 163
 

2.2.7.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand ............................................................ 164
 

2.2.7.3. Key Areas or Areas of High Potential .................................................... 165
 

2.2.8. Utility Corridor .................................................................................................. 166
 

2.2.8.1. Current Level and Location of Use ......................................................... 166
 

2.2.8.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand ............................................................ 166
 

2.3. Special Designations ................................................................................................... 167
 

2.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern .......................................................... 167
 

2.3.1.1. Existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ................................ 168
 

2.3.1.2. Existing Research Natural Areas ............................................................ 170
 

2.3.1.3. Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................... 171
 

2.3.2. Central Arctic Wilderness Study Area ............................................................... 182
 

2.3.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers ...................................................................................... 182
 

2.3.4. Backcountry or Scenic Byways ......................................................................... 184
 

2.3.5. Iditarod National Historic Trail .......................................................................... 184
 

2.4. Social and Economic ................................................................................................... 186
 

2.4.1. Environmental Justice ........................................................................................ 186
 

2.4.1.1. Federally Recognized Tribes .................................................................. 186
 

2.4.1.2. Low-income Populations ........................................................................ 187
 

2.4.1.3. Minority Populations .............................................................................. 187
 

2.4.2. Subsistence ......................................................................................................... 188
 

2.4.2.1. Indicators ................................................................................................. 190
 

2.4.2.2. Current Condition ................................................................................... 191
 

2.4.2.3. Trends ...................................................................................................... 191
 

2.4.2.4. Forecast ................................................................................................... 192
 

2.4.2.5. Key Features ........................................................................................... 193
 

2.4.3. Social and Economic Conditions ....................................................................... 193
 

2.4.3.1. Population ............................................................................................... 193
 

2.4.3.2. Economic Conditions .............................................................................. 203
 

2.4.3.3. Sociocultural Systems ............................................................................. 210
 

3. Current Management Direction and Management Opportunities ................................. 216
 

3.1. Relevant Plans and Amendments ................................................................................ 217
 

3.2. Management Decisions ............................................................................................... 218
 

3.2.1. Cooperative Planning ......................................................................................... 219
 

3.2.2. Soil, Water, and Air Resources .......................................................................... 219
 

3.2.3. Vegetative Communities .................................................................................... 223
 

3.2.4. Nonnative Invasive Species ............................................................................... 229
 

April 2016 Table of Contents
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Analysis of Management Situation v

3.2.5. Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................................ 233
 

3.2.6. Special Status Species ........................................................................................ 237
 

3.2.7. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .......................................................... 240
 

3.2.8. Cultural and Paleontological Resources ............................................................ 242
 

3.2.9. Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 243
 

3.2.10. Forestry and Woodland Products ..................................................................... 246
 

3.2.11. Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................ 247
 

3.2.12. Minerals ........................................................................................................... 248
 

3.2.12.1. Leasable Minerals ................................................................................. 248
 

3.2.12.2. Locatable Minerals ................................................................................ 251
 

3.2.12.3. Salable ................................................................................................... 253
 

3.2.13. Renewable Energy ........................................................................................... 254
 

3.2.14. Recreation ........................................................................................................ 254
 

3.2.15. Transportation and Access ............................................................................... 257
 

3.2.16. Utility Corridors and Communications ............................................................ 261
 

3.2.17. Land Tenure ..................................................................................................... 264
 

3.2.18. Land Use Authorization ................................................................................... 269
 

3.2.19. Withdrawals ..................................................................................................... 272
 

3.2.20. Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern ................................................... 273
 

3.2.21. National Trails .................................................................................................. 286
 

3.2.22. Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................... 286
 

3.2.23. Wilderness Study Areas ................................................................................... 287
 

3.2.24. Social and Economic ........................................................................................ 288
 

3.2.24.1. Subsistence ............................................................................................ 288
 

3.2.24.2. Public Safety ......................................................................................... 291
 

3.2.25. Administrative Stipulations ............................................................................. 291
 

4. Areas of Ecological Importance .......................................................................................... 300
 

4.1. Areas of Relative Ecological Importance to Guide Land Uses and Management ...... 301
 

5. Consistency / Coordination with Other Plans ................................................................... 303
 

6. Specific Mandates and Authority ....................................................................................... 306
 

6.1. Mandates and Authorities Pertaining to All Resources .............................................. 307
 

6.1.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................... 307
 

6.1.2. Policies ............................................................................................................... 308
 

6.2. Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 309
 

6.2.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders .............................................. 309
 

6.2.2. Policies ............................................................................................................... 309
 

6.2.3. MOUs ................................................................................................................. 309
 

6.2.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks .......................................................................... 309
 

6.2.5. State Laws and Regulations ............................................................................... 310
 

6.3. Soil Resources ............................................................................................................. 310
 

6.3.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................... 310
 

6.3.2. Policies ............................................................................................................... 311
 

6.3.3. MOUs ................................................................................................................. 311
 

April 2016 Table of Contents
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Analysis of Management Situation vi

6.3.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks .......................................................................... 311
 

6.3.5. State Laws and Regulations ............................................................................... 312
 

6.4. Water Resources .......................................................................................................... 312
 

6.4.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................... 312
 

6.4.2. Policies ............................................................................................................... 314
 

6.4.3. MOUs ................................................................................................................. 314
 

6.4.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks .......................................................................... 314
 

6.4.5. State Laws and Regulations ............................................................................... 314
 

6.5. Vegetative Communities and Invasive Species ........................................................... 315
 

6.5.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................... 315
 

6.5.2. Policies ............................................................................................................... 316
 

6.5.3. NEPA Documents .............................................................................................. 317
 

6.5.4. MOUs ................................................................................................................. 317
 

6.5.5. BLM Manuals and Handbooks .......................................................................... 317
 

6.5.6. State Laws and Regulations ............................................................................... 318
 

6.6. Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Species .................................................................. 318
 

6.6.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................... 318
 

6.6.2. Policies ............................................................................................................... 321
 

6.6.3. MOUs ................................................................................................................. 321
 

6.6.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks .......................................................................... 321
 

6.6.5. State Laws and Regulations ............................................................................... 322
 

6.7. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management ................................................................... 322
 

6.7.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................... 322
 

6.7.2. Policies ............................................................................................................... 323
 

6.7.3. NEPA Documents .............................................................................................. 323
 

6.7.4. MOUs ................................................................................................................. 323
 

6.7.5. BLM Manuals and Handbooks .......................................................................... 323
 

6.7.6. Other Local Plans ............................................................................................... 323
 

6.8. Cultural and Paleontological Resources ..................................................................... 324
 

6.8.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................... 324
 

6.8.2. Policies ............................................................................................................... 326
 

6.8.3. MOUs ................................................................................................................. 327
 

6.8.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks .......................................................................... 327
 

6.8.5. State Laws and Regulations ............................................................................... 328
 

6.9. Visual Resources ......................................................................................................... 328
 

6.9.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................... 328
 

6.9.2. Policies ............................................................................................................... 328
 

6.9.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks .......................................................................... 329
 

6.10. Wilderness Characteristics ........................................................................................ 329
 

6.10.1. Policies ............................................................................................................. 329
 

6.10.2. BLM Manuals and Handbooks ........................................................................ 329
 

6.11. Forestry and Woodland Products .............................................................................. 329
 

6.11.1. Federal laws, regulations, statutes and orders .................................................. 329
 

6.11.2. MOUs ............................................................................................................... 330
 

6.11.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks ........................................................................ 330
 

6.11.4. State Laws and Regulations ............................................................................. 330
 

6.12. Livestock Grazing ..................................................................................................... 330
 

6.12.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................. 330
 

6.13. Minerals .................................................................................................................... 331
 

April 2016 Table of Contents
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Analysis of Management Situation vii

6.13.1. Leasable Minerals ............................................................................................ 331
 

6.13.1.1. Federal laws, regulations, statutes and orders ....................................... 331
 

6.13.1.2. Policies .................................................................................................. 332
 

6.13.1.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks ............................................................. 332
 

6.13.2. Locatable Minerals ........................................................................................... 332
 

6.13.2.1. Federal laws, regulations, statutes and orders ....................................... 332
 

6.13.2.2. Policies .................................................................................................. 333
 

6.13.2.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks ............................................................. 333
 

6.13.3. Salable Minerals ............................................................................................... 334
 

6.13.3.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders .................................. 334
 

6.13.3.2. Policies .................................................................................................. 334
 

6.13.3.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks ............................................................. 334
 

6.14. Recreation and Visitor Services ................................................................................ 334
 

6.14.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................. 334
 

6.14.2. Policies ............................................................................................................. 335
 

6.14.3. MOUs ............................................................................................................... 335
 

6.14.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks ........................................................................ 336
 

6.15. Renewable Energy .................................................................................................... 336
 

6.15.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................. 336
 

6.15.2. Policies ............................................................................................................. 336
 

6.15.3. NEPA Documents ............................................................................................ 337
 

6.15.4. MOUs ............................................................................................................... 337
 

6.16. Transportation and Access ........................................................................................ 337
 

6.16.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................. 337
 

6.16.2. Policies ............................................................................................................. 339
 

6.16.3. MOUs ............................................................................................................... 340
 

6.16.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks ........................................................................ 340
 

6.16.5. State Laws and Regulations ............................................................................. 340
 

6.17. Land Tenure, Land Use, and Withdrawals ................................................................ 340
 

6.17.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................. 340
 

6.17.2. Policies ............................................................................................................. 342
 

6.17.3. NEPA Documents ............................................................................................ 342
 

6.17.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks ........................................................................ 342
 

6.18. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ................................................................. 342
 

6.18.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................. 343
 

6.18.2. BLM Manuals and Handbooks ........................................................................ 343
 

6.19. Wilderness Study Areas ............................................................................................ 343
 

6.19.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................. 343
 

6.19.2. NEPA Documents ............................................................................................ 344
 

6.19.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks ........................................................................ 344
 

6.20. Tribal Interest and Subsistence ................................................................................. 344
 

6.20.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................. 344
 

6.20.2. Policies ............................................................................................................. 345
 

6.21. Social and Economic Conditions .............................................................................. 345
 

6.21.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders ............................................. 345
 

6.21.2. Policies ............................................................................................................. 345
 

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 346
 

April 2016 Table of Contents
Analysis of Management Situation viii

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... 348
 

References Cited ......................................................................................................................... 354
 

Appendix A. List of Preparers .................................................................................................. 374
 

Appendix B. Water Quality Standards .................................................................................... 375
 

Appendix C. Maps ...................................................................................................................... 382
 

April 2016 Table of Contents
Analysis of Management Situation ix

List of Figures
 

Figure 1.1. Map of Central Yukon Planning Area and Subunits ..................................................... 3
 

Figure 2.1. Location of Analyzed Subunits Within the Central Yukon Planning Area.

Figure 2.8. Mining Claims along the Dalton (Mileposts 0–40) and Elliott Highways (Mileposts
 

................ 87
 

Figure 2.2. Fossil Bearing Deposits Centered on the Koyukuk River Drainage ......................... 100
 

Figure 2.3. Federal and State Mining Claims in the Planning Area ............................................ 132
 

Figure 2.4. Mining Claims along the Dalton Highway: Mileposts 345–390 .............................. 133
 

Figure 2.5. Mining Claims along the Dalton Highway: Mileposts 200–265 .............................. 134
 

Figure 2.6. Mining Claims along the Dalton Highway: Mileposts 125–200 .............................. 135
 

Figure 2.7. Mining Claims along the Dalton Highway: Mileposts 40–100 ................................ 136
 

25–115) ............................................................................................................................. 137
 

Figure 2.9. Mining Claims in the Manley Hot Springs and Tofty Areas ..................................... 139
 

Figure 2.10. Federal and State Claims in the Fairbanks Area ..................................................... 140
 

Figure 2.11. Northern Planning Area (Hog River) Mining Claims ............................................. 141
 

Figure 2.12. Mining Claims South of Galena .............................................................................. 142
 

Figure 2.13. Placer Gold Potential in the Planning Area ............................................................. 145
 

Figure 2.14. Platinum Group Elements Potential in the Planning Area ...................................... 146
 

Figure 2.15. Rare Earth Element Potential in the Planning Area ................................................ 148
 

Figure 2.16. Mineral Material Sites in the Planning Area ........................................................... 150
 

Figure 2.17. Dalton Visitor Contacts 2008–2012 ........................................................................ 156
 

Figure 2.18. Number of Hunters in Units 24A and 25A, Shown by Species Hunted .................. 159
 

Figure 2.19. Proposed Expansion of the Toolik Lake RNA ........................................................ 177
 

Figure 2.20. Iditarod Trail System within the Central Yukon Planning Area. ............................ 185
 

Figure C.1. Fairbanks Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area ........................................... 383
 

Figure C.2. Middle Yukon Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area .................................... 384
 

Figure C.3. Utility Corridor Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area ................................. 385
 

Figure C.4. Caribou Herd Ranges in the Central Yukon Planning Area ...................................... 386
 

Figure C.5. Dall Sheep Distribution ............................................................................................ 387
 

Figure C.6. Game Management Units in the Central Yukon Planning Area ............................... 388
 

April 2016 List of Figures
Analysis of Management Situation x

List of Maps

Map C.1. Fairbanks Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area .............................................. 382
 

Map C.2. Middle Yukon Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area ....................................... 382
 

Map C.3. Utility Corridor Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area .................................... 382
 

Map C.4. Caribou Herd Ranges in the Central Yukon Planning Area ......................................... 382
 

Map C.5. Dall Sheep Distribution ................................................................................................ 382
 

Map C.6. Game Management Units in the Central Yukon Planning Area .................................. 382
 

April 2016 List of Maps
Analysis of Management Situation xi

List of Tables
 

Table 1.1. Surface Management Responsibilities/Status ................................................................. 2
 

Table 2.1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Table 2.3. Nonnative, Invasive Plants identified for treatment in the Dalton Highway Corridor
 

........................................................................ 7
 

Table 2.2. Major Watersheds Within the Central Yukon Planning Area ........................................ 16
 

Management Area 2012-2013 ............................................................................................ 36
 

Table 2.4. Nonnative, Invasive Insects in Interior Alaska Forests 2014 ........................................ 37
 

Table 2.5. Description of Watershed Condition Indicators ............................................................ 46
 

Table 2.6. Fish species present in BLM-managed watersheds in the Central Yukon Planning
 

Area. ................................................................................................................................... 47
 

Table 2.7. Relative Abundance of Furbearers ................................................................................ 63
 

Table 2.8. Bird Species of Conservation Concern ......................................................................... 65
 

Table 2.9. Alaska Natural Heritage Program Global (G#) and State (S#) Ranking Criteria ......... 71
 

Table 2.10. State and Global Rank of Special Status Plants Possibly Occurring in the Planning
 

Area .................................................................................................................................... 73
 

Table 2.11. BLM Alaska Sensitive Species Known to Occur in the Planning Area ...................... 76
 

Table 2.12. Geographic Location of Special Status Plants in the Planning Area .......................... 78
 

Table 2.13. Numbers and Densities of Known Cultural Resources in the Central Yukon
 

Planning Area, as of November 2013. Density Figures are the Number of Known Sites

Per Square Mile. ................................................................................................................. 88
 

Table 2.14. Archeological Site Type and Distribution in the Yukon Basin Unit ........................... 89
 

Table 2.15. Archeological Site Type and Distribution in the Haul Road Unit .............................. 91
 

Table 2.16. Archeological Site Type and Distribution in the North Slope Unit ............................ 93
 

Table 2.17. Utility Corridor 1980 Non-wilderness Assessment .................................................. 109
 

Table 2.18. Location and Types of BLM Facilities in the Utility Corridor Subunit .................... 118
 

Table 2.19. Land Use Authorizations in the Central Yukon Planning Area ................................ 125
 

Table 2.20. Existing Withdrawals in the Central Yukon Planning Area ...................................... 126
 

Table 2.21. List of the Rare Earth Elements ................................................................................ 143
 

Table 2.22. Recreation Activities on the Dalton Highway .......................................................... 155
 

Table 2.23. Visitor Contact Data for the Dalton Highway 2008–2012 ........................................ 155
 

Table 2.24. Dalton Highway Waysides and Campgrounds .......................................................... 157
 

Table 2.25. Dalton Highway Campgrounds ................................................................................. 158
 

Table 2.26. Number of Attendees at Interpretive Programs at AIVC .......................................... 161
 

Table 2.27. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in the Central Yukon Planning Area ...... 168
 

Table 2.28. Research Natural Areas in the Central Yukon Planning Area .................................. 170
 

Table 2.29. Minority Populations in the Central Yukon Planning Area ...................................... 188
 

Table 2.30. Population Characteristics of Central Yukon Planning Area Communities ............. 195
 

Table 2.31. Income and Poverty Characteristics of Central Yukon Planning Area Communities 197
 

Table 2.32. Housing, Municipal Facilities, and Schools in Central Yukon Planning Area
 

Communities .................................................................................................................... 199
 

Table 2.33. Cost of Living and Employment Conditions in Central Yukon Communities ......... 206
 

Table 2.34. Employment by Sector, Central Yukon Communities .............................................. 208
 

Table 3.1. List of Relevant Plans and Amendments .................................................................... 217
 

Table 3.2. Current Management and Options for Change for Cooperative Planning .................. 219
 

Table 3.3. Current Management and Options for Change to Soil, Water, and Air Resources ..... 220
 

Table 3.4. Current Management and Options for Change Vegetative Communities ................... 223
 

Table 3.5. Adequacy of current management direction and options for change for
 

Riparian-Wetland Communities ....................................................................................... 224
 

Table 3.6. Current Management and Options for Change, Nonnative Invasive Plant Species .... 231
 

April 2016 List of Tables
Analysis of Management Situation xii

Table 3.7. Current Management and Options for Change, Fish and Wildlife ............................. 233
 

Table 3.8. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Special Status Species ............ 237
 

Table 3.9. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Wildland Fire Ecology and
 

Management ..................................................................................................................... 240
 

Table 3.10. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Cultural and Paleontological
 

Resources ......................................................................................................................... 242
 

Table 3.11. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Visual Resources .................. 244
 

Table 3.12. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Forestry and Woodland
 

Products ............................................................................................................................ 246
 

Table 3.13. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Livestock Grazing ................ 247
 

Table 3.14. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Leasable Minerals ................ 248
 

Table 3.15. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Locatable Minerals ............... 252
 

Table 3.16. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Salable Minerals ................... 253
 

Table 3.17. Current Management and Opportunities for Change for Recreation ........................ 255
 

Table 3.18. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Transportation and Access ... 257
 

Table 3.19. Current Management and Options for Change Utility Corridors and
 

Communications ............................................................................................................... 262
 

Table 3.20. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Land Tenure .......................... 264
 

Table 3.21. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Land Use Authorization ....... 269
 

Table 3.22. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Withdrawals .......................... 273
 

Table 3.23. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, ACECs and RNAs ................ 273
 

Table 3.24. Potential New ACECs for Fisheries .......................................................................... 286
 

Table 3.25. Current Management and Management Opportunities for Iditarod National
 

Historic Trail .................................................................................................................... 286
 

Table 3.26. Current Management and Options for Change, Wild and Scenic Rivers .................. 287
 

Table 3.27. Current Management and Options for Change, Central Arctic WSA ....................... 287
 

Table 3.28. Current Management and Options for Change, Subsistence .................................... 288
 

Table 3.29. Current Management and Options for Change, Hazardous Materials ...................... 291
 

Table 3.30. Stipulations for Summer Authorized Actions Needing Change, Utility Corridor
 

RMP ................................................................................................................................. 293
 

Table 5.1. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans ............................................................... 304
 

Table A.1. List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 374
 

April 2016 List of Tables
Chapter 1. Introduction
 
This page intentionally

left blank
Analysis of Management Situation 1

1.1. Introduction

1.1.1. Purpose of and Need for the Resource Management Plan

The purpose of the Central Yukon Resource Management Plan (RMP) is to provide a

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

Central Yukon planning area. The RMP will incorporate new data, address land use issues and

conflicts, and specify where and under what circumstances particular activities will be allowed

on BLM-managed public lands. The objectives, land use allocations and management decisions

on public lands will be based on multiple use and sustained yield, except where a tract of such

public land has been dedicated to specific uses according to any other provisions of law it will be

managed in accordance with such law, in accordance with Section 103 of the Federal Land and

Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

The BLM Fairbanks District Office has determined that the two RMPs and one management

framework plan (MFP) it relies on to manage the public land and federal mineral estate in the

Central Yukon Planning Area need to be updated. Evaluations of these plans showed they were

not responsive to current issues in the planning area. The evaluations also found that current plans

lack the entire suite of decisions to be included in land use plans per BLM’s Land Use Planning

Handbook (H-1601-1, BLM 2005a). Additionally, some lands within the planning area are not

covered by any planning document.

The Central Yukon revised RMP will replace all or portions of the following plans:

1. The Utility Corridor RMP/Record of Decision (ROD)

2. The Central Yukon RMP/ROD

3. The Southwest MFP

1.1.2. Purpose of the Analysis of the Management Situation

The purpose of this analysis of the management situation (AMS) is to describe the current

conditions and trends of the resources and the uses/activities in the planning area in sufficient

detail to create a framework from which to develop alternatives to resolve the planning issues.

1.1.3. Planning Area Description

Although there are multiple BLM jurisdictions within the planning area, the Central Yukon

Field Office is the primary administrator. Portions of the Central Yukon Planning Area also fall

within the Arctic and Eastern Interior field offices, all within the Fairbanks District. Other federal

lands in the planning area include Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, the Koyukuk,

Innoko Northern Unit, Nowitna, and Kanuti National Wildlife Refuges, and the U.S. Army

Tanana Flats and Donnelly training areas. The planning area overlaps portions of the Northwest

Arctic Borough, the North Slope Borough, the Denali Borough, and the Fairbanks North Star

Borough. However, the majority of the planning area does not fall within any borough boundary.

The planning area boundary includes 24 remote villages, 15 of which have tribal entities, and

3 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Regional Corporation boundaries (Doyon

Limited, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and NANA, Inc.).

Chapter 1 Introduction

April 2016 Introduction
Analysis of Management Situation 2

The planning area (Figure 1.1) encompasses approximately 59 million acres, of which 11 million

acres are unencumbered BLM-managed lands, 712,000 acres are selected by ANCSA Native

Corporations, and 4.3 million acres are selected by the State of Alaska. The BLM manages a total

of 16 million acres within the planning area.

The planning area is divided into four subunits for planning purposes: the Utility Corridor,

Fairbanks, Middle Yukon, and Nulato Hills subunits (Figures 1, C.1, C.2, and C.3). During

preparation of this document, management of the Nulato Hills Subunit was transferred from the

Central Yukon Field Office to the Anchorage Field Office. The Nulato Hills Subunit will be

incorporated into the Bering Sea-Western Interior Draft RMP/EIS and will not be addressed

by future Central Yukon planning documents.

Table 1.1. Surface Management Responsibilities/Status

Surface Management Responsibility/Status a Surface Acres Percentage of the

Planning Area

BLM Managed Lands

BLM public lands 11,059,000 19

State-selected 4,300,000 7

ANCSA Native-selected 712,000 1

Total BLM 16,071,000 27

Other Lands

State of Alaska 26,206,000 45

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 7,342,000 12.5

National Park Service 48,000 <1

Military 1,468,000 2.5

ANCSA Native corporations 7,526,000 13

Other Private 38,000 <1

Total Other Lands 42,628,000 73

Total All Lands 58,699,000

aIncludes the Nulato Hills Subunit

Chapter 1 Introduction

April 2016 Planning Area Description
Analysis of Management Situation 3

Figure 1.1. Map of Central Yukon Planning Area and Subunits

Chapter 1 Introduction

April 2016
Chapter 2. Area Profile
 
Analysis of Management Situation 5

This chapter describes the area profile, which is the existing condition of resources, resource uses,

and other features in the Central Yukon Planning Area. The information provides the basis for the

Affected Environment chapter of the Draft RMP/EIS.

2.1. Resources

2.1.1. Air Quality and Climate

2.1.1.1. Climate

Two climatic zones comprise the Central Yukon Planning Area: the continental subarctic and

the northern polar. The continental subarctic encompasses lands in the planning area south of

the Brooks Range. This area is considered the Yukon Forest Province by Bailey (1980) and is

characterized by a series of broad valleys, dissected uplands, and lowland basins covered by

alluvial deposits, which extends across interior Alaska between the Brooks and Alaska Ranges.

The semiarid climate of this province has extreme temperatures where summers are short and

hot, up to 100 degrees F (38 degrees C), and winters are severe, with temperatures as low as -70

degrees F (-60 degrees C) (Bailey 1980). Average annual precipitation is only 17 inches (425

mm), but varies slightly throughout the planning area due to microclimate conditions such as

elevation and topography. The seasonal precipitation pattern is normally at a minimum in spring

and at a maximum in late summer. Summer thunderstorms, which can often start wildfires, are

common over the hills and upland areas. Climate strongly influences fire severity and frequency,

with the greatest extent of burning occurring in the hottest, driest years. Snow cover and freezing

temperatures typically persist from October through April. Local rivers normally begin freezing

by the first week of October and melting of the river ice generally occurs in May.

The northern polar climate encompasses lands in the planning area north of the Brooks Range. It

contains both the Arctic Tundra and Brooks Range Provinces (Bailey 1980). The Arctic Tundra

province is characterized by a broad level plain with low elevations that gain altitude southward

into the Brooks Range. The Brooks Range Province is characterized by its rugged mountains

which reach elevations of 9,000 feet. (2,700 meters) and show evidence of glaciation. This

climate is dominated by a lack of sunlight in the winter and long days in the summer. Winters are

therefore long and cold with temperatures reaching -60 degrees F (-51 degrees C) and summers

are short and cool. Average annual temperature is only 10 degrees F (-12 degrees C). The area

has relatively little precipitation averaging 7 inches (180 mm) annually. The Brooks Range

receives slightly more precipitation at higher elevations, averaging between 7 and 15 inches (180

to 390 mm). Monthly precipitation is fairly uniform, with slightly less in May and more in

July and August. Streams and lakes are frozen for much of the year because of the long winter.

Snow cover is common from October through May. Summers, while short and relatively cool

near the coast, are longer and warmer inland. The onset of snowmelt and subsequent runoff often

begins earlier in the foothills than in the rest of the area and moves north as the summer season

progresses. Similarly, freeze-up usually begins first on the coastal plain and proceeds southward.

Climate Change in the Planning Area

Atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and

nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased since 1750 due to human activity. In 2011, the concentrations

of these greenhouse gases exceeded the pre-industrial levels by about 40, 150, and 20 percent,

respectively (IPCC 2013). Concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O now substantially exceed the

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 6

highest concentrations recorded in ice cores during the past 800,000 years. The mean rates of

increase in atmospheric concentrations over the past century are, with very high confidence,

unprecedented in the last 22,000 years (IPCC 2013). The relationship between greenhouse gas

emissions and climate change is in its formative phase, and it is not yet possible to know with

confidence the net impact of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions on climate. However, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) concluded that “Warming of the climate

system is unequivocal...” and “Most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures

since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic

(human-caused) greenhouse gas concentrations.”

The global mean surface temperature has increased since the last half of the nineteenth century.

Each of the past three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any of the

previous decades in the instrumental record, and the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest

(IPCC 2013). Northern latitudes have experienced significant warming over the last half-century

and observations and computer model predictions indicate that increases in temperature are likely

to be greater at higher latitudes, such as in the Arctic, where the temperature increase may be more

than double the global average. Some impacts of climate change are already visible in Alaska.

These impacts include coastal erosion, increased storm effects, retreat of sea ice, and melting

of permafrost (Hassol 2004). Other anticipated effects include changes in wildfire patterns and

changes in species abundance and diversity.

Climate modeling has been conducted on areas adjacent to the planning area, NPR-A in the

Arctic, and the BLM Eastern Interior Field Office in the interior of Alaska. These models give

us insight on how climate change may affect resources in the planning area. Climate change is

expected to increase the length of the summer season in the NPR-A by between three and six

weeks (Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning 2011). Spring thaw dates are expected to shift one

week earlier by mid-century and up to two weeks earlier by late century. Fall freeze dates are

expected to undergo a more extreme transition. Freeze dates for the entire NPR-A historically

occurred by mid-September. By the 2040s, coastal areas may not cross the freezing point until

early October and southern regions by late September. By late century, coastal areas may not

freeze until late October and southern areas may not freeze until early October. Eastern Interior

Alaska is projected to become warmer and drier over the next century. Warmer temperatures

and a longer growing season are expected to increase evapotranspiration enough to outweigh a

regional increase in precipitation. Seasonal changes in climate will have profound impacts on the

condition and health of wildlife habitat, lead to increased fire risk, and contribute to the likelihood

of wetlands, streams, and lakes drying (Rupp and Springsteen 2009).

2.1.1.2. Air Quality

2.1.1.2.1. Indicator

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Clean Air Act, the BLM

cannot conduct or authorize any activity that does not conform to all applicable Federal, tribal,

State, and local air quality laws, statutes, regulations, standards, or implementation plans. To

protect human health and welfare, air quality is regulated at the Federal level under the Clean

Air Act of 1970. The Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, and requires the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for air

pollutants that pose a risk to public health. Primary standards represent air quality levels, with

an adequate safety margin, that are required to protect public health including the health of

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Air Quality and Climate
Analysis of Management Situation 7

“sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set

limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to

animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The EPA has established standards for seven criteria

pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10),

particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2),

and airborne lead (40 CFR 50). These standards and criteria are summarized in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

[Final Rule Citation]

Primary/

Secondary

Averaging

Time

Level Form

Carbon Monoxide

[76 FR 54294, Aug. 31,

2011]

primary 8–hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than

1–hour 35 ppm once per year

Lead

[73 FR 66964, Nov. 12,

2008]

primary and

secondary

Rolling 3

month average

0.15 μg/m31 Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen Dioxide

[75 FR 6474, Feb 9,

2010] [61 FR 52852, Oct

8, 1996]

primary 1–hour 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged over 3

years

secondary Annual 53 ppb 2 Annual Mean

Ozone

[73 FR 16436, Mar 27,

2008]

primary and

secondary

8–hour 0.075 ppm 3 Annual fourth-highest daily

maximum 8–hour concentration,

averaged over 3 years

Particle Pollution PM

2.5

[Dec. 14, 2012]

primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3

years

secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3

years

primary and

secondary

24–hour 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3

years

Particle Pollution PM

10

[Dec. 14, 2012]

primary and

secondary

24–hour 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than

once per year on average over 3

years

Sulfur Dioxide

[75 FR 35520, June 22,

2010] [38 FR 25678,

Sept. 14, 1973]

primary 1–hour 75 ppb 4 99th percentile of 1-hour daily

maximum concentrations,

averaged over 3 years

secondary 3–hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than

once per year

1 Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average)

remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in

areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until

implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

2 The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown

here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard.

3 Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest

daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules

remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded

more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Air Quality and Climate
Analysis of Management Situation 8

that standard (“anti-backsliding”). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected

number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm

is less than or equal to 1.

4 Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in

that same rulemaking. However, these standards remain in effect until one year after an area is

designated for the 2010 standard, except in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards,

where the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the

2010 standard are approved.

"Particulate matter," also known as particle pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely

small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components,

including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.

The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. The concern

is about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles

that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles

can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects.

Smoke from wildfire is the primary air quality concern for the majority of the planning area, with

particulate matter being the primary pollutant of concern in smoke. Particulate levels within the

planning area due to smoke are generally well below the national standards except in extreme

fire seasons. Complaints about “nuisance smoke,” however, frequently occur. Prescribed and

wildland fires are also a source of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxides, also

regulated under the NAAQS; however, the amount of nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxides

produced by wildland fuels is negligible.

Visibility and Regional Haze

Visibility is important to visitors who come to enjoy the scenic beauty of public lands in the

planning area. Section 162 of the Clean Air Act established the goal of Prevention of Significant

Deterioration of air quality in all international parks; national parks which exceeded 6,000 acres;

and national wilderness areas and memorial parks which exceeded 5,000 acres if these areas were

in existence on August 7, 1977. These areas were defined as mandatory Class I areas, while all

other attainment or unclassifiable areas were defined as Class II areas. Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Class I areas are areas where any appreciable deterioration of air quality would be

considered significant. Class II areas are those where moderate, well-controlled growth, as well as

some deterioration of air quality could be allowed. Under criteria established through the Clean

Air Act, the planning area is designated as a Class II area.

No Class I areas are in the planning area, yet Denali National Park, which borders the southern

portion of the planning area is a Class I area. Air quality is monitored in Denali National

Park. The National Park Service (NPS) air quality monitoring network maintains a website

(http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/) that provides an overview of sample design and methods, as

well as public access to validated data. NPS air quality data can be used as an indicator of regional

air quality and may be broadly representative of air quality in the planning area.

2.1.1.2.2. Current Condition

The majority of the planning area is undeveloped with excellent air quality. Residential emissions

occur in several small towns and villages within the planning area. Wildland fire is the largest

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Air Quality and Climate
Analysis of Management Situation 9

natural factor influencing air quality. During the summer months, visibility and air quality in the

interior of Alaska are affected by smoke and particulate matter from wildland fire. Particulate

matter and smoke created by these fires enter the atmosphere and reduce visibility and in extreme

cases air quality. Particulate matter and smoke can travel great distances and can contribute to

regional haze for days or weeks. Inter-annual variability in visibility and regional haze associated

with wildland fires is driven by climatic conditions.

Anthropogenic air pollution emission sources in urban areas are concentrated along the southeast

border of the planning area, including Delta Junction, North Pole, and Fairbanks. Within

the planning area, vehicle emissions occur along the Parks, Dalton, Elliot, and Richardson

Highways. Ice fog forms from water vapor at temperatures less than 30 degrees F. When

this vapor interacts with particulate matter from wood burning and vehicle emissions it can

cause dense fog creating visibilities of less than one-quarter mile. Analysis shows that local

emissions from wood stoves, burning distillate oil, industrial sources, and mobile emissions

contribute to particulate pollution. For planning purposes, PM2.5 is primarily a concern during

the winter months (October through March) when extremely strong temperature inversions are

frequent and human-caused air pollution impacts increase. A portion of the Fairbanks North

Star Borough, including the City of Fairbanks and the City of North Pole, was designated as a

PM2.5 non-attainment area in December 2009. These areas exceeded the health-based 24 hour

exposure limit of 35 micrograms/cubic meter for fine particulate matter. Medical studies have

shown a relationship between increases in particulate matter concentrations and rises in the

number of clinic and hospital visits for upper respiratory infections, cardiac diseases, bronchitis,

asthma, pneumonia, and emphysema. Somewhat surprisingly, the rural communities of Alaska

are estimated to contribute over 95 percent of the statewide hydrocarbon emissions and 80 percent

of the statewide particulate matter emissions even though they contain about 40 percent of the

state’s population (Delaney and Dulla 2007).

In the northern portion of the planning area, haze is periodically observed on the North Slope, due

primarily to air pollutant emissions originating in northern Europe and Asia (and to a lesser extent,

northern Alaska). The wind becomes the long-range transport mechanism of anthropogenic

pollution from sources on the Eurasian continent during the winter and early spring. These

emissions are primarily sulfate aerosols and result in a phenomenon referred to as “Arctic haze.”

Fairbanks has the sole air quality monitoring station in the planning area. However, an additional

air quality monitoring station is located in adjoining Denali National Park. Based on regional

monitoring in Fairbanks, Denali National Park, and reports from agency personnel, existing

air quality in the planning area is generally excellent. In a survey of 346 monitoring stations

located in United States parks from 2005 to 2009 only Denali National Park and Preserve fell

into the “Indicator is in good condition” category for visibility (NPS Air Resources Division

(ARD) 2013). It was also one of only two parks to show a significant improvement in ammonium

concentrations. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008), concentrations of

regulated air pollutants in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, adjacent to the planning

area are considerably lower than the maximum concentrations allowed under the NAAQS and

the Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards.

2.1.1.2.3. Trends

Assessing trends in air quality is difficult due to the lack of air quality monitoring stations within

the planning area. However, due to the lack of large communities or development throughout the

majority of the planning area, air quality is expected to remain excellent.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Air Quality and Climate
Analysis of Management Situation 10

Trends in Fairbanks

Fairbanks was designated non-attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) on November 15, 1990.

The community developed a rigorous inspection and maintenance program to reduce tail

pipe emissions from automobiles and the EPA required automobile manufacturers to reduce

environmental pollution, both of which have helped improve air quality in the Fairbanks North

Star Borough. Not having had any CO exceedances for several years, Fairbanks requested

re-designation and was placed in CO maintenance status on July 23, 2004 (ADEC 2013). In

December 2009, a portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, including the City of Fairbanks

and the City of North Pole, was designated as a PM2.5 non-attainment area. These areas exceeded

the health-based 24 hour exposure limit of 35 micrograms/cubic meter for fine particulate matter.

The Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Program now operates and manages six monitoring

stations: one State and Local Air Monitoring Site (SLAMS) for CO, one SLAMS site for PM2.5,

one Speciation Trend Network (STN) site, and three Special Purpose Monitoring (SPM) sites for

PM2.5. The Fairbanks and North Pole monitoring sites are located within the Northern Alaska

Air Quality Control Region and the Fairbanks non-attainment area.

Trends in Denali National Park

The NPS Air Resources Division monitors air quality in Denali National Park. It examines key

air quality measures of: visibility, ozone, and sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury deposition. Air

quality trends are one way of demonstrating progress in reduced air pollution. To identify trends,

NPS collected visibility, ozone, and deposition data from 2000 to 2009 (NPS ARD 2013). In

that time period, Denali National Park showed statistically significant improvements in the air

quality trend of concentrations of ammonium and nitrate and non-significant improvements in

nitrogen concentrations. It was also the only location sampled to have a “Indicator is in Good

Condition” in the visibility category.

2.1.1.2.4. Forecast

Air resources throughout the majority of the planning area are anticipated to remain in excellent

condition. Under current management, permitted activities on BLM lands will conform to Federal

and State laws, regulations and policies in relation to air quality.

The State of Alaska’s Department of Labor and Workforce Development projects the population

in the planning area will increase approximately 75 percent by 2035 (Huntsinger et al. 2012).

Most of this increase will be in the Fairbanks North Star Borough with small population decreases

within the Yukon and Koyukon areas. This will undoubtedly lead to an increase in vehicle

emissions both in Fairbanks and along the highway corridors, wood and heating oil burning, and

an increase in industrial facilities. With these increased pressures on air resources, the Fairbanks

North Star Borough will continue to undergo air quality monitoring for CO and PM2.5 to ensure

the borough maintains national and Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards.

2.1.1.2.5. Key Features

The excellent quality of air resources throughout the majority of the planning area, with the

exception of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, is in attainment with NAAQS and State of Alaska

Air Quality Standards.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Air Quality and Climate
Analysis of Management Situation 11

2.1.2. Soil Resources

Soils are the unconsolidated mineral or organic material on the immediate surface of the Earth

that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. They function to sustain biological

diversity, regulate water flow, store and cycle nutrients, and filter organic and inorganic materials.

Soil scientists recognize five major factors that influence soil formation: (1) parent material, (2)

climate, (3) living organisms (especially native vegetation), (4) topography and (5) time. The

combined influence of these soil-forming factors determines the properties of a soil and their

degree of expression. Over long time periods, these processes, materials, and organisms create

different soil types. These factors vary widely over the planning area from the mountainous areas

of the Brooks Range to the lowland river valleys of the Yukon River.

Within the planning area, detailed soil surveys have only been performed in and around the

Fairbanks area (USDA 2004). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) completed and

published a broad-scale inventory of soils within Alaska in the Exploratory Survey of Alaska

(1979). Within the planning area it identified six major land resource areas: the Interior Alaska

Highlands; Interior Alaska Lowlands; Kuskokwim Highlands; Brooks Range; Arctic Foothills;

and the Arctic Coastal Plain. The Interior Alaska Lowlands occupy broad valleys and lowlands

bordering major rivers and their tributaries. Most of its soils formed in silty alluvium and loess

derived from the flood plains of large rivers. The dominant soils are shallow over ice-rich

permafrost but in a few well-drained soils on terraces the permafrost is deep or absent. The

vegetation primarily consists of white spruce, cottonwood, and paper birch. The Kuskokwim

Highlands and the Interior Alaska Highlands are associations occupying broad sloping uplands.

The dominant soils formed in thick silty colluvial sediment over partially weathered bedrock and

have a shallow permafrost table. The vegetation is mainly sedge tussocks, mosses, shrubs, and

black spruce. The associations of the Brooks Range and Arctic Foothills occupy broad valleys,

basins, foot slopes, and low rolling piedmont hills. Most areas are patterned with polygons, strips,

and circular frost scars. Most of the soils consist of silty colluvial and residual material weathered

from fine-grained, non-acid sedimentary rocks. The vegetation is tundra dominated by sedges

mosses, lichens, and low shrubs. The Arctic Coastal Plain is dominated by nearly level tundra

dotted with shallow thaw lakes. Most of the soils consist of sandy eolian, alluvial, and marine

deposits, but a few are formed of loamy material. Poorly drained soils are accompanied with a

shallow permafrost layer. The vegetation is mainly grasses, lichens low shrubs and forbs.

In all of these resource areas, the soils have common characteristics. They all developed under a

cold temperature regime in which biological and chemical transformations are slow, and in which

soil horizons or layers are subject to physical dislocations as a result of the freeze-thaw processes.

Permafrost, where present, acts to retard internal drainage, which, combined with low soil

temperatures has resulted in soils with wet, shallow, poorly differentiated profiles and significant

organic components that are only minimally decomposed. In uplands, permafrost underlies most

of the north-facing slopes and most lower elevation areas of south-facing slopes. In the lowlands,

permafrost underlies much of the planning area except where major rivers, alluvial fans, or active

floodplains exist. Due to these factors, these soils are highly susceptible to erosion or other soil

movement caused by disturbance of the ground-covering vegetation and subsequent thawing of

the permafrost. When authorizing activities, such as road construction or off-highway vehicle

(OHV) use, in these areas site-specific mitigation measures must be implemented to minimize

degradation of soil resources.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Soil Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 12

2.1.2.1. Indicator

Land heath and soil quality are interdependent. Management practices may affect the ability of

soils to maintain their biological diversity, regulate water flow, store and cycle nutrients, and

filter organic and inorganic materials. It is the BLM’s responsibility to 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. To ensure this for soil resources

within watersheds, two objectives with success indicators are identified in the Bureau of Land

Management – Alaska Statewide Land Health Standards (BLM 2004).

Objective 1: Protect the soil surface from erosion; avoid detention of overland flow; maintain

infiltration and permeability that are consistent with the potential/capability of the site. Possible

success indicators include:

● amount and distribution of plant cover (including forest canopy cover)

● amount and distribution of permafrost

● soil temperature/depth profile

● soil moisture

● amount and distribution of plant litter

● accumulation/incorporation of organic matter

● amount and distribution of bare ground

● amount and distribution of rock, stone, and gravel

● plant composition and community structure

● thickness and continuity of the first layer of soil containing organic matter

● character of micro-relief

● presence and integrity of biotic crusts

● root occupancy of the soil profile

● biological activity (plant, animal, and insect)

● absence of accelerated erosion and overland flow

Objective 2: Promote moisture storage by soil and plant conditions consistent with the

potential/capability of the site. Possible success indicators include:

● amount and distribution of plant cover (including forest canopy cover)

● amount and distribution of plant litter

● accumulation/incorporation of organic matter

● plant composition and community structure

● snow depth/moisture content

In 2014, BLM Alaska developed a watershed condition classification system for lands within

the planning area. Watershed condition is the state of the physical and biological characteristics

and processes within a watershed that affect the hydrologic and soil functions supporting aquatic

ecosystems (Potyondy and Geier 2011). When watersheds are functioning properly, they have

terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems that capture, store, and release water and sediment

within their natural range of variability. In general, the greater the departure from the natural state,

the more impaired the watershed function condition is likely to be (Potyondy and Geier 2011).

This system offers a systematic, flexible means of classifying watersheds based on a core set of

national watershed condition indicators. Indicators relating to soil resources are:

● road and trail density and maintenance

● soil contamination

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Soil Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 13

● soil erosion

● channel shape and function

● vegetative condition

● fire regime condition class

● soil productivity

● terrestrial invasive species

2.1.2.2. Current Condition

Within the Central Yukon Planning Area, soil resources are largely in natural condition with

little human-caused disturbance. The planning area is sparsely populated with few commercial

facilities and roads to cause negative anthropogenic effects on soil resources. Summer wildfires

can cause damage to soils and result in debris flows and landslides in steep areas in years after

the fires until adequate vegetation is established. Mass wasting and frozen debris lodes occur on

permafrost-stabilized slopes within the Brooks Range and its foothills. When permafrost soils

warm on hillslopes, there is a loss in soil volume, structure, and strength. This results in greater

susceptibility to erosion and mass wasting during thawing. These are of particular concern along

the Utility Corridor, where they pose a potential direct hazard in the coming years and decades to

the Dalton Highway and the Trans Alaska Pipeline (Daanen et al. 2012).

Surface mining, in the form of placer mining and gravel pits, is currently ongoing within the

planning area and is concentrated in watersheds along the Dalton Highway and in the Hogatza

River watershed. Surface mining has localized yet severe impacts on soil resources which can

last for decades, if not longer. Surface mining involves drastic alteration of vegetation, soils,

and subsurface materials. It can result in the complete loss of organic top soils and vegetation,

which impairs water infiltration into the soils. This creates a subsequent alteration in surface

and subsurface hydrology.

Invasive plants are present in the planning area and are concentrated along the road corridors.

They can affect soils in many ways including changing soil pH, nutrient cycling, soil microbes,

and increasing susceptibility to soil erosion. OHV use adversely affects soil resources. It damages

vegetation and soil by abrading, compressing and shearing; and in ice-rich soils, by subsidence.

Currently, Alaska Statute Sec. 19.40.210 prohibits the use of off-road vehicles on land within 5

miles of the right-of-way of the Dalton Highway north of the Yukon River, except for persons

who hold a mining claim in the vicinity of the highway and who must use land within 5 miles of

the right-of-way to gain access to the mining claim.

2.1.2.3. Trends

The majority of soils in the planning area remain in pristine condition; however, natural and

human-caused factors continue to affect soil resources. Due to warming of soils and thawing

of permafrost in the planning area in the past decades, mass wasting and frozen debris lodes

have become more active (Daanen et al. 2012). This has resulted in more areas experiencing

catastrophic downwasting.

Surface mining continues in the planning area with an increase in permitted operators in the past

5 years. This has resulted in more soils being negatively impacted by affecting infiltration and

permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability of upland soils.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Soil Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 14

Invasive plants continue to spread in the planning area through transport by vehicles, OHV,

and aircraft. This is changing vegetation from native to non-native species and changing soil

functions. Limited treatments to remove invasive plant species, such as white sweetclover, are

occurring along the Dalton Highway corridor. However, it is difficult to completely remove

invasive plants or return native vegetative communities, and consequently, return native soil

functions. The use of modern OHVs for hunting, transportation, and recreational activities has

substantially increased since the 1980s. This use of OHVs on unhardened trails has caused severe

damage to plants and increased soil erosion.

2.1.2.4. Forecast

Large-scale changes to soils management are not anticipated in the near future. Maintaining

current soil resources will likely continue to be a priority. General resource protection measures

should continue to prevent undue soil erosion and sedimentation of area streams and rivers,

whenever possible.

Surface mining is expected to continue in the planning area and increase if gold prices increase.

These activities will continue to negatively affect soil resources, especially in wetland and

riparian areas.

Invasive plants are expected to continue to spread throughout the planning area, negatively

affecting soils. It is anticipated that there will be in an increase in removal treatments to address

the increased impact. This will result in localized improvements to soils and native vegetative

communities. While localized improvement to soils and native vegetative communities will

occur, without large-scale removal of invasive plant species, they will continue to spread across

the planning area, negatively affecting soil resources. OHV use will continue and will probably

increase in popularity. Increases in mining activity, or if Alaska Statute sec. 19.40.210 is

overturned, will greatly increase OHV use within the Dalton Highway corridor. This will increase

the area of soil erosion, compaction, and other soil functions. This damage could be limited

by restricting OHV travel to specific trails and hardening the trail surfaces with geotextiles or

other methods.

Forecasted warmer temperatures in the planning area will increase the depth to which permafrost

thaws, known as the active layer. Climate model results, from the adjacent National Petroleum

Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), indicate the depth of the active layer across all areas of the NPR-A

will increase by an average of 30–40 percent by late century (SNAP 2011). The active layer depth

is an important factor that determines ecosystem structure and function. Only shallow-rooted

plants can live in areas with a shallow active layer, while deeper-thawed soils permit better water

drainage and the growth of woody plants. With a forecasted loss of permafrost in the planning

area due to warming of soils, thermokarsting, slumping, and other significant changes in land

morphology can be anticipated.

2.1.2.4.1. Key Features

Planning area soils are thin and fragile. Once damaged, recovery to an original state may require

the span of several human lifetimes. Disturbance to ice and moisture-rich soils frequently results

in extensive erosion, further retarding recovery. Thus, new trails and access routes should

be located on non-permafrost soils.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Soil Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 15

Of particular importance are soils near streams and wetlands. Undisturbed soils are important for

the stability of these features. These areas are heavily used by fish, wildlife, and humans alike.

2.1.3. Water Resources

Alaska’s pristine waters distinguish Alaska as unique among the states. Within the planning

area, there are 121,283 miles of stream with 31,432 miles on BLM-managed land. There are an

additional 950,968 acres of lakes and ponds with 76,332 acres on BLM-managed lands. The

planning area can be divided into two general areas: those rivers that flow from the Brooks Range

north into the Beaufort Sea (Arctic Ocean) and the Yukon River watershed and its tributaries

which ultimately flow into the Bering Sea (Pacific Ocean). The main-stem Yukon River and its

smaller tributaries and its two major tributaries, the Koyukuk and Tanana Rivers, comprise the

Yukon River watershed. Major tributaries to each of these major watersheds are listed in Table

2.2. Tributaries originating in the upper Koyukuk watershed, Alaska Range, and the northside

of the Brooks Range are often from glacial sources and carry heavy levels of sediment in the

summer. Except for these elevated sediment levels in summer due to glacial melting, water quality

is generally good to excellent. Streams typically have low dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen near

saturation, and neutral to moderately basic pH. Water temperatures during summer are typically

less than 14 degrees C. Surface water quantity and quality vary with the season. Generally,

maximum discharge occurs during spring breakup, which usually happens during the latter part of

May south of the Brooks Range and during the middle of June north of the Brooks Range. The

presence of permafrost decreases infiltration, increasing runoff peaks but reducing base flow rates.

During winter, small streams are often frozen to the bed by midwinter. Flows in larger rivers are

usually at a minimum in March and maximum in June, July, or August. Winter flows are generally

about 20 percent of peak summer flows. Ice on lakes and larger streams is normally about 4 feet

thick by March. Seasonal snowpack is the most important annual water storage component in the

hydrologic cycle. River icings (aufeis) also store considerable quantities of water.

While the majority of water resources in the planning area are in a natural condition, human

activities and natural events do negatively affect water quality. Maintaining good water quality

can only be achieved when all sources of pollution in a watershed are taken into consideration.

Potential sources of water pollution can be categorized into point and non-point pollution.

Non-point source water pollution is water pollution that does not come from the end of pipe

discharge. It is the leading cause of water pollution in the state (ADEC 2008). Non-point source

water pollution can come from variety or origins both natural and anthropogenic. Of greatest

concern in the planning area are areas where vegetation adjacent to waterbodies has been removed

or degraded. Due to climatic conditions within the planning area surface water and soils are frozen

in winter, thus, limiting pollution inputs into streams. In open water periods, spring snowmelt

and summer rains allow pollutants to enter streams, thus, decreasing water quality. In the interior

of Alaska, areas in which wildfire has recently occurred contribute minor to moderate excess

sediment to local streams during the summer. OHV use disturbs soils and removes vegetation

adjacent to streams, which allows sediment to enter streams. Historic and ongoing placer gold

mining operations have often exposed soil adjacent to streams, which cause chronic sediment

inputs into streams during snowmelt and rainfall events. Without retaining vegetation around

streams, mitigation of non-point source pollution is difficult. By focusing on land health standards

(i.e., upland soils, vegetation, riparian conditions, and water quality), the BLM can ensure its

permitted land use activities are not degrading water quality.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Water Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 16

Table 2.2. Major Watersheds Within the Central Yukon Planning Area

Watershed Drainage Basin Watershed Size within

the Planning Area (acres)

% of Watershed within

the Planning Area

Managed by BLM

Tozitna River Mainstem Yukon River 1,041,608 86.7

Nowitna River Mainstem Yukon River 4,584,055 36.7

Melozitna River Mainstem Yukon River 1,739,439 43.1

Tanana, River Tanana River 10,539,808 7.5

South Fork Koyukuk River Koyukuk River 1,476,895 71.8

Upper Koyukuk River Koyukuk River 1,787,222 30.0

South Fork Koyukuk River Koyukuk River 1,476,895 71.8

Kanuti River Koyukuk River 2,145,960 51.0

Allakaket River Koyukuk River 1,102,213 20.8

Huslia River Koyukuk River 1,513,420 24.1

Dulbi River Koyukuk River 936,184 51.3

Kateel River Koyukuk River 2,011,437 59.1

Indian River Koyukuk River 268,255 62.8

Hogatza River Koyukuk River 997,872 67.0

Gisasa River Koyukuk River 319,314 87.0

Kaparuk River Beaufort Sea 2,759,438 3.9

Sagavanirktok River Beaufort Sea 3,398,964.75 8.1

Colville River Beaufort Sea 2,191,238 10.6

2.1.3.1. Indicator

The water quality standards for the State of Alaska are the standards the Alaska Department

of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) uses to protect, maintain, or improve surface water

resources in Alaska. These standards support other federal laws. The Clean Water Act of 1972, as

amended, establishes the framework for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the

United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The objective is to restore and

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Under the Clean

Water Act, the EPA has implemented pollution control standards for industry and contaminants in

surface waters. The Safe Drinking Water Act is the principal federal law that protects the quality

of drinking water in the United States. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA sets standards

for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement

those standards. The law requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources: rivers,

lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water. The Water Resorce Planning Act of 1962 established

a Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet representatives, including the Secretary of

the Interior. The Council was empowered to maintain a continuing assessment of the adequacy

of water supplies in each region of the United States. In addition, the Council was mandated to

establish principles and standards for federal participants in preparing river basin plans and in

evaluating federal water projects. Upon receipt of a river basin plan, the Council was required to

review the plan with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, industrial, recreational and fish and

wildlife needs.

The ADEC water quality standards are used to ensure the protection of the beneficial uses of

water including cold water fisheries, recreation, and agriculture. Alaska BLM adopted these water

quality standards to protect public health and welfare and enhance the quality of the water on

public lands within the State of Alaska. ADEC Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70), amended

as of April 8, 2012, for (1) Drinking Water, (2) Water Recreation-contact recreation, and (3)

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Water Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 17

Water Recreation-secondary recreation are summarized in Appendix B "ADEC Water Quality

Standards for Designated Uses.”

To ensure that surface water and groundwater quality complies with State water quality standards,

BLM developed Alaska Land Health Standards in 2004 (BLM 2004). BLM Alaska Land Health

Standards lists possible water quality success indicators as:

● water temperature

● dissolved oxygen

● fecal coliform

● turbidity

● pH

● populations of aquatic organisms

● effects on beneficial uses1

● specific conductivity

● water chemistry, including nutrients and metals

● total sediment yield including bed load

● levels of chemicals in bioassays

● change in trophic status

In 2014, BLM Alaska developed a watershed condition classification system for lands within

the planning area. Watershed condition is the state of the physical and biological characteristics

and processes within a watershed that affect the hydrologic and soil functions supporting aquatic

ecosystems (Potyondy and Geier 2011). When watersheds are functioning properly, they have

terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems that capture, store, and release water and sediment

within their natural range of variability. In general, the greater the departure from the natural state,

the more impaired the watershed function condition is likely to be (Potyondy and Geier 2011).

This system offers a systematic, flexible means of classifying watersheds based on a core set of

national watershed condition indicators. Indicators relating to water resources are:

● impaired waters (303d)

● water quantity

● flow characteristics

● channel shape and function

● vegetative condition

● soil productivity, erosion, and contamination

2.1.3.2. Current Condition

Water quality data are not available for the majority of waterbodies in the planning area. This

makes defining the current condition difficult. However, the majority of streams and lakes within

the project area are undisturbed and have no anthropogenic impacts on water quantity, water

quality, riparian function, and stream stability, so it is assumed these waterbodies are in a good

condition. No streams on BLM-managed lands within the planning area are on the 303(d) list of

impaired waters. A small number of streams in which surface-disturbing activities are or have

been occurring experience elevated turbidity during spring snowmelt and rainfall events. Most

watersheds in the planning area have mixed ownership with BLM managing only a portion of the

watershed (Table 2.2). In mixed ownership watersheds, BLM has limited influence on the quality

1 such as effects of management activities on beneficial uses as defined under the CWA and state regulations

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Water Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 18

of the water yielded by the watershed. This is particularly difficult in areas where surface mining

activities occur upstream of BLM-managed lands.

Riparian vegetation plays a critical role in maintaining water quality. Riparian vegetation protects

water quality by capturing, storing, and treating water through their soils before it gets to streams.

Due to the lack of surface disturbance in the majority of the watershed, riparian vegetation is

assumed to be intact and in proper functioning condition. Exceptions are areas which have had

historic or ongoing surface mining, OHV trails, or recent high-intensity wildland fires.

Water quantity can only be discussed in general terms. Throughout the planning area, water

quantity is adequate, and precipitation and snowpack are dependent on climate, which controls

the timing and volume of peak flows. BLM has applied for federal instream flow reservations to

preserve the flows necessary to protect fish and wildlife habitat, fish migration and propagation;

and to maintain and improve recreational and subsistence opportunities. To date, within the

planning area, BLM Alaska has applied for reservations on the Tozitna River, Jim River, Kanuti

River, and Clear Creek (Hogatza River) and is in the process of completing applications for the

South Fork Koyukuk River and Caribou Creek (Hogatza River). Water quantity in Arctic lakes

has been affected by changing temperatures in Alaska in recent years where warmer temperatures

lead to thinning and eventual breaching of permafrost beneath lakes, facilitating their draining

(Smith et al. 2005).

2.1.3.3. Trends

Water quality, quantity, riparian function, and stream stability data are not available for the

majority of waterbodies in the planning area. This makes interpreting trends difficult, if not

impossible. However, the majority of streams and lakes within the project area are undisturbed

and have no anthropogenic impacts on water quantity, water quality, riparian function, and

stream stability, so it is assumed these waterbodies are trending in a positive direction. Certain

anthropogenic activities are known to degrade water quality, riparian function, and stream stability

from which we can infer water quality trends. Historic and ongoing mining in the planning

area, especially along the Utility Corridor, has led to localized degradation and of water quality

and riparian conditions. These mining operations have unstable stream channels and often lack

adequate erosion control measures. The disturbance of stream banks and streambeds, associated

with surface disturbance, lead to increased erosion, turbidity, and suspended solids. In recent

years, water quality meters have been installed above and below mining operations on Gold and

Marion Creeks during open water periods when mining operations are active to determine if water

quality standards are being met. These meters indicate that these streams (Gold Creek 2012

and Marion Creek 2013) have exceeded State of Alaska Water Quality Standards for turbidity

especially during high flow events. Increases in OHV use have caused localized degradation to

water quality and riparian functions due to erosion and excessive sedimentation especially in

and around stream crossings.

2.1.3.4. Forecast

The majority of BLM-managed waters within the Central Yukon Planning Area are forecasted to

remain in proper functioning condition and meet State of Alaska Water Quality Standards. Mining

operations will continue to degrade water quality due to loss of vegetation and sedimentation

on a localized scale in some watersheds. New reclamation standards for placer-mined streams

located on BLM Alaska lands are expected to better connect streams to their floodplain, thus,

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Water Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 19

reducing the amount of sediment eroding from the stream channel and improving water quality.

Increased population growth within the planning area is forecasted and will result in increased

OHV and recreational use in the planning area. This will increase impacts on water quality

through increased erosion and sedimentation in areas open to OHV use in road-accessible areas.

2.1.3.4.1. Key Features

Key features for water resources are waterbodies important for human use and fish habitat. This

includes all waterbodies within the planning area. Of particular importance are those streams used

for human water consumption such as the Nulato River. Also important are those streams in which

excellent water quality is required for the spawning, rearing, and feeding of diadromous and other

important fish species. Most of these streams were previously designated as Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACECs) because of their high quality fish habitat. These waterbodies

include the: Jim River, Galbraith Lake, Tozitna River, Inglutalik River, North River, Shaktoolik

River, Kateel River, Gisasa River, Ungalik River, Unalakleet River, Sulukna River, Indian River,

Hogatza River tributaries (Clear Creek, Caribou Creek, Klikhtentotzna Creek), Wheeler Creek,

Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River, Sethkokna River, South Fork Koyukuk, Sagavanirktok River

tributaries (Accomplishment Creek and Section Creek), and the Titna River. Also important are

the hot springs in the planning area which include the Kanuti River Hot Springs, Melozitna River

Hot Springs, and the Ishalitna Creek Hot Springs.

2.1.4. Vegetative Communities

Ecoregion units are used to describe the major ecosystems within the planning area. Thirty-two

major ecosystems have been described for the State of Alaska as “ecoregions” by Nowacki

et al. (2001). Ecoregion unit designations and descriptions were based on a combination of

available datasets and the field experience of ecologists, biologists, geologists, and regional

experts. Datasets incorporated into descriptions include climate parameters, vegetation,

surficial geology and topography. Additional datasets incorporated in the mapping process

are lithology, soils, permafrost, hydrography, fire regime and glaciation. The Central Yukon

Resource Management Planning Area overlaps 14 of the 32 described ecoregions in Alaska. The

Ray Mountains Ecoregion is represented to the greatest extent (approximately 34 percent of

the BLM-managed lands). However, the Nulato Hills and Kuskokwim Mountains ecoregions

each comprise approximately 17 percent of the area and Kobuk Ridges and Valleys Ecoregion

comprises 14 percent. Eleven other ecoregions are represented within the planning area, but each

comprises less than 10 percent of the planning area. The ecoregion descriptions for each of the 14

ecoregions represented in the planning area are listed below (from most to least represented on

BLM-managed lands within the planning area).

The Ray Mountains (5 percent of planning area, 34 percent of BLM-managed lands in planning

area) are an overlapping series of compact, east-west trending ranges underlain by the Ruby

terrane. The metamorphic bedrock is usually covered with rubble, and soils are subsequently

shallow and rocky. The Kobuk-Malamute fault essentially separates the Ray Mountains from

the Brooks Range to the north. The area was largely unglaciated during Pleistocene ice ages,

except for alpine glaciers that capped the highest peaks. Permafrost is generally discontinuous

and ranges from thin to moderate thickness. The climate is strongly continental with dry, cold

winters and somewhat moist, warm summers. The vegetation is dominated by black spruce

woodlands, while white spruce, birch, and aspen usually are restricted to warm, south-facing

slopes. Floodplains are dominated by white spruce, balsam poplar, alders, and willows. Shrub

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 20

birch and Dryas-lichen tundra prevail at higher elevations. Wildland fires occasionally occur in

the summer. The clear headwater streams are important habitat for arctic grayling and of minor

importance to king, chum, and coho salmon. Moose, brown bears, wolves, red fox, lynx, and

marten are common land dwellers.

The Nulato Hills (6 percent of planning area, 17 percent of BLM-managed lands in planning

area) are low rolling hills that are the remains of an ancient mountain range after extended periods

of downcutting, weathering, and erosion. East of Norton Sound, these hills ripple inland in a

southwest-northeast orientation with streams flowing in intervening valleys. Due to their modest

elevation, most of these hills have been spared from recent glaciations and were part of the ice-free

Beringia corridor linking North America and Asia. The climate is best classified as moist polar.

The Bering Sea affords some climatic moderation; however, at this latitude, ice spans the sea

early every winter, allowing direct passage of bitterly cold Siberian air. Permafrost is continuous

but ranges from thin to moderately thick. Ecological affinities to Asia exist to this day with the

presence of Eurasian birds (gray-headed chickadee, yellow and white wagtails, bluethroat), fishes

(Alaska blackfish), and flora. Vegetation patterns generally follow the terrain, with Dryas-lichen

and sedge-ericaceous shrub tundra on hilltops, grading into short, then tall, willow-birch-alder

shrublands and eventually spruce and birch woodlands at progressively lower elevations. Moose,

brown bears, caribou, arctic foxes, and Alaska hares are common. Ribbon seals and walruses

comb the coastline, and huge summer runs of pink salmon ascend the Unalakleet drainage.

The Kuskokwim Mountains (8 percent of planning area, 17 percent of BLM-managed lands

in planning area) is a subdued terrain composed of old, low rolling mountains that have eroded

largely without the aid of recent past glaciations. A continental climate prevails with seasonal

moisture provided by the Bering Sea during the summer. Mountains are composed of eroded

bedrock and rubble, whereas intervening valleys and lowlands are composed of undifferentiated

sediments. Thin to moderately thick permafrost underlies most of the area. Boreal forests

dominate grading from white spruce, white birch, and trembling aspen on uplands to black

spruce and tamarack in lowlands. Tall willow, birch, and alder shrub communities are scattered

throughout, particularly where forest fires burned in the recent past. Rivers meander through this

undulating landscape following fault lines and highly eroded bedrock seams. These mountains

support abundant moose, bears, beavers, and scattered caribou herds.

The Kobuk Ridges and Valleys (8 percent of planning area, 14 percent of BLM-managed lands in

planning area) are a series of paralleling ridges and valleys that radiate southward from the Brooks

Range. This diagnostic feature is created in part by high-angle reverse faults and interceding

troughs. This area was overridden by past ice sheets descending from the north. Today, immense

U-shaped valleys harbor large rivers that originate in the Brooks Range. The broad valleys are

lined with alluvial and glacial sediments whereas the intervening ridges are covered with rubble.

Thin to moderately thick permafrost underlies most of the area. A dry continental climate prevails

with long cold winters and short cool summers. Frigid conditions are reinforced during the

winter as the valleys serve as cold-air drainages for the Brooks Range. Forests and woodlands

dominate much of the valley bottoms and mountainsides with black spruce in wetland bogs, white

spruce and balsam poplar along rivers, and white spruce, white birch, and trembling aspen on

well-drained uplands. Tall and short shrublands of willow, birch, and alder communities occur on

ridges. Trees become increasingly sparse, less robust, and restricted to lower elevations in the

west – here forests are slowly invading along rivers and streams (e.g., lower Noatak River).

The Brooks Range (15 percent of planning area, 6 percent of BLM-managed lands in planning

area) ecoregion includes the east-west trending range that represents the northern extension of

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 21

the Rocky Mountains, and includes the Brooks Range and British and Richardson Mountains.

Accreted terranes originating from the Arctic Ocean underlie most of this range, ending at the

Kobuk-Malamute fault system along its southern boundary. The high central portion possesses

steep angular summits of sedimentary and metamorphic rock draped with rubble and scree. To

the west and east, the topography becomes less rugged – for instance, the Richardson Mountains

have flat-topped summits flanked by stepped slopes reflecting bedrock conditions. High-energy

streams and rivers cut through narrow ravines with steep headwalls, etching a deeply-incised,

dendritic pattern into the terrain. During the Pleistocene Epoch, mountain glaciers coalesced to

cover the higher portions of the range – here only a few remnants in the form of small cirque

glaciers still exist. The Richardson Mountains were ice-free during the last ice age and blocked

the continental ice sheet advance from the east. The dry polar climate has short, cool summers

and long, cold winters; and air temperatures decrease rapidly with rising elevation. Valleys and

lower mountain slopes on the north side of the range are covered by mixed shrub-sedge tussock

tundra with willow thickets along rivers and streams. Alpine tundra and barrens dominate at

higher elevations along the entire crest of the range. On the south side, lower mountain slopes and

valleys possess sedge tussocks and shrubs. The arctic tree line skirts across the range in Canada

and is restricted to the south side of the range in Alaska. Here, sparse conifer-birch forests and tall

shrublands occur in larger valleys. Dall sheep, gray wolves, brown bears, marmots, and caribou

inhabit the mountains. Arctic grayling are found in groundwater-fed springs and streams.

The Yukon River Lowlands (5 percent of planning area, 5 percent of BLM-managed lands in

planning area) are an expansive wetland system associated with the lower stretches of the Yukon

and Koyukuk Rivers in west-central Alaska. Although this area was unglaciated, meltwater

flushes deposited vast quantities of sediment within these riverine corridors during glacial retreat.

As such, deep deposits of undifferentiated sediments underlie these floodplains and adjacent

lowlands. A seasonally moist continental climate prevails with cool, moist summers and cold,

dry winters. Permafrost is absent along the younger floodplains, but is thin, discontinuous, and

relatively “warm” on the abandoned floodplains in the adjacent lowlands. Poor drainage caused

by permafrost contributes to the prevalence of wet, organic-rich soils. Collapse-scar features from

thawing permafrost are common. Water levels drop in the Yukon River and its tributaries in early

fall during freeze-up and remain low until spring break-up when substantial ice-jam flooding can

occur. The vegetation along the major rivers is highly productive and supports vigorous stands of

white spruce and balsam poplar. Active floodplains and riverbars support tall stands of alders

and willows. Robust wet sedge meadows and aquatic vegetation reside in infilling sloughs and

oxbow ponds. The adjacent permafrost-dominated lowlands support black spruce woodlands,

and birch-ericaceous shrubs and sedge-tussock bogs. Many flat organic surfaces are pockmarked

with dense concentrations of lakes and ponds. These areas support large populations of moose

and black bear, the oxbow sloughs and thaw ponds support abundant waterfowl, and the lowland

forests are important to furbearers. The large rivers support important runs of Chinook, chum, and

coho salmon. This unit is distinguished from the Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowlands by having lower

elevations, a slightly wetter climate, and more robust vegetation.

The Brooks Foothills (11 percent of planning area, 5 percent of BLM-managed lands in planning

area) are gently rolling hills and broad exposed ridges that form the northern flank of the Brooks

Range. Narrow alluvial valleys and glacial moraines and outwash are interspersed among long

linear ridges, buttes, and mesas composed of tightly folded sedimentary rocks. Most of the

surface is mantled with colluvial and eolian deposits. A dry polar climate dominates the land,

but is somewhat warmer and wetter than the Beaufort Coastal Plain. The surface is underlain

by thick continuous permafrost and slope-related periglacial features, such as solifluction lobes

and stone stripes, are common. Because the permafrost impedes drainage, soils in the active

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 22

layer are usually saturated and have fairly thick organic horizons. The lower foothills tend to be

calcareous, whereas the upper foothills are frequently acidic. Many braided streams and rivers

with highly variable seasonal discharge are present – their clear waters teem with arctic char

and arctic grayling. Lakes are infrequent. Some streams freeze solid to their bottoms, causing

large aufeis deposits that last well into summer and provide refuge for caribou from voracious

mosquitoes. Vegetation is dominated by vast expanses of mixed shrub-sedge tussock tundra,

interspersed with willow thickets along rivers and small drainages and Dryas tundra on ridges.

Calcareous areas support sedge-Dryas tundra. The area is important to caribou, muskox, arctic

ground squirrels, peregrine falcons, wolves, and brown bears.

The Seward Peninsula (5 percent of planning area, 1 percent of BLM-managed lands in

planning area) is a cold, wind-swept landmass jutting out into the Bering Sea and represents the

southernmost haunt of polar bears on mainland Alaska. Sedimentary, metamorphic, and volcanic

rocks intertwine to form a landscape mosaic of coastal lowlands, expansive convex hills with

scattered broad valleys, and small, isolated groups of rugged mountains. Vegetation is principally

tundra, with alpine Dryas-lichen tundra and barrens at high elevations and moist sedge-tussock

tundra at lower elevations. Patches of low-growing ericaceous and willow-birch shrubs occur on

better-drained areas. Permafrost is continuous, but ranges from thin to moderately thick. Soils are

often wet, shallow, and organic because of permafrost. Ice-related features such as pingos and

patterned ground (raised polygons outlined by rock-filled ditches) are present. The climate is best

classified as moist polar. The Chukchi Sea and Bering Strait afford very little climatic moderation

since ice spans these waters during much of the year, allowing direct passage of bitterly cold air

from Siberia. Persistent cold, windy conditions occur in the winter and fog blankets the coastlines

in the summer. At its height, Pleistocene glaciation covered only the highest mountains. Back

then, the peninsula was part of an important ice-free migration corridor between North America

and Asia. Strong ecological affinities to Asia remain to this day with the presence of Eurasian

birds (gray-headed chickadee, yellow and white wagtails, bluethroat), fishes (Alaska blackfish),

and flora. Streams occupy all larger valleys, and many lakes lie in broad inland valleys. Dense

concentrations of lakes and ponds support abundant waterfowl (including the rare arctic loon)

and nesting birds (e.g., spectacled eiders and ruddy and black turnstones) occur within coastal

plains. Bears, caribou, snowy owls, arctic foxes, and Alaska hares are common. Ribbon seals and

walruses are often observed along shorelines and adjacent ice floes.

The Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowlands (6 percent of planning area, 1 percent of BLM-managed

lands in planning area) is an alluvial plain that slopes gently northward from the Alaska

Range. The undifferentiated sediments of fluvial and glaciofluvial origin are capped by varying

thicknesses of eolian silts and organic soils. Sand dune fields and glacial moraines occur in some

areas. A dry continental climate prevails with cool summers and cold winters. Even though a rain

shadow exists due to the neighboring Alaska Range, surface moisture is rather abundant due to

the gentle topography, patches of impermeable permafrost, and poor soil drainage. Permafrost

is thin and discontinuous, and temperatures are near the melting point. Collapse-scar bogs and

fens caused by retreating permafrost are frequent and related to climate warming since the

Little Ice Age. Streams flowing across this north-sloping plain ultimately drain into one of two

large river systems — the Tanana or Kuskokwim. Groundwater-charged seeps and springs are

common in gravel deposits. Boreal forests dominate the landscape with black spruce in bogs,

white spruce and balsam poplar along rivers, and white spruce, white birch, and trembling aspen

on south-facing slopes. The coldest, wettest areas on permafrost flats support birch-ericaceous

shrubs and sedge tussocks. Tall willow, birch, and alder communities are scattered throughout.

The mosaic of habitats supports moose, black bears, beavers, porcupines, trumpeter swans, and

numerous other waterfowl.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 23

The Yukon-Old Crow Basin (7 percent of planning area, less than 1 percent of BLM-managed

lands in planning area) is a gently sloping basin along the Porcupine River that is composed of

depositional fans, terraces, pediments, and mountain toeslopes that ring the Yukon and Old Crow

Flats. The surfaces surrounding the flats are largely unglaciated and products of millions of years

of weathering of the surrounding mountains. Here, deep deposits of colluvial, alluvial, and eolian

origin are underlain by continuous masses of permafrost. The marshy flats have developed in

deep alluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits underlain by discontinuous permafrost. The poorly

drained flats and terraces harbor vast wetlands pockmarked with dense concentrations of thaw

lakes and ponds. On the flats, water levels of lakes are often maintained by spring flooding rather

than precipitation. Active fluvial processes are etched throughout the topography featuring deltaic

fans, terraces, and floodplains. Opaque with glacial silts and shoreline mud, the Yukon River

forms an aquatic maze of islands, sandbars, meander sloughs, and oxbow lakes as it crisscrosses

the lower flats. The rich aquatic habitats support tremendous concentrations of nesting waterfowl

(in the millions!) and other migratory birds and an abundance of moose, bears, furbearers,

northern pike and salmon. A dry continental climate prevails with considerable seasonal

temperature variation. Arctic high-pressure systems prevail during the winter, bringing clear and

frigid weather. In contrast, summers are short but relatively warm. Vegetation varies with soil

drainage grading from wet grass marshes and low shrub swamps to open black spruce forests to

closed spruce-aspen-birch forests on better-drained uplands. Summer wildland fires are common.

The Davidson Mountains (3 percent of planning area, less than 1 percent of BLM-managed

lands in planning area) is an area along the south flank of the eastern Brooks Range where rugged

mountains are dissected by broad floodplains of glacial origin. The mountains are draped by

course rubble, whereas river valleys and floodplains are lined with unconsolidated glacial and

alluvial sediments. Continuous permafrost from thin to moderate thickness underlies most of the

area. Boreal forests cover much of the terrain with black spruce in bogs; white spruce and balsam

poplar along rivers; and white spruce, paper birch, and trembling aspen on uplands. Tall willow,

birch, and alder communities also occur. Wildland fires are frequent. A strong continental climate

prevails with long, cold winters and short, cool summers. These mountains are home to moose,

bears, wintering caribou, and various furbearers.

The Alaska Range (10 percent of planning area, less than 1 percent of BLM-managed lands in

planning area) is a series of accreted terranes conveyed from the Pacific Ocean fused to form this

arcing mountain range. In turn, these towering mountains harbor a complex mix of folded,

faulted, and deformed metamorphic rocks. Landslides and avalanches frequently sweep the steep,

scree-lined slopes. Discontinuous permafrost underlies shallow and rocky soils. Because of the

Alaska Range’s height, a cold continental climate prevails and much of the area is barren of

vegetation. Occasional streams of Pacific moisture are intercepted by the highest mountains and

help feed small icefields and glaciers. At the glacier’s termini, swift glacial streams with heavy

sediment loads course down mountain ravines and braid across valley bottoms. Alpine tundra

supports populations of Dall sheep and pikas on mid and upper slopes. Shrub communities of

willow, birch, and alder occupy lower slopes and valley bottoms. Forests are rare and relegated

to the low-elevation drainages. Brown bears, gray wolves, caribou, Dall sheep, and wolverines

are common denizens in the Alaska Range.

Yukon-Tanana Uplands (10 percent of planning area, less than 1 percent of BLM-managed

lands in planning area) are broad, rounded mountains of moderate height that are underlain by

the metasedimentary Yukon-Tanana terrane. This terrane is a composite of transported crust

blocks that includes former volcanic island arcs and continental shelf deposits. Most surfaces

are composed of bedrock and coarse rubble on ridges, colluvium on lower slopes, and alluvium

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 24

in the deeply incised, narrow valleys. Climate is strongly continental with warm summers and

very cold winters. The region is underlain by discontinuous permafrost on north-facing slopes

and valley bottoms. In valley bottoms, permafrost is thin, ice-rich, and relatively “warm.”

Vegetation is dominated by white spruce, birch and aspen on south-facing slopes, black spruce on

north-facing slopes, and black spruce woodlands and tussock and scrub bogs in valley bottoms.

Floodplains of headwater streams support white spruce, balsam poplar, alder, and willows. Above

treeline, low birch-ericaceous shrubs and Dryas-lichen tundra dominate. This area has the highest

incidence of lightning strikes in Alaska and the Yukon Territory, causing frequent wildland

fires. Caribou, moose, snowshoe hares, marten, lynx, and black and brown bears are plentiful.

The area’s abundant cliffs are important to peregrine falcons. The clear headwater streams are

important spawning areas for Chinook, chum, and coho salmon.

The Beaufort Coastal Plain (5 percent of planning area, less than 1 percent of BLM-managed

lands in planning area) is a treeless, wind-swept plain which gradually ascends from the Beaufort

Sea coast southward to the foothills of the Brooks Range. This flat to undulating coastal plain is

underlain by unconsolidated deposits of marine, fluvial, glaciofluvial, and eolian origin and lacks

bedrock control. A dry, polar climate dominates throughout the year, with short, cool summers

and long, cold winters. Proximity to the Arctic Ocean and abundant sea ice contribute to the

cool, frequently foggy, summers. Annual precipitation is low and mostly falls as snow during

the winter. Due to low temperatures, permafrost is continuous across the region, except under

large rivers and thaw lakes. Permafrost and frost processes contribute to a large variety of surface

features such as pingos, ice-wedge polygons, and oriented thaw lakes. The presence of permafrost

prevents surface drainage so soils typically are saturated and have thick organic horizons. Due to

the abundance of thaw lakes (covering up to 50 percent of the surface) and saturated soils, nearly

the entire region supports wetland communities. Vegetation is dominated by wet sedge tundra in

drained lake basins, swales, and floodplains, and by tussock tundra and sedge-Dryas tundra on

gentle ridges. Low willow thickets grow on well-drained riverbanks. Although drainage over

most of the area is poorly integrated, there are numerous large, braided rivers that originate in

the Brooks Range and drain northward to cross the coastal plain. Anadromous arctic cisco,

broad whitefish, least cisco, and Dolly Varden char overwinter in these larger rivers and migrate

to nearshore waters for the summer. Smaller streams often dry up or freeze completely during

the winter. The coastal plain supports large caribou herds and is an important calving area.

Important hervibores include muskoxen, lemmings, and arctic ground squirrels, while important

predators include arctic foxes, gray wolves, and brown bears. Polar bears occasionally den on the

coastal plain. The region also is important for breeding waterfowl, including a wide variety of

shorebirds, ducks, geese, swans, and passerines.

For the purposes of this planning effort the National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD 2001,

Homer et al. 2007) has been selected for depicting and analyzing major vegetation communities.

The NLCD 2001 is a 16-class (additional four classes in Alaska only) land cover classification

scheme that has been applied consistently across all 50 states and Puerto Rico at a spatial

resolution of 30 meters. Vegetation communities in the planning area have been classified to a

finer resolution in some areas, by a series of vegetation mapping projects, including efforts by

Ducks Unlimited and LANDFIRE.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 25

2.1.4.1. Indicator

BLM Healthy Lands

The 2004 Alaska Land Health Standards and Guidelines Instruction Memorandum (IM) (BLM

2004) provides specific Land Health Standards and Guidelines to be implemented in the land

use planning process. The Standards described are intended to “promote healthy, sustainable

ecosystems that support a wide range of public values and uses, reflective of the BLM multiple

use land management mission. The BLM further intends to provide for a wide variety of public

land uses without compromising the long-term health and diversity of the land and without

sacrificing significant natural, cultural, and historical resource values.”

The Ecological Processes Standard in the Health Standards and Guidelines IM (BLM 2004)

focuses in part on the presence of healthy plant communities on the landscape is implicit in the

promotion of “healthy, sustainable ecosystems”:

“Plants play an important role in soil development and watershed functions. Plants also provide

habitat for wildlife and human economic use. Nutrients necessary for plant growth come from the

atmosphere, the weathering of rocks, and from insects, bacteria and fungi that metabolize organic

matter. The soil transports nutrients through plant uptake, leaching, and rodent, insect, and

microbial activity. Conveyance follows cyclical patterns as nutrients are used and reused by living

organisms. The ability of the land to supply resources and satisfy social and economic needs

depends upon the buildup and cycling of nutrients over time. Interrupting or slowing nutrient

cycling can lead to site degradation since lands may become deficient in the nutrients that plants

require. Consider the role of fire in natural ecosystems, whether it acts as a primary force or as

only one of many factors. It may play a significant role in both nutrient cycling and energy flows.”

The corresponding goal of the Ecological Processes Standard is to 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.

To achieve this goal, two objectives related to vegetative communities should be achieved. First,

photosynthesis should be effectively occurring throughout the growing season, consistent with

the potential/capability of the site. Successful achievement of this objective would be indicated

based on observed plant composition and community structure. The second objective would

be that nutrient cycling is occurring effectively, consistent with the potential capability of the

site. The subset of possible indicators (related specifically to vegetation) that this objective is

being successfully achieved include: (a) plant composition and community structure, (b) fire

history mapping, (c) fire return rate, (d) fire severity distribution, (e) accumulation, distribution,

incorporation of plant litter and organic matter into the soil, (f) root occupancy in the soil profile,

and (g) biological activity including plant growth. While indicators (e) and (f) are challenging to

quantify for large-scale planning efforts and there is a minimal amount of information to support

models of these, the other indicators may be quantified and inform planning efforts.

Wildland Fire, Insects and Disease

Wildland fires can exert a landscape-level influence on vegetation structure and composition,

permafrost dynamics, water and air quality, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat, and biodiversity. In

the absence of fire in boreal forests, organic matter accumulates and insulates the ground, causing

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 26

the permafrost table to rise. Wildland fires usually remove portions of the accumulated organic

layer that can warm the soils, lower the permafrost table, and increase active layer depth (Van

Cleve and Viereck 1981). Soil temperature directly affects nutrient availability (Smithwick et al.

2005) and therefore, ecosystem productivity (Van Cleve and Viereck 1981). Wildland fire-related

changes to nutrient cycling, cycling, trophic dynamics, and species composition may occur to

such an extent that post-fire communities may be completely different from the original pre-fire

community (Johnstone and Chapin 2006).

Wildland fires are the predominant driver of successional vegetation community shifts in the

planning area. They occur in each of the ecoregions represented within the planning area;

however, their frequency, size and severity vary depending on vegetation (fuel) availability,

climatic conditions and topography. Post-fire vegetation communities are a function of several

factors including pre-fire vegetation community structure, fire severity, and the spatial extent

(patchiness) of fire activity. Each of these factors influence post-fire vegetation regeneration and

available seed stock. The vast majority of the wildland fires that occur in the planning area are

caused by lightning. A smaller percentage of the area burned annually in the planning area is the

result of human activity. Human-caused wildland fires are generally localized to areas surrounding

human infrastructure including towns and road corridors. Regardless of cause, most wildland fires

that start near human-inhabited areas are subject to fire suppression activities and limited in size.

Most wildland fire activity in Alaska has been tracked and recorded by the BLM Alaska Fire

Service since the 1950s. Based on these records, it is possible to make some deductions about

historic fire frequency for a given section of the planning area. Knowledge of fire frequency

allows for classification of fire frequency per given area into Fire Regime Condition Classes,

which can be useful as an indicator of landscape condition (as recommended in the Alaska Land

Health Standards and Guidelines IM). However, wildland fire records do not include information

on fire severity or spatial extent (e.g., patchiness) on the landscape. Therefore, landscape-scale

effects on vegetation and post-fire successional pathways cannot be deduced from fire records.

More detailed mapping of the spatial coverage and severity of individual wildland fires may be

warranted, particularly if projected shifts in fire regime occur in response to changing climatic

conditions. Insects and disease do affect vegetation communities within the planning area but

have not been noted as a management concern to date.

Burn Severity

In Alaska’s boreal forest and tundra ecosystems, burn severity strongly impacts post-fire

vegetation patterns and succession (Sorbel and Allen 2005). If burn severity is low or moderate,

above-ground plant material may be singed or burned, but much of the vegetation will be

able to regenerate quickly from roots and stems. In contrast, severe fires burn deeper into

organic soils, which may kill off the underground root structure of some shrubs and herbaceous

plants. Therefore, in severely burned areas, plant reproduction may be more dependent on seed

establishment or deep-rooted plants than in low or moderately burned areas. This may in turn

slow or alter the post-fire vegetation successional trajectory (Bernhardt et al. 2011, Johnstone and

Chapin 2006, Sorbel and Allen 2005). The ecosystems of Alaska are fire-adapted ecosystems,

and are characterized by a mosaic of different-aged landscapes that are maintained by wildland

fire. Within this system, burn severity strongly influences vegetation patterns and succession after

wildland fire. Since many of the plant species are rooted in the organic forest floor mat, the

amount of consumption of the organic mat will determine whether vegetation regeneration occurs

through seeding or re-sprouting post fire (Viereck 1983). For tree establishment, seed source and

seedbed conditions at the micro-site scale in the immediate post-disturbance period are major

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 27

drivers of recruitment (Zasada and Gregory 1972, Johnstone and Chapin 2006). If fire severity is

low to moderate, above-ground portions of plants may be top-killed, but minimal organic mat or

duff is burned and regeneration can occur quickly through re-sprouting from roots and stems for

species such as aspen, paper birch, Labrador tea, willow, resin birch, rose, fireweed, tussocks or

northern blue joint grass (Viereck and Schandelmeier 1980, Foote 1983, Racine et al. 1987). On

the other hand, severe burns will consume most of the organic layer and may kill more of the

underground root structure of shrubs and herbaceous plants, such that reproduction will occur

more often by seed. As a result, severity will influence the plant species composition at a site.

Boreal Forest Fire Effects

Periodic wildland fires in the boreal forests of Gates of the Arctic have shaped the ecosystem

so that many plants and animals exhibit fire-adapted traits. For instance, white spruce colonizes

mineral soil seedbeds after intense ground fires that remove organic soil layers, and black spruce

is partially dependent upon fire activity for sexual reproduction. Aspen and birch trees also

respond rapidly to fire; burned areas are often colonized by dense stands of these species, which

provide good habitat for some wildlife species.

Tundra Wildland Fire Effects

Relatively few studies have documented the effects of wildland fire and burn severity in tundra

ecosystems. Unless wildland fires are severe, most shrub-tussock tundra types re-vegetate

rapidly, sometimes within a few weeks after a fire event (Racine et al. 1987, Racine et al. 2004).

On the other hand, high-severity fires may either decrease or eliminate tussock cottongrass

(Eriophorum vaginatum L.). Fire is important in maintaining the long-term growth and survival

of tussock cottongrass. In the absence of wildland fire, tussock-shrub tundra undergoes a series of

autogenic successional changes. These changes involve the accumulation of peat and burial or

submergence of tussocks by dwarf shrubs, mosses, and lichens. This results in raised permafrost

levels, reduced frost action, and senescence of tussocks. Frost action prevents such changes by

churning soils, incorporating organics, and preventing the build-up of dwarf shrubs, mosses, and

lichens. Frost action is renewed when enough organics are burned so that thaw depth reaches

into mineral soils. Tussock cottongrass survives wildland fire because its growing points are

insulated by tightly bunched dead and live tillers, stem sheaths, and scales. The elevated position

of tussocks increases resistance to ground fire. Wildland fire provides an opportunity for seedling

establishment. Since sheathed cotton-sedge has both shallowly and deeply buried seed, some

viable seed is available regardless of depth of burn into the peat horizon. Burned peat is an ideal

seedbed. In a comparison of sheathed cotton-sedge seedling emergence on different substrates,

burned peat showed highest rates of emergence.

Habitat Wildland Fire Effects

Changes in vegetation due to wildland fires, in turn, affect wildlife distribution and habitat use.

Patchy fires create a mosaic of habitats frequently used by snowshoe hares and martens, while

moose often browse on resprouting willow and other shrubs (Sorbel and Allen 2005). Small

mammals such as voles often thrive in recently burned areas, creating large colonies in the

remaining duff and feeding on new vegetation. In the winter, caribou often avoid recently burned

areas because they lack sufficient lichen for winter forage (Joly et al. 2010).

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 28

Human Activity

Direct human impacts to vegetation within the BLM-managed sections of the planning area

(including but not limited to placer mining, gravel extraction, ice road and trail development and

use) are largely localized to developed areas and road corridors. The Dalton Highway provides

public access from Fairbanks to the North Slope and is used for access to adjacent lands. OHV

use in the Dalton Highway area is limited by BLM seasonal/winter use (with definitive snow and

ice depth parameters) restrictions that reduce the amount of impact to vegetation communities as

a result of roads and trails. OHV use in other portions of the planning area is largely centered

around communities that are not connected to a larger road system. For the most part, these

communities are surrounded in an immediate sense by non-BLM-managed lands. Thus, most

OHV use and associated damage to vegetation is minimal on BLM-managed lands within the

planning area. Soil erosion can damage vegetation communities and has been directly associated

with winter roads and trails, which have been, either poorly maintained or inappropriately used.

Other disturbances that affect vegetation include mineral and gravel extraction. To track the

cumulative impacts of vegetation clearing and disturbance on vegetation communities, it is

important to annually or periodically track and analyze the spatial extent of disturbance from

permitted activities that disturb vegetation. Sensitive bird habitat, migratory bird nesting habitat,

and rare plant species should be given special consideration when vegetation clearing is proposed

by permitted activities.

Studies and Mapping Efforts

Large-scale plant composition and community structure in the planning area is depicted by

vegetation coarse vegetation maps including the National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD

2001) as well as more detailed maps such as those produced by Ducks Unlimited, LANDFIRE,

and others. Although these vegetation maps provide baseline information from which gross-scale

deductions about vegetation communities may be drawn, questions about smaller scale vegetation

community structure and detection of change often requires more specific information than has

been provided thus far. Ideally, an improved Alaska-wide map of vegetation communities at the

finest possible scale will become available. In the meantime, particularly for specific questions of

land management importance (e.g., lichen cover for caribou habitat, willow tall shrub cover for

moose habitat) site-specific imagery to detect specific vegetation communities is warranted.

At a more localized (plot) scale, large-scale vegetation inventory and monitoring have not been

comprehensively conducted in the planning area. However, some quantitative monitoring of

vegetation condition and change over time has been conducted by the BLM in recent decades.

Most notably, caribou winter range monitoring plots were established in the tundra ecosystem

of the Nulato Hills in 1981 and have been revisited approximately every 5 years since. Several

publications resulted from this long-term monitoring project and provide some baseline

information on caribou habitat in relation to climate change projections and fire activity. Other,

shorter term, studies of vegetation condition have been conducted in the planning area by the

BLM which include; (1) an impact analysis of overland vehicle traffic and (2) an exclosure

(fenced-in area) study designed to track post-disturbance vegetation recovery. Further monitoring

and reporting on these latter two projects may help inform future management decisions.

The planning area includes the Toolik Field Station, which is an arctic research laboratory and

science support facility. The field station is the site of extensive research and several studies

focused on northern Alaska boreal and tundra vegetation community structure and dynamics;

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 29

some specifically relate to disturbance, climate change and permafrost dynamics. It is highly

likely that information provided by the research conducted at the Toolik Field Station will be

useful in this land use plan.

Finally, it is important to note that the planning area is vast and ecologically varied. It is probable

that other studies of vegetation communities have and will be conducted that will be useful in

this planning effort.

2.1.4.2. Current Condition

Vegetative communities in this vast and largely roadless planning area are currently in a

predominantly undisturbed state. It is therefore possible to emphasize protection of intact

vegetation communities and habitats rather than restoration in this planning effort.

Wildland Fire: Wildland fire is an important natural process in all of the ecoregions represented

in this planning area, but it plays a particularly large role in driving vegetation succession in

the areas dominated by boreal forest vegetation communities. On an area basis, wildland fire

has the greatest impact of all disturbance factors on vegetative communities represented in the

planning area. The vast majority of the acreage burned is the product of lightning-caused wildland

fires. Human-caused wildland fires are generally localized to the relatively low proportion

of the planning area with roads or communities and, in most years, are the source of only a

small proportion of the total area burned. Therefore, BLM lands within the planning area are

predominantly classified in the “limited fire management option” that allows fires to burn largely

unchecked, barring special circumstances (e.g., lands managed by BLM but selected by other

entities, lands adjacent to communities).

An annual average of 389,657 acres burns within the 58,697,532 acre planning area based on

records from 1950 to present. Climate, terrain, and vegetation strongly influence the occurrence

and extent of wildland fires in the planning area where both the boreal forest and tundra

ecosystems are subject to periodic fires. In the planning area, thunderstorm activity, accompanied

by high temperatures and low precipitation, is common during June and July. This combination of

weather factors is conducive to both fire starts and continued fire activity. It follows that the vast

majority of fire starts and fire activity in this region occur in June and July. The most frequent and

largest wildland fires on record have occurred in the forested portions of the planning area.

Manned Vehicle: Vegetation communities are susceptible to damage by vehicular traffic.

Depending on the type of vegetation community as well as the duration and frequency of traffic,

impacts to vegetation can perceptibly persist for extended time periods. Recreational vehicle use

in this planning area includes summer overland travel via OHV, but use is generally concentrated

around the few human communities, most of which are not connected to a road system and

are surrounded largely by non-BLM-managed lands. Most OHV use on BLM-managed lands

in the planning area occurs near the Dalton Highway and is limited by BLM seasonal/winter

use (with definitive snow and ice depth parameters) restrictions, which reduces the amount of

impact to vegetation communities.

Mining and Gravel Extraction: Placer mining has impacted riparian vegetation, especially in

the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area (DHCMA), but has directly affected only a

small proportion of riparian vegetation within the planning area. Gravel extraction requires

vegetation clearing and impacts a relatively small proportion of the vegetation in the planning

area in areas immediately adjacent to roads.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 30

2.1.4.3. Trends

Wildland Fire and Climate Change: Formal statistical analysis of changes in area burned over

the course of the last six decades has not been conducted; however, preliminary analyses do not

strongly indicate that fire activity has significantly increased within the planning area.

Prior to 1980, it was policy that all wildland fires in the state would be completely and aggressively

suppressed (Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan 1998); however, given the

vast area and regular occurrence of wildland fire on the landscape, most suppression activity

was (and continues to be) localized to areas around human communities and infrastructure.

Following completion of Interagency Wildland Fire Management plans (between 1980 and 1988),

much of the planning area was placed in “limited” (where fires were typically not suppressed)

or “modified” units (where fires starting after July 10 were typically not suppressed). A small

proportion of the planning area is within 100 miles of fire bases in Fairbanks and Galena, and fire

suppression (though not complete) may have been effective enough to change the distribution of

seral communities on the landscape; older seral stages are likely more predominant than they

would have been without fire suppression efforts. Climate change is likely related to changes in

elevational and latitudinal treeline changes in the planning area (Lloyd et al. 2005, Rupp et al.

2001). Other climate-related changes in vegetation, including increased shrub cover and shrub

expansion in tundra areas, have also likely been occurring in the planning area.

Human Use Impacts: It is challenging to predict the extent of future changes in human activity

and their relative impacts on vegetation communities, particularly for activities such as placer

mining and events like human-caused fires. Changes in requirements for reclaiming placer mined

lands initiated in 1981 have generally resulted in more rapid revegetation of mined sites. The

establishment, maintenance, and access from public and/or private roads has likely been the

human-related factor that has most impacted vegetation in the planning area.

2.1.4.4. Forecast

Climate change is predicted to result in changes to wildland fire characteristics and occurrence,

which could result in significant changes to vegetative communities. However, it is important

to note that although there is evidence to indicate a warming climate, it is difficult to predict

precipitation regime and associated effects on fire regime in future decades. Additionally,

predictions of wildland fire activity and associated vegetation changes are difficult to assess for

reliability. Knowledge of fire frequency allows for classifying fire frequency for a given area

into Fire Regime Condition Classes, which can be a useful indicator of landscape condition.

However, management decisions should not assume a static fire regime because future climate

changes may preclude current fire condition.

There is also some evidence that climate change may also promote continued rising of treeline

(Rupp et al. 2001) and increased shrub cover and expansion. However, while planning efforts

should take potential changes related to climate into consideration, the forecasted changes in

vegetation community are not likely to occur rapidly enough to impact planning decisions within

the 20 year lifetime of this plan.

Management efforts to protect key vegetation communities that provide essential habitat,

particularly for species of management concern, should be considered if environmental shifts

leads to habitat loss on a scale that could be to the detriment of wildlife populations.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 31

The construction, maintenance, and increased access to previously largely inaccessible areas, that

would be associated with new roads in the planning area will most likely be the largest factors

affecting vegetation communities within the 20 year lifetime of this plan.

2.1.5. Nonnative Invasive Species

For this analysis, the nonnative, invasive species category encompasses insects, animals,

pathogens and plants; only nonnative, invasive plants are known to occur in the planning area to

date. Nonnative, invasive plants, defined in accordance with Executive Order 13112, are those

plants whose introduction is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human

health. According to the BLM, nonnative plants are undesirable for their (1) toxicity, (2) lack of

forage value, (3) invasiveness or the invisibility of the predominant ecotype (DOI BLM 1996;

DOI BLM 2004). Of the 26 nonnative, invasive insect species known to be established in Interior

Alaska (Kruse 2014), none are documented within the planning area; nor are there any known

pathogens or invasive terrestrial or aquatic animals. The extent of the range of the established

populations of nonnative, invasive insects is unknown. The coverage of insects in this section will

be limited to listing the species composition, with the remaining focus on invasive plants.

2.1.5.1. Indicator

The BLM Alaska Land Health Standards and Guidelines IMAK2004023 is a framework for

following practices and procedures to achieve the required standards. Qualitative indicators

are intended for monitoring whether management is achieving maintenance of, or a trend

toward, or away from the standard. The standards are (A) watershed function-uplands, (B)

watershed function-riparian, wetland, and aquatic areas, (C) ecological processes, (D) threatened,

endangered, native, and locally important species, and (E) water quality and yield.

Watershed function—uplands

Upland watershed functions in the infested ecosystems within the planning area, such as the

infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability of upland soils, are appropriate

to the watershed’s soil, climate, and landform. Erosion is not a problem except in areas where the

vegetation cover is disturbed or stream channel morphology is altered. Where physical control

of invasive plants is successfully applied, the impacts on water resources would be beneficial.

Where physical control methods are not successful in managing invasive plant infestations,

herbicide treatment may be considered.

Herbicides applied in terrestrial settings do have the potential to reach surface and ground water.

The four primary means of off-site movement of herbicides are run off, drift, misapplication

or spills, and leaching. Surface water could be affected by any of these means. Groundwater

potentially would be affected only by leaching; however, herbicides must be relatively persistent

in the environment to leach or run off (non-persistent herbicides do not stay active long enough to

create a risk). Adherence to the design features, standard operating procedures, and mitigation

measures listed in section 2.1.1.1 in the Dalton Area Integrated Invasive Plant Management

Strategic Plan Environmental Assessment (EA) should reduce the risk of off-site movement and

subsequent effect to upland watershed function.

The goal of this standard is to ensure that upland watersheds are in, or are making significant

progress toward, a properly functioning physical condition that includes their upland, riparian,

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 32

wetland, and aquatic areas. To achieve this goal, the following objectives will be met: (1) protect

the soil surface from erosion, (2) avoid detention of overland flow, (3) maintain infiltration and

permeability, and (4) promote moisture storage by soil and plants. Possible indicators of success

are listed in the table below.

Objective Possible success indicators

Protect the soil surface from erosion Amount and distribution of plant cover; amount and

distribution of bare ground; plant composition and

community structure; character of micro-relief; presence

and integrity of biotic crusts; biological activity; absence

of accelerated erosion and overland flow; moisture content

Avoid detention of overland flow

Maintain infiltration and permeability

Promote moisture storage by soil and plants

Watershed function — riparian, wetland, and aquatic areas

Riparian, wetland, and aquatic watershed function in the infested ecosystems within the planning

area are functioning properly at levels appropriate to the watershed’s soil, climate, and landform.

Currently, no impacts have been observed that can be linked directly to the presence of invasive

plants. However, infestations are known to occur at or near the intersection of the following

waterways with the Dalton Highway: the Kanuti River, Bonanza Creek (including Fish Creek),

the Koyukuk River (including Tramway Bar, Rosie Creek, Slate Creek, Marion Creek and Minnie

Creek), the Jim River (including Prospect Creek and Douglas Creek), the Hammond River, and

the Yukon River. These infestations are of management concern due to the potential for water

transport of invasive plant propagules and the possible establishment of M. alba or V. cracca on

gravel bars downstream (Wurtz et al. 2008).

If herbicides are chosen as a method of control, they do have the potential to enter waterbodies

and affect aquatic organisms (1) through direct application into aquatic environments (of

herbicides approved for use in these habitats), (2) through accidental spraying, or (3) through

the movement of herbicides from upland areas to nearby waterbodies as discussed above. At

low concentrations, herbicides typically may have little or no effect on aquatic organisms. At

moderate concentrations, herbicides may not kill aquatic organisms, but could be detrimental to

the survival, growth, reproduction, or behavior of certain organisms (chronic effects). At high

concentrations, some herbicides can be lethal to aquatic organisms (acute effects).

The EA stated that there would be negligible direct toxic impacts to fish from herbicide

applications because of the small size of the treatment sites; the precautions that would be taken

to prevent runoff in rainwater; the lack of off-site drift from the backpack, hand, or ground-based

boom sprayers that would be used; and the generally rapid degradation of the herbicides after

application. Herbicides would not adversely affect fish habitat because native riparian vegetation

would not be treated and the lack of drift or runoff of herbicides would minimize any unintended

impacts to riparian plants, should they occur near a treatment site.

According to the design features in the EA (section 2.1.1) rivers and streams that chum,

Chinook and coho salmon inhabit are considered essential fish habitat (EFH). To protect EFH

of the DHCMA, herbicides could be applied no closer to the water than 200 feet beyond the

outer edge of the floodplain (BLM 2013). Buffer distances, measured horizontally on a line

perpendicular to the waterbody beginning at the water line, would be marked, and approved

before application to ensure compliance with this standard. Secondary buffer zones may be

required if the slope adjacent to the stream or waterbody is greater than 5 percent. This buffer also

applies to ephemeral streams (a stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct response to

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 33

precipitation). Adverse impacts on EFH are addressed in the Dalton Invasive Species Invasive

Plant Management Strategic Plan. For additional guidance, refer to appendix G of the Final EIS

for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska – April 2005.

The goal of this standard is to ensure that watersheds are in, or are making significant progress

toward, a properly functioning physical condition. To achieve this goal, the following objectives

will be met: (1) hydrologic, vegetative, and erosion or depositional processes support physical

functioning; (2) avoid detention of overland flow; (3) maintain infiltration and permeability; and

(4) promote moisture storage by soil and plants. Possible indicators of success are listed in

the table below.

Objective Possible success indicators

Hydrologic, vegetative, and erosion/depositional

processes support physical functioning

Frequency of floodplain/wetland inundation; amount and

distribution of permafrost/aufeis; plant composition, age class

distribution and community structure; point bars revegetating;

streambank stability; watershed conditions of adjacent

uplands; frequency/duration of soil saturation; water table

fluctuations; gradient; pool size and frequency

Stream channel or lake bed characteristics

Ecological Process

The infested area is highly disturbed, and therefore, the ecological processes of these infested

ecosystems within the planning area are not intact. Spread into intact, naturally vegetated areas

could result in substantial effects on soil quality through changes in organic matter content,

diversity and abundance of soil organisms, reduced soil productivity, accelerated erosion, altered

fire regimes, and changes in water and nutrient cycling. The goal of this standard is to conserve

the ability of the land to ensure the continued supply important provisioning, regulating and

supporting ecological processes. To achieve this goal, the following objectives will be met: (1)

photosynthesis is effectively occurring throughout the growing season, and (2) nutrient cycling is

occurring effectively.

Objective Possible success indicators

Photosynthesis is effectively occurring throughout the

growing season

Plant composition and community structure; fire history

mapping; fire return rate; fire severity distribution;

accumulation, distribution, incorporation of plant litter and

organic matter in soil; biological activity such as plant

growth, herbivory, and rodent, insect and microbial activity;

Nutrient cycling is occurring effectively

Water quality and quantity

Water quality and quantity in the infested ecosystems within the planning area are at levels

appropriate to the watershed’s soil, climate, and landform; except during high water events and

downstream from some construction projects and placer mining operations. Although none have

been documented to date, the establishment of riparian invasive plants does have the potential

to alter water quality due to flooding caused by infestations blocking channels or culverts. An

indirect effect of invasive plant removal would be sedimentation and turbidity in local watersheds

down-gradient of treated sites. There would be negligible impacts to local fisheries because the

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 34

sites and control operations are at a small scale. Therefore, there would be no indirect adverse

impacts to any fish-eating mammals or birds.

If herbicides are the minimum tool necessary to reduce the impacts to water quality and quantity

in infested ecosystems, it has been determined that there would be low risk to drinking water in

areas treated with glyphosate or imazapyr, even if these herbicides were accidentally spilled in

streams, ponds, or lakes used by humans (BLM 2013). The risk to drinking water associated with

2,4-D or triclopyr applications, however, would be moderate to high (BLM, 2007). Herbicide

applications near aquatic systems would not directly modify water quantity. However, indirect

impacts to water quantity could occur if non-target native vegetation is removed and resulted in

reduced plant uptake of water, thereby increasing the amount of available water.

The following design features (section 2.1.1 of EA) are intended to preserve the watershed

function of infested riparian, wetland and aquatic areas that might be considered for treatment

with herbicides.

● Herbicides would not be applied within 200 feet of any surface waterbody (temporary, flowing,

or standing). Distance to waterbodies would be measured, marked, and approved before

application to ensure compliance with this standard.

● Water quality monitoring would be implemented to determine whether current buffers

are adequate to protect water quality and aquatic resources.

Objective Possible success indicators

Conservation of essential habitat elements Populations of aquatic organisms; effects on beneficial uses

(i.e., effects of management activities as defined under the

Clean Water Act and State regulations); water chemistry,

including nutrients and metals; levels of chemicals in

bioassays; change in trophic status

Threatened, endangered, native, and locally important species

Invasive plants within the planning area could affect the BLM’s future ability to sustain the

desirable levels of ecosystem health as it pertains to threatened, endangered, native, and locally

important species; however, no special status species habitat is known to occur within the

infested area. The goal is to ensure that habitats support healthy, productive, and diverse

populations and communities of native plants and animals. To achieve this goal, it is necessary

to retain natural populations and restore viability to native plant and animal communities. This

could be complicated by the fact that the affected habitat is highly disturbed, and restoring

native vegetation at sustainable population levels may be limited by other factors such as road

maintenance, construction, and resource development.

Objective Possible success indicators

Conservation of essential habitat elements Plant community composition, age class distribution,

and productivity; animal community composition and

productivity; habitat elements; spatial distribution of habitat;

habitat connectivity; population stability and resilience within

natural population cycles; fire history

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 35

Guidelines

On a case-by-case basis, plans of operation along with mitigation measures will be required

for all proposed activities and appropriate stipulations will be examined through the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and incorporated before permits are issued.

Consultation with specialists concerning locations of sensitive plants would be necessary to

ensure protection of those species, particularly in ACECs. The following guidelines will help to

ensure that the land health standards for watershed and water quality are met, while considering

cultural and local economic needs:

● Overland movement of equipment, materials, and supplies is allowed when soils are frozen

and sufficient snow cover is available to reduce surface disturbance and invasive plant

establishment.

● Roads and trails are to be engineered, constructed, and maintained in a manner that minimizes

the potential for becoming a vector for invasive plants.

● Treatments to alter the vegetative composition, such as mechanical/manual control, herbicide

application, prescribed burning, seeding, or planting will be based on the potential of the site

and will help to ensure: (a) water quality protection; (b) prevention of the introduction and

spread of invasive plants; (c) contribution to the diversity of plant communities, and plant

community composition and structure; and (d) support for the conservation of threatened and

endangered, other special status species, and species of local importance.

● Seeding and planting nonnative vegetation will only be used in those cases where native species

are not available in sufficient quantities, where native species are incapable of achieving the

standards, or where nonnative species are essential to the functional integrity of the site.

● Projects for treatment that affect water and associated resources will be designed to protect

ecological functions and processes.

● To eliminate, minimize, or limit the spread of noxious weeds, only certified feed will be

permitted.

● Local, state and federal agencies, Native corporations, and other private landowners and

interest groups will be given meaningful opportunities to participate in the invasive plant

management process.

2.1.5.2. Current Condition

The bulk of the known infestations of invasive plants in the planning area are documented within

the DHCMA. The Dalton Highway is the primary vector for invasive plants into the DHCMA.

The highway transects the northern boreal forest, the Brooks Range, and the tundra of the North

Slope and Arctic Coastal Plain. The headwaters of all the major watersheds in the DHCMA are

located in the Brooks Range or its foothills. Exceptions are those rivers in the southern portion of

the DHCMA with headwaters located in the Kokrine-Hodzana Highlands. Drainages north of the

Continental Divide flow north into the Beaufort Sea (Arctic Ocean). Those drainages south of the

Continental Divide flow into the Yukon River, and eventually, the Bering Sea.

The accelerating increase of invasive plants in Alaska is broadly recognized as a threat to

biodiversity. Often highly competitive with native plant species, invasive plants can have

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 36

significant ecosystem-level effects due to the resulting changes to plant community composition

and diversity. At least 120 species of invasive plants have been detected in Alaska (AKNHP

AKEPIC database 2014), 28 of which have been observed within the DHCMA. To date, no

alteration of landscape-level vegetation community structure and function resulting from invasive

plants has been observed in the planning area on BLM-managed lands. Ongoing monitoring

efforts to track the invasive plant species composition and population distribution have been and

should continue to be a management priority to avoid unintended impacts to natural ecological

communities.

Invasive plants in the DHCMA occur in disturbed sites along roadways, trails, airstrips, and in

communities,. Some invasive plants have been recorded within natural fire boundaries along the

Dalton Highway (Villano 2008) and on riverine gravel bars (Wurtz et al. 2008, Gronquist 2008).

Impacts to water resources from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions related

to invasive plants in the planning area are substantial and considered moderate overall in the

DHCMA. The additive effects of control activities as authorized by the Dalton Invasive Species

Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment (EA) Record of Decision signed in 2013

have been determined not to result in increased impacts to the cumulative case.

Species Composition

The following table lists the common and scientific names for the invasive plants slated for

treatment in the planning area, as identified in the Dalton Area Integrated Invasive Plant

Management Strategic Plan EA. To date, the majority of, but not all of the listed plant species

(see table footnote) have been detected in the planning area.

Table 2.3. Nonnative, Invasive Plants identified for treatment in the Dalton Highway

Corridor Management Area 2012-2013

Common name Scientific name

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare

Ox-eye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis

Birdsfoot trefoil Lotus corniculatus

Iceland poppy Papaver nudicanle

Purple sand spurry Spergularia rubra

Spreading bluegrass Poa pratensis var. irrigata

Common pepperweed Lepidium densiflorum

Bird vetch Vicia cracca

Herb sophia Descurainia sophia

Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis

Smooth brome Bromus inermus

Narrowleaf hawkweed Hieracium umbellatum

White/yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinalis

Alfalfa Medicago sativa ssp. sativa

Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum

Narrowleaf hawksbeard Crepis tectorum

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum

Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris

Lamb’s quarters Chenopodium album

Bluegrass Poa pratensis var. pratensis

Prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 37

Common name Scientific name

Pineapple weed Matricaria discoidea

Common plantain Plantago major

European stickweed Lappula squarrosa

Slender wheatgrass Agropyron sp.

Spotted knapweeda Centaurea stoebe

Canada thistlea Cirsium arvense

a This species has not been detected in the planning area to date but is demarcated for treatment if detected.

The following table lists the common and scientific names for the nonnative, invasive insects that

are established in Interior Alaska forests and which may occur in the planning area (unpublished

report, Kruse 2014).

Table 2.4. Nonnative, Invasive Insects in Interior Alaska Forests 2014

Scientific Name Common Name Established Range Host Date Introduced

[Hymenoptera:

Tenthredinidae];

Pristiphora

erichsonii

Larch sawfly Throughout interior

AK and recently

introduced into

south-central AK

Tamarack (Larix

larcinia) and Siberian

larch (larix siberica);

1968

[Hymenoptera:

Tenthredinidae];

Monsoma pulveratum

Alder sawfly Fairbanks through

SE, most damaging in

SC and MatSu;

Alnus tenuifolia unknown, but probably

during 1990s

[Hymenoptera:

Tenthredinidae];

Eriocampa ovata

Alder woolly sawfly Throughout southeast

Alaska on Alnusrubra

and south-central

Alaska

Alnus incana unknown but probably

in late 1980s

[Hymenoptera:

Tenthredinidae];

Profenusa thomsoni

Amber-marked birch

leafminer

Common in

south-central Alaska,

also occurs in

Fairbanks and Haines

(SE Alaska)

native and ornamental

Betula sp.

probably introduced in

the early 1990s.

[Hymenoptera:

Tenthredinidae];

Fenusa pusilla

Birch leafminer European origin,

occurs infrequently in

south-central Alaska

native and ornamental

Betula sp.

probably introduced in

the early 1990s

[Hymenoptera:

Tenthredinidae];

Heterarthrus

nemoratus

Birch edge leafminer Occurs infrequently

in south-central AK

native and ornamental

Betula sp.

probably introduced in

the early 1990s

[Hymenoptera:

Ichneumonidae];

Lathrolestes thomsoni

Birch leafminer

parasitoids

introduced to

Anchorage and

Fairbanks 2004 – 2011

via Alberta, Canada

Curculionidae,

Otiorhynchus ovatus

Root (seedling)

weevil

Picea, Pinus, Tsuga root feeder

Population Distribution

Well-established populations of both M. alba and V. cracca have been documented in disturbed

areas along the Dalton Highway corridor. Records show that by 2003, there was a nearly

continuous canopy of M. alba along the Dalton Highway north of the Yukon River Bridge from

Milepost 56 to about Milepost 70. Newly established populations were observed in 2004, at the

Kanuti River crossing at Milepost 106, and by 2005, the continuous infestation had advanced to

Milepost 85. In 2009, an estimated 215 acres within the planning area were said to be infested.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 38

It is currently estimated that at least 350 acres of the DHCMA is infested. The northernmost

infestation of M. alba was observed in 2014 at Milepost 196.

In 2006, patches of V. cracca were documented along the Dalton Highway and at one site —

Tramway Bar — downstream from the highway on the Koyukuk River. Evidence of V. cracca

spreading away from the roadside has been observed in recent years, encroaching upon fire

scars (Milepost 61) and other areas of anthropogenic disturbance as far north as Milepost 184.

Infestations at the road-river interface at Rosie Creek (Milepost 168) and North Bonanza Creek

(Milepost 121) are of key management concern.

Treatment

In 2009, 141 acres were recommended for herbicidal treatment or a combination of herbicide,

manual, or mechanical control. Up to 300 of the total 350 estimated acres of infestation may be

treated with herbicide. Prior to 2009, manual treatment in 2006 removed a total of 2,575 pounds

of M. alba and V. cracca (Dalton Highway Mileposts 104 to 175), including smaller, isolated,

point infestations of Leucanthenum vulgare (oxeye daisy), Linaria vulgaris (yellow toadflax),

Tanacetum vulgare (common tansy) and Lotus corniculatus (birdsfoot trefoil). In 2007, a total

of approximately 7,000 pounds of the same target species were removed, having incorporated

mechanical methods. In 2008, approximately 1,700 pounds were removed over the same area.

Since 2009, although the amount of plants removed has not been quantified, the cooperative

manual treatment has continued from 2010 to 2015, and should remain a priority. Future

treatment and monitoring of infestations will be considered on a case-by-case basis and plans will

be tailored to the specific ecosystem in accordance with the BLM Alaska Land Health Standards

and Guidelines (BLM 2004) by which the diversity and ecological health will be measured.

2.1.5.3. Trends

Ongoing inventory and monitoring efforts have been critical in identifying infestation trends.

These trends have been observed to correlate with both human and natural roadside disturbances.

Inventory

Inventories can provide fundamental information for assessing trends in invasive plant

management by determining the presence, relative abundance, status and distribution of invasive

plants. In 2004, the BLM and the University of Alaska Fairbanks Cooperative Extension

conducted the first inventory in the DHCMA from the Yukon River Bridge to Milepost 295

(northern extent of BLM lands) with funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Pulling Together Initiative. In 2006, an invasive plant survey for the Dalton Highway and

adjacent lands affected by the 2004 and 2005 wildland fires was conducted in cooperation with

the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). The inventory covered a total of five wildland

fires: Fort Hamlin Hills (2004), Ray River (2005), Dall City (2004), North Bonanza (2005), and

Chapman Creek (2005). The 2004 Evansville Burn was excluded from the surveys because

there was no road access to it. Secondary roads and trails were also surveyed for up to 1 mile

or until no more invasive species were found. Additional sites included trailheads, fire access

roads, and pipeline access roads. A total of 24 nonnative species belonging to 7 families were

recorded in the approximately 120 miles of highway and roughly 214 acres of roadside and

adjacent lands inventoried.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 39

Before developing a project-level plan for treatment, an updated comprehensive inventory of

the M. alba and V. cracca north of the Yukon River was completed in the 2013 and 2014 field

seasons. For the M. alba inventory, a rapid assessment approach was taken due to the scope of the

infestation. A single observer estimated percent cover in 0.2 mile increments along 8-foot-wide

east and west roadside transects. The percent cover was averaged by highway mile and ordered

by percent cover class. For the V. cracca inventory, an areal approach was taken to give a more

precise picture of the current extent of the infestation.

Monitoring

Monitoring efforts have been conducted from 2005 to present. Partners that have contributed

include Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, USFWS, NPS, Committee for Noxious and

Invasive Plants Management (CNIPM), AKNHP, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public

Facilities (ADO&TPF) and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. Ongoing monitoring will

prioritize (1) infestations of species that have already been detected spreading into fire-disturbed

sites and undisturbed, native communities, (2) populations of highly aggressive species located

near a forest clearing, a burned site, or a waterway, giving precedence to those sites with high

propagule pressure, and (3) northern advancement. Additionally, following each growing season,

each infestation treated should be monitored using photo point referencing, whether it is manual,

mechanical, or chemical treatment, to determine if the control method accomplished the goals

established for each species. Also, the effectiveness, costs/benefits versus cost/benefit of other

alternatives, and projected costs of no action will be considered.

The BLM has not conducted any monitoring focused on the nonnative, invasive insects.

Disturbance Trends

Human disturbance: Public use and commercial traffic combined have contributed to the

existing trend of introduction and spread in the planning area. Vectors include vehicle tires and

undercarriage, heavy equipment, aviation and boat traffic, as well as foot traffic via clothing,

footwear, packs, and tents. Additionally, the transport of contaminated fill material for road

maintenance and other activities may contribute to the spread of invasive plants. Invasive plants

are also known to spread along vectors such as trails, spur roads, and other heavy use areas

including gravel pits, rest stops, airstrips, and mine sites.

Natural disturbance: Wildland fire scars adjacent to roads are considered particularly vulnerable

to infestation (Villano and Mulder 2008). Approximately 1,269,000 acres have burned in the

DHCMA over the past decade, many of which could be susceptible to invasion by invasive plants

for up to 20 years post-fire (CNIPM, 2007). This could be cause for management concern because

invasive plants have the potential to out-compete native primary successional plants, altering the

course of post-fire vegetation regrowth (Spellman and Wurtz 2010).

Burn scars from wildland fires in recent decades that are adjacent to or intersect the Dalton

Highway are: Evansville (2004), Fort Hamlin Hills (2004), Ray River (2005), Dall City (2004),

North Bonanza (2005), and Chapman Creek (2005). The invasive plants observed in burn scars in

2007 were M. alba, V. cracca, B. inermis, C.tectorum, H. umbellatum, and M. alba (Cortés-Burns

et al. 2007; Villano 2008; BLM observation 2013). For instance, M. alba had spread from the

highway’s right-of-way into the adjacent, undisturbed shrub understory of a burned black spruce

forest in the Jim River Department of Transportation station area (Site #342-2007, North Bonanza

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 40

Burn). Similarly, a V. cracca population was recorded in 2006, in the Fort Hamlin Hills Burn,

which started to colonize the surrounding burned, barren organic/humus soils in 2007.

Nonnative invasive insects are not necessarily associated with disturbance trends in the way

nonnative invasive plants are, therefore, are not be addressed here.

2.1.5.4. Forecast

Alaska’s cold climate, short growing seasons, and limited human population were once thought

to restrict the movement of nonnative, invasive plants. Today, climate models predict that the

planning area will be disproportionately impacted by the warming climate in the coming century.

The length of summer season is projected to increase and winters conversely are projected to

shorten. Striking increases in growing season length are projected across the Interior and northern

regions of the state (UAF 2008). With the predicted warming climate and greater levels of both

anthropogenic and natural disturbance, boreal habitats in the planning area are forecasted, with

considerable uncertainty, to become increasingly vulnerable to invasive plant species. A warming

climate could lead to an upward elevational and latitudinal migration of plant species formerly

restricted to warmer areas (Tausch 2008). Given the current rate of spread and recent shifts in

seasonal patterns of precipitation and temperature, it is expected that infestations will continue

to expand north along the Dalton Highway.

Fire frequency and intensity is another factor that could impact nonnative plant infestations in

the future. The climate-change-driven increase in frequency of lightning-induced fires has the

potential to result in an increase in the number of invasive species populations that move off the

human footprint into native ecosystems in the future (Cortés-Burns et al. 2007). The resulting

increase in fuel loads associated with the infestation has been shown to lead to increased fire

intensity; invasive plants can also decrease fire intensity when they lead to vegetation type

conversions that result in plant assemblages with lower fuel loads or less flammable fuels (Brooks

et al. 2004). It is unknown whether current infestations in the DHCMA have the potential to

contribute to the fuel load.

Resource development trends in the sub-arctic and arctic regions of Alaska suggest an increased

risk of spread of invasive plants away from the Dalton Highway. Future oil and gas development

could involve new infrastructure of roads, pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading

docks, camps, airstrips, gravel pits, utility lines, and landfills. New plans for roads to access

resources and communities such as the roads to Umiat, Stevens Village (winter only), and Ambler

are potential future vectors for the movement of invasive plants. Stipulations to prevent the

expansion of the current infestation into previously undisturbed areas are critical for maintaining

current levels of ecosystem health. The proposed route to Ambler will follow the existing winter

road to Bettles and across State and NPS lands to mining operations near the villages of Kobuk,

Shungnak, and Ambler, which are located outside the planning area, and there is potential to

extend the road to Nome and the Seward Peninsula. If the road is open to the public, there could

be a dramatic increase in propagule pressure extending from the Dalton Highway.

Overall, the Dalton Highway is expected to remain a destination for recreational travelers and

commercial users of the area. In addition to anticipated increases in road travel, the intensification

of non-motorized modes of travel including recreational boating, cycling, and hiking are also

predicted. Since the Dalton Highway provides the only road access to the North Slope and many

unique areas found only in Alaska, the demand for public access and recreational activities,

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 41

including the intensification of non-motorized modes of travel including recreational boating,

cycling, and hiking, are also predicted.

The forecast for nonnative, invasive insects is uncertain.

2.1.5.5. Key Features

The geographic location, distribution, and types of resources affected by nonnative, invasive

plant and insect species are described in this section. Nonnative, invasive plants found within

the planning area are limited mainly to the Utility Corridor. Areas within the Utility Corridor

that are impacted by the growing infestations include, but are not limited to: mineral material

extraction sites (gravel pits), commercial and residential in-holdings, trails, and pipeline access

roads. These features contribute to the distribution and spread of invasive plants in the region.

The risk of introduction and spread should be considered in management decisions involving the

affected resources. As for nonnative, invasive insects, no resources are known to be affected,

therefore, the geographic location, distribution and types of resources are unknown.

2.1.6. Riparian–Wetland Resources

Value and Background

Within the Central Yukon Planning Area, riparian-wetlands associated with streams and lakes are

estimated to make up only 2.4 and 0.7 percent of BLM-managed land respectively. These areas,

although small on a special scale, are responsible for some very fundamental ecological functions

that extend far beyond their immediate boundaries and the planning area, with region-wide and

even statewide implications. In addition to the riparian-wetlands associated with streams and

lakes, permafrost-controlled wetlands make up a large portion of BLM lands within the planning

area. These areas can extend far beyond the borders of streams and lakes due to the hydrologic

connections provided by the permafrost, and the boundary between riparian-wetlands and uplands

is not always easy to distinguish.

The BLM defines riparian-wetlands as:

An area that is saturated or inundated at a frequency and duration sufficient to produce

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. It is also a transitional area

between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas often referred to as a riparian area.

This transition area has vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or

subsurface water influence. Wetlands and wetland transitions are usually managed as a unit.

These systems can be either nonjurisdictional or jurisdictional (Pritchard et al. 2003).

Riparian-wetlands constitute some of the most productive lands managed by the BLM and can be

thought of as of providing a life-support role (NRC 2002). On a unit area basis, the number and

value of biological and physical functions carried out by riparian-wetlands is disproportionate and

typically far greater than that of upland areas lacking riparian-wetland characteristics.

The natural functions that riparian-wetlands perform fall into three major categories: (1)

hydrology and sediment dynamics, (2) biogeochemistry and nutrient cycling, and (3) habitat

and food web maintenance (NRC 2002). These functions are displayed in a variety of services

to which society has assigned value. These services include: the maintenance of water quality

and water quantity; fish and wildlife production; flood protection; recreational opportunities and

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Riparian–Wetland Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 42

aesthetic value; wildlife viewing opportunities; maintenance of a diverse species composition

of plants, animals, birds, fish, insects, and microorganisms; production of wood (for fuel and

building material); a moderating influence on the microclimate of streams and forests and related

wildland fire behavior; lake shoreline and streambank erosion control; maintenance of stream

form; floodplain connectivity; hyporheic and ground water connectivity; exchange of nutrients;

and the counter-balancing function of methane release and carbon sequestration as it relates

to overall greenhouse gas emission.

The important functions and services that riparian-wetlands carry out have long been recognized.

This has resulted in the formulation of regulations and policy directed at their protection. The

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the legal foundation for all of the

BLM’s management actions, identifies the protection of environmental values as a criterion for all

management activities. In Title 1, clause (8) FLPMA states: “the public lands be managed in a

manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental,

air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will

preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; and that will provide food and

habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation

and human occupancy and use.” To a large degree, the manner in which riparian-wetlands are

managed in the future will dictate the BLM’s ability to protect the environmental values and

elements as mandated by FLPMA. Because of this, it is the BLM’s policy to protect and maintain

riparian-wetlands so that they are in — or in the case of an impaired condition, improved or

restored to — a proper functioning condition (BLM manuals 1737 and 1740 and BLM Alaska

Land Health Standards; see glossary for definition of proper functioning condition).

In addition to FLMPA, two other important laws direct the BLM regarding management of

riparian-wetland habitat. These laws are Executive Order (EO) 11990 — Protection of Wetlands

and EO 11988 — Floodplain Management. Since many riparian-wetlands are located within

the floodplain, EO 11988 applies. Both of these executive orders are aimed at protecting

riparian-wetlands. EO 11990 requires that federal agencies take action to minimize the

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and avoid to the extent possible the long- and

short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. In a

similar manner, EO 11988, directs federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long- and

short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. In

addition to avoidance, EO 11988 has a requirement to minimize, restore, and preserve floodplain

function. Minimize is a demanding standard that requires the agency to minimize harm to the

smallest possible degree (U.S. Water Resources Council 1978). Restore focuses on conditions

exiting as a result of prior actions, while preserve focuses upon the impacts of an action when

the floodplain cannot be avoided.

A third law, the Clean Water Act, promotes the protection of riparian-wetlands in section 404

(administered by the Army Corps of Engineers) and section 319. Section 319 directs each state

to come up with a non-point source pollution control strategy. In Alaska, the Department of

Environmental Conservation leads coordination efforts aimed at meeting the goals of the State’s

strategy. The strategy acknowledges the importance of everyone working together to meet the

goals of the strategy and the Clean Water Act. Federal agencies are identified as cooperators

that are responsible for a variety of roles ranging from the protection of water quality and

implementation of the Clean Water Act, to federal oversight of fisheries, wildlife, and wetlands on

federal lands. The BLM is one of the cooperating agencies in Alaska.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Riparian–Wetland Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 43

As part of Alaska’s overall non-point source pollution control strategy, it is recognized that

appropriate land use planning is necessary to meet the desired protection of sensitive ecological

areas, minimize land disturbance, and retain natural drainage and vegetation whenever possible.

In addition, the State’s strategy identifies specific goals for reducing non-point source pollution

from hydro-modification. This is important because hydrology is one of the formative processes

dictating riparian-wetland form and function. The goals addressed in Alaska’s non-point source

pollution control strategy for hydro-modification include: maintaining water quality and

quantity in watersheds and maintaining healthy populations of plant and animal species through

maintenance of aquatic and riparian habitats necessary to sustain them.

Beyond the protective requirements established by law and policy, the high degree of uncertainty

associated with climate change will be a guiding consideration in how the BLM manages its

riparian-wetlands. Given current climate predictions for Alaska and the role that riparian-wetlands

play in maintaining water quality, moderating thermal conditions, and maintaining linkages to

more suitable habitats in the form of travel corridors for fish and wildlife, riparian-wetlands are

expected to play a key role in the BLM’s ability to meet its FLPMA protection and sustained

yield mandates.

2.1.6.1. Indicator

Riparian-wetlands are a key component of, and dependent on, the overall ecological condition of

the watershed as a whole. Because riparian-wetlands are a transitional area between terrestrial

uplands and the aquatic environment, they are strongly influenced by the land management

prescriptions in the upper watershed. Upslope management can significantly alter the magnitude,

timing, and duration of overland flow; the production of sediment; and the quality of water

arriving in downslope riparian-wetland areas. This, in turn, dictates whether a riparian-wetland

can provide the services it would normally be capable of providing when functioning at its full

potential.

As a means of quantifying the current and projected functional status of riparian-wetlands within

the planning area, the method of watershed condition classification developed by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service was applied (USDA 2011 and Potyondy and

Geier 2011). The USDA’s classification framework defines watershed condition in terms of

geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic functionality relative to potential natural condition. The

USDA’s classification matrix was modified for application to the Central Yukon Planning Area by

reducing the number of watershed condition indicators from 12 to 8 (section 2.1.7, Table 2.5).

The indicators are surrogate variables representing the underlying ecological, hydrological, and

geomorphic functions and processes that affect watershed condition and drive the processes that

ultimately dictate the form and function of riparian-wetlands. Some of the USDA indicators used

in the original classification were eliminated because they were not applicable to the planning

area (for example the rangeland vegetation condition indicator). Other indicators were modified

to allow their use with available data, as was done for soil condition.

The watershed classification will be conducted at the scale of the 6th level hydrologic unit and is

automated to the extent possible using existing data and ArcGIS, version 10.1. The classification

is anticipated to be complete by spring of 2016.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Riparian–Wetland Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 44

2.1.6.2. Current Condition

One of the objectives of conducting the watershed condition classification is to determine the

current functional status of riparian-wetlands within the planning area. Upon completion of

the classification, watersheds (6th level hydrologic units) having BLM-managed lands will

have been placed in one of three categories: those functioning at their natural potential, those

functioning-at-risk, and those in an impaired condition. At the conclusion of the classification,

the proportion of each category will be calculated and provide a complete picture of the current

functional status of riparian-wetlands on BLM-managed lands within the planning area.

In general, most of the planning area is not accessible by road, and therefore, has not been exposed

to land use activities normally associated with disturbance to riparian-wetlands. A majority of the

at-risk or impaired watersheds are expected to be located along major transportation corridors

such as the Dalton Highway.

2.1.6.3. Trends

Since about the mid to late-1980s (the time in which the current Central Yukon and Utility

Corridor resource management plans were approved), there has been a declining trend in

watershed condition and the associated functioning status of riparian-wetlands on BLM-managed

lands within the planning area. To a large degree, this has been the result of a relatively slow but

continuous authorization of land use activities that have modified the fundamental geomorphic

and hydrologic processes that create and maintain riparian-wetlands. The slow but steady pace

of development in conjunction with the slow rate of riparian-wetland recovery has resulted in

the declining trend.

Rates of recovery on disturbed sites are quite variable and are influenced not only by the natural

conditions that define the subarctic environment but by the post-land use rehabilitation practices

used. The subarctic environment is characterized by having a short growing season; low

temperature; nutrient poor soils; and relatively low precipitation (Chapin III et al. 2006) which

all act to limit plant growth. These already limiting conditions, coupled with the more common

passive rehabilitation practices (e.g., allowing for natural revegetation), can dramatically prolong

riparian-wetland recovery.

In the absence of human intervention, the time required for a riparian-wetland area to attain proper

functioning condition after major disturbance is dictated by the pace of natural processes and is

commonly considered to be within a multi-decadal time scale (Tidwell et al. 2000, Arnett 2005,

Viereck et al. 1993; Hupp and Simon 1991). In some cases, land use activities have resulted in

an irretrievable loss of riparian-wetlands, such as when a permafrost layer is altered and the

hydrologic conditions that supported the riparian-wetland no longer exist.

The fundamental geomorphic processes that form and maintain riparian-wetlands are erosion,

transport, and deposition of water, sediment, solutes, and organic material. The basic

hydrologic processes include: surface and subsurface water flow, infiltration, exfiltration,

and evapotranspiration. Under natural conditions, the hydrologic processes control the

frequency, intensity, duration, and spatial extent of the geomorphic processes, but also supply

riparian-wetlands with water through a system of surface and groundwater connections (Naiman

et al. 2005). Anthropogenic (human-caused) disturbances to riparian-wetlands alter the natural

regime of hydrologic and geomorphic processes, resulting in the loss or reduced functional

capability of riparian-wetland communities.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Riparian–Wetland Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 45

Since the authorization of the current land use plans (Central Yukon and the Utility Corridor),

the land use activities that have been most detrimental to riparian-wetlands are mining and

infrastructure construction. Included in the last category would be land clearing and the associated

construction of roads, trails, buildings, storage areas, parking areas, airstrips, flood control

structures, and other artificial structure. In addition to mining and construction, climate change is

predicted to play a major role in determining the future form and function of riparian-wetlands.

Within this century, Alaska is projected to undergo substantial increases in air temperature

and precipitation (Karl et al. 2009; SNAP 2013). If these projections prove to be accurate,

then we can expect substantial changes to the current patterns of erosion, water and sediment

transport/deposition, and the frequency, duration, intensity, and timing of flooding. These changes

could define a very different (and highly uncertain) landscape in terms of the special extent,

functions, and the services provided by riparian-wetlands.

2.1.6.4. Forecast

In light of the lengthy recovery times associated with riparian-wetlands, and the fact that certain

permafrost-controlled non-riparian wetlands cannot be rehabilitated following disturbance, the

forecasted trend for riparian-wetlands, given current management prescriptions and land use

allocations, is for a continued downward trend. The rate at which the downward trend continues

will be dictated by changes in climate, the type and amount of land use, and the vulnerability of

the watershed to disturbance. Changes in technology, improved access, and population growth

will influence the intensity and pattern of land use. The anthropogenic drivers of change will

be similar as to those described under Trend.

The vulnerability of watersheds to future disturbance will be evaluated at the scale of the 6th level

hydrologic unit and using the same method, but different attributes as used in the watershed

condition classification described under Indicators. Watershed vulnerability was classified

based on the following attributes: average valley slope, presence of permafrost, ratio of valley

width to floodplain width, average hillslope within the watershed, aquatic habitat loss due to

change in water temperature (based on climate change models), presence of valid existing rights

(e.g., mining claims), presence of rights-of-way, status of navigability, proportion of watershed

available for resource extraction and development, proportion of watershed with formal protected

status, potential of land conversion (percent) from its natural condition, and mineral potential.

2.1.6.5. Key Features

The geographic location and distribution of riparian-wetlands can be described as transition

zones between the aquatic environment of streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds and the terrestrial

uplands. In addition, those areas underlain by permafrost generally meet the definition of a

riparian-wetland. The riparian-wetland transition zones are defined by vegetation or physical

characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence. In addition to

the immediate area defining the riparian-wetland, their form and function depends on the

overall ecological condition of the watershed. Because riparian-wetlands are a transitional area

between terrestrial uplands and the aquatic environment, they are strongly influenced by the land

management prescriptions in the upper watershed.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Riparian–Wetland Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 46

2.1.7. Fish and Aquatic Species

2.1.7.1. Indicator

Fisheries Value and Watershed Condition indexes are being developed for the Central Yukon

Field Office in conjunction with this plan as indicators of the value and current status of aquatic

resources and habitat. Watersheds will be evaluated for each index after they are segregated by

area using 6th level hydrologic units codes. The hydrologic unit system is being used because it

provides a framework that delineates watersheds using an accepted national standard hierarchical

system based on surface hydrologic features.

Parameters to be used in the fisheries value rating include presence or absence of: special

status species, essential fish habitat, non-salmon diadromous (migratory between salt and fresh

waters) species, important recreational fisheries, subsistence use areas, and unique or rare fishery

habitat/resources. Fish species diversity (number of species) will also be used to evaluate quality

within the watershed. Current watershed condition will be evaluated as a measure of aquatic

habitat health. The indicators to be used in the evaluation were adapted from a Forest Service

Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide (Potyondy and Geier 2011). Modifications

and additional indicators were formulated by BLM Central Yukon Fisheries Biologists. Attributes

used to define watershed health include eight physical and biological indicators found in aquatic

and terrestrial environments (Table 2.5). Each indicator will be evaluated using a defined set of

attributes. The number of attributes selected to evaluate the indicators varies from as few as one

to as many as four. It is anticipated that the ranking of fisheries values and watershed condition

will be complete in time to incorporate the findings into the plan alternative formulation process.

Table 2.5. Description of Watershed Condition Indicators

Aquatic Physical Indicators Description of Indicator

Water Quality This indicator addresses the expressed alteration of physical, chemical,

and biological components of water quality.

Water Quantity This indicator addresses changes to the natural flow regime with respect to

the magnitude, duration, or timing of the natural streamflow hydrograph.

Aquatic Habitat This indicator addresses aquatic habitat condition with respect to habitat

fragmentation, large woody debris, and channel shape and function.

Aquatic Biological Indicators Description of Indicator

Aquatic Biota This indicator addresses the distribution, structure, and density of native

and introduced aquatic fauna.

Riparian/Wetland Vegetation This indicator addresses the function and condition of riparian vegetation

along streams, waterbodies, and wetlands.

Terrestrial Physical Indicators Description of Indicator

Roads and Trails This indicator addresses changes to the hydrologic and sediment regimes

because of the density, location, distribution, and maintenance of the

road and trail network.

Soils This indicator addresses alteration to natural soil condition, including

productivity, erosion, and chemical contamination.

Terrestrial Biological Indicators Description of Indicator

Terrestrial Invasive Species This indicator addresses potential effects on soil, vegetation, and water

resources because of terrestrial invasive species (including vertebrates,

invertebrates, and plants).

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Fish and Aquatic Species
Analysis of Management Situation 47

2.1.7.2. Current Condition

A variety of fish habitat exists due to the wide range of geography and climate conditions of the

planning area. Lakes and rivers are located over diverse terrain. Drainages north of the Brooks

Range discharge to the Arctic Ocean, and the majority of drainages south of the Brooks Range

drain into the Yukon River and eventually discharge to the Bering Sea. A few watersheds drain

into either Kotzebue Sound or Kuskokwim Bay. High-gradient streams exist in the mountains

and foothills, while slow meandering streams flow through the relatively flat lowland areas. The

origin and geomorphology of lake basins influence their productivity and subsequent use by fish.

Due to high habitat diversity, a majority of the fish species native to Interior Alaska inhabit waters

on BLM-managed land. Table 2.6 below lists the 25 species of fish, representing 9 different

families, known to exist on BLM-managed land in the planning area.

Table 2.6. Fish species present in BLM-managed watersheds in the Central Yukon Planning

Area.

Family Scientific name Common name

Catostomidae Catostomus catostomus longnose sucker

Cottidae Cottus cognatus slimy sculpin

Cyprinidae Couesius plumbeus lake chub

Esocidae Esox lucius northern pike

Gadidae Lota lota burbot

Gasterosteidae Pungitius pungitius ninespine stickleback

Petromyzontidae Lampetra camtschatica arctic lamprey

Salmonidae Coregonus nelsoni Alaska whitefish

Coregonus autumnalis arctic cisco

Coregonus laurettae Bering cisco

Coregonus nasus broad whitefish

Coregonus pidschian humpback whitefish

Coregonus sardinella least cisco

Prosopium cylindraceum round whitefish

Stenodus leucichthys sheefish/inconnu

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha pink salmon

Oncorhynchus keta chum salmon

Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon

Oncorhynchus nerka sockeye salmon

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook salmon

Salvelinus alpinus arctic char

Salvelinus malma Dolly Varden

Salvelinus namaycush lake trout

Thymallus arcticus arctic grayling

Umbridae Dallia pectoralis Alaska blackfish

Species Status

The BLM’s fisheries program is responsible for protecting fish habitat. The State of Alaska,

Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) has management authority over commercial, sport, and

personal use fisheries in the State of Alaska. Subsistence fisheries are managed by ADFG in State

waters and by the Federal Subsistence Board in federal public waters.

Currently, fish populations appear to be sustaining themselves, though population data are limited.

Fish are harvested in select areas that support sport, subsistence, and commercial fisheries.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Fish and Aquatic Species
Analysis of Management Situation 48

Sustainable harvest is due, in large part, to the fact that most of the aquatic habitat in the planning

area is in pristine condition, while harvest is relatively light and not concentrated geographically.

Resident species, including primarily arctic grayling, northern pike, Dolly Varden, arctic char, and

lake trout are able to support active sport fisheries that occur mainly along the Dalton Highway.

Populations of anadromous and resident fish support subsistence harvest, though low chum and

Chinook salmon returns have necessitated restrictions on both commercial and subsistence fishing

over portions of the life of the current plans. There is no ongoing harvest of fish for commercial

purposes on BLM-managed lands. However, BLM-managed waters do produce fish (i.e., salmon)

that are subsequently caught and sold in the Yukon River commercial fishery.

None of the fish species present in the planning area are listed as threatened, endangered, or

sensitive. The special status species selection process for BLM Alaska, last updated in 2010, did

identify several species for which data were insufficient to satisfy the Special Status Species

Manual eligibility criteria. Population concerns did provide justification to re-evaluate their status

in the future. These species are referred to as “watch species,” because the BLM needs additional

data to determine their status. Watch species exhibit one or more of the following characteristics:

● Insufficient or contradictory data exists to reasonably assess population or habitat trends;

● Regional adaptations are expressed that may ultimately be determined by the scientific

community as distinctive and important for overall species conservation;

● Potential threats to the species are poorly understood;

● Species are rare and do not occur within several kilometers of BLM-managed lands, but

potential habitat may exist on BLM-managed lands.

The Central Yukon Planning Area includes one watch list fish species, chum salmon, which

occurs on Clear Creek in the Hogatza River drainage.

As part of their management obligations, ADFG is responsible for determining and maintaining

a list of endangered species in Alaska under AS 16.20.190. Currently, there are no fish species

on this list (ADFG 2013a).

The Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries (SSFP; 5 AAC 39.222, effective

2000, amended 2001) directs the ADFG to provide the Alaska Board of Fisheries with reports

on the status of salmon stocks and to identify any salmon stock that presents a concern. The

SSFP defines three levels of concern (yield, management, and conservation) with yield being the

lowest level of concern and conservation the highest level of concern. In the planning area, one

stock, Yukon River Chinook salmon, are currently designated by the Alaska Board of Fisheries

as a stock of yield concern (ADFG 2013b).

Habitat Condition

Based on current lands status, the BLM estimates there are 121,283 miles of stream with 31,432

miles on BLM-managed land. There are also approximately 950,968 acres of lakes and ponds

with 76,332 acres on BLM-managed lands. Though not all of these waterbodies support fish,

the planning area contains numerous streams inhabited by resident and diadromous (includes

anadromous) fish species. In addition, there are many lakes and off-channel habitats in the

planning area that support native fish species.

Waterbodies cataloged as anadromous are defined through the State of Alaska’s Catalog of

Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes (ADFG 2014).

Waterbodies in the Anadromous Waters Catalog reflect the extent of habitat use documented

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Fish and Aquatic Species
Analysis of Management Situation 49

through fish surveys, but do not necessarily represent the actual limits of species habitat. A

comprehensive catalog of habitat used by resident fish species is not available.

Habitat requirements for fish include a healthy functioning aquatic ecosystem consisting of

a biological community, as well as the proper physical and chemical attributes (Beechie et al.

2010). The majority of the aquatic habitats the BLM manages within the planning area are in

natural or near natural condition. In those locations, some of the more important attributes such as

channel shape and function, lake bank/shore integrity, soil condition, water quality and quantity,

floodplains, and riparian areas are considered as functioning properly and meeting site potential.

Each of these parameters has an important role in maintaining a stable aquatic environment

that allows fish to live and reproduce. Given the lack of habitat degradation, the portion of the

biological community that includes aquatic plants (producers), bacteria and fungi (decomposers),

and invertebrates (consumers) is also anticipated to be functioning at site potential.

A small percentage of the watersheds in the planning area has been disturbed by anthropogenic

activity. Most of these watersheds are near inhabited areas and/or in locations where access has

been developed. Some examples of human presence are described below.

There are 24 villages located within the planning area. They have varying degrees of development

with most located along a waterway. Some of the villages are connected by seasonal trails that

parallel and cross streams. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and the infrastructure to support

it, namely the Dalton Highway, pump stations, spur roads, buried communication cables, and

gravel pits, is the most extensive area of development in the planning area. There are also roads

and trails, most of which are located in the vicinity of the Dalton Highway, which provide access

to placer gold mining operations, communication and research sites, and public service areas.

One road provides winter access from the City of Bettles to the Dalton Highway. Active placer

gold mining operations, the majority of which are located in the Koyukuk drainage, are also a

source of disturbance.

Fish resources are impacted to varying degrees in the disturbed watersheds based on the type,

extent, and duration of development. Placer gold mining is currently the activity that impacts

aquatic resources to the greatest degree within the planning watersheds. In general, placer gold

mining practices often alter stream channels, floodplains, and riparian vegetation. This leads to

increased sediment input into streams with concurrent impacts to water quality and fish resources.

These impacts remain until channels and floodplains are reestablished and vegetation can become

rooted with sufficient density and mass to stabilize the disturbed stream banks and floodplains.

The return of the habitat to a functioning condition, in turn, allows the biological resources,

including fish, to reestablish use patterns similar to what they were when the site was undisturbed.

During the life of the Central Yukon and Utility Corridor plans, reclamation at mechanized placer

mining sites has consisted largely of leaving the stream in either its bypass channel or returning it

to a newly built channel when the stream is mined. The overburden and tailings are contoured to

the surrounding topography. Operations that did not disturb the channel have been required to

reshape and contour the disturbed ground. Post-reclamation recovery, especially within disturbed

channels, is still in progress, and may take decades (Tidwell et al., 2000, Arnett 2005), as a series

of adjustments to sediment inflow/outflow, channel slope, and sinuosity occur and vegetation

reestablishes itself in the floodplain.

In any given watershed, there will likely be discontinuous blocks of disturbed ground within the

floodplains of the mined streams for as long as mining occurs. Though there is a known reduction

in available fisheries habitat in mined streams, the full extent to which mining activities have

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Fish and Aquatic Species
Analysis of Management Situation 50

impacted fish populations is unknown because pre-mining fisheries data are unavailable for

many streams.

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and associated development, the Dalton Highway, off-highway

roads and trails, gravel pits, and staging and public service areas also impact fish habitat and

resources. Sediment that reaches streams from these ground-disturbing activities affect fish

directly when suspended in the water column and impact fish habitat downstream of the source.

Using effective mitigation and avoiding ground disturbance that would lead to concentrated

runoff are measures being used to minimize or eliminate sediment delivery. Impacts from erosion

for these activities are less than in placer mining operations, except in areas where the vegetation

cover is heavily disturbed near a waterway or where stream channel or lake morphology is altered.

As discussed in this section, changes to freshwater habitat influence the productivity of resident

and anadromous fish populations. It is worth noting that fish species that spend part of their life

in salt water (diadromous species) face additional influences. Due to their life cycle, these fish

are exposed to a fluctuating ocean environment. These conditions, all of which can affect their

production, are not controlled by BLM management.

2.1.7.3. Trends

Since the signing of the Utility Corridor Plan Record of Decision (ROD) in 1991, and the

Central Yukon ROD in 1986, disturbed watersheds within the planning areas that are managed

primarily by the BLM have experienced downward trends in fish habitat condition. This is due in

large part to a steady increase in development. Most of the impact is tied to locatable mineral

extraction occurring along the Dalton Highway and at remote sites scattered throughout the

planning area. With the rise in gold prices between 2009 and 2013, the BLM has seen greater

interest in placer mine development. New starts of mechanized operations on Marion Creek

(previously undisturbed) and additional mining and access requests on the South Fork Koyukuk

are two examples.

When written, the Utility Corridor RMP (1989) outlined current (as of 1987) and projected placer

mining activity over the 10-year life of the plan. In 1987, there were 33 active operations with a

projection for 36 active operations during the life of the plan. At the start of 2014, there were

58 open case files (33 active) tied to the Utility Corridor RMP area (Tyler Cole, BLM 3809

Compliance per comm.) and another 11 open case files for the Central Yukon RMP area. The

mining activity from these 69 open case files, plus activity from an unknown number of case files

that have been closed over the life of these two plans, represents disturbance to the land that is

still in various stages of recovery.

As discussed in the previous section, post-reclamation recovery of mine sites to a condition usable

by fish can take decades. It is reasonable to assume, especially within channels disturbed over the

life of these two plans, that fish habitat recovery is still in progress, as a series of adjustments

to channel slope and sinuosity occur, sediment loads balance, banks stabilize, and vegetation

reestablishes itself in the floodplain and valley benches.

Other development activities, including the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and associated

development, the Dalton Highway, off-highway roads and trails, gravel pits, and staging and

public service areas also contribute lesser amounts of fine sediment to aquatic habitat. Use of

mechanized equipment and transport of petroleum products via the pipeline and along the Dalton

Highway are ongoing potential sources of spills that can impact fish and other aquatic resources.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Fish and Aquatic Species
Analysis of Management Situation 51

2.1.7.4. Forecast

The majority of the aquatic habitats that BLM manages within the planning area are in natural

or near natural condition and fish populations are overall, in good condition. As human

activity increases, especially in road-accessible areas, an increasing number of watersheds and

accompanying fish habitat and populations may be negatively affected. Future drivers related

to access and development that could change aquatic conditions include building new mineral

and oil and gas transportation routes, pipeline construction, as well as continuation of ongoing

mining, road maintenance, and oil transportation activities. These land uses often lead to

increased erosion, channel alterations, fuel spills, changes in water quality, and riparian vegetation

loss that are key factors influencing the status of fish populations. Though not controlled by

BLM management, climate change is also a likely driver of change to fish and their habitat.

Some specific examples of future drivers of change and predicted alteration in the condition of

fish resources are presented below.

The Utility Corridor has received interest from the State of Alaska and private entities in

recent years for transporting natural gas from the North Slope. If this interest materializes to

construction, the BLM will need to permit gravel extraction and the building of roads, pipeline,

and facilities. Stream crossings and water withdrawal are a necessary part of construction. At a

minimum, there will be short-term impacts to fish habitat.

The development of road systems accessing the Dalton Highway as part of plans to extract

minerals west of the Dalton Highway is also an emerging concern. The Ambler Road proposal,

though not finalized, has one route that would cross BLM-managed land at the South Fork

Koyukuk and Jim Rivers along the Bettles Road. The proposed Umiat Road, with an alternative

that leaves the Dalton Highway in the vicinity of Toolik Lake, would traverse west on

BLM-managed land towards Umiat. Stream crossings and potential gravel pit development are a

necessary part of construction. At a minimum, there will be short-term impacts to fish habitat.

BLM Alaska is undertaking an evaluation of mining reclamation practices that may lead to

recommendations for improved management practices. As these changes are incorporated into

future management, the success of mining reclamation should improve, thereby improving the

quality of fisheries habitat and the status of fish populations in the planning area.

If, as predicted, climate change warms aquatic habitat in Alaska, there will be changes to water

quality and quantity. Changes in water temperature and hydrology will directly affect habitat

suitability, and ultimately, the distribution of fish species (Clark et al. 2010).

In addition to the Fisheries Value and Watershed Condition indexes described in the Indicator

section, the Central Yukon Field Office is also developing a suite of vulnerability criteria that

measure the susceptibility of the watershed to change. Watershed vulnerability will be assessed

based on the following attributes: average valley slope, presence of permafrost, ratio of valley

width to floodplain width, average hillslope within the watershed, aquatic habitat loss due to

change in water temperature (based on climate change models), presence of valid existing rights

(e.g., mining claims), presence of rights-of-way, status of navigability, proportion of watershed

available for resource extraction and development, proportion of watershed with formal protected

status, potential of land conversion (percent) from its natural condition, and mineral potential. It

is anticipated that the ranking process will be complete in time to incorporate the findings into

the development of alternatives and management prescriptions.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Fish and Aquatic Species
Analysis of Management Situation 52

2.1.7.5. Key Features

Key areas for fish are those habitats that support specific life stages and provide connectivity as

fish move between habitat types as part of their life cycle. Human use of fish through subsistence,

commercial, and sport harvest also guides land use allocation and management.

Known important watersheds include those with streams that were previously designated as

ACECs in the Central Yukon and Utility Corridor plans because of their high quality fish habitat.

Additional streams such as Accomplishment Creek, Section Creek, South Fork Koyukuk River,

Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River, Wheeler Creek, Klikhtentotzna Creek, and Sethkokna River also

have a high level of importance either as habitat or to users.

The fish resource values within each 6th level watershed located in the planning area will be

determined through the Fisheries Value rating index developed for the Central Yukon Field Office

in conjunction with this plan. Once completed, these data will help guide land use allocation and

management decisions related to aquatic resources.

2.1.8. Wildlife

Wildlife management is a subactivity (6500) of the BLM Manual and includes management of

wildlife habitat on public lands. It is BLM policy to manage habitat with emphasis on ecosystems

to ensure self-sustaining populations and a natural abundance and diversity of wildlife, fish, and

plant resources on public lands. Except in special cases, responsibility for managing wildlife

populations rests with the State of Alaska. Marine mammals, migratory birds, and federally listed

threatened or endangered species are, in part, the responsibility of the federal government. In

Alaska, subsistence harvest management and co-management of subsistence species populations

on federal lands are also federal responsibilities. Co-management of wildlife is a feature unique to

federal lands in Alaska. BLM can only manage subsistence wildlife species on federal lands;

outside of federal lands, wildlife population management is under the authority of the ADFG. For

subsistence game species on federal lands, BLM should manage populations to sustain viable

populations for subsistence use. BLM must ensure close cooperation with ADFG to manage

sustainable populations.

The objective of wildlife habitat management on public lands is the conservation and

rehabilitation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources consistent with multiple use management

principles. Additional program-specific goals are found in the 6500 Manual series (BLM 1988a)

and are: to ensure optimum populations and a natural abundance and diversity of wildlife

resources on public lands by restoring, maintaining, and enhancing habitat conditions; ensure

that big game and upland game species on public lands are provided habitat of sufficient quantity

and quality to sustain identified economic and social contributions to the American people; help

perpetuate a diversity and abundance of waterfowl for the Nation by managing the wetlands

and other habitats on the public lands that are of importance to the maintenance of waterfowl;

provide suitable habitat conditions for birds of prey on public lands through the conservation

and management of essential habitat components, including prey species, especially in areas

where birds of prey concentrate during some period of the year, or in important habitats where

populations are suppressed; and manage riparian areas to achieve a healthy and productive

condition for longterm benefits and values.

In the planning area, wildlife habitat management focuses on conservation and monitoring efforts

rather than rehabilitation, because few resources are impacted to the extent that rehabilitation

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 53

work is necessary. Exceptions to this are areas in the planning area, specifically in the Dalton

Highway corridor, where human activities such as mining have locally impacted fish and wildlife

habitat. In addition to emphasizing wildlife habitat management that is consistent with the State

of Alaska’s wildlife population management objectives, the Central Yukon Field Office conducts

wildlife population monitoring to support the goals of the Federal Subsistence Management

Program, which include providing for continued opportunities to pursue a subsistence lifestyle

for rural Alaskans on federal public lands and waters, and maintaining healthy populations of

subsistence fish and wildlife resources.

2.1.8.1. Indicator

The Threatened and Endangered, Native, and Locally Important Species Standard in the
 

BLM Alaska Land Health Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2004) focuses on retaining natural
 

populations and restoring viable native plant and animal species, populations, and communities.
 

The corresponding goal of this standard is to ensure that habitats support healthy, productive,
 

and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals (including threatened,
 

endangered, and other special status species of local importance, e.g. those used for subsistence).
 

To achieve this goal, the BLM should ensure that essential habitat elements for species,
 

populations, and communities are present and available to the extent that they are consistent with
 

the potential/capability of the landscape. Potential success indicators that ensure this objective
 

is being met include: plant community composition and productivity, animal community
 

composition and productivity, habitat elements, spatial distribution of habitat, habitat connectivity,
 

population stability and resilience, and disturbance regimes such as wildland fire history.
 

There are 26 Game Management Units in Alaska. The Central Yukon Planning Area includes
 

part or all of 6 Game Management Units, with the majority of BLM-managed lands in
 

units 20, 21, 24, and 26B. The ADFG establishes species-specific goals and objectives for
 

each Game Management Unit or subunit. When possible, the ADFG establishes a target
 

harvestable surplus goal using sustained yield principles. These goals, along with a summary of
 

population-monitoring activities, population trends, and harvest data, are included in Inventory
 

and Management (I&M) reports published periodically (every 2 to 5 years) by the ADFG.
 

Specific indicators of wildlife community composition health and productivity include animal
 

distribution, population estimates and trends, sex/age demographics, recruitment and survival
 

rates, and indicators of nutritional health such as animal weight, reproductive rates and range
 

use. Habitat quality evaluation may include seasonal browse studies or forage monitoring,
 

determining nutritional quality, evaluating natural fire regime impacts on habitat, and monitoring
 

changes in habitat over time. ADFG I&M reports are available on the ADFG website at
 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=librarypublications.wildlifemanagement.
 

2.1.8.2. Current Condition

Moose (Alces alces)

Moose are present throughout the planning area at elevations below 3,000 feet. They are generally

associated with deciduous shrub, wetland, and riparian habitats. The North Slope is the northern

range extent of moose in North America. Moose are valued as a subsistence food resource by

both rural and non-rural residents, and many moose hunters travel great distances in pursuit of

this animal. Moose populations are carefully monitored, particularly in areas where hunting

pressure or demand are high.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 54

The current condition of moose in the planning area varies by region. At the northern extent of the

species’ range in Unit 26B, moose populations are limited naturally by poor browse quality and

consequent malnourishment, mineral deficiency, and disease, as well as predation, and resource

competition with snowshoe hares (Carroll 1998, Lenart 2010). Moose tend to be concentrated

in the northern foothills of the Brooks Range, and in limited habitat available along riparian

corridors on the North Slope. Moose densities in the upper Koyukuk River drainage (Units 24A

and B) are low (less than 1 moose per square mile). Densities in the lower Koyukuk drainage and

middle Yukon River (Units 21 and 24C and D) are moderate to high (3 to 15 moose per square

mile) (Hollis 2011) and moose can be locally abundant. High predation rates by bears and wolves

maintain populations at low densities in Units 24B, 20F, and parts of Unit 21 (Gasaway et al.

1992, Boertje et al. 2009, Hollis 2010b). Habitat quality and quantity are high in both Unit 21

and 24, evident by high twinning rates, low browse removal rates, and healthy animals. Harvest

pressure in Unit 24 is low due to limited access and low densities. The lower Koyukuk drainage

and tributaries of the Yukon River in Units 24 and 21 receive substantially higher hunting pressure

from both local and non-local hunters.

User conflict and the need for regulation change precipitated the establishment of the Koyukuk

River Moose Hunters’ Working Group in the late 1990s. ADFG, in cooperation with the working

group, published the Koyukuk River Moose Management Plan in 2001, which was designed to

maintain harvest opportunities and balance the interests of diverse user groups while still adhering

to sustained yield mandates. Many of the management goals and objectives established for moose

in Units 21 and 24 are a result of the Koyukuk River Moose Hunter’s Working Group.

Most Game Management Unit specific management goals and objectives established by ADFG

for the planning area focus on maintaining or exceeding a minimum population size, achieving

appropriate sex and age class ratios, providing for sustained harvest rates, and implementing

projects to locally enhance moose habitat. Most of these objectives are being met for Units 26B,

24, 21, and 20F, with the exception of (1) population objective for Units 24, and (2) implementing

habitat enhancement projects for Units 21B and 24 (Hollis 2010b, Hollis 2011, Lenart 2010).

BLM program management goals relevant to moose include ensur[ing] a natural abundance and

diversity of wildlife resources on public lands by restoring, maintaining, and enhancing habitat

conditions and ensur[ing] that big game on public lands are provided habitat of sufficient quantity

and quality to sustain identified economic and social contributions to the American people.

Alaska is unique in that ecosystems are generally intact and large-scale habitat rehabilitation

efforts are not necessary to reestablish natural abundance and diversity of wildlife on public lands.

As such, these goals are being met. However, coordinating with ADFG to enhance local habitat

conditions, which is a BLM mandate and frequently a State Game Management Unit specific

management objective, is an opportunity that should be explored further.

There are a number of federal and state moose hunts in the planning area. The most common

access methods are by boat, airplane, and non-motorized access from the Dalton Highway. Bow

hunting in the DHCMA (Unit 24A) is currently under a draw hunt. Unit 26 lands in the planning

area are closed to moose hunting under both state and federal regulations. The BLM administers

one federal moose hunt in Unit 24 (FM2405), and co-manages a federal winter moose hunt in

Unit 21 (FM2106) in cooperation with the USFWS.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 55

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus)

Caribou are large, social ungulates that inhabit arctic and alpine tundra and the boreal forest.

There are four subspecies of caribou in North America, and one, the barren ground caribou, is

present in Alaska. Caribou herd populations are naturally cyclic, but the timing and extent of

population growth and decline is difficult to predict. Population decline can be influenced

by overhunting, varying weather patterns and inter-annual seasonal variability in phenology,

population density, predation by wolves and bears, and disease outbreaks (ADFG 2013c). Caribou

herd ranges often overlap, but because caribou have high fidelity to calving grounds they are

distinguished as separate herds based on distinct calving grounds.

Caribou in the planning area are an important subsistence resource. They can be abundant, but

their movements are subject to high inter-annual variability, particularly in the periphery of their

winter range. Many rural communities in the planning area are located in this outer range (Figure

C.4), and experience challenges associated with finding food substitutes for caribou in years when

they are locally absent. Caribou are also important game species for non-local hunters. User

conflict between rural residents, non-local hunters, guides, and transporters persist as challenges

in herd management. Most of the user conflict is outside the planning area in Unit 23. However,

these issues affect wildlife resources that utilize BLM-managed lands in the Central Yukon

region, and localized user conflict there is occasionally problematic.

Eleven caribou herds are present in the planning area either seasonally or year-round (Figure C.4).

Four large (50,000+ animals), migratory herds, the Western Arctic and Central Arctic, and to a

lesser extent, the Teshekpuk and Porcupine herds, occupy lands in the planning area as part of

their winter range. These herds migrate hundreds of miles between their summer and winter

ranges. During winter, scattered groups of these animals range throughout the Utility Corridor

and Middle Yukon Drainages subunits. The Galena Mountain, Wolf Mountain, Ray Mountains,

and Hodzana Hills herds range entirely within the planning area. These herds are small (less than

2,000 animals) and have relatively small home ranges associated with isolated alpine regions

north of the Yukon River. The majority of the Sunshine Mountains and Denali ranges are in the

Bering Sea-Western Interior (BSWI), and the Delta herd range is in the Central Yukon Planning

Area but does not include BLM-managed land.

Western Arctic Caribou Herd

The Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WAH) ranges over 157,000 square miles of northwestern

and Interior Alaska (Figure C.4). The calving grounds are located outside the planning area in

the NPR-A, which is managed by the BLM Arctic Field Office and addressed in the NPR-A

Integrated Activity Plan (2008). While western portions of the Utility Corridor Subunit are in

the summer range, the WAH is present on BLM-managed lands in the Central Yukon Planning

Area in the winter.

The WAH is a vital resource for many rural communities in northwestern Alaska, and the herd

is carefully monitored and studied as a result. The size of the herd has fluctuated over the last

40 years. The lowest recorded population estimate was 75,000 animals in 1976. The herd grew

steadily until 2003, when it reached a record size of 490,000 animals (Dau 2011). Since then, the

population has been in decline. The last population estimate was 325,000 animals in 2011. Present

management concerns include identifying causes of the decline and adopting more conservative

harvest regulations to minimize anthropogenic impacts on herd size and demography. Specifically,

this strategy includes maintaining cow numbers to retain adequate parturition and recruitment.

ADFG hypothesizes that this decline is, in part, caused by increased predation, adverse weather

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 56

conditions (e.g., rain-on-snow events which impair access to winter food resources), and, to a

lesser extent, local habitat degradation and vegetation change. Additional management concerns

include user conflict between local and non-local hunters, guides, and transporters, addressing

caribou-reindeer conflict on the Seward Peninsula, understanding and mitigating impacts of

large-scale development on the herd, and accurately documenting harvest.

ADFG and the NPS actively monitor population trends and seasonal movements using satellite

and radiotelemetry collar data. ADFG conducts a herd census every 2 to 3 years. BLM has

historically supported these efforts through fuel purchase and aviation support, data downloads

and collar purchase, and personnel support, as needed. The BLM established long-term winter

vegetation transects to monitor habitat change and impacts of grazing in the WAH range over

time. This study, located outside the planning area, was initiated in the 1981. Transects are

revisited every 5 years. Joly et al. (2006) and others documented a decline in winter forage

(lichen) abundance since the 1980s. This decline is purportedly due to grazing, wildland fire,

and vegetation changes due to climate change.

The Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working Group was established in 1997, and reflects the

importance of caribou in northwest and Interior Alaska. The group is composed of stakeholder

representatives with direct interest, knowledge, and concern in the management of the herd. The

purpose of the group is to provide input and recommend management strategies for the WAH

and the habitat within their range to ADFG and federal land management agencies. There are 14

communities in the Central Yukon Planning Area that fall within the limits of the WAH range

(Figure C.4). Four local representatives that live within the planning area are voting members

of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working Group. BLM staff serve on the group’s technical

committee, attend the annual meeting, and provide funding in support of group functions.

Central Arctic Caribou Herd

The Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CAH) range straddles the Dalton Highway corridor from

Prudhoe Bay to the Central Brooks Range (Figure C.4). These animals traditionally calve between

the Sagavanirktok and Canning Rivers, and between the Colville and Kuparuk Rivers. They spend

the summer on the Arctic coastal plain, often in the vicinity of oil infrastructure and development

on the North Slope and coast. The CAH winter range extends south of the Continental Divide in

the Brooks Range, west of Anaktuvuk Pass, and east of Arctic Village. CAH animals occupy

BLM-managed lands in the Utility Corridor and Central Arctic Management Area (CAMA)

subunits within the planning area during winter. Managing harvest pressure from the Dalton

Highway and determining the effects of energy development activities on the herd are the primary

management issues affecting the herd.

The size of the CAH has increased rapidly in recent years. This increase is attributed to high

parturition and calf survival rates, and low adult mortality (Lenart 2011a). ADFG has established

a population objective of 28,000 to 32,000 caribou. The last reported census of the herd was

in 2010, and 70,034 caribou were counted, fulfilling this goal (Lenart 2011a). State hunting

regulations have been modified to accommodate the changes in herd size and demographics.

Central Arctic caribou are often seen from the Dalton Highway, and contribute to the quality

of wildlife viewing and photography opportunities within the DHCMA. The Utility Corridor

is popular for archery hunters in the DHCMA and rifle hunting beyond the 5-mile corridor.

Local hunters from Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Wiseman pursue this herd as well. Hunting in the

Utility Corridor occurs most often in the fall, but winter and spring hunts are popular as well.

ADFG recognizes the importance of this herd as an opportunity to view wildlife along the Dalton

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 57

Highway. The ADFG has established a management goal to reduce conflicts between consumptive

and non-consumptive uses of caribou in Unit 26B. While user contact at the Arctic Interagency

Visitor Center provides BLM staff an opportunity to educate the public, additional opportunities

to engage and inform the public on CAH dynamics and varied human uses could be pursued.

Galena Mountain and Wolf Mountain Caribou Herds

The Galena Mountain Caribou Herd (GMH) ranges northeast of Galena in the Galena Mountains

and Kokrines Hills. Members of the herd migrate to alpine areas in the Kokrines Hills to calve.

They spend the summer in these alpine areas, and winter in the vicinity of the Hozatka Lakes

on the Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge. The herd size is less than 125 animals (Hollis 2011).

Currently, there is no open hunting season because the herd does not have a harvestable surplus of

animals. The season has been closed since 2005.

The Wolf Mountain Caribou Herd (WMH) ranges northeast of Wolf Mountain in the headwaters

of Hot Springs Creek and the Little Melozitna River. The herd calves in the Kokrines Hills (east

of the GMH calving grounds), and spends the summer in the vicinity of Wolf Mountain. They

migrate north toward the Melozitna River, where they winter near Lost Lake (Hollis 2011).

Most of the herd range is on State land. The most recent population estimate is 434 individuals,

counted in 2009.

The origin of these herds is unknown, but it is suspected that they are relic populations of large

migratory herds. Both the GMH and WMH live in remote areas and harvest (even when the GMH

was open to hunting) has always been low and opportunistic. The herd sizes are thought to be

limited by predation, with predation of calves by wolves and bears limiting adult recruitment

(Hollis 2011). The BLM has monitored these herds in cooperation with ADFG and USFWS

since the mid-1980s.

The Central Yukon RMP (1980) established an ACEC for crucial caribou caving habitat in the

range of the GMH. Since its establishment, movements and seasonal distribution of the GMH

are better understood. BLM staff have recommended changes to the ACEC boundaries to better

address resource needs.

Ray Mountains and Hodzana Hills Caribou Herds

The Ray Mountain Caribou Herd (RMH) occupies the geographically isolated alpine regions in

the Ray Mountains north of the Yukon River (Figure C.4). It was first identified as a herd in the

1970s, and has been regularly monitored by ADFG and the BLM through radiotelemetry efforts

and herd composition surveys since the 1980s (Robinson 1985). In 2014, 853 animals were

counted, but historic population estimates have been around 1,200 animals (Hollis 2011).

Prior to 2005, small groups of caribou in the Hodzana Hills east of the Dalton Highway were

considered part of the RMH. Since 2003, ADFG, the BLM, and USFWS have made an effort

to study these caribou to better define their range and habits. Radiotelemetry data have since

confirmed that the RMH and the animals ranging adjacent to and east of the Dalton Highway are

two distinct herds (Horne et al. 2014). Today, this herd is known as the Hodzana Hills Caribou

Herd (HHH). Like the RMH, Hodzana Hills caribou occupy geographically isolated alpine

habitats. They calve primarily in the hills at the headwaters of the Hodzana, Kanuti, and Dall

Rivers (Hollis 2007). A herd composition count documented 662 animals in 2014. Further

investigation of the HHH is ongoing, and the BLM continues to be actively involved in this effort.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 58

Hunting pressure on these caribou herds is low due to limited access, particularly in the Ray

Mountains where access is limited to lengthy snowmobile trips or aircraft access on a small

number of suitable ridgetop landing sites. Although formal mortality studies have not been

conducted, low recruitment as indicated by low calf percentages suggests that predation is the

limiting factor for growth of these herds (Hollis 2011a). Both herds are considered healthy.

The Central Yukon RMP (1980) established the Tozitna ACEC, which consisted of two subunits,

for crucial caribou caving habitat in the RMH range. Since its establishment, movements and

seasonal distribution of the RMH are better understood. BLM staff have recommended changes

to the ACEC boundaries to better address resource needs, and have proposed renaming the ACEC

the Ray Mountains Caribou ACEC to avoid confusion between the similarly named Tozitna River

ACEC which was designated for fisheries resource values.

Other Caribou Herds

The Teshekpuk Caribou Herd (TCH) calves near Teshekpuk Lake and inhabits the central

Arctic coastal plain during spring and summer. The winter range extends across broad areas of

northwestern and north central Alaska and overlaps considerably with the winter ranges of the

WAH and CAH (Figure C.4, Person et al. 2007, Yokel et al. 2009). Much of the herd range falls

within the boundaries of the NPR-A, which is managed by the BLM Arctic Field Office and

addressed in the NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (2008). However, the TCH winter range extends

into the Utility Corridor Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area. The last published herd

census was in 2008, when 64,106 animals were counted (Parrett 2011). The herd is healthy.

The size of the herd has increased dramatically in recent years, but ADFG anticipates that a

decline will be forthcoming. Most harvest of Teshekpuk caribou is by local hunters because the

herd range is remote and difficult to access compared to other large herds (such as the WAH

and CAH). However, non-local hunters do occasionally hunt the TCH in the Colville River

drainage (Unit 26A).

The Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) range is mostly east of the planning area, although the winter

range does extended onto BLM-managed lands west of Venetie (Figure C.4). The PCH ranges

into Canada, and fulfilling international treaty obligations is an integral part of herd management.

The herd is an important subsistence resource for communities in northeastern Alaska and the

Yukon Territory. ADFG maintains a management objective of 135,000 animals. The most recent

herd census was done in 2010 and 169,000 caribou were counted (Caikoski 2011).

The Sunshine Mountains Caribou Herd (SMH) is a small herd that ranges northeast of McGrath.

Its winter range extends onto BLM-managed lands within the Fairbanks Subunit of the planning

area (Unit 19D). The estimated size of the SMH is between 100 to 125 individuals. The

population is considered stable and hunting pressure is light (< 10 caribou harvested in the past 5

years, Seavoy 2011).

The Delta Caribou Herd and Denali Caribou Herd ranges extend into the planning area, but the

herds do not use BLM-managed lands. Both herds are relatively small (less than 3,000 animals).

Dall Sheep (Ovis dalli)

Dall sheep are among the most high profile wildlife species in the planning area. They inhabit

high-elevation areas primarily along the Dalton Highway corridor where the highway transects

the Brooks Range (Figure C.5); this area is referred to as the Dalton Highway Corridor

Management Area (DHCMA). Within the planning area, areas outside of the DHCMA (especially

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 59

the Ray Mountains and Kokrine Hills areas) have been identified as having potentially suitable

sheep habitat and may have been historically occupied by sheep. The concept of introducing, or

reintroducing, sheep to these areas has been explored and may be implemented in the future.

In the DHCMA, Dall sheep inhabit BLMmanaged lands in high-elevation areas on both the east

and west sides of the highway. Sheep in most areas of the DHCMA make frequent use of mineral

licks even though the licks may be located away from preferred escape habitat. Aerial minimum

count sheep surveys have been conducted in the DHCMA since 2000. However, the survey

methodology and study area has varied over the course of the study. The area most frequently

surveyed since 2000 is centered on the Snowden Mountain ACEC, which is home to the likely

highest density of sheep in the DHCMA. In this portion of the survey area, approximately 1,400

sheep were recorded in the 422 square mile area in 2012 and 2013. Compilation of previous

years’ data for this and other areas surveyed in the DHCMA is in progress for the purpose of

trend analysis.

The Snowden Mountain ACEC, where survey efforts have been largely centered, was designated

specifically because the area contains important lambing areas and mineral licks for sheep. Other

ACECs in the DHCMA that were designated specifically because of lambing areas and mineral

licks are the West Fork Atigun River ACEC, Poss Mountain ACEC, and Nugget Creek ACEC.

Additionally, the presence of lambing areas within the designated Galbraith Lake ACEC is one of

suite of reasons for its designation.

A recent study of Dall sheep in the DHCMA was conducted to estimate annual survival and

recruitment rates. Twenty-nine adult Dall sheep ewes and 62 lambs were radiocollared. Analyses

also used radio collar location data to identify important habitats and potential effects of human

activity on sheep distribution and movements.

The study suggested high annual survival of ewes (0.77–0.88) but lamb survival appeared to

decline annually (0.68, 0.48, and 0.28 for cohorts born in 2009–2011, respectively). Eleven ewes

died as a result of predation during the course of the study, primarily by wolves and grizzly bears.

For lambs, drowning, wolverine predation and golden eagle predation were the most common

causes of mortality. Secondarily, grizzly and wolf predation and falls or accidents contributed

to lamb mortality. As stated above, strong conclusions about population trends in the area are

difficult to draw based on historic survey information. However, decreasing lamb survival during

this study and low lamb abundance during both 2012 and 2013 suggests that the rate of population

growth may be slowing. Results from this study highlight certain adjustments to ACECs pertinent

to this planning effort. The authors suggest that these adjustments would likely contribute to more

effective management of the sheep population in this region. Specifically, the study recommends

that Snowden Mountain ACEC should be extended to encompass the headwaters of Matthews

Creek, an area that all collared sheep in that subpopulation used frequently: “to adequately protect

important sheep habitat, the Snowden ACEC should be extended eastward to the boundary of

BLM lands near Matthews Creek.”

Additionally, the study results and the authors’ conclusions suggest that two other sheep

subpopulations within the DHCMA may warrant special management attention that could include

(1) the expansion of the Poss Mountain ACEC and (2) the establishment of an additional ACEC

near the community of Wiseman. First, a mineral lick located at a relatively low elevation

and near an active mining claim on Gold Creek was frequented by the Poss Mountain ACEC

subpopulation of sheep, but is not currently within the boundary of the Poss Mountain ACEC.

Second, the seasonally migratory subpopulation of sheep near Wiseman travels through a

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 60

relatively low-elevation area to traverse between Midnight Dome and Smith Dome. Although

this low-elevation area does fall within mining claims, unless their development impedes sheep

movement between the two domes, development in this area is not likely to be detrimental to this

subpopulation. However, both Smith and Midnight Domes fall within a large block of mining

claims that have yet to be developed. If the mining claims on these domes were to become active,

it would likely be detrimental to this subpopulation near the community of Wiseman. Subsistence

and sport hunter conflicts related to sheep harvest have been ongoing and, especially if sheep

populations in the region exhibit a decline in population, require management attention.

Brown (Grizzly) Bear (Ursus arctos)

Alaska contains over 98 percent of the U.S. population of brown bears, and more than 70 percent

of the North American population (Eide and Miller 1994). Brown bears are found throughout the

planning area. They are most common in alpine and subalpine areas in the Interior. However, they

do occur sporadically in forested lowland areas where they are often associated with muskegs and

open meadows. They range throughout the North Slope, but are most common in the foothills

of the Brooks Range and along major river valleys (ADFG 1973). With the exception of the

Fairbanks Subunit, their historic range is largely intact.

Brown bears are solitary except for females with cubs, aggregations at concentrated food

resources, and mating pairs. Mating takes place from May through July. The fertilized egg

does not implant in the uterine wall until the fall, at which time there is a gestation period of

four months. One to three cubs are born in the winter den. The cubs spend two to three years

with the sow, and the interval between litters is often in excess of three years, particularly in

areas where food availability is low.

Brown bear densities within the planning area vary depending on topography and habitat quality.

However, density in many parts of the planning area is not well documented, and available data

are often a number of years old. Habitat classification is often used as a supplement to estimating

density in areas where population data are lacking. Low densities are considered to be below

1 brown bear per 100 square miles, moderate densities are considered 1.1 – 3.2 bears per 100

square miles, and high densities are considered to be greater than 3.3 bears per 100 square miles

(Lenart 2011). Brown bear densities range from 3.3 per 100 square miles in Unit 24B to 1 per 100

square miles in Units 21A and 21B (Ballard et al. 1988, Reynolds 1992). A 1992 study of brown

bears north of the Brooks Range estimated 1.8bears per 100 square miles in Unit 26B, and 2.8

bears per 100 square miles in Unit 26B (Reynolds 1992). Very little information exists for the

Ray Mountains area (Unit 20F), but Eagan (1995) classified most of the Unit as having medium

quality habitat and likely moderate bear densities.

Harvest within the planning area varies depending on ease of access and proximity to population

centers. Harvest and population data are generally obtained from sealing documents from bears

harvested and sealed by ADFG.

Black Bear (Ursus americanus)

Black bears occur throughout the planning area, with the exception of the North Slope. They

typically inhabit forested areas, but can be found in a range of habitats depending on food

availability. Black bears are omnivorous, and exhibit seasonal food use patterns. In the spring,

they typically rely on newly sprouted green vegetation, and also will scavenge animals that were

killed or died during the winter months. Both black and grizzly bears are capable predators of

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 61

moose, particularly calves less than 5 months old. Black bears take advantage of seasonal fish

availability, particularly in tributaries of the Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers within the planning area

where salmon spawn. In the fall, berries are an important part of their diet.

Black bears breed in early summer (June and July), and delayed fertilization occurs in October.

One to four cubs are born during the winter denning period. They are born helpless, and weigh

under a pound. They emerge from the den with the sow in May, and weigh approximately 5

pounds. Cubs will remain with their mother through their first winter, but can remain with the

sow longer, particularly in areas of Northern Alaska (such as those in the planning area) that have

a shorter growing season and less food availability. Black bears reach sexual maturity at 3 to 6

years of age (ADFG 1994). With the exception of the breeding season and sows with cubs,

they are solitary animals.

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)

Despite populations throughout the rest of North America being reduced by humans, wolves still

occupy most of their historic range in Alaska. They range throughout the planning area, but occur

in greatest densities in Units 20 and 21. Population numbers are closely linked to prey availability.

Wolves are highly social animals, and live in packs that can range in size from 2 to 20 animals,

with 7 to 10 individuals being common (ADFG 1994). Pack structure is dictated by social

hierarchy, which is characterized by an alpha pair and subordinate offspring and other individuals.

Wolf packs occupy a territorial home range that depends on habitat and prey availability. Pack

ranges can be from 300 to 1,000 square miles (ADFG 1994). Areas with high prey densities can

support more wolf packs with smaller home ranges. Occasional overlap in pack home ranges can

exist, but territorial disputes are common between packs when this is the case. Packs are highly

mobile, and travel great distances within their home range in search of food (Mech 1999). Their

primary source of food in Interior Alaska is large ungulates such as moose and caribou, but they

are also known to prey on Dall sheep, small mammals, birds, and fish (Wilson and Ruff 1999).

Wolves breed in February and March, and pups are born in May and early June. Litters of four

to seven pups are common. Pups are born in a den, where they spend the first couple weeks of

their lives. They are weaned about nine weeks after birth, and are capable of hunting with the

pack by early winter.

Wolf densities in the planning area range from 4.8 wolves per 1000 square miles in Unit 26 to

15-23 wolves per 1000 square miles in Unit 20 and 18-24 wolves per 1,000 square miles in Unit

21D. Most populations are considered stable. Currently, state hunting regulations are liberal

(5 to 10 wolves in possession under state hunting regulations; no limit on trapping wolves).

State management goals for wolves in Game Management Units currently focus on maintaining

stable populations, providing for a range of human uses and value of wolves, and maintaining

harvestable populations of moose and caribou through intensive management. There is also an

effort to increase public awareness of the conservation and management of wolves and their

prey in Alaska (Stout 2009).

Wolves in the planning area are important for their value as a furbearer, both for subsistence

and commercial purposes. They are an important part of boreal and arctic ecosystems, where

they regulate prey densities, particularly in the absence of human harvest. The aesthetic value

of observing and being aware of wolves in their natural environment is also recognized as an

important human use of wolves. Wolf sightings and other wildlife observations enhance visitor

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 62

experiences along the Dalton Highway; one of the most common questions asked by visitors at

the Arctic Interagency Visitor Center is where wolves can be sighted (Karen Deatherage, BLM

Interpreter, pers. comm.).

Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus)

Although native to western Alaska, muskoxen disappeared in Alaska in the late 1800s (Lent

1998). Multiple efforts to reintroduce muskoxen in various parts of the state have taken place

since the 1930s, when animals from Greenland were transplanted to Nunivak Island (MacDonald

and Cook 2009). Muskoxen are social animals, and live in family groups composed of females,

their offspring, and subadults (Reynolds et al. 2001). Males are often solitary in summer and

form small groups in winter. Females produce a single calf in in April or May, and generally

breed every other year (Reynolds 2001). In summer, muskoxen live near riparian areas where

they feed on shrubs, sedges, and grasses. In the winter, family groups seek out hilltops and other

windblown areas where snow is less likely to impede their mobility (Nowak 1991). They subsist

on low-quality forage, and rely on energy conservation as a primary survival strategy (Wilson

and Ruff 1999). They reduce activity and movements during winter, and often spend most of the

winter in a localized area.

Muskoxen are present in the Corridor Subunit of the planning area in Unit 26B. Thirteen animals

were released on the North Slope (Unit 26C) in 1970. Since then, their range has expanded east

into Canada and west into Units 26A and 26B. The population was considered stable from the

mid-1990s through 2003, and the Unit 26B population was estimated to be around 300 animals.

In 2006, the population declined to about 215 animals. Most recently, population surveys from

2007 to 2010 have reported the population of Unit 26B to be around 200 muskoxen. Although the

population is smaller than in the early 2000s, it is considered stable (Lenart 2011c). Recruitment

for the Unit 26B population is low, and predation on muskox calves by brown (grizzly) bears is

considered the main cause of population decline.

The ADFG management goal for muskoxen in Unit 26 is to maintain healthy, stable populations

while providing opportunities for harvest. The ADFG developed the North Slope Muskox

Harvest Plan to guide sustainable harvest of muskoxen in Unit 26B and provide reasonable

opportunity for subsistence harvest west of the Dalton Highway (ADFG 1999). Management

goals for Unit 26 include maintaining healthy, stable populations; minimizing detrimental effects

that muskoxen may have on caribou and caribou hunting; cooperating and sharing information

about muskoxen to user groups, state, and federal agencies; and providing opportunities to view

and photograph muskoxen (Lenart 2011c).

Furbearers

Furbearers include those species of mammals that are sought by licensed trappers who place

commercial value on the animals’ pelts. Furbearers that inhabit the planning area include beaver,

red fox, lynx, marten, mink, muskrat, river otter, coyote, wolverine, and wolf. Furbearer

harvest (by both hunting and trapping) in the planning area is conducted by both subsistence

and recreational users. Some harvest is conducted opportunistically while users are engaged in

other activities.

Since definitive species population and distribution information is not available, ADFG

wildlife biologists rely on annual trapper harvest reports and personal feedback, as well as field

observations by department personnel. Harvest reports to ADFG are only required for a subset of

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 63

furbearer species; lynx, river otter, wolf and wolverine must be sealed (marked with a metal tag)

by ADFG employees; therefore, ADFG reports most accurately represent take of these species.

Historically, in Interior Alaska as well as in Arctic and Western Alaska, less than 30 percent of the

trappers provided information via questionnaire that lends insight into take of species for which

sealing is not required. Therefore, the information presented in the following table (Table 2.7)

must be taken with the caveat that no broad-scale inventory or monitoring biological surveys

for any of these species have been conducted in the planning area. It is likely that some data

presented in the table does not represent true population abundance or trends (e.g., red squirrels

are shown to be common in Interior Alaska, but abundant in Arctic and Western Alaska, which is

not likely the case, based on red squirrel habitat distribution in these regions). Regardless, the

information provided here is the most current and accurate information available for these species

and does suggest that several furbearer species populations should be taken into consideration

for management purposes.

Table 2.7. Relative Abundance of Furbearers

Common

Name

Interior Alaska Arctic and Western Alaska Average Raw Fur Price

Relative

Abundance

Trend Importance Relative

Abundance

Trend Importance 2012-2013 % Change

in Market

Price (2008

to 2013)

Arctic Fox scarce n/ca 12 scarce n/c 12 $59.97 64%

Beaver common n/c 7 abundant n/c 6 $32.56 35%

Coyote common n/c 6 scarce n/c 10 $76.27 68%

Ermine common n/c 8 common n/c 11 $3.43 -2%

Lynx scarce - 2 common - 1 $205.11 54%

Marten common - 1 common - 4 $143.81 71%

Mink scarce n/c 9 common - 8 $27.90 64%

Muskrat scarce n/c 11 scarce n/c 9 $12.53 75%

Red Fox scarce n/c 5 common n/c 2 $59.97 64%

Red

Squirrel

common n/c *b abundant n/c *b $0.74 -62%

River Otter abundant n/c 10 scarce n/c 7 $100.75 67%

Wolf common n/c 3 scarce n/c 5 $215.84 33%

Wolverine scarce n/c 4 scarce n/c 3 $271.35 14%

an/c = no change

bNo data available

For instance, lynx pelts are a valuable commodity and increasing in value; however, populations

appear to be declining in both Interior Alaska and Arctic and Western Alaska regions. This

species was listed on the BLM 2004 Sensitive Species List, but was removed when the list was

updated in 2010. Lynx are the only indigenous wild cat of Alaska. Once found throughout

northern North America, lynx were federally listed in 2003 as a threatened species in the northern

Rocky Mountains of the lower 48 states due to overharvesting and their inability to successfully

compete with more opportunistic predators. Lynx are found throughout the planning area where

suitable habitat and prey populations exist. The best lynx habitat occurs where wildland fires or

other disturbances create early succession vegetation communities with snowshoe hare habitat

and other small prey. Marten are another high-value species that appears to be in decline in the

planning area. Wolverine are scarce across the planning area, but high value and important to

trappers in the area. There is some suggestion that climate change, potentially in combination

with harvest pressure, could negatively affect this species at a population level.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 64

Arctic ground squirrel, hoary marmot, and pika all inhabit higher elevation areas within the

planning area. Alpine habitat is predicted to be most rapidly affected by climate warming based on

current climate projections, so these species may be most immediately affected by climate change.

Birds

All birds that occur in the planning area are classified as migratory birds under the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act, with the exception of ptarmigan and grouse (which are classified as game birds).

In the planning area, these birds include rock and whitetailed ptarmigan, and ruffed, spruce,

and sharptailed grouse.

Raptors — Birds of Prey

Numerous species of raptors inhabit the planning area including: golden eagle, bald eagle,

peregrine falcon, osprey, gyrfalcon, northern harrier, American kestrel, merlin, sharpshinned

hawk, northern goshawk, roughlegged hawk, great horned owl, great gray owl, northern hawk

owl, shorteared owl and boreal owl. All are classified as migratory birds, but some remain

resident through the year, including gyrfalcon and several owls (great horned, great gray, hawk,

and boreal). Those considered special status species are discussed in more detail in that section.

Because these species occupy a wide variety of habitats, it is difficult to generalize habitat

condition. However, most of the planning area is in a natural state and permitted activities are

minimal.

Bald and golden eagles are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and both are

present in the planning area. The BLM has conducted several raptor surveys in the DHCMA

primarily for the purpose of determining nest locations for golden eagles, but also including

records of other stick nests and raptors observed. Other raptor surveys have been conducted

within the planning area as well. The farthest north recorded breeding population of American

kestrels is located in the DHCMA; the BLM maintains nestboxes that are frequently used by both

kestrels and boreal owls along the Dalton Highway north of the community of Coldfoot, Alaska.

Waterfowl and Other Wetland Birds

Within the planning area, scattered wetland habitat is used by a variety of waterfowl including

ducks, geese, swans, loons, grebes, and shorebirds. More detailed information on those identified

as special status species is provided in that section. Since these species occupy a wide variety of

habitats, it is difficult to generalize habitat condition. However, most of the planning area is in a

natural state and permitted activities are minimal.

Passerine (perching) Birds

According to ADFG, 471 bird species have been positively identified in Alaska (Wings over

Alaska, http://www.birding.alaska.gov/). Many of these species occur in the planning area.

Because of the variety of habitats preferred by the many species of birds that migrate to Alaska

each year, migratory birds are known to occupy every habitat type within the planning area

including riparian, wetland, forest, shrub, and alpine tundra. Given Alaska’s short summers,

the success of breeding birds depends greatly on their ability to locate suitable nesting habitat

in a timely fashion, endure infrequent adverse weather conditions, evade predators, and avoid

disruption of their normal routine. Suitable nesting habitat is especially critical to the success of

breeding birds, as it enables them to meet the specific needs of rearing young while expending

as little energy as possible in the process. Migratory birds that are considered special status

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 65

species or birds of conservation concern are considered in further detail elsewhere in this

document. Because bird species occupy a wide variety of habitats, it is difficult to generalize

habitat condition. However, most of the planning area is free of human disturbance and has not

likely impacted any particular bird species at a population level.

Bird Species of Conservation Concern

In addition to bird species listed by the BLM as Sensitive in 2010 (those which occur in the

planning area are further discussed in section 2.1.9 Special Status Species), other species inhabit

the planning area and are listed as of conservation concern by the USFWS, U.S. Geological

Society (USGS) and the State of Alaska. These species should be considered in the planning

process. Table 2.8 provides a summary of bird species of conservation concern, their designation,

and the reason for their designation (e.g., declining population, unknown population, lack of

information).

Table 2.8. Bird Species of Conservation Concern

Bird Species BLM

Alaska

Sensitive

State of AK

(SOA) Species of

Concern (SSOC)

SOA Wildlife

Conservation

Strategy

Featured

USFWS

Conservation

Concern

AK Boreal

Partners in

Flight Priority

Alder flycatcher PR

American three-toed

woodpecker

FM

American tree sparrow PR

Arctic tern PD BCC; BCR

Bald eagle CA PR

Bank swallow LTD

Bar-tailed godwit BCC; BCR

Belted kingfisher LTD

Black guillemot

Black scoter PD

Black-backed

woodpecker

LTD PR

Blackpoll warbler Sensitive SSOC PPD

Bohemian waxwing PR

Boreal chickadee FM

Boreal owl RE

Bristle-thighed curlew DE BCC; BCR

Buff-breasted sandpiper PD BCC; BCR

Cliff swallow LTD

Pacific common eider SD

Dark-eyed junco LTD

Dunlin BCC; BCR

Eskimo curlew Endangered LE

Fox sparrow PR

Golden-crowned

sparrow

PR

Golden eagle Sensitive DE

Gray-cheeked thrush SSOC

Great gray owl UNK

Great horned owl UNK

Gyrfalcon UNK PR

Hairy woodpecker FM

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 66

Bird Species BLM

Alaska

Sensitive

State of AK

(SOA) Species of

Concern (SSOC)

SOA Wildlife

Conservation

Strategy

Featured

USFWS

Conservation

Concern

AK Boreal

Partners in

Flight Priority

Hermit thrush LTD

Hoary redpoll PR

Horned grebe DE BCC; BCR

Hudsonian godwit BCC; BCR

King eider SD

Lapland longspur PR

Lesser yellowlegs SD BCC; BCR

Lincoln sparrow PR

Long-tailed duck PD BCR

Merlin CA

Northern harrier DE

Northern flicker FM

Northern goshawk DE BCC

Northern hawk owl DE

Northern shrike PR

Olive-sided flycatcher Sensitive SSOC SRD BCC; BCR MA

Osprey CA

Peregrine falcon CA BCC; BCR PR

Pine grosbeak LTD PR

Red-necked grebe PD

Red-throated loon SD BCC; BCR

Rock ptarmigan PR

Rough-legged hawk UNK PR

Rusty blackbird Sensitive LTD BCC; BCR MA

Sharp-shinned hawk UNK

Short-eared owl Sensitive UNK MA

Smith's longspur SPRB BCC; BCR PR

Snow bunting PR

Snowy owl UNK PR

Solitary sandpiper PD BCC; BCR

Spruce grouse PR

Surf scoter PD

Swainson hawk MA

Townsend's warbler SSOC FM

Trumpeter swan Sensitive

Upland sandpiper BCR

Varied thrush FM PR

Violet green swallow LTD

Whimbrel BCC; BCR

White-winged scoter PD

White-crowned

sparrow

LTD

White-winged crossbill FM PR

Willow ptarmigan PR

Wilson's warbler LTD

Yellow-billed loon Sensitive BCC; BCR

Codes for State of Alaska Wildlife Conservation Strategy Featured Species:

● E = Endangered

● CA = Contaminant affected

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 67

● DE = Decline elsewhere, AK unknown

● FM = Sensitive to forest management

● LTD = Long term declines

● PD = population in decline in AK and elsewhere

● PPD = Precipitous population decline

● RE = Reduced numbers

● SD = Steep decline

● SPRB = Small population and restricted breeding

● UNK = Unknown

Codes for U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Listed Birds of Conservation Concern:

● LE = Listed endangered species

● PS = Partial status

● C = Candidate species

● PT = Proposed threatened

● BCC = Birds of Conservation concern

● BCR = Regional concern????

Codes for Alaska Boreal Partners in Flight Priority Species in Alaska:

● IM = Immediate Action

● MA = Management

● PR = Long-term Planning and Responsibility

2.1.8.3. Trends

Moose

Moose populations in the planning area are impacted by hunting pressure, predation pressure,

and habitat dynamics associated with landscape-level disturbances such as flooding and wildland

fire. In many parts of the planning area, moose densities are well below levels that the habitat is

capable of supporting due to predation by wolves and bears. This is referred to as Low Density

Dynamic Equilibrium (LDDE), and is characteristic of many populations in the planning

area, particularly remote areas with low human population densities that result in low hunting

and trapping pressure on predator populations (Gasaway et al. 1992). LDDE systems are

characterized by moose densities that range from 0.1-1.0 moose per square mile. Despite being a

natural part of many boreal ecosystems, LDDE can be problematic in areas near villages where

local residents rely heavily on moose as a subsistence resource. In the event that residents are

severely impacted by LDDE moose populations, intensive management of these populations may

be implemented. There is currently one intensive management program ongoing in the planning

area (Unit 24B). Intensive management activities are not taking place on BLM-managed lands.

No new intensive management programs in the planning area are being proposed.

Vegetative succession associated with floodplains and burned areas results in a landscape that

constantly changes in terms of its quality as moose habitat. Moose distribution naturally fluctuates

in response to these dynamic processes. Areas that were considered to be prime moose habitat

when the Utility Corridor and Central Yukon resource management plans were written may not

be capable of sustaining high densities of moose today. Habitat characteristics are impacted

most broadly by fire management policies and fire suppression efforts in the planning area, but

suppression efforts are typically localized around villages and human infrastructure. Areas where

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 68

wildland fire is allowed to burn under a Limited fire management option often produce good

moose habitat. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management are discussed in section 2.1.10.

Caribou

Caribou populations naturally fluctuate. Based on past census data trends, the WACH is predicted

to decline, PCH numbers are increasing, and the TCH and CAH populations are increasing with

the potential to decline in the near future (Dau 2011, Lenart, 2011a, Parrett 2011). The small

herds in the planning area undergo similar fluctuations, but localized stochastic events have the

potential to more dramatically impact these herds because of their small population size and

dependence on small, patchy habitats in their home ranges. Climate change could potentially

increase population fluctuations, and contribute to long-term population decline if populations

cannot recover from low population levels that exceed the normal range.

Natural variation is present in seasonal ranges of caribou, particularly in the periphery of their

winter habitat ranges, which includes many areas in the Central Yukon Planning Area. Caribou

may be present in an area for successive winters, and then be absent in years following. This is

often a topic of concern for rural residents who rely on migrating caribou populations despite

inconsistent and unreliable migration patterns.

Intensive management of caribou in Units 20A and 20D has been implemented in the past, but

is currently inactive. There are no plans to initiate intensive management efforts for caribou

in the planning area.

Dall Sheep

Aerial minimum count sheep surveys have been conducted in the DHCMA since 2000. However,

the survey methodology and study area have varied over the course of the study. Compilation

of previous years’ data for this and other areas surveyed in the DHCMA is in progress for the

purpose of trend analysis. Strong conclusions about population trends in the area are difficult

to draw based on historic survey information. However, low lamb survival estimates and low

lamb abundance during 2012 and 2013 suggests a lower rate of population growth than previously

estimated for the region.

Gray Wolf

Wolf numbers fluctuate with prey densities and availability, and will continue to do so in

the planning area except in areas where predator control (intensive management) is being

implemented and where wolf hunting and trapping is high. Wolf populations in Units 19D

and 24B are the subject of population control actions in an effort to increase harvest of game

species, primarily moose, in these areas where wolf predation is impacting harvest success. Past

population control efforts associated with intensive management programs in Units 20A and 20D

are no longer active. Wolf populations have the ability to rebound quickly after reduction efforts

are implemented, and can be expected to do so to a certain degree when control efforts desist.

Dog lice (Teichodectes canis) was identified in Unit 20A (Fairbanks Subunit) in 2004. Currently,

it is only found in Unit 20 in the planning area, but it is likely that the prevalence of lice in

wolves will continue to increase and spread through other areas in Interior Alaska. Results

of a study initiated in 2005 by ADFG suggest that lice control efforts can be successful if the

infestation is identified and treated early, but this could be difficult in many areas of the planning

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 69

area that are remote, and where wolf sealing and reporting is not required by ADFG (Gardner

and Beckmen 2008).

Other Species

Trends in wildlife populations fluctuate in response to predator-prey dynamics and habitat

conditions. Trend information for furbearers is difficult to deduce since few monitoring studies

have been conducted and population status is for the large part deduced from non-standardized

trapper reports. Habitat within the planning area remains relatively undisturbed, so populations

likely fluctuate within normal levels. However, some species of migratory bird are impacted by

factors outside of the planning area (i.e., wintering grounds) and are exhibiting declines at a

population level within the planning area. Bird and other animal species of concern are discussed

in the Special Status Species Section 2.1.9.

2.1.8.4. Forecast

Moose

Moose will continue to be an important food resource for Alaskans. Maintaining healthy

populations, providing hunting opportunities for local and non-local hunters, and balancing

user needs will continue to be priorities for ADFG. In areas where predators maintain moose

populations at levels in which sustainable human harvest is not possible, intensive management

may be considered as a potential approach to fulfilling rural subsistence needs. The State may

approach the BLM and request that BLM-managed lands be included in intensive management

efforts. IM AK-2010-007 directs the BLM to defer to the State for predator control activities

“unless such activities conflict with on-going or anticipated BLM authorized actions, land use

plan decisions for a given area, or create a threat to public safety (BLM 2010).” The current

Utility Corridor and Central Yukon resource management plans do not address predator control

and predator control is not considered a planning decision.

Changes and fluctuations in local moose densities will occur over the life of the plan in response

to harvest pressure, predation pressure, and changes in local habitat dynamics as a result of natural

processes (wildfire, flooding) and human activities (mining, firewood harvest, road and trail

maintenance). Areas that are currently identified as prime moose habitat may decline in quality as

vegetative succession occurs. Similarly, moose habitat quality in other areas may increase.

Climate change is predicted to result in decreased fire return interval and an increase in fire

severity and the frequency of large (over 1,000 square kilometer) fires (Kasischke et al. 2010,

Kasischke and Turetsky 2006). These changes are predicted to be advantageous to moose, as

younger seral vegetation communities are expected to be maintained at higher proportions on the

landscape through decreased fire return interval, and shrub expansion in the Arctic and alpine

regions is predicted to increase (Tape et al. 2006). Expansion of shrub communities on the

North Slope could increase habitat availability in Unit 26, and malnutrition associated with poor

habitat may be alleviated as a result.

Infrastructure development in the planning area may contribute to habitat fragmentation, although

habitat fragmentation is not anticipated to disrupt ecosystem functioning on a landscape scale

during the life of the plan. Fulfilling BLM mandates for moose habitat management is expected to

be similar to the current condition, although the importance of local habitat enhancement projects

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 70

for moose may increase in the future. Increased access to remote lands via road development in

the planning area may result in a need to change state and federal hunting regulations in areas

where moose populations cannot sustain elevated hunting pressure and harvest. The mechanisms

for reviewing and adopting hunting proposals through the State Board of Game and Federal

Subsistence Board should be able to accommodate these changes as they occur.

Caribou

Climate change has the potential to negatively impact caribou population size and distribution

across the planning area. Winter forage composed primarily of fruticose lichens is associated with

old growth spruce forest communities. If the fire return interval for Interior Alaska decreases,

old growth stands and their associated lichen communities may become increasingly rare on the

landscape, and unable to sustain caribou populations at the levels at which they exist today. A

study by Rupp et al. (2006) illustrated this by modeling changes in caribou winter habitat in

response to four different fire return intervals. A 30 percent decrease in the fire return interval

resulted in a 41 percent decrease in the amount of spruce-lichen forest available on the landscape

(Rupp et al. 2006). This could be detrimental to caribou herds that rely on this habitat during

the winter months, and could limit or dramatically change their distribution. Additionally,

changes in plant phenology associated with climate change could result in mismatches between

the emergence of nutritious food sources (specifically sedge emergence) in the spring and the

timing of calving after the spring migration (Post and Forchhammer 2008). Warming in the Arctic

could also increase the frequency of icing events in winter, which could change snow depths and

hinder movements in winter and during the spring migration.

There is concern that resource development, road construction, and increased human activity in

areas within caribou ranges could impact migration timing and routes. Of most concern in the

planning area is the road to Ambler, which traverses the winter ranges of the WACH, CAH,

and TCH. Studies on caribou movements and interactions with existing roads and resource

development are ongoing (Joly et al. 2006, Cameron et al. 2004, Dau and Cameron 1986).

Dall Sheep

Climate change may have a major impact on sheep habitat and population levels. Severe winter

weather (especially deep snows, extended winters, and spring flooding) can have a notable effects

on sheep populations. Climate change is predicted to significantly alter seasonality and vegetation

community, particularly in higher elevation areas. Habitat conditions and availability, as well as

hunting pressures on road-accessible populations, will determine sheep population dynamics. The

habitat across most of the species range is largely intact and undisturbed.

Gray Wolf

Wolf numbers will continue to fluctuate and respond to changing prey densities in localized areas,

except in areas where predator control efforts dictate wolf population size. It is likely that the

prevalence of dog lice in wolves will continue to increase and spread through other areas in

Interior Alaska. There is concern that if dog lice spreads into other areas of Alaska, not only wolf

populations will be impacted, but prey populations have the potential to be impacted because

wolf pelts infected with lice have little commercial value. Residents will be less inclined to trap

wolves and prey populations could be negatively impacted as a result of decreased trapping

pressure (Young 2009).

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 71

Other species

Since trend information is very limited, it is difficult to forecast how furbearer populations will

change in the future. Several species, in particular lynx and marten, appear to be declining and

warrant management attention including special consideration of habitat protection. A vast array

of bird species occupies the planning area, most of which are not exhibiting notable declines in

population and are not considered in need of management attention. Several bird and mammal

species are considered to be of management concern for a variety of reasons and are discussed in

more detail in the Special Status Species section 2.1.9.

2.1.9. Special Status Species

Management objectives for special status species on public lands are to ensure that: (1) listed

species and the ecosystems on which they depend are conserved; (2) required BLM authorizations

or approvals are consistent with the conservation needs of listed species; and (3) approved

activities do not contribute to the need to list any special status species, either under provisions of

the Endangered Species Act or other authority (BLM 2008b). BLM special status species are

designated where management is capable of significantly affecting the conservation status; such

as those species that (1) could become endangered in or extirpated from the State, or within a

significant portion of its distribution; (2) are undergoing significant current or predicted downward

trends in habitat or populations such that Federal or State listed status may become necessary; (3)

have small and widely dispersed populations inhabiting ecological refugia or other specialized or

unique habitats; and (4) are listed by the State of Alaska but may be better conserved through

application of BLM sensitive species status (BLM 2010).

To develop special status species lists for Alaskan plants, birds, mammals and fish, BLM Alaska

has relied on the State and global rarity ranking system NatureServe (2014). This method ensures

rank consistency and transparency between all rare species within Alaska and between other

Natural Heritage Programs. The Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP) is responsible for

assigning a state conservation rank (S rank), while NatureServe assigns a global conservation rank

(G rank) based on the ranking information provided by all of the Natural Heritage Programs where

the species exist. A conservation status rank is calculated for a species based on its range extent,

area of occupancy, number of occurrences, population sizes and trends, and threats to the species.

Table 2.9. Alaska Natural Heritage Program Global (G#) and State (S#) Ranking Criteria

Rank Definition Rank Definition

G1 Critically imperiled globally or endangered

throughout its range due to extreme rarity or

because highly vulnerable to extinction

S1 Critically imperiled or endangered throughout the

state due to extreme rarity or some factor making

it highly vulnerable to extinction

G2 Imperiled globally or endangered throughout

its range because of rarity or because of

other factors demonstrably making it very

vulnerable to extinction

S2 Imperiled in the state because of rarity

or because of other factors making it very

vulnerable to extirpation from the state

G3 Either very rare and threatened throughout

its range or found locally in a restricted range

S3 Rare or uncommon in the state

G4 Widespread and apparently secure globally,

though it may be quite rare in parts of its

range, especially at the periphery

S4 Apparently secure in state, but with cause for

long term concern

G5 Demonstrably secure globally, though it may

be quite rare in parts of its range, especially

at the periphery

SP Occurring in nearby state or province; not

yet reported in state, but probably will be

encountered with further inventory

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 72

Rank Definition Rank Definition

G#G# Global rank of species uncertain, best

described as a range between the two ranks

S#S# State rank of species uncertain, best described as

a range between the two ranks

G#T# Global rank of the species, and global rank

of the described subspecies or variety

GNR Global rank not yet assessed

G#Q Taxonomic distinctiveness is questionable;

resolution of uncertainty may result in change

from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or

the inclusion of this taxon in another taxon

with a lower conservation priority

G#? Inexact numeric rank

2.1.9.1. Indicator

Management should conserve essential habitat elements for species, populations, and communities

that are present and available to the extent they are consistent with the potential of the landscape.

This requires identifying factors that describe resource condition. The BLM Alaska Land Health

Standards and Guidelines (IMAK2004023) ensures this by defining qualitative indicators

intended for monitoring progress toward or away from the standards (BLM 2004). The standards

are (A) watershed function-uplands, (B) watershed function-riparian, wetland and aquatic areas,

(C) ecological processes, (D) threatened, endangered, native, and locally important species, and

(E) water quality and yield.

2.1.9.1.1. Special Status Plants – Indicator

The Alaska Statewide Land Health Standards includes the following goals, objectives, and

guidelines.

Goal: To ensure that habitats support healthy, productive, and diverse populations and

communities of native plants and animals (including special status species and species of local

importance, e.g., those used for subsistence).

Objective: Essential habitat elements for species, populations, and communities are present and

available to the extent they are consistent with the potential/capability of the landscape.

Guideline: Where practical, use will be redirected, as necessary, to protect Federal and State

listed and candidate Threatened and Endangered species habitat, to enhance indigenous animal

population, and to otherwise maintain public land health through avoidance of sensitive habitat.

Guideline: Fish and wildlife resources and habitat will be managed to ensure compliance with the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to ensure progress towards recovery of listed threatened or

endangered species.

Indicators for special status species as a whole have not been established for Alaska or the

planning area. Indicators for individual special status species in the planning area have also not

been established. Potential indicators for special status species (SSS) might include the following.

Central Yukon Planning areawide SSS indicators are:

● The number of SSS which require listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

● The number of SSS that are removed from special status due to increasing population trend.

Individual SSS indicators (these could be combined for an overall program indicator)

● Population trend of individual special status species.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 73

● Percent of surface disturbance in special status species range or habitat.

● AKHNP/Natureserve SRank remaining stable or improving.

With few exceptions, quantitative information that would allow detection of a population trend

is not available for most sensitive species. By their nature, they are typically uncommon and

difficult to census. In some cases, such as sensitive plants, efforts have focused on detecting

whether species occur on BLMmanaged lands and have not progressed to estimating population

sizes or trends.

2.1.9.1.2. Special Status Animals – Indicator

See section 2.1.9.1.1 (Special Status Plants — Indicator) for discussion of Special Status Species

Indicators.

2.1.9.2. Current Condition

The BLM Alaska special status species includes those that are listed, proposed for listing,

or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the provisions of

the Endangered Species Act. Also included are species listed by the State of Alaska as being

endangered or threatened. Additionally, several species have been identified as having insufficient

data to satisfy the eligibility criteria that are termed watch species (BLM 2008b). These special

status species may warrant additional data collection to more accurately determine their status, as

funding and time allow. The following sections will describe the location, extent, and current

condition of the special status plant and animal species in the planning area.

2.1.9.2.1. Special Status Plants – Current Condition

The BLMAlaska special status plant species list includes those listed in table 2.10 that may occur

within the planning area. In addition to the BLM sensitive and watch species, this list includes

those ranked as imperiled or endangered throughout Alaska due to rarity or some factor making it

highly vulnerable to extirpation from the state (NatureServe 2014). Species that are known to

occur on BLM-managed lands are indicated. High priority species (*) are described in further

detail in this section.

Table 2.10. State and Global Rank of Special Status Plants Possibly Occurring in the

Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name State Rank Global Rank BLM Status

Clavate bentgrass Agrostis clavata Trin. S1S2 G4G5 Watch

Low sandwort Arenaria longipedunculata Hulton S3S4 G3G4Q Watch

Artemisia laciniata auct. Non Wiild. S3 G4? *Sensitive

Aster pygmaeus (Synonym:

Symphyotrichum pygmaeum)

S2 G2G4 Sensitive

Dewey sedge Carex deweyana Schwein. var. deweyana S2S3 G5

Hudson Bay sedge Carex heleonastes Ehrh. ex L. S3 G4 Watch

Peck’s sedge Carex peckii Howe S2* G4G5

Manyhead sedge Carex sychnocephala J. Carey S2 G4

Alaskan bugseed Corispermum ochotense var. alaskanum

Ignatov

S3 G3G4 Watch

Cypripedium parviflorum var. exiliens

Sheviak

S2S3 G5

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 74

Common Name Scientific Name State Rank Global Rank BLM Status

Tall draba Draba praealta Greene S1Q G5

Ellesmereland whitlograss Draba subcapitata Simmons S1S2 G4 Watch

Great Lakes wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus ssp. psammophilus J.

M. Gillett & H. Senn

S1S2 G3G4

Muir’s fleabane Erigeron muirii A. Gray S2S3 G2 *Sensitive

Buff fleabane Erigeron ochroleucus Nutt. S1S2 G5 Watch

Largeflower fleabane Erigeron porsildii G.L.Nesom &

D.F.Murray

S3S4 G3G4 Watch

Yukon fleabane Erigeron yukonensis Rydberg SU G2G4 *Sensitive

Knotted rush Juncus nodosus L. S1S2 G5

Prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha (Ledeb.) Schult. S1 G5

Yukon lupine Lupinus kuschei Eastw. S2 G3G4 Watch

Bostock’s miner’s-lettuce Montia vassilievii subsp. vassilievii /

Montia bostockii

S3Q GNRTNR *Sensitive

Kamchatka buttercup Oxygraphis glacialis (Fisch.) Bunge S3 G4G5 Watch

Arctic locoweed Oxytropis arctica var. barnebyana S.L.

Welsh

SU G4?T2Q Sensitive

Korkrines Oxytrope Oxytropis kokrinensis A.E. Porsild S3 G3 Watch

Oxytropis tananensis Jurtz. S3S4Q GNR Watch

Hairy lousewort Pedicularis hirsuta L. S1 G5? *Sensitive

Spiny phlox Phlox hoodia Richardson S3Q G5 Watch

False/Nodding

semaphoregrass

Pleuropogon sabinei R. Br. S1S2 G4G5 *Sensitive

Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda J. Presl ssp. secunda S1S2 G5TNR

Yenisei River pondweed Potamogeton subsibiricus S3S4 G3G4 Watch

Anderson’s alkaligrass Puccinellia andersonii Swallen S1S2 G3G5

Narrow alkaligrass Puccinellia angustata (R. Br.) E.L. Rand

& Redfield

S1 G4Q

Puccinellia vahliana (Liebm.) Scribn. &

Merr.

S3 G4 Watch

Wrights alkaligrass Puccinellia wrightii ssp. wrightii S3 G3G4TNR *Sensitive

Ranunculus camissonis Schltdl. S3 GNR *Sensitive

Turner’s buttercup Ranunculus turneri ssp. turneri Greene S2 G3TNR *Sensitive

Curvepod yellowcress Rorippa curvisiliqua Hooker Bessey ex

Britton

S1S2 G5

Wood’s rose Rosa woodsii Lindl. ssp. woodsii S2S3 G5T5

Athabasca willow Salix athabascensis Raup. S2 G4G5

Diamondleaf willow Salix planifolia Pursh S2 G5T5

Small saxifrage Saxifraga adscendens ssp. oregonensis

(Raf.) Bacig.

S2S3 G5T4T5

Yellow mountain saxifrage Saxifraga aizoides L. S1 G5

Strict blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium montanum Greene var.

montanum

S1 G5

Symphyotrichum pygmaeum (Lindl.)

Brouillet & S.Selliah

S2 G2G4 *Sensitive

Yukon aster Symphyotrichum yukonense (Cronquist)

G.L. Nesom

S3 G3 Watch

Siberian false-oats Trisetum sibiricum subsp. litorale Rupr.

ex Roshev.

S3 G5T4Q *Sensitive

American vetch Vicia americana Muhl. ex Willd. S2 G5

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 75

2.1.9.2.2. Special Status Animals – Current Condition

Threatened and Endangered (and Candidate) Wildlife Species

Several species that inhabit the planning area are listed or proposed to be listed under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) The only mammal that inhabiting the planning area that is

currently cited under the ESA is the polar bear, which is listed as a threatened species because

dependence on sea ice is likely to cause population declines in the future. Current and predicted

future declines in sea ice led the USFWS to find that the polar bear should be listed as threatened

throughout its range. Thinner ice and longer ice-free periods in summer may reduce the length of

time polar bears have to hunt and result in a decreasing population. NatureServe lists the species

as globally vulnerable (G3) as well as vulnerable within the State of Alaska (S3). The planning

area does include current inhabited polar bear habitat along the Beaufort Sea, however, little

BLM-managed land is included in this inhabited area. That being said, some polar bears have

been observed inland (near lands likely to be managed by the BLM) and it is possible that this

occasional occurrence may become more common in the future as habitat becomes limited in

the species’ historic coastal range. Therefore, the polar bear is of potential management concern

for this land use plan.

Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri) This large sea duck is the only avian species inhabiting

the planning area that is currently under the ESA as threatened. NatureServe lists the species as

globally vulnerable (G3) and the breeding population within Alaska is considered imperiled

(S2B). Current nesting population is approximately 8,000 breeding pairs in Alaska and

approximately 140,000 individuals in Russia. The population of spectacled eiders has declined

significantly since the 1960s, but the cause of this decline remains unknown. Threats to the

spectacled eider include lead poisoning, predation, overharvest, reduced prey availability, and

catastrophic events. The planning area does include current inhabited polar bear habitat along the

Beaufort Sea; however, little BLM-managed land is included in this inhabited area. The species

spends 9 to 12 months of the year in marine habitat, and while some of the breeding range does

overlap the current planning area, no BLM-managed land falls within in known breeding range.

Yellow-billed loon(Gavia adamsii) is a BLM-listed sensitive species with a global population

estimated between 16,650 and 21,000 (Fair 2002, Earnst 2004). Yellow-billed loons are poorly

documented and population estimates across the state likely represent a small percentage of the

total population. The species’ range significantly overlaps the Central Yukon RMP Planning Area;

over 1,700 nests have been reported in the planning area since 1983. However, only a small (less

than 10) subset of these nests have been reported on BLM-managed lands within the planning

area. Breeding habitat is restricted to large lakes (over 7 hectares) (North and Ryan 1989) in the

Arctic coastal plain of Alaska north of the Brooks Range and in western Alaska on the Seward

Peninsula. Due to its small population size and restricted distribution, the USFWS is currently

evaluating a petition to list this species as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The species

is listed by NatureServe as G4 (globally apparently secure) and S2S3B (on a state-wide level

imperiled to vulnerable for the breeding population) and S3N (on a state-wide level vulnerable

for the nonbreeding population). Contaminant studies of many loon species have been ongoing

in Alaska. As a piscivorous species, yellow-billed loons are top predators in lake ecosystems.

They are harvested for human subsistence and are of concern because they may bioaccumulate

contaminant loads (i.e., mercury, PCPs) (Schmutz pers. comm. 2008). In addition, they may be

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 76

indicators of water quality and may provide insight into the movement of marine-derived nutrients

and shifts in riparian or coastal communities.

Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) is a federally listed threatened species with a range that

once overlapped much of the planning area. This species is not currently present in Alaska, but

reintroduction of free-ranging herds to three areas within the planning area has been considered.

In 2013, the USFWS published a proposed rule under the ESA to establish a nonessential

experimentall population of wood bison in Alaska. Three areas are being considered for potential

release: Yukon Flats, Minto Flats and Innoko River. The Yukon Flats and Innoko River proposed

areas overlap the Central Yukon RMP planning area to some degree and the Minto Flats proposed

release area is entirely within the planning area. Management of the bison herd(s) would be

delegated to the ADFG, who would manage them in accordance with the final rule, the final EA,

and site-specific management plans that will be developed in coordination with landowners and

other stakeholders (e.g., BLM). It is expected these populations would eventually be hunted

for subsistence and/or sport purposes. The ESA requires that any non-essential experimental

population animals occurring on BLM lands must be treated as if they had "Proposed" status

under the ESA. Therefore although the species does not currently inhabit the planning area, it is

of potentially high management concern within the anticipated 20-year anticipated timeframe of

this plan.

Other special status species with current ranges that overlap (or may have overlapped) the

planning area should be mentioned, but are not likely to be focal in this land use plan. The

Eskimo curlew is a shorebird with a historic range that likely had significant overlap with the

planning area, however this species is currently believed to be extinct with the last confirmed

siting in 1996. Bearded and ringed seals as well as walruses are sea mammals with coastal habitat

ranges included within the planning area; however, because these animals are predominantly

marine species and no BLM-managed lands within the planning area overlap their ranges, they

are unlikely to be analyzed in detail in this plan or become an issue within the 20-year anticipated

timeframe of this plan.

BLM Alaska Listed Sensitive Species

The BLM Alaska has listed a number of species as sensitive. Seven bird and two mammal

species that are currently listed by BLM as sensitive inhabit the planning area. These species

are not federally listed threatened and endangered species, but the BLM has identified them as

being high priority for a variety of reasons.

Table 2.11. BLM Alaska Sensitive Species Known to Occur in the Planning Area

Scientific Name Common Name AKNHP Global

Conservation Status

Ranking

AKNHP State

Conservation

Status Ranking

Bird Gavia adamsii Yellow-billed loon G4 S2S3B

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan G4 -

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle G5 S4B,S3N

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl G5 -

Contopus cooperi Olive-sided flycatcher G4 S4S5B

Dendroica striata Blackpoll warbler G5 S4B

Euphagus carolinus Rusty blackbird G4 S4B,S3N

Mammal Lepus othus Alaskan hare G3G4 S3S4

Sorex yukonicus Alaskan tiny shrew GU S3

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 77

2.1.9.3. Trends

To meet conservation goals on public lands, an understanding of population trends is key to

developing appropriate management strategies. The following sections describe the trends of

special status plant and animal species in the planning area. The following trends in special status

plant and animal species describe the degree and direction of change and the drivers of change.

These changes may be based on either quantitative or qualitative information.

2.1.9.3.1. Special Status Plants – Trends

Trends for the special status plant species are unknown for the planning area. Most occur in

habitats which are presently undisturbed and largely intact. With few exceptions, quantitative

information, which would allow detection of a population trend, is not available for most species.

By their nature, special status plants are typically uncommon and difficult to census. Historic

efforts have focused on detecting whether species occur on BLM-managed lands and have

not progressed to estimating population sizes or trends. Ongoing changes in climate further

compounds the uncertainty regarding the direction of these trends in the future.

2.1.9.4. Forecast

Future development and other ground-disturbing activities in the planning area are expected to

increase. With new investment on the North Slope, traffic along the Dalton Highway is also

projected to increase (Slaten 2014). Although the Dalton Highway is the only major highway in

the planning area, expansion of the road network, particularly for accessing remote resources and

villages, is being explored for future construction. Both paved and winter ice roads are under

consideration for development in the future, such as roads to Umiat, Stevens Village, and Ambler.

These and others have the potential to impact special status species, and appropriate stipulations

and analysis should be conducted before permits are issued.

2.1.9.4.1. Special Status Plants – Forecast

It is not possible to predict future statuses for the special status plant species. Most occur in

habitats that are not expected to be the site of ground-disturbing activities. The unknown effects

of shifts in future climate conditions may either positively or negatively affect the presence and

prevalence of these species in the planning area.

2.1.9.5. Key Features

Key features of special status plants and animals describe the geographic location, distribution,

areas or types of resource features that should guide land use allocation or management decisions.

2.1.9.5.1. Special Status Plants – Key Features

BLM-managed lands within the planning area are known to support populations of the special

status plant species. Their geographic locations in the planning area are generalized below (Table

2.12). Specific locations of the populations are unknown. Notably, not all areas have been

inventoried for special status species, therefore, lack of listing in this document does not imply

that no populations exist in the planning area. Data availability is limited on these special status

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 78

plant species and further inventorying would be necessary to ensure that populations are managed

properly. The limited current population data available for these species were retrieved for this

analysis from the AKNHP online rare plants data portal and the Alaska Rare Plant Field Guide

(Nawrocki et al. 2013). The AKNHP data had been gathered from field inventories, publications,

reports, herbaria specimens, and the knowledge of various botanists and taxonomic experts.

Additional data were collected as part of an agreement between the BLM and the University of

Alaska Museum Herbarium to search for rare plants in the Toolik and Galbraith Lake Areas of

Environmental Concern (ACEC) in the northern foothills of Alaska's Brooks Range. Montia

vassilievii was found during the inventory in the Toolik Lake ACEC, which revealed that this

plant is more common in the area than previously thought. M. vassilievii was found in several

vegetation complexes, but most frequently in the moist and dry, non-acidic tundra complexes

(Carroll et al. 2003).

Documented special status plant species are distributed in areas of open tundra and boreal forest.

These ecosystems provide specialized habitats with key features that support these isolated

populations. Understanding what key features are critical to the conservation of these special

status plant species will help to inform future land use and management decisions. Habitat type

information is also included below, if it is known.

Table 2.12. Geographic Location of Special Status Plants in the Planning Area

Special Status

Plant Name

Alaska

Distribution/

Habitat

Description

Ecoregion

Occupied

Population Estimates Geographic Locationa

LatitudeLongitude

Low sandwort

Arenaria

longipedunculata

Hulton

Moist sand,

gravel, frost boils,

rock crevices and

moist places in

the mountains

This is a western

North American

endemic, limited

to interior and

northern Alaska

and the Canadian

Rocky Mountains

There are likely more

than 60 locations known

in Alaska and western

Canada, all widely

scattered.

67.4 -150.1

67.6 -149.7

Hudson Bay sedge Arctic Tundra, Brooks Range, Nine known

Bering Tundra, Seward Peninsula, occurrences in Alaska;

Carex heleonastes Intermontane Davidson population sizes

Ehrh. ex L. Boreal, Alaska Mountains, Kobuk unknown

Range Transition Ridges and

Valleys, Tanana- 66.9 -151.5

Kuskokwim

Lowlands, Alaska

Range, Cook Inlet

Basin

Cypripedium

parviflorum var.

exiliens Sheviak

Arctic Tundra,

Intermontane

Boreal

Brooks Range,

Yukon-Old Crow

Basin, North

Ogilvie Mountains

Nine known

occurrences in Alaska;

a population in an

open spruce forest on

calcareous substrate

consisted of 100

individuals

67.3 -156.9

67.6 -149.6

Tall draba

Draba praealta

Greene

65.7 -151.3

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 79

Special Status

Plant Name

Alaska

Distribution/

Habitat

Description

Ecoregion

Occupied

Population Estimates Geographic Locationa

LatitudeLongitude

Muir’s fleabane

Erigeron muirii A.

Gray

Arctic tundra

Beaufort Coastal

Plain, Brooks

Foothills, Brooks

Range

16 known occurrences

in Alaska; at least two

occurrences are locally

common with 500 to

1,000 individuals

Yukon fleabane

Erigeron yukonensis

Rydberg

Arctic tundra

Northwest

Territory, Nunavut,

Yukon and Alaska

No data available

Knotted rush

Juncus nodosus L.

65.2 -154.7

Yukon lupine

Lupinus kuschei

Eastw.

Intermontane

Boreal, Alaska

Range Transition,

Coastal

Mountains

Transition

Copper River

Basin, TananaKuskokwim

Lowlands,

Kluane Ranges,

Yukon-Tanana

Uplands; disjunct

in Kobuk Ridges

and Valleys, Yukon

River Lowlands

There are 15 known

occurrences in Alaska;

population sizes range

from a few individuals

to locally common

66.8 -158.3

Bostock’s

miner’s-lettuce

Montia vassilievii

subsp. vassilievii /

Montia bostockii

Arctic tundra,

intermontane

boreal, Alaska

Range transition,

coastal mountains

transitions, coastal

rainforests

Brooks Foothills,

Yukon-Tanana

Uplands, Alaska

Range, Wrangell

Mountains,

Kluane Ranges,

Chugach-St. Elias

Mountains

29 known occurrences

in Alaska with

population sizes

ranging from scattered

individuals to locally

abundant.

68.6 -149.6

68.6 -149.7

68.6 -149.5

Kamchatka

buttercup

Oxygraphis

glacialis (Fisch.)

Bunge

Arctic Tundra,

Bering Tundra,

Alaska Range

Transition, Bering

Taiga, Aleutian

Meadows

Brooks Foothills,

Brooks Range,

Seward Peninsula,

Alaska Range,

Ahklun Mountains,

Alaska Peninsula,

Aleutian Islands

There are 20 known

occurrences in Alaska;

no information available

for population sizes

69.1 -161.2

69.1 -158.1

Arctic locoweed

Oxytropis arctica

var. barnebyana

S.L. Welsh

No data available

Korkrines

Oxytrope

Oxytropis

kokrinensis A.E.

Porsild

Arctic Tundra,

Bering Tundra,

Bering Taiga,

Intermontane

Boreal

Brooks Foothills,

Brooks Range,

Seward Peninsula,

Nulato Hills,

Kobuk Ridges

and Valleys, Ray

Mountains

There are 25 known

occurrences in Alaska;

population sizes

unknown

65.7 -156.7

66.6 -155.3

67.2 -158.2

65.7 -151.5

65.7 -151.3

65.7 -151.2

65.7 -151.1

Oxytropis

tananensis Jurtz.

Dry gravels and

xeric bluffs of

Interior Alaska

Restricted to a small

geographic area, though

it is often common on

the sites where it is

found

67.4 -150.1

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 80

Special Status

Plant Name

Alaska

Distribution/

Habitat

Description

Ecoregion

Occupied

Population Estimates Geographic Locationa

LatitudeLongitude

False/Nodding

semaphoregrass

Pleuropogon

sabinei R. Br

Arctic tundra Beaufort Coastal

Plane

There are 7 known

occurrences in Alaska

and the population sizes

are unknown

70.8 -153.1

70.6 -152.7

70.6 -152.5

Yenisei River

pondweed

Potamogeton

subsibiricus

69 -148.7

68.7 -148.8

69.3 -152.1

Wrights alkaligrass

Puccinellia wrightii

ssp. wrightii

Rare in Southern

arctic tundra;

frequent in shrub

tundra, bordering

boreal or alpine

Rare in Western

Alaska and

Northern

Alaska-Yukon

68.9 -153.8

65.9 -161.1

Ranunculus

camissonis Schltdl.

Arctic tundra,

Bering tundra

and Intermontane

boreal

Brooks Range,

Kotzebue Sound

Lowlands, Seward

Peninsula, Bering

Sea Islands,

Ray Mountains,

Yukon-Tanana

Uplands

16 known occurrences

in Alaska; locally

abundant in at least two

localities, an occurrence

on St. Lawrence

Island consisted of

approximately 40

individuals

65.7 -151.2

Turner’s buttercup

Ranunculus turneri

ssp. turneri Greene

Arctic tundra,

Bering tundra,

Intermontane

Boreal

Brooks Foothills,

Bering Sea Islands,

Ray Mountains,

North Ogilvie

Mountains

There are 10 known

occurrences in Alaska;

two populations along

rocky stream banks on

St. Lawrence Island

were estimated at 5,000

and 1,000 individuals

65.4 -151.1

Yukon aster

Symphyotrichum

yukonense

(Cronquist) G.L.

Nesom

Arctic Tundra,

Intermontane

Boreal

Tramway Bar,

Koyukuk River;

Brooks Range,

Kobuk Ridges and

Valleys

There are 39 known

occurrences in Alaska;

populations range in

size from 20 individuals

to locally abundant

67.4 -151.1

67 -151.1

67 -151

67 -150.9

67 -150.8

67 -150.7

67 -150.6

67 -150.5

67 -150.4

66.8 -151.7

68.1 -150.1

aCoordinates are purposely generalized

2.1.9.5.2. Special Status Animals – Key Features

Wetlands and riparian areas as well as actual waterbodies (e.g., lakes, ponds, rivers/streams, and

associated shorelines) are likely to provide important habitat for one or more designated sensitive

bird species (e.g., rusty blackbirds, yellow-billed loons, olive-sided flycatchers, blackpoll

warblers, and trumpeter swans) and should be given special consideration in planning. Bluff

habitat provides important nesting and perching areas for raptors, including golden eagles. To

ensure the health of these designated sensitive bird species, their respective habitats should be

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 81

considered in this planning effort, particularly for specially designated areas such as ACECs.

Habitat associations for the two known sensitive mammal species that inhabit the planning area

(i.e., the Alaskan hare and the Alaskan tiny shrew) are not as well-studied, therefore, important

habitat is not easily identified.

2.1.10. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Introduction

Wildland fire management is made up of three major components: wildland fire, fuels

management, and prevention. Wildland fire management is the management of wildland fire in

such a manner that fire is allowed to play its key role in the ecosystem, while protecting identified

values at risk. Fuels management is the development and implementation of prescribed fire,

mechanical, or chemical treatments to fuels in a given area(s). Fuels management projects will be

designed to meet desired future conditions in areas where wildland fire is being suppressed or

acreage minimized due to values at risk. Fuels projects can be used to protect site-specific values

at risk or be large landscape-scale projects designed to benefit multiple resources. Prevention is

the reduction and elimination of human-caused fires. Wildland fire is an important mechanism

of change in the planning area. Management strategies will be developed for each of the three

components of wildland fire management to meet those goals and objectives.

Fire ecology in the planning area is relatively complex and a primary driver of the vegetative

communities. A discussion of the fire ecology for the planning area is included in the Vegetative

Communities Section 2.1.4.

National fire management goals are found in Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy

and Program Review, December 1995, and Review and Update of the 1995 Wildland Fire

Management Policy, January 2001. There are many fire management goals found in these

two documents. Among the most important are: protect human life and identified property;

use wildland fire and fuels treatments to meet resource objectives; reduce the risk and cost of

uncontrolled wildland fires through wildland fire and fuels treatments; and reduce the adverse

effects of fire management activities and continue interagency cooperation and collaboration.

Department of the Interior (DOI) goals are found in U.S. Department of Interior Strategic Plan

2009-2014. Several of the goals directly relate to fire management: Improve health of watersheds,

landscapes and marine resources that are DOI managed or influenced in a manner consistent

with obligations regarding the allocation and use of water; sustain biological communities on

DOI-managed and influenced lands and water in a manner consistent with obligations regarding

the allocation and use of water; protect lives, resources, and property. The way to achieve these

goals is to use wildland fire and fuels projects to restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems and

to reduce hazardous fuels while protecting human life, cultural resources, and other identified

values at risk. DOI fire management policy is found in Departmental Manual, Part 620 and

BLM Manual section 9200.

BLM goals are found in Bureau of Land Management Strategic Plan, 2010-2015. The goals that

relate to fire management are: Preserve natural and cultural resources; reduce threats to public

health, safety and property; and restore at-risk resources and maintain functioning systems. A

way to achieve these goals is also to use wildland fire and fuels projects to restore and maintain

fire-adapted ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels while protecting human life, cultural

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management
Analysis of Management Situation 82

resources, and other identified values at risk. BLM Fire Management Policy is found in BLM

manual section 9200.

BLM Alaska goals are found in Bureau of Land Management-Alaska Statewide Land Health

Standards (BLM 2004). Because wildland fire is such an important disturbance factor in boreal

ecosystems, the uses of wildland fire and fuels treatments are key to meet most of the goals

stated in the statewide land health standards.

There are numerous other documents that plan or lay out strategies for fire management. These

are discussed in the following section. They do not change the above-stated goals, but reiterate,

clarify, and give guidance on how to accomplish them.

Current Planning Documents and Management Practices

In the 1980s, interagency fire planning documents were prepared for 13 geographic areas covering

the entire state of Alaska. Seven of these 13 fire planning areas overlap the planning area:

● Tanana/Minchumina Planning Area 1982 and Amendment 1984

● Arctic Slope Planning Area, March 1986

● Upper Yukon/Tanana Planning Area, April 1984

● Kobuk Planning Area, April 1984

● Seward Peninsula Planning Area, April 1984

● Yukon/Togiak Planning Area, June 1983

● Kuskokwim/Illiamna Planning Area, June 1983

In 1998, the 13 original fire plans were consolidated into one document: the Alaska Interagency

Wildland Fire Management Plan (AIWFMP 1998). This consolidation updated language,

eliminated the boundaries of the 13 original plans, and combined common elements into a single

operational document. The AIWFMP was updated in 2010 to incorporate the use of wildland fire

as a tool to benefit resources and update policy language. The 2010 AIWFMP does not supersede

the BLM Wildland Fire Management Plan (2005), rather the principles from the AIWFMP (2010)

are incorporated into the BLM Wildland Fire Management Plan (2005).

BLM completed the Land Use Plan Amendment for Wildland Fire and Fuels Management

for Alaska Environmental Assessment (July 2005) to meet NEPA planning requirements for

wildland fire and fuels management in existing RMPs. After this, the BLM Alaska Wildland

Fire Management Plan (September 2005) was written to provide direction for wildland fire

management in future planning efforts on BLM lands in Alaska. Both of these documents

embrace the principles outlined in the Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan

(AIWFMP 2010).

Prior to fire planning in the 1980s, BLM policy directed all fires to be suppressed in Alaska. The

13 original fire plans and the AIWFMPs recognized that this policy was costly, of questionable

effectiveness, and had a negative effect on the diversity and productivity of the fire-dependent

ecosystems of Alaska. In addition, during periods of high fire activity it was not possible to

provide immediate and effective suppression on many fires because of the shortage of personnel,

equipment, supplies, and aircraft. An improved system was needed for establishing priorities

and levels of suppression. Once fire protection needs were determined, the lands were placed in

Critical, Full, Modified, or Limited management option. Option selections were based on land

manager/owner(s) values to be protected as well as land and resource management objectives.

The management strategies described below are implemented in the planning area.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management
Analysis of Management Situation 83

The wildland fire management strategies selected vary from initial attack and sustained

suppression efforts in the Critical and Full management areas to surveillance in the Limited

management areas. This categorization and ensuing prioritization ensures that: (1) human

life, private property, and identified resources receive an appropriate level of protection with

available firefighting resources; (2) the cost of the suppression effort is commensurate with values

identified for protection; and (3) the ability of land manager/owner(s) to achieve their individual

management objectives is optimized.

Management options (Critical, Full, Limited, and Modified) are reviewed annually and

adjustments are made to ensure goals and objectives are being met. Fire management options

and descriptions can be found in appendix D.

BLM Alaska has a cabin/structure protection policy that outlines protection priorities. The policy

identifies its number one priority as safety of the public and fire suppression personnel. The policy

delineates criteria for protection. It can be found in appendix C.

Regional Context

The natural fire regime in the planning area is fairly intact. More information on the fire ecology

of the planning area is included in section 2.1.4 Vegetative Communities. The BLM did not

actively suppress wildland fires for long enough to have excluded wildland fire for multiple fire

return intervals. Large portions of the planning area are in the Limited management option where

wildland fires are monitored rather than suppressed. Vegetative impacts from fire suppression

are likely occurring near villages where suppression has occurred. Much of the suppression has

occurred on village and regional corporation land; however, BLM does manage some lands in the

Modified and Full management options that should be evaluated for impacts of fire exclusion.

2.1.10.1. Indicator

The best indicator of fire management resources is Fire Regime and Condition Class (FRCC).

FRCC maps generated by the nationwide LANDFIRE vegetation mapping effort may be used for

this plan. More information on LANDFIRE and vegetation mapping is included in section 2.1.4

Vegetative Communities.

2.1.10.2. Current Condition

Information about the FRCC for the planning area will be a component of the Existing

Environment section of the Central Yukon Draft EIS when it is developed. More information on

the ecological condition of the planning area is included in section 2.1.4 Vegetative Communities.

2.1.10.3. Trends

The trend from past to present is to manage wildland fires to meet resource objectives rather than

attempting to eliminate wildland fire as a source of disturbance. This was accomplished by

changing large areas of the Full and Modified management options to the Limited management

option. For much of the planning area, BLM can meet resource objectives and contain costs by

using the Limited wildland fire management option.. More information on vegetative trends

including current impacts associated with climate change is included in section 2.1.4 Vegetative

Communities.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management
Analysis of Management Situation 84

2.1.10.4. Forecast

The BLM has the ability to use the appropriate management response on any given wildland fire

or change pre-planned wildland fire response through the fire management options as resource

needs change. In general, areas that are converted to the Limited management option from the

Full or Modified management options will trend toward a natural fire regime. In the absence of

fuels treatments, areas that are in a Critical, Full, or Modified fire management option will trend

away from a natural regime due to fire suppression efforts. More information on the future

impacts of wildland fire and climate change on the vegetation can be found in section 2.1.4

Vegetative Communities.

2.1.11. Cultural Resources

2.1.11.1. Indicator

This section seeks to identify the factors that are used to describe the resource condition for

cultural resources on BLM-managed lands within the planning area.

The term “Cultural Resource” is not uniformly defined by the many laws that guide the federal

management of resources that are “cultural” or “historical.” While the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA) is concerned primarily with “historic properties” or those districts,

sites, buildings, structures, and objects that have been determined eligible for inclusion on the

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

requires federal agencies to account for the effect to the “human environment” and could include

a variety of historic and prehistoric resources regardless of NRHP eligibility. Other acts such as

the Archeological Resources Protection Act prohibit the excavation of any item of archeological

interest on federal or Indian land without a permit, and the Native American Graves and

Repatriation Act is concerned with such things as human remains, items of cultural patrimony,

and Native American cultural items. As such, “Cultural Resources” has come to designate a broad

spectrum of tangible resources and locations important to the human past and present that are

accounted for by a variety of federal laws and regulations. Of all the federal legislation governing

the use and management of cultural resources, the NHPA, is the most comprehensive and most

heavily relied upon by federal land managers. As such, a brief discussion of how Section 106 of

the NHPA is used to determine condition and significance of cultural resources is necessary.

Section 106 Review and Historic Properties

The NHPA’s Section 106 Review Process is an integral aspect of most the federal land and

resource management decisions. Section 106 provides a workflow and consultative process that

accounts for impacts to cultural resources by federal undertakings with the term “undertaking”

defined as an action that is funded or approved by the federal government. The process is

consultative in that the federal land manger is required to consult throughout the process with

the State Historic preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO),

interested parties identified by the process, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Section 106 requires the federal land manager to identify historic properties that are likely to

be affected by a given federal undertaking and take steps to avoid, minimize and or mitigate

effects to those historic properties. The term “historic property” is used to identify those cultural

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 85

resources (districts, sites, buildings, or structures) that have been determined eligible for inclusion

on the National Register of Historic Places.

Once the federal land manager has identified an undertaking, such as a new resource management

plan, permit, or expenditure of federal funds with the potential to impacts historic properties, the

land manager must take steps to identify all historic properties that may be affected (36 CFR

§800.4). This effort involves identifying an area of potential effect, literature reviews and possibly

on-the-ground inventory to identify all cultural resources in excess of 50 years of age that may be

impacted by the proposed undertaking. The Section 106 Identification Phase is followed by an

Evaluation Phase in which the land manager applies the National Register Eligibility Criteria

(36 CFR §63) to determine whether a resource is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP and is to be

considered an “historic property.” The agency determination is forwarded to the SHPO/THPO for

concurrence or modification.

To be considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, any property must typically be older than 50

years and be determined “significant” based upon one or more of the following four criteria:

● Criterion A, Event: is it associated “with events that have made a significant contribution to

the broad patterns of our history”;

● Criterion B, Person: is it associated “with the lives of persons significant in our past”;

● Criterion C, Design/Construction: the property embodies “the distinctive characteristics of a

type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess

high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components

may lack individual distinction”;

● Criterion D, Information Potential: the property has “yielded, or may be likely to yield,

information important in prehistory or history.”

Two additional criteria are available when considering if a property is eligible for inclusion as a

National Historic Landmark, a status authorized under the Historic Sites Act (1935).

In addition to meeting at least one of the four eligibility criteria a property must also have

“integrity.” A property either has integrity, or it does not. The NRHP recognizes seven aspects or

qualities of integrity. Most properties that are eligible for inclusion to the NRHP typically need to

meet or demonstrate several of these seven aspects. Aspects of integrity are often qualitative or

subjective in nature, and need to be demonstrated relative to both the specific property in question

and the criterion or criteria under which it is being nominated. The seven aspects of integrity,

along with their definitions (NPS 1991: 4445), are:

1.	 Location: “Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place

where the historic event occurred”;

2.	 Design: “Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure,

and style of a property”;

3.	 Setting: “Setting is the physical environment of a historic property”;

4.	 Materials: “Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during

a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic

property”;

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 86

5.	 Workmanship: “Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or

people during any given period in history or prehistory”;

6.	 Feeling: “Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular

period of time”;

7.	 Association: “Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person

and a historic property.”

Most “historic properties” within the Central Yukon Planning Area will have been determined

eligible under Criterion D, Information Potential, based upon the property’s potential to yield data

that addresses specific research questions. A property determined eligible under Criterion D will

be assessed largely in terms of whether the site is likely to yield the appropriate quantity, quality,

and type of information necessary to address specified research questions and the resulting

information must be deemed significant at the local, regional, or national level.

Once the historic properties have been identified within the area of potential effect, the federal

land manager must conduct an Assessment of Adverse Effects, whereby the extent of likely impacts

to historic properties is determined. Once the likely impacts to the resources are identified, the

consulting parties determine whether impacts can be avoided or minimized either through project

modification or by taking actions such as defining buffer zones and other protective measures. If

an adverse effect to historic properties cannot be avoided, the federal land manager may elect

to join the consulting parties to identify measures that serve to mitigate the impacts to historic

properties. It is important to note that potential adverse effects to historic properties must be

considered in the concurrent NEPA process. If the undertaking proceeds at this point, any number

of mitigation strategies can be used to offset the damage to or destruction of historic properties;

mitigation could include such things as archeological excavation, construction of interpretive

exhibits, creation of publications and other media, or off-site projects that serve to interpret

cultural resources to the public or protect threatened resources.

As noted, the Section 106 process is just one tool for determining the significance of cultural

resources. Cultural resources that do not fulfill the NRHP eligibility requirements may be

determined significant through the NEPA process that is implemented alongside Section 106

review. While this rarely happens on BLM—managed lands in Alaska, it is possible for a property

to be protected or preserved for such things as future research, retention of cultural or historic

values, educational, interpretive uses, or recreation purposes regardless of NRHP eligibility status.

2.1.11.2. Current Condition

This section describes the location, extent, and current condition of the resources in the planning

area. This assessment is largely limited to site presence, density, and type throughout the planning

area, regardless of land status or ownership. This information is presented with the understanding

that the vast majority of the planning area has not been subjected to any kind of cultural resources

inventory and NRHP eligibility is not routinely determined unless a site is subject to a federal

undertaking. As such, the following is more a record of where cultural resources inventories

have taken place across this vast portion of Alaska and not a comprehensive analysis of site

condition and significance. Much of the following data are gained from the Alaska Heritage

Resources Survey database, a statewide clearinghouse of cultural and paleontological resources

maintained by the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and

Outdoor Recreation, Office of History and Archeology.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 87

Location and Extent

As of the time of this printing, 3,437 historic and prehistoric cultural resources have been

identified within the planning boundary of the Central Yukon RMP. For ease of interpretation,

these sites are broken down into three distinct regions: the North Slope; Haul Road; and Yukon

Basin (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Location of Analyzed Subunits Within the Central Yukon Planning Area.

Table 2.13 presents some general information concerning site numbers, types, and densities

per unit within the larger planning area. Total number of cultural resources per unit, period

attributable to sites (historic, prehistoric, prehistoric/historic,unknown), aerial extent of units,

and density of known sites are accounted for within these large units. The “Site Total” column

conveys the total number of known sites within the unit and what percentage of the planning

area total of 3,437 sites the unit represents.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 88

Table 2.13. Numbers and Densities of Known Cultural Resources in the Central Yukon

Planning Area, as of November 2013. Density Figures are the Number of Known Sites

Per Square Mile.

Subunit Area

(Sq. Miles)

Sites Total Density

(Sites per

Sq. Mile)

Historic

Sites

Prehistoric

Sites

Prehistoric/

Historic

Period NA

North Slope 19,583

(21%)

527

(15%)

0.03 118

(22%)

323

(61%)

25

(5%)

61

(12%)

Haul Road 5,918 498 0.08 110 298 1 89

(6%) (14%) (22%) (60%) (0.2%) (18%)

Yukon 65,947 2,412 0.04 1,227 955 20 210

Basin (72%) (70%) (51%) (40%) (0.8%) (8%)

The above table provides the basic numbers of sites and some general idea of site types in the

area, but is of little utility for characterizing the true nature of site distribution and type across

these vast areas. A more detailed view of each subunit provided by Table 2.14 indicates that there

are real differences in site numbers, types, and densities within each unit. The primary drivers

behind the observable differences in site distribution across the planning area are:

1. An area’s history of archeological inventory driven by:

a. Development of industry and infrastructure.

b. Land management inventory, planning, and scientific research.

2. An area’s intensity of historic and prehistoric land use driven by:

a. Access afforded to industrial and subsistence resources.

b. Community development and access to commercial goods and services.

c. Military and other government facilities and infrastructure.

An area’s history of archeological inventory is a key determinant in site presence and density of

sites in a given area. While certain geologic and environmental factors play a key role in site

density, relatively few areas of Alaska are devoid of cultural resources of one kind or another.

Areas of low subsistence or economic resource potential or vast tracts of monotonous or difficult

terrain such as high alpine settings, wet tundra, or featureless black spruce forests tend to

produce low numbers of sites and a low density of sites. Conversely, areas that offer access

to water, transportation, animal resources, or economic resources such as mineable minerals

tend to produce higher site numbers and site densities. Areas that offer the most diversity of

resource and economic opportunities through time tend to produce the highest site numbers and

densities. Concerning site types, the factors that would lead to a high density of prehistoric

sites, such as short-term hunting camps, is very different than those factors that would produce

a high density of historic mining sites or long-term village sites. With this much variability in

the factors that lead to differences in site density and type across the planning area, the single

most important factor explaining site presence or absence remains whether an area has been

subjected to archeological inventory.

Whether an area is subjected to costly archeological inventory in Alaska, is tied closely to

economic forces and government regulations. Inventories are typically carried out as a result of

federal requirements under Sections 106 [54 USC 306108] and 110 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966. While Section 106 requires that a federal agency account for any

impacts to historic properties that may result from federally funded or permitted actions, Section

110 requires federal land managers to inventory the cultural resources under their jurisdiction.

As Section 106 is tied closely to development, the Section 106 obligation is implemented fairly

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 89

uniformly across jurisdictional boundaries. Section 110, on the other hand, is implemented

very differently depending on the land-managing agency’s mission, management priorities, and

funding levels. While an agency such as the NPS, leads in Section 110 inventory of its lands in

Alaska, the BLM, with its multiple-use mandate, conducts far more Section 106 inventory, often

through cultural resources consultants employed by project proponents.

Table 2.14. Archeological Site Type and Distribution in the Yukon Basin Unit

Area Area

(Sq. Miles)

Sites Totala Density

(Sites per

Sq. Mile)

Historic

Sitesb

Prehistoric SitesPrehistoric/

Historic

Period

NA

Yukon Basin Unit 65,947 2,412 0.04 1,227 955 20 210

Fairbanks

Rural

750

(0.1%)

180

(7%)

0.7 22

(12%)

135

(75%)

13

(7%)

22

(12%)

Fairbanks

Metro

17

(0.03%)

350

(15%)

20 340

(97%)

0 1

(<1%)

9

(3%)

Army Fort

Wainwright

17

(0.03%)

259

(11%)

15 250

(97%)

7

(3%)

0 2

(<1%)

Army Tanana

Flats Training

Area

1,100

(2%)

159

(7%)

0.1 16

(10%)

126

(79%)

3

(2%)

14

(9%)

Army

Donnelly East

178

(0.2%)

482

(20%)

3 119

(25%)

353

(73%)

1

(<1%)

9

(2%)

Army

Donnelly West

870

(1%)

78

(3%)

0.09 3

(4%)

71

(91%)

0 4

(5%)

Healy/Nenana

Uplands

450

(0.6%)

160

(7%)

0.4 45

(28%)

111

(69%)

1

(<1%)

3

(2%)

Indian River 200

(0.3%)

97

(4%)

0.5 1

(1%)

88

(91%)

0 8

(8%)

aSite total percentage denotes portion of Unit total.
 

bSite type percentages denote portion of sites within each Area.
 

Fairbanks Area

The vast Yukon Basin subunit includes the major drainages of the Yukon River watershed and

major centers of population, industry, and the built environment of the Alaskan Interior. The

highest site densities in the subunit are, not surprisingly, found near Fairbanks, Alaska’s second

largest city. Fairbanks began as a commercial center serving the Interior gold mining industry in

1903, and grew throughout the twentieth century to become the transportation and commercial

hub of Interior Alaska. The Fairbanks area also has a history of strategic military importance,

first in support of the Lend–Lease program of World War II, then as a significant Cold War base

of operations, and now as an active area for air and ground military training. As such, there is

both a significant density of historic sites and an active history of Section 106-driven resource

inventory. The result is that fully 80 percent of the known cultural resources within the Yukon

Basin subunit lie within 100 miles of Fairbanks. The highest site densities within this area are

found within the Fairbanks metro area and the adjacent Fort Wainwright cantonment (Post

administrative and housing center); the vast majority of these sites are historic in nature including

the East Side Residential Historic District, Downtown Fairbanks Commercial District, and Ladd

Field National Historic Landmark.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 90

Army Training Lands

Another significant density of sites is found within the Army’s Donnelly East Training Area

located south of the community of Delta Junction. The 482 sites of Donnelly East represent

approximately 20 percent of the known sites in the subunit; sites are predominantly prehistoric

in nature with the majority being identified since aggressive range development began in 2002.

Prior to archeological work done in advance of range developments, this area was subjected to

archeological research targeting a known density of very early sites identified near Donnelly

Dome. This work, done primarily in the 1970s, resulted in the creation of the Donnelly Ridge

Archeological District on lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Army.

Work done on the Donnelly West Training Area, while not as comprehensive as that done in

Donnelly East, has demonstrated the presence of some significant site densities in this area as well

as several large tracts of high probability terrain for containing prehistoric archeological sites.

Areas of special concern include over 100 square miles of hilly broken terrain and small lakes

in the vicinity of the Little Delta River and Delta Creek that have not yet been inventoried for

cultural resources. Work in this area is complicated by the presence of military impact areas.

Given the consistent military use of this area, known site densities and presence of significant

tracts of high probability terrain, cultural resources in this area are not sufficiently accounted

for and are currently considered threatened.

The Tanana Flats Training Area (TFTA) has been subjected to several archeological inventory

efforts, beginning in the 1970s with work targeting a number of prominences in the area.

Archeological sites were identified on all of these formations. More recently, archeologists

employed by the U.S. Army have undertaken work on less prominent landforms using more

aggressive sub-surface sampling methods. This work has resulted in the identification of

significant site densities in the TFTA. At this time, the only special designation in the TFTA is the

Blair Lakes Archeological District in the vicinity of Blair Lakes in the southeastern portion of the

training area; no doubt, additional designations are warranted.

Impacts to archeological sites on military training lands prior to Section 106 Review were

once common, as prehistoric site locations were often situated on the same ground as desirable

helispots and observation points. While a number of sites have been destroyed or severely

impacted by this kind of use, these kinds of impacts are much less common since the development

of cultural resources programs within the Department of the Army.

Livengood, the Nenana Uplands, and Indian River

Other areas of site densities within the Yukon Basin subunit occur near Livengood; within

the northern foothills of the Alaska Range (Nenana Uplands); and along the Indian River of

the Koyukuk River drainage. The Livengood area contains a large number of historic sites

attributable to gold mining in the area as well as a fair number of prehistoric sites such as those

comprising the Rosebud Knob Archeological District. Site identification in this area has been

driven largely by construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and other pipeline planning

surveys, and the inventory of federal mining claims.

Unlike other site clusters within the subunit, archeological research has played a significant role

in site identification in these areas. While construction along the Parks Highway and presence of

Denali/McKinley Park have played a role in site identification efforts in the Nenana Uplands,

research driven by the identification of a number of sites attributable to some of the earliest

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 91

archeological cultures in Alaska in the 1970s and 1980s also played a role in site discovery in

this region. Work in the Indian River drainage located in the western portion of the Yukon Basin

subunit lead to the creation of the Batza Tena Archeological District, where research conducted

from the late 1970s into the 1990s by both academic researchers and BLM archeologists targeted

a number of obsidian outcrops containing prehistoric sites exhibiting northern fluted points and a

variety of other prehistoric features.

Other relatively common classes of sites of the Yukon Basin subunit are historically known

village, cemetery, subsistence camp sites, and historic structures found distributed along the major

rivers, often adjacent to or within modern villages. Many of these sites have been identified as the

result of infrastructure development in villages and Bureau of Indian Affairs surveys targeting

Alaska Native allotments and ANCSA land selections.

Table 2.15. Archeological Site Type and Distribution in the Haul Road Unit

Area Area

(Sq. Miles)

Sites Totala Density

(Sites per

Sq. Mile)

Historic

Sitesb

Prehistoric

Sites

Prehistoric/HistoricPeriod NA

Haul Road

Unit

5,918 498 0.08 110 298 1 89

Atigun

River

48

(<1%)

136

(27%)

2.8 6

(4%)

74

(54%)

12

(8%)

42

(30%)

Toolik Lake 1

(<1%)

17

(3%)

17 3

(18%)

8

(47%)

5

(29%)

1

(6%)

Upper

Koyukuk

River

750

(13%)

183

(37%)

0.2 88

(48%)

80

(44%)

1

(<1%)

14

(8%)

Jim River 90

(2%)

33

(7%)

0.4 2

(6%)

29

(88%)

1

(3%)

1

(3%)

Bonanza

Creek

30

(<1%)

36

(7%)

1.1 0 35

(97%)

0 1

(3%)

Kanuti

Headwaters

30

(<1%)

36

(7%)

1.2 1

(3%)

35

(97%)

0 0

aSite total percentage denotes portion of Unit total.
 

bSite type percentages denote portion of sites within each Area.
 

The identification of cultural resources within the Haul Road subunit has been almost entirely

driven by Section 106 compliance surveys resulting from the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System,

Dalton Highway construction and maintenance, proposed gas lines, material source development,

and gold mining on federal mining claims.

Atigun River

The highest site density in the Haul Road subunit is found in the vicinity of the Atigun River

and Galbraith Lake. Many of the sites in this area were initially recorded in the late 1960s and

early 1970s as a result of environmental work ahead of the construction of the Trans-Alaskan

Pipeline System. Sites are predominantly shallowly buried prehistoric sites representing the last

10,000 years or so of human occupation of the area. A number of sites in this area have been

subjected to a great deal of testing and excavation, and continue to be impacted by periodic

Section 106-driven work. The large number of sites unassigned to historic or prehistoric periods

in Table 2.15 is because many of the site records for this area are old and in need of updating. The

cultural and scientific significance of the cultural resources of this area resulted in the creation

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 92

of the Galbraith Lake ACEC. Management of impacts to the sites of the Atigun drainage will

continue to pose a management challenge.

Just to the north of the Galbraith Lake ACEC lies Toolik Lake, which was also the site

of significant use during the initial Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System construction. Again,

archeological survey during the late 1960s and early 1970s identified most of the archeological

sites near Toolik Lake. Like other sites in the region, sites tend to be shallow and prehistoric with

historic components not uncommon and attributable to Nunamiut Eskimo occupation of the area

within the historic period. The cultural resources of Toolik Lake and surrounding lands fall

largely within the Toolik Lake Research Natural Area (RNA), an area used extensively by the

University of Alaska’s Toolik Field Station and an increasing number of researchers funded by

the National Science Foundation. Like most other areas within the planning area, archeological

inventory within the Toolik Lake RNA is incomplete. As such, the combination of increasing

land use and presence of high probability terrain for containing archeological sites ensures that

this area will continue to be inventoried on a periodic basis unless some comprehensive Section

106 inventory program is initiated.

Upper Koyukuk River

The remaining site density areas along the Haul Road are found between the Bettles River and

the Kanuti Headwaters approximately 100 miles to the south. Again, many of the sites within

this corridor were identified as a result of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System and other utility

and energy projects along the Dalton Highway since the early 1970s. An exception is found in

the resources of the Upper Koyukuk area between the Bettles River and the South Fork of the

Koyukuk River where site identification has also been driven by the development of federal

mining claims.

The historic importance of gold mining in the Upper Koyukuk is played out in the density and

type of cultural resources identified in this region where more than half of the known sites are

attributable to the historic period. A variety of mining remains including cabins, equipment,

and domestic trash scatters are found along the many creeks of the area. Prehistoric sites tend

to occur on promontories above the creeks and on the many glacial moraine features found

between the Middle and South forks of the Koyukuk. Many of the active mining claims of this

region have been inventoried over the last two decades, and two comprehensive inventories

and several small-scale excavations have taken place in recent years. Mining and utility work

associated with the Dalton Highway will continue to drive periodic Section 106 inventory and

site discovery in this region.

The remaining site densities along the Haul Road include those of the Jim River, Bonanza Creek,

and Kanuti River drainages. Site type and density are similar in these three areas with sites being

dominated by prehistoric sites that are often shallow lithic scatters located on prominences near

water. While recent linear survey has taken place along the Dalton Highway, there have not

been any significant inventories in this area in recent years. Sites are concentrated near the

Dalton Highway, Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System facilities, and mineral material sources. Survey

conducted away from the Dalton Highway will surely result in the identification of additional

areas of significant site densities in all three of these areas. The significance of archeological

resources and presence of high probability terrain for containing cultural resources was a key

to the designation of the Jim River ACEC.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 93

Table 2.16. Archeological Site Type and Distribution in the North Slope Unit

Area Area

(Sq. Miles)

Sites Totala Density

(Sites per

Sq. Mile)

Historic

Sites

b

Prehistoric

Sites

Prehistoric/

Historic

Period NA

North Slope

Unit

19,853 527 0.03 118 323 25 61

Arctic Coast 130

(<1%)

66

(13%)

0.5 38

(58%)

5

(8%)

7

(10%)

16

(24%)

Lower

Colville

100

(<1%)

20

(4%)

0.2 15

(75%)

1

(5%)

2

(10%)

0

Iteriak Creek 60

(<1%)

28

(5%)

0.5 1

(3%)

27

(>99%)

0 0

Killik River 20

(<1%)

12

(2%)

0.6 2

(17%)

10

(83%)

0 0

Karupa lake 10

(<1%)

22

(4%)

2.2 2

(9%)

19

(86%)

1

(5%)

0

Anaktuvuk

River

40

(1%)

12

(2%)

0.3 1

(8%)

8

(67%)

3

(25%)

0

Itkillik River 350

(2%)

130

(25%)

0.4 12

(9%)

114

(88%)

0 1

(<1%)

Itkillik

Uplands

27

(<1%)

24

(5%)

0.9 6

(27%)

18

(75%)

0 0

Sagavanirktok River

500

(3%)

92

(17%)

0.2 13

(14%)

65

(70%)

6

(7%)

8

(9%)

aSite total percentage denotes portion of Unit total.
 

bSite type percentages denote portion of sites within each Area.
 

The identification of cultural resources on that portion of the North Slope lying within the

planning area has been driven by a variety of factors. Where the Dalton Highway and the

Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System cross this area, the primary driver has been Trans-Alaskan

Pipeline System construction, highway maintenance, and proposed gas line development.

Elsewhere, inventory has been driven by oil and gas exploration and clean-up, while in the upper

drainages of the subunit, west of the Dalton Highway, resource identification has been driven

largely by Section 110 federal inventory and research.

Arctic Coast and Lower Colville River

The Arctic coast portion of the subunit is composed of those lands within approximately one mile

of the coast of the Beaufort Sea and offshore islands. The identification of cultural resources in

this area has been driven largely by oil and gas exploration. Site density along the coast is not

particularly high with sites or small clusters of sites situated every few miles and located near river

outlets and freshwater lagoons and ponds. A large proportion of sites in this area have a historic or

late prehistoric component, many of which are structural remains such as “sod houses.” There are

also a significant number of cemetery sites in this region. It is thought that coastal erosion in this

area has led to the erosion of earlier prehistoric sites and a number of sites are currently threatened

by these same forces. Sites of the lower Colville River are similar in nature and distribution.

Foothills Drainages

Significant site densities are known from portions of several drainages as they descend from the

Brooks Range onto the coastal plain. Of particular significance are Iteriak Creek, Karupa Lake,

Killik River, Anaktuvuk River, Itkillik River, and Sagavanirktok River. In terms of the drivers

of resource identification in these areas, all but the Sagavanirktok River have seen intensive

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 94

inventory work done by archeologists employed by the BLM or NPS fulfilling Section 110 and

land-use planning obligations. While resource identification in the Sagavanirktok drainage was

driven largely by the same actions that drove resource inventories elsewhere along the Haul Road:

Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System construction, highway construction and maintenance, and other

utility and pipeline-related projects.

Of the total 3,437 archeological sites or cultural resources identified within the Central Yukon

Planning Area, 1,287 sites are located on lands under BLM management; 719 of these sites are

located on public lands withdrawn by the Department of Defense to be used as training lands

and actively managed by the U.S. Army. Of the remaining 568 sites, 30 are located in the North

Slope subunit, 75 in the Yukon Basin subunit, and 463 within the Haul Road subunit. The vast

majority of cultural resources located on BLM lands have not been formally evaluated for NRHP

eligibility; this is typically only done when sites lie within the area of potential effect of a proposed

undertaking. The most significant density of formally evaluated cultural resources within the

planning area is located within the U.S. Army’s Donnelly East Training Area near Delta Junction,

where archeological survey and testing has taken place ahead of range improvements since 2002.

Baseline data relating to site location, characteristics, and condition exist for most BLM-managed

sites. This information is available to qualified users through both the BLM’s internal Archeology

Data System and the State of Alaska’s online Alaska Heritage Resources Survey.

Condition

Cultural resources in the planning area can be adversely affected by two broad categories of

agents of change: (1) those caused by people, and (2) those caused by nature. Those agents that

are caused by people include (a) actions permitted or authorized by the BLM (e.g., mining, gravel

extraction, archaeological excavation), as well as (b) those that are not authorized and are, in fact,

illegal (e.g., vandalism, unauthorized collection of artifacts). Examples of agents that are caused

by nature include wildland fires, river/stream and hillside erosion, inadvertent animal disturbance,

and natural weathering. Common actions that involve permitted impacts to cultural resources

include such things as mining for sand and gravel, placer mining for gold, and linear construction

projects such as those related to utility and energy projects.

Natural weathering and degradation occurs continuously, and affects the wooden and other organic

materials present in historic sites much more than the surface lithic sites that, in all but a few cases,

comprise the known prehistoric sites in the planning area. The vast majority of the buildings and

structures that are present at the historic sites in the planning area have already collapsed, while

only a few are standing with intact roofs. The overwhelming majority of known prehistoric sites

in the planning area (i.e., sites with only lithic and charcoal artifacts and ecofacts) are not being,

or else are no longer being, seriously affected by the weathering process. Likewise, many of the

artifacts and features in the historic sites are essentially stable in this subarctic environment and

undergoing little appreciable change from year to year. Such items and features include historic

trails, roads, airstrips, mining prospects, other pits, shafts, adits, and ditches, cairns, durable metal

artifacts and equipment on the surface, and graves/cemeteries. Likewise, now that the majority

of historic buildings and structures in the planning area have completely or partially collapsed,

they have essentially stabilized in their present state. It is noted, however, that a number of

archeological sites along the Arctic coast, on lands not managed by the BLM, a number of

archeological sites are being rapidly consumed by shoreline erosion. In sum, natural degradation

continues at most if not all sites on public lands, but is not currently an overwhelmingly negative

process affecting the resource. Most sites in the planning area have stabilized, and primarily

require monitoring or, at most, manageable levels of maintenance and Section 106 review.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 95

Wildland fires are an annual event in Interior Alaska with the ability to profoundly affect the

contents and integrity of cultural resource sites. Depending upon a host of factors, including but

not limited to available local fuels, short-term prior local precipitation history, and intensity

and duration of burning, most organic artifacts, ecofacts, and features are likely to be partially

or wholly consumed if burned over by a wildland fire. Metallic and even lithic artifacts can be

affected by fire, depending upon, again, the intensity and duration of the blaze. Sites in a boreal

forest setting can also be indirectly affected by fires, as when trees topple over onto features

and when subsurface deposits are disturbed when trees topple over and their root systems are

ripped from the ground.

Owing to the short fire return interval in Interior Alaska, it may be assumed that most if not

all surface prehistoric sites in the boreal forest ecological zone have already been burned over

by wildland fires at least once, if not multiple times in the past. Even the contents of buried

prehistoric sites in woodland settings are likely to have been affected by wildland fires prior to

their burial, and even by tree throws.

Wildland fires have affected cultural resources in the planning area. Prehistoric sites are affected

to a lesser degree, owing to the nature of the durable artifacts present at these kinds of sites.

Subsurface disturbance cannot be ruled out at such sites, although this depends more upon the

surface vegetation at any particular site and the intensity of the blaze. Despite the ability of

wildland fires to radically alter an historic cabin site (the most prevalent type of known historic

site) by thoroughly consuming above-ground architectural and other organic remains, such sites

do not necessarily lose their integrity, and can still be eligible for nomination to the NRHP. The

fact that one class of data has been removed from the site (i.e., organic surface remains) does

not mean that the remaining artifacts, as well as buried artifacts and structural remains, are not

enough to still make the site eligible.

Agents of change caused by people include both permitted and non-permitted actions, the latter

including vandalism and illegal collection of artifacts. While there are known instances of illegal

collection causing damage to some sites, the BLM knows of no instances of wanton vandalism

or destruction at any cultural sites in the planning area, either recently or in the past. Without a

doubt, artifacts have been collected in the past without a permit, from many sites. For instance,

very few, if any, historic sites have unbroken bottles visible on the surface. It can be assumed

that such easily visible, attractable, and portable artifacts have been transported away by people

at some point.

Legal agents of change performed by people (e.g., permitted development, contracted

archaeological survey, research excavation) have affected resources primarily in the Haul Road

Unit where a large number of prehistoric sites were excavated, recorded, and destroyed during

the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Likewise, a number of historic sites have

been impacted to some degree by mining on federal mining claims in the vicinity of Colfoot and

Wiseman. While the reporting of Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System archeology is notoriously

poor, the BLM has significantly invested in artifact curation and site records resulting from

pipeline-related excavation and testing in the hope that an adequate accounting of these impacts

will eventually be produced.

Lastly, the BLM permits many actions annually that could affect cultural resources (including

wholesale destruction of sites) such as gravel extraction, mining, and linear undertakings such

as pipelines and rights-of-way. The BLM has an efficient process in which the field office

archaeologist reviews all potential permitted actions that could affect cultural resources before

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 96

the field office manager approves the action. When sites are identified that may be affected by

such actions, avoidance is the preferred option, if possible, and the applicant is usually willing

and able to avoid impacting any sites in question. In a few instances over the past decade,

cultural sites could not be avoided by permitted actions. In all cases, the BLM consulted with

the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and either agreed that the sites in question were

not eligible to the NRHP, or else agreed that they were eligible and then developed a mitigation

plan to deal with the adverse effects.

2.1.11.3. Trends

Much of this topic was covered under section 2.1.13.2 Current Condition. The main drivers or

agents of change of cultural resources are the same as those already outlined above:

(1) those caused by people, and (2) those caused by nature. Those agents that are caused by

people include (a) actions permitted or authorized by the BLM, as well as (b) those that are not

authorized. Examples of agents that are caused by nature include wildland fires, erosion, and

natural weathering.

The desired condition of cultural resources on federal lands is that they remain stabilized and

not adversely affected by natural and cultural processes. As reviewed above, the current trend

of the vast majority of sites in the planning area is that they are stabilized and are not, in large

measure, being adversely affected. The integrity of the overwhelming majority of sites has not

been, and is not being, compromised.

2.1.11.4. Forecast

Gold mining, communication, energy, pipelines, transportation, and mineral exploration projects

are the main drivers or agents of change of cultural resources in the planning area.

Interest in gold mining has increased in recent years on both State and federal lands, as the price

of this commodity dramatically increased due to global economic conditions and processes.

Current BLM management, regulations, and policies permit mining wherever it is legally

allowable and where it does not adversely affect critical environmental, biological, or other

resources. As a result, more mining on BLM-managed lands is occurring than only a few years

ago when prices were lower.

The Utility Corridor has witnessed an uptick in gas pipeline projects in recent years and it is

expected that this interest will continue. While the use of existing archeological inventory data

will eliminate the need for some survey along the Dalton Highway, additional surveys will

undoubtedly be needed to facilitate planning and permitting of future pipeline projects.

The development of road systems that depart the Dalton Highway are an emerging concern. The

proposed Umiat Road project, with a preferred alternative that leaves the Dalton Highway near

Galbraith Lake and the Galbraith Lake ACEC has already resulted in some recent archeological

inventories and the identification of new archeological sites on State land west of the Dalton

Highway. Any project that begins from the Dalton Highway and requires a BLM permit will be

subjected to the Section 106 Review process over the entire extent of the project prior to BLM

permitting. While there are no current plans, a second road project is foreseeable that begins on

the Dalton Highway and proceeds east to the village of Stevens Village. Current plans involve

only an ice road to accommodate winter transport. The winter access is focused on portions of

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 97

an existing winter road and wetlands. A third project with more current momentum relates to

a proposed road that would leave the Dalton, perhaps in the vicinity of the Kanuti or Koyukuk

Drainage, and proceed west toward the Kobuk River village of Ambler. Again, if this project

were to originate at the Dalton Highway the BLM would require Section 106 Review of the

entire project prior to authorization.

2.1.11.5. Key Features

This section describes the geographic location, distribution, areas or types of resource features

that should guide land use allocation or management decisions. There are two ways to do

this: (1) identify those specific cultural resource sites that could/should proactively affect

future management decisions, and/or (2) describe specific landscape features and locations that

management needs to pay special attention to when making land use decisions.

All sites in the planning area meeting the 50-year threshold that possess integrity and have the

potential to contribute to significant local, regional, and national questions may be eligible to the

NRHP, and should be taken into account during land use allocations and management decisions.

In addition, there are certain common locations on the landscape where prehistoric and historic

sites are more prevalent, essentially owing to the presence of resource concentrations. Historic

mining and trapping, domestic, and work sites, the most prevalent forms of historic sites in the

planning area, are found immediately adjacent to watercourses, typically less than 50 feet away.

Historic placer gold creeks are known and are historically well documented. Trapping and mining

prospecting sites, however, could be located along just about any watercourse in the planning area.

The Haul Road Unit poses the most resource management challenges concerning cultural

resources. With high site densities in several locations alongside intensive resource extraction and

planned infrastructure, the Haul Road will continue to provide the largest permitting workload

and need for regular Section 106 review of undertakings. Of special interest are the many

existing material sources, new material sources, placer mining between the South Fork of the

Koyukuk and the Bettles River, and planned energy infrastructure along the Dalton Highway in

the vicinity north of Atigun Pass.

Lastly, increasing use of the University of Alaska’s Toolik Field Station (TFS), located north of

Galbraith Lake and accessible from the Dalton highway, poses several resource management

and permitting challenges to the BLM. The use of TFS and the BLM-managed public lands

surrounding it have grown exponentially over the last decade as research interest in the Arctic

and desire to understand the effects of climate change have grown. Currently, the TFS conducts

experiments and manages research plots throughout the Toolik Lake Research Natural Area

and beyond. Cooperative work has just begun between the field station and university staff,

BLM, and the National Science Foundation to address cultural resource inventory needs and

develop a comprehensive cultural resource management plan and streamlined Section 106 review

process for the many research permits that the BLM issues. Continued cooperative efforts will be

necessary to avoid impacts to cultural resources in this area.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Cultural Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 98

2.1.12. Paleontological Resources

2.1.12.1. Indicator

The Legal Framework

Paleontological resources include a variety of preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and

other organisms ranging in size from single-cell bacteria to trees and dinosaurs measuring tens

of feet and weighing several tons.

The BLM’s general responsibility to manage paleontological resources on BLM lands

are presented in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and effects to

paleontological resources resulting from BLM actions are broadly accounted for under the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The first piece of legislation focused solely on

paleontological resources is the Paleontological Resources Protection Act (PRPA) of 2009.

Though implementing regulations (to be contained in 43 CFR 8200) such as inventory,

monitoring, and appropriate use of resources are not yet complete, the law (16 U.S.C. 470aaa)

provides basic permitting requirements, protections, and penalties associated with paleontological

resources on federal lands.

Consistent with current BLM management under FLMPA, the PRPA allows casual-use level

collection of invertebrate and plant fossils from BLM and Forest Service lands excepting rare

and scientifically significant specimens. The act prohibits collection of any fossils on lands

managed by the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation.

The PRPA prohibits the collection of any vertebrate fossils on federal land or the sale of any

fossils collected from federal lands.

In addition to permit and curation requirements, the PRPA identifies prohibited acts as well as

criminal and civil penalties for the unauthorized use, removal, or destruction of resources. Finally,

the act protects paleontological data from any public distribution that could threaten the resources;

including distribution per 5 U.S.C. 552 (Freedom of Information Act).

Paleontological Resources Within the Planning Area

Little work has been done to inventory paleontological materials on BLM-managed lands in the

planning area. The BLM has conducted no program of baseline inventory, nor any compilation of

existing information, for more than 20 years. In 1986, the BLM contracted for a collection of data

on paleontological resources on BLM-managed lands (Lindsey 1986). The following discussion

is based primarily on this information and from personal communication with University of

Alaska paleontologist Dr. Patrick Druckenmiller.

The nature of the paleontological resources in the planning area spans the breadth of the Paleozoic

Era (approximately 540 to 250 million years ago), the Mesozoic Era (approximately 250 to

65 million years ago), and the Cenozoic (approximately 65 million years ago to present). All

manner of vertebrate and invertebrate faunal, as well as floral specimens, are reported, with the

large mammal vertebrate remains concentrating in the Pleistocene epoch (approximately 1.8

million years ago to 10 thousand years ago).

While geologic mapping can be used to determine areas likely to contain fossils, the known

distribution of fossil occurrences in the planning area is primarily a result of a limited amount of

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Paleontological Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 99

scientific inventory, and those activities that are producing the field samples and finds (i.e., placer

mining, USGS sampling), and should not be taken as representative of the entire area. It is useful

to first discuss the geologic time scale as it pertains to Alaskan fossil finds. The following section,

with a small amount of editing is gathered from “The Paleontology Portal” website (http://

www.paleoportal.org/index.php?globalnav=time_space§ionnav=state&name=Alaska). The

Paleontology Portal is funded primarily by the National Science Foundation and contributed to by

recognized authorities on the subject of paleontology. The text authors and editors of the Alaska

section include: Roland Gangloff, Sarah Rieboldt, Judy Scotchmoor, and Dale Springer.

Geologic Time and Alaskan Paleontology

*Additions/Editing to original Paleontology Portal text is italicized.

The Precambrian: The Precambrian Eon includes the very earliest geologic deposits on Earth

and spans the period from 4.6 billion years ago to 541 million years ago. Precambrian rocks are

relatively rare in Alaska, and most of these are highly metamorphosed. Stromatolites and fossil

bacteria in some Late Precambrian rocks indicate the presence of a shallow sea during this time.

The Paleozoic Era (541 to 252 million years ago): During the Paleozoic, most of what would

become Alaska was under water. Fossils of trilobites, brachiopods, and many other marine

animals indicate the presence of a broad, shallow carbonate platform in the Cambrian. These

rocks are particularly well-preserved in the east-central part of the state. Tectonic activity during

the Ordovician and Silurian produced a series of volcanic islands in what is now eastern Alaska.

Fossil corals and other organisms provide a record of the reefs that built up around these islands.

During the Devonian, marine conditions continued in the northern third of the state, while the

small slivers of continental crust and pieces of volcanic island arcs that would one day become

south-central Alaska were as yet scattered or non-existent. Fossils of corals, brachiopods,

ammonites, and gastropods, particularly abundant in the northern third of the state, indicate that a

variety of marine environments existed in Alaska during the Carboniferous and Permian.

The Mesozoic Era (252 to 66 million years ago): The Mesozoic Era is divided into the Triassic,

Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods. The various pieces of continental crust that would constitute

modern Alaska began to assemble during the Mesozoic. Fossils of molluscs, icthyosaurs, bony

fish, and other marine organisms record the presence of shallow marine conditions in the

southern part of the state during the Triassic; deep marine waters covered the northern third of

the state at this time. Volcanic activity was common. The Jurassic began an interval of intense

tectonic activity in Alaska, and extensive volcanic eruptions generated igneous rocks that now

form a belt through central Alaska. Fossil ammonites and crinoids indicate that the sea still

covered parts of the state at this time. Throughout the Cretaceous, a series of continental and

oceanic plates slammed into the state, adding to its landmass. The Brooks Range and other

mountains rose and erosion of these mountains dumped huge amounts of sediment into low-lying

areas. The fossil record indicates the presence of both marine and terrestrial environments.

Dinosaur fossils have been found in Cretaceous rocks in Alaska.

The Cenozoic Era (66 million years ago to present): Tectonic activity continued into the

Cenozoic. Volcanism built up the Aleutian Islands during the Tertiary, and fluctuations in sea

level intermittently exposed the Bering Land Bridge between Asia and Alaska. Glaciers covered

much of Alaska during the Quaternary, but low sea levels exposed a corridor of land along

the Bering Land Bridge, enabling migrations of animals and plants between Asia and North

America. Volcanic activity continued in the Aleutians and what is now the Alaskan Peninsula.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Paleontological Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 100

This map represents approximately 10,000 square miles of geologically mapped terrain centered on the

Koyukuk River drainage. Polygons represent known fossil-bearing deposits of any age. Dark blue polygons

indicate presence of Cretaceous Period with potential of containing Pre-Pleistocene vertebrate fossil deposits.

Figure 2.2. Fossil Bearing Deposits Centered on the Koyukuk River Drainage

2.1.12.2. Current Condition

Fossil-bearing deposits occur throughout the planning area. The complexity of geology across

this vast area, however, precludes any reasonably informative break-down of mineral types, ages,

and fossil content by area. A wide range of plant and invertebrate fossils are known across the

planning area. Of particular significance are vertebrate fossils. Vertebrate fossils within the

planning area typically fall within the Pleistocene or Cretaceous age classes with the earlier

Cretaceous being much rarer.

As previously mentioned, the mapping of geologic deposits and fossil-bearing deposits is

incomplete in the planning area; that said, recent work by the University of Alaska Museum of the

North has identified significant vertebrate fossil deposits of Cretaceous age within the planning

area. Of particular interest are fossil bone beds and dinosaur footprints identified along the Yukon

River between Ruby and the southern terminus of the Nulato Hills, and vertebrate deposits along

the Dalton Highway in the vicinity of the Brooks Range. While these deposits are not fully

documented, they are considered to be scientifically significant. The fossil deposits are considered

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Paleontological Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 101

to be intact, in good condition, and not currently threatened by natural or human-caused impacts.

This is primarily because these locations are only recently discovered and are not yet known

to amateur collectors.

Another significant class of vertebrate fossils known within the planning area are those

attributable to the late Pleistocene or Ice-Age time period. Pleistocene fossil finds of extinct large

mammals are relatively common within portions of the planning area subjected to placer mining.

Fossilized or partially fossilized vertebrate remains have been known from placer mining deposits

throughout Alaska for over a century. As such, a large number of samples have been collected,

described, and dated scientifically. Pleistocene fossils continue to be excavated from placer

deposits near Fairbanks, Livengood, and Wiseman within the planning area. It is likely that nearly

all of these finds are destroyed, sold, and otherwise removed from their geologic context without

any scientific documentation. Pleistocene fossils are relatively common in the drainages of the

planning area that have not been subjected to intensive post-depositional glacial-ice scouring.

2.1.12.3. Trends

Given current staffing and demonstrated research interest, it is anticipated that the University of

Alaska Museum (UA Museum) will continue paleontological fieldwork within the planning

area and potentially on BLM-managed lands.

Placer mining has increased in portions of the planning area for the last several years, and

is anticipated to continue at current or increased levels as long as the price of gold remains

relatively high.

2.1.12.4. Forecast

Continued work by the UA Museum will likely result in additional significant fossil finds within

the planning area. UA Museum work will result in large amounts of important geospatial

and tabular resource data, site and find documentation, and potentially in additional federal

collections. It is also likely that amateur collectors and recreationalists will begin to learn the

location of newly discovered fossil beds within the planning area, particularly those areas along

the Yukon River and others on BLM-managed lands along the Dalton Highway. The potential for

unauthorized collection of vertebrate fossils is likely to increase over the life of the proposed RMP.

As placer mining activity continues so will the inadvertent discovery and destruction of

Pleistocene fossil deposits.

2.1.12.5. Key Features

While the 1986 Lindsey work resulted in the mapping of several known fossil deposits and areas

of high probability for containing fossils, there is not yet a comprehensive BLM database of fossil

localities. Unlike archeological data, the BLM does not yet have a database containing geospatial

data related to where researchers have looked for fossils, descriptions of fossils identified, and

extent of finds. Efforts should be undertaken in cooperation with the University of Alaska and

State of Alaska’s Office of History and Archeology to remedy this situation.

Regarding the removal and or destruction of Pleistocene fossils found on BLM-managed

federal mining claims within the planning area, current management practices are likely not in

accordance with the PRPA. Currently, the BLM either does not address paleontological issues in

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Paleontological Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 102

placer mining NEPA documents or has developed ad hoc stipulations such as requiring miners to

set vertebrate fossil finds aside or giving the miner general guidance on identifying significant

finds, such as complete or nearly complete skeletons or unusually well-preserved remains, with

the direction to notify the authorized officer when such finds are made. Whether the BLM, in

making these stipulations, is acting within the confines of the PRPA is a question that should be

addressed. As it is not likely that current BLM management regarding Pleistocene fossil finds

is in accordance with the law, a protocol should be established or exemption be sought that

reconciles 16 U.S.C 470aaa with the BLM need to permit and monitor placer mining activity.

2.1.13. Visual Resources

Visual Resource Management (VRM) addresses the visual quality of landscapes for views of

natural landscapes and unique areas with high visual quality. The BLM is required to manage

lands in a manner that will preserve scenic values by a broad range of authorities. The FLPMA

and NEPA include federal mandates for visual resources. Other guidance includes BLM Manual

8400 Visual Resource Management and BLM handbooks H-8410-1 Visual Resource Inventory

and H-1601-1 Land Use Planning (BLM 2005a).

The BLM’s visual resource classification system consists of three phases: the visual resource

inventory, which considers the existing scenic quality and public sensitivity of a landscape; the

establishment of management classes through land use plans; and the analysis of site-specific

management actions to ensure compliance through Visual Resource Contrast Rating, which looks

at landscape characteristics of form, line, color, and texture. The VRM classes are established

through the RMP, and adjustments are made to reflect resource allocation decisions made in the

RMP. The intent is to minimize the visual impacts of all ground-disturbing activities, regardless of

the class in which they occur.

Given the vast size of the Central Yukon Planning Area, the BLM modified the inventory process

outlined in the manual and handbooks. The BLM-managed lands in the planning area consist of

many discrete blocks of land mixed with private, state, and other federal government lands. Over

90 percent of the planning area is roadless and accessible primarily by air and in some cases by

river. The BLM visual resource inventory process requires the use of key observation points that

are usually located along commonly traveled ground routes such as roads, trails, or rivers. There

are very few roads or summer trails in the planning area. Although there are hundreds of rivers,

not all are navigable and only a small subset are commonly traveled.

Due to these factors as well as budget and time limitations, the visual resource inventory was done

mostly by fixed-wing aircraft. The flight path was recorded using geographical position systems

and filmed with video cameras. On a few occasions helicopters were used. This inventory will be

documented in a visual resource inventory report and will publicly available when completed.

2.1.13.1. Indicator

The BLM categorizes visual resources into four management classes, based on scenic quality

evaluations, sensitivity level analysis, and delineation of distance zones:

VRM Class I: Preserves the existing character of the landscape where changes are generally not

seen, do not attract attention, and do not change or modify the existing character of the landscape.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Visual Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 103

VRM Class II: Preserves the existing character of the landscape where changes may be seen but

should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Changes must repeat the basic elements of

form, line, color, and texture evident in the characteristic landscape.

VRM Class III: Allows moderate changes in the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture

that may be evident in the characteristic landscape; however, changes may attract the attention,

but should not dominate the view, of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic

elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominate natural landscape features.

VRM Class IV: Allows for major modification of the existing character of the landscape. Changes

may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. Every attempt should be made

to minimize the impact of these modifications through careful location, minimal disturbance, and

repeating the basic landscape characteristics of form, line, color, and texture.

2.1.13.2. Current Condition

Scenic quality is a measure of the visual appeal of the land. The scenic quality evaluation done as

part of the visual resource inventory describes the characteristic landscape and assigns scenic

quality ratings for the visual resources. Scenic quality class A is the highest rating and has a

great deal of visual variety, contrast, and harmony. Scenic quality class C has the least visual

variety, contrast, and harmony.

Utility Corridor RMP (1991)

VRM classes for the Utility Corridor were established with the Utility Corridor RMP (BLM

1991a). Within the Utility Corridor, the RMP assigns VRM Class IV to the inner corridor and

VRM Class III to the outer corridor. The visual resource inventory completed during preparation

of the Utility Corridor RMP; however, assigned a Scenic Quality class A within both the inner

and outer corridor from Wiseman north to Galbraith Lake, and to the southern end of the

corridor including the north shore of the Yukon River. Even though the corridor is designated as

management class III or IV, every effort is put forth to meet the next lower classification or better

if possible due to the large number of known observation points along the Dalton Highway.

The following physiographic provinces are present in the Utility Corridor Subunit and generally

describe the visual resources of the area.

The Spruce/Hardwood Forests province occurs south of the Brooks Range and is made up of

spruce, birch, and aspen trees in low-lying hills and valleys of the Yukon, Koyukuk, Dietrich

Rivers and their tributaries. Elevations range from 300 feet in the valleys to 3,200 feet in the

mountainous areas. In some areas, treeless tundra can be found above 2,000 feet. Some of the

prominent scenic features within this province are the Yukon River, Fort Hamlin Hills, Finger

Mountain, Olsons Lake, Arctic Circle, Gobbler’s Knob, and Grayling Lake.

The Arctic Mountain province has alpine tundra made up of dwarf birch, willow, alder, and heath

shrubs. Some rugged barren peaks reach 7,000 feet. Some of the major land features include

Sukupak, Dillion, and Snowden Mountains; Atigun Pass; and Atigun Valley.

The Arctic Foothills province arises north of the Brooks Range. Vegetation consists of treeless

and mostly moist tundra made up of dwarf shrubs, sedges, cotton grass tussocks, mosses and

lichens. Toolik Lake, Slope Mountain, and tributaries of the Saganvanirktok River are compelling

scenic features within this province.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Visual Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 104

Central Yukon RMP (1986)

The areas within the Central Yukon RMP do not have a VRM classification, but they have been

assigned a scenic quality classification. The Central Yukon Record of Decision identifies areas of

outstanding scenic value in the Ray Mountains to be managed to retain the existing character of

the landscape. Other areas would be managed to lessen impacts to visual resources.

The following subunits were used in the 1986 Central Yukon RMP. A general description of the

visual resources and scenic quality is provided for each subunit.

Nulato Hills Subunit: In general, this area consists of northeast-trending, even crested ridges,

from 1,000 to 2,000 feet in elevation, with gentle slopes and rounded summits. A number of river

drainages flow generally in a northeast pattern. The Box, Kateel, and Nulato Rivers are some of

the larger streams in the area. Most of the subunit is rated Class B scenic quality.

Dulbi-Kaiyuh Mountain Subunit: This area consists of even-topped, rounded highland ridges

2,000 to 3,000 feet in elevation. These highlands divide the drainage from the Yukon River

to Koyukuk watershed. In the northern portion of the subunit, the Dulbi River drains into the

Koyukuk, while the remaining area flows into the Yukon River. The scenic quality for this subunit

is Class B.

North Kuskokwin Subunit: This area has a uniform series of northeast-trending ridges, with

rounded to flat summits 1,500 to 2,000 feet in elevation. Rugged mountains with a few higher

peaks of 3,000 to 4,500 feet can be found in the area. This subunit is drained by the North Fork of

the Kuskokwim River to the south and the Titna River, a tributary of the Nowitna River, to the

north. Low-lying valleys have sparse thaw lakes. In the upland areas, the scenic quality is Class

B. In the lowlands in the central and northern portions of the subunit it is Class C.

Tozitna Subunit: The Ray Mountains dominate this subunit. This area has been identified as a

scenic complex representing glacial geological features uncommon to the region (Gordon and

Shane 1979). Peaks range from 4,000 to 5,500 feet in elevation. There are unique features such as

partially glaciated upper valleys, north-facing cirques, tarns, and oddly shaped rocky crags and

tors. In the lowlands there are a few thaw lakes and river drainages. Scenic quality for the Ray

Mountains is rated Class A, while the lowlands and river bottoms are Class B.

Hughes Subunit: This subunit is an area of diversified topography. Compact groups of hills and

low mountains rise to 4,000 feet in elevation, surrounded by rolling plateaus 500 to 1,500 feet in

elevation and broad lowland flats 5 to 10 miles across. The Indian and Hogatza rivers and Hughes

Creek flow through large broad lowland flats with heavy concentrations of thaw lakes, the largest

being Lake Tokhakklanten. Scenic quality for most of the area is Class B, with Class C along the

Hogatza River flats between the Babantaltlin and Kokhila Hills.

2.1.13.3. Trends

The majority of the planning area is remote and access is limited. However, there are dispersed

developments such as small communities and associated roads and scattered placer mines. As the

demand for commodities increase, visual impacts will likely increase as well. There has been

an increase in flight seeing and access to remote areas for a variety of recreational values such

as hunting, fishing, river floating, and hiking.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Visual Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 105

Visual resources in the Utility Corridor are influenced largely by the North Slope oil fields,

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, Dalton Highway, and associated gravel pits. The trend is for

more development and infrastructure. Currently, there are proposals for a natural gas pipeline

paralleling the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. As additional infrastructure is approved, the need

for gravel will also increase significantly. Other than gravel pits and linear features such as

pipelines, development has generally been limited to discrete points along the highway such as

the Yukon River crossing. Tourism along the Dalton Highway has increased since approval of

the Utility Corridor RMP and the development of visitor facilities. Many of these visitors are

attracted by the visual resources of the area.

2.1.13.4. Forecast

The constant demand for North Slope production is expected to influence the visual resources

within the Utility Corridor in a number of ways including: steady growth in highway traffic,

continual road and pipeline maintenance, and the need for gravel pits. Additional impacts will

occur from construction and maintenance of visitor facilities, increased vehicle traffic associated

with tourism, and possible commercial development to support tourism.

Other activities that could impact the visual quality of the planning area include the modification

or revocation of withdrawals from mineral entry with subsequent staking and development of

mining claims and other mineral extraction operations. Also, development on adjacent state

and private lands and development of transportation or Utility Corridors to private lands both

inside and outside the planning area.

The Utility Corridor Subunit is closed to off-highway vehicle use (with few exceptions for

permitted activities) by state statute and is, therefore, less susceptible to increased route

development. A trail designation, in conjunction with a comprehensive travel management plan,

could prevent or mitigate some of these potential impacts should the restrictions be lifted. In

the areas outside of the Utility Corridor, off-highway vehicle use is limited. Trails are usually

associated with mining activity, hunting, or travel between communities. These trails are often

visible from the air or elevated locations.

2.1.13.5. Key Features

Primary locations possessing outstanding scenic quality include, but are not limited to:

● Galbraith Lake (Utility Corridor)

● Jim River valley (Utility Corridor)

● Nigu and Iteriak Rivers (North Slope)

● Sukakpak Mountain (Utility Corridor)

● Ray Mountains, including Spooky Valley (Central Yukon)

● Finger Mountain and Kanuti valley (Utility Corridor)

● Beaver Slide (Utility Corridor)

● Brooks Range vistas (Utility Corridor)

● Fish Creek valley (Utility Corridor)

● Gobbler’s Knob Jack White Mountain Range (Utility Corridor)

● Koyukuk River valley

● Dietrich River valley (Utility Corridor)

● Atigun Pass – Continental Divide (Utility Corridor)

● Atigun River valley (Utility Corridor)

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Visual Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 106

2.1.14. Wilderness Characteristics

With its vast, roadless, and pristine mountain ranges, forests, wetlands, and river systems, almost

all of the planning area meets the criteria for lands with wilderness characteristics as defined in

BLM Manual 6310 “Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands.” The

planning area does not contain any congressionally designated wilderness, but does include the

Central Arctic Management Area (CAMA) Wilderness Study Area (WSA), which is discussed

in section 2.3.2. The CAMA WSA is the only area currently being managed for wilderness

characteristics.

Almost 12 million acres of BLM-managed lands within the planning area have so far been

inventoried for wilderness characteristics, pursuant to new guidance issued in March 2012, and

detailed in BLM Manual 6310 “Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM

Lands.” As of September 2013, 23 units totaling 11,781,258 acres have been identified as lands

with wilderness characteristics. This process is ongoing and the inventory will be published and

incorporated by reference into the Draft RMP/EIS. The following sections include a general

description of the current condition of the planning area in regard to wilderness characteristics

and BLM policies directing inventory.

2.1.14.1. Indicator

According to BLM Manual 6310, the inventory and analysis evaluates wilderness characteristics

as defined in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act (1964) and incorporated in the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The four criteria for lands possessing wilderness

characteristics are:

1.	 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint

of man’s work substantially unnoticeable;

2.	 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;

3.	 Has at least 5,000 acres of land or is sufficient size to make practicable its preservation and

use in an unimpaired condition;

4.	 May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic,

or historical value.

Inventory of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Almost all BLM-managed lands in the planning area meet the criteria for wilderness as

defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Section 201 of FLPMA requires the BLM to

maintain, on a continuing basis, an inventory of all public lands and their resources and other

values. This inventory requirement includes maintaining information regarding wilderness

characteristics. Section 201 also provides that the preparation and maintenance of the inventory

shall not, of itself, change or prevent change of the management or use of the lands.

Prior to 2011, no inventories had been conducted in the planning area and management did not

address wilderness characteristics. The Central Yukon Field Office initiated an inventory of lands

with wilderness characteristics in 2011, following the issuance of WO-IM No. 2011-154, which

directed offices to continue to conduct and maintain inventories regarding the presence or absence

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 107

of wilderness characteristics, and to consider identified lands with wilderness characteristics in

land use plans and when analyzing projects under NEPA.

The BLM issued Manual 6310 “Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands”

in March 2012. This Manual supersedes BLM Manual Section 6301. The Central Yukon Field

Office inventory process follows the guidelines in Manual 6310. Additional guidance specifically

for BLM-managed lands in Alaska has been established by IM AK-2012-015 “Alaska Policy on

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Inventory” and by Wilderness.net. The Alaska National

Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) lists several types of developments that

specifically may be allowed in Alaskan wilderness areas whose presence would not automatically

preclude finding wilderness characteristics present in an inventory area, as might be the case on

BLM-managed lands in other states. This includes public use cabins and shelters, snowmobile

travel with adequate snow cover, airplane use including primitive landing areas, motorboat use,

and temporary structures or equipment for hunting, fishing, and trapping. The BLM considers

these uses as compatible with lands with wilderness characteristics in Alaska (IM AK-2012-015).

Since December 2011, approximately 11,783,180 acres, excluding the Nonwilderness Assessment

in the Utility Corridor Subunit, have been inventoried and all but 1,925 acres (less than 0.02

percent) were determined to have wilderness characteristics, however, the inventory is not

complete.

Size

The minimum size as defined by the BLM Manual 6310 is 5,000 contiguous acres. Inventory units

include contiguous undeveloped lands managed by the BLM. Lands exhibiting “checkerboard”

ownership (e.g., every other township) are not considered contiguous. Lands that have been

selected, but not yet conveyed, by the State of Alaska or Alaska Native entities, are included in

the units because they remain under BLM management until conveyed. This means that as

conveyances proceed, boundaries of units identified as having wilderness characteristics will

change. Units smaller than 5,000 acres may still be considered if they are contiguous with other

lands formally determined to have wilderness values, potential wilderness values, or are federal

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Roadless islands less than 5,000 acres may

fit the other criteria of naturalness and opportunities for solitude or primitive types of recreation.

Boundaries for inventory units were established using criteria in Manual 6310, which lists

roads, land ownership, developed rights-of-way, valid R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, and popular

rivers or trails that are incompatible with the “primitive recreation” requirement. In Alaska,

the BLM allows watersheds or other topographic features to divide multi-million-acre units

into manageable pieces (Barns, 2011). For some very large inventory units, BLM Alaska uses

hydrologic units as boundaries, especially where they divide major watersheds such as the Yukon

and Koyukuk Rivers.

Naturalness

Recent BLM guidance on criteria for wilderness characteristics (Barns, 2011) clarifies the

definition of “natural” as follows:

● to the average visitor, not trained biologist

● not ”pristine” or total ecological integrity

● relatively unaffected by modern human activities (not including climate change)

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 108

● nonnative species do not automatically disqualify

The area should look natural. Any human developments should be substantially unnoticeable.

One issue in the planning area concerns old or rarely used “cat trails” (tractor trails) and winter

trails. Ground disturbance in cold, wet soils often leads to compaction, softening, erosion, and

subsequent changes in the drainage and vegetation complex, which are essentially permanent.

The change in vegetation is often in striking contrast to surrounding, undisturbed vegetation

and outlines the old routes in very noticeable ways such as long, straight lines that are clearly

unnatural. The magnitude of these changes must be considered in the overall analysis of

wilderness characteristics.

Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

An area only has to possess solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. It may possess

outstanding opportunities for both, but one is sufficient. An area does not have to have outstanding

opportunities on every acre; it is not disqualified because outstanding opportunities exist in only a

portion of it. For example, solitude or primitive recreation may be limited at a trailhead that is

next to a busy road, while being "outstanding" in the interior of a wilderness.

Primitive recreation is dispersed, undeveloped recreation that does not require facilities, or

use motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanized transport. Bicycles are considered

mechanized transport. An area might possess outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation

through either the diversity of primitive recreational activities possible in the area, or the

outstanding quality of one particular activity.

Supplemental Values

Supplemental values include those specifically mentioned in the Wilderness Act: ecological,

geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Such values

are not required to be present for an inventoried area to be considered as having wilderness

characteristics, but their presence should be documented where they exist.

Wilderness Inventory Unit Boundaries

Under current guidance provided by BLM Manual 6310, boundaries of inventory units are set

by roads, land ownership, or developed rights-of-way or leases. The BLM’s policy uses the

definition of “road” from the House of Representative’s Report 94-1163 of May 15, 1976:

“The word ‘roadless’ refers to the absence of roads which have been improved and maintained by

mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by

the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.”

For a route to meet the definition of “wilderness inventory road” it must meet the requirements

that:

● It be improved and maintained

● Improvement and maintenance must be by mechanical means

● It must have relatively regular and continuous use

R.S. 2477 rights-of-way that have been found valid through adjudication are excluded from

wilderness characteristics inventory areas, regardless of any construction or maintenance that may

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 109

or may not have taken place. R.S. 2477s that are only asserted — that is, not yet proven to be

valid — are considered roads only if they meet the wilderness inventory road definition.

Other features may be used to determine boundaries of lands with wilderness characteristics.

In Alaska, ANILCA Section 103(b) specifies “Whenever possible, boundaries shall follow

hydrographic divides or embrace other topographic or natural features.” Other linear features may

be used, such as a popular trail that has a use incompatible with the requirement for primitive

recreation.

Nonwilderness Assessment

The BLM conducted a Nonwilderness Assessment on BLM lands within the Utility Corridor

in 1980 (BLM 1980). This was a special project approved by the Director of the BLM and

conducted ”to expedite Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company’s application to construct a natural

gas pipeline system...” The assessment identified BLM-managed lands that lacked wilderness

characteristics as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and was conducted in a manner that met

the requirements of Section 603 of FLPMA.

The nonwilderness assessment area was divided into nine segments including land managed by

the BLM along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System corridor north of Dalton Highway milepost 56

(Yukon River). Four of these segments are still under BLM management (Table 2.17).

Table 2.17. Utility Corridor 1980 Non-wilderness Assessment

Nonwilderness Segments on

current

BLM-managed lands:

south to

north

Dalton

Highway

Mileposts

(approx.)

Description Segment

length in

miles (1980)

Acres

assessed in

1980

Acres not

meeting

wilderness

criteria in

1980

Acres

needing

future

inventory

Yukon Elliott Hwy to

MP 76

Just north of

Washington Creek

(Elliott Hwy) to Ft.

Hamlin Hills Creek

99 725,000 497,000 191,300

Prospect MP 76-175 Ft. Hamlin Hills

Creek to Coldfoot

98 555,000 302,300 249,000

Atigun MP 175-270 Coldfoot to Atigun

Bridge #2

94 528,000 223,000 305,000

Sagavanirktok MP 270-360 Just south of Atigun

Bridge #2 to just

north of Pump Station

2 at the Sag/Ivishak

confluence

87 512,000 325,000 187,000

Total 378 2,320,000 1,347,300 932,300

Reasons for removing these lands from wilderness characteristics were land status and various

human improvements, including roads, pipelines, airfields, pump stations, power lines, developed

material sites, camps, fences, water and sewer lines, mining areas, communications towers, and

ancillary facilities connected with such developments. The acreage identified as “needing future

inventory” are undergoing evaluation for eligibility as part of the current inventory process.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 110

The Nonwilderness Assessment as it applies to current BLM-managed lands in the planning area

will be reviewed under current guidelines for lands with wilderness characteristics. For the

Nonwilderness Assessment, boundaries were determined on the basis of three characteristics:

“topographic features; along a line where man-made features were judged to become not

substantially noticeable; or to define lands that do not offer outstanding opportunities for solitude

and recreation.” These three criteria were not well-defined or applied in a rigorous, defensible

manner. For example, an area can have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive

recreation; it need not have both to qualify. Under newer guidance provided by BLM Manual

6310 and Barns (2011) the criteria for wilderness characteristics are more carefully defined.

Wilderness characteristics inventory unit boundaries now include land status or change in

ownership, developed rights-of-way or leases, developed R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, and developed

or mechanically maintained roads. New criteria define and distinguish between “wilderness

inventory roads”, trails, road segments (“cherrystems” and “donuts”), and primitive routes.

The Nonwilderness Assessment asserted that “it is not reasonable to expect these improvements

(listed above) to return or be returned to a substantially unnoticeable condition, either by natural

processes or by hand labor.” This assumption could be challenged. The BLM requires that certain

kinds of permitted activities restore an area to natural condition when completed: an example of

this is the Valdez Creek Mine in the Alaska Range (Diel and Banet, 2004). Infrastructure such as

communications towers may be downsized or removed. Numerous old winter roads and trails,

unused for 40 or 50 years or more, are visible from the air, but can no longer be discerned by

a person on the ground, the standard by which they are now judged. An example is the access

road to a mining site on the west slope of Sukakpak Mountain opened during early pipeline

construction (mid-1970s). It was re-vegetated (Brown and Krieg, 1983) and after 25 years was

substantially unnoticeable (personal observation). Advances in technology and in understanding

of environmental, social, and health and safety concerns have led to reduced footprints for some

kinds of development.

While lands that are near the above-ground sections of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, Dalton

Highway, and active mining claims and mineral materials pits are clearly lacking in naturalness,

many nearby areas exhibit terrain that effectively isolates them from these developments and

activities. An area can have wilderness characteristics even though every acre within the area

may not meet all the criteria (Barns 2011). BLM Manual 6320 “Considering Lands with

Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process” also states that “The fact

that incompatible activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas possessing wilderness

characteristics should not be a determining factor when analyzing the manageability of such areas

unless these impacts are pervasive and omnipresent.” The nonwilderness assessment lands should

be inventoried again with more rigorously applied criteria.

2.1.14.2. Current Condition

Most of the planning area is vast, roadless, undeveloped land in pristine or near-pristine

condition. In areas off the road system, human activity and development are generally confined to

a zone extending a few miles around small villages along major waterways such as the Yukon

and Koyukuk Rivers. Village residents generally access the surrounding areas in summer by

motorized boat and off-road vehicle and in winter by off-road vehicle, snowmobile, or less

commonly, dog team. For most non-local visitors, access is by personal aircraft or by regional

airline to a hub village and then by air taxi or charter aircraft to the final destination.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 111

Major Roads

There are four state highways within the planning area. The Dalton Highway (Alaska Highway

#11) runs north for 414 miles from Livengood, at Elliott Highway milepost 73, to Deadhorse at the

Arctic Ocean. The Dalton Highway, originally called the Haul Road, was built in 1974 to facilitate

construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which was completed in 1977. The pipeline is

48 inches in diameter and there are both buried and above-ground sections. The above-ground

sections are visible from a distance, depending on terrain and vegetation. The Dalton Highway

is open year-round and is used primarily by industrial traffic serving the oilfields on the Arctic

Ocean coast. For BLM-managed lands in the planning area, most development occurs along the

Dalton Highway. Commercial businesses are limited to four development nodes located at Yukon

Crossing (milepost 56), Coldfoot (milepost 175), Chandalar Shelf (milepost 239), and Happy

Valley (milepost 335). Coldfoot and Happy Valley are located on State-conveyed lands. Currently

the businesses at the Yukon River (milepost 56) and milepost 60 are closed in winter. There are no

commercial businesses at Chandalar Shelf. The unincorporated village of Wiseman (year-round

population about 12 to 15 people) is approximately 15 road miles north of Coldfoot.

The Elliott Highway (Alaska Highway #2) begins in Fox, 10 miles north of Fairbanks and leads

northwest to Livengood. From there it turns southwest and ends at Manley Hot Springs, milepost

151. A spur road at milepost 109 leads 11 miles to the village of Minto.

The Richardson Highway (Alaska Highway #4) forms the southeastern border of the planning

area and leads from Fairbanks to the port of Valdez on Prince William Sound.

The George Parks Highway (Alaska Highway #3) is the main artery between the cities of

Fairbanks and Anchorage, and runs through the southeastern portion of the planning area, passing

through the towns of Ester, Anderson, and Healy.

Wilderness Inventory Roads

The following roads were inventoried and found to meet the criteria for wilderness inventory

roads. Documentation will be included in the wilderness inventory report when completed.

Bettles Winter Road

The Bettles Winter Road is a spur road leading west to the village of Bettles (Evansville) from the

Dalton Highway at milepost 136. The first mile is open to the public in summer. The remaining

30 unpaved and largely unimproved miles are open in winter only when the ground is frozen and

the road is declared safe to travel by the mayor of Bettles and the BLM.

Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake and Coldfoot-Caro Trails

The Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake and Coldfoot-Caro Trails are State-identified R.S. 2477

Rights-of-way to which the BLM granted the State a permanent easement but did not validate the

right-of-way. In this particular case the BLM treats the rights-of-way as if it were valid. The final

judgment rendered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (2007) said:

"Except with regard to the question of the width, the public highway right-of-way quieted in the

State of Alaska in paragraph 1 of this final judgment shall be treated as if it were a right-of-way

established pursuant to R.S. 2477 (43 USC sec. 932, repealed with savings clause) for purposes

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 112

of determining scope of property rights, permissible uses and extent of any federal regulatory

authority."

Ruby-Poorman and Hog River Roads

Two wilderness inventory roads occur as isolated “donuts”, that is, they have no connection to the

state highway network. The town of Ruby on the Yukon River is the northern end of a historic

mining road known as the Ruby-Poorman Road. This primitive gravel road once extended

approximately 60 miles south to the mining town of Poorman. The State of Alaska Department of

Transportation currently maintains about 41 miles from Ruby south. The Hogatza River (also

known as Hog River) Road starts a short distance upstream from the mouth of the Hogatza River,

which empties into the Koyukuk River at Hog Landing (Section 13, T7N, R16E, KM). From Hog

Landing, it runs 28 miles approximately northwest and then north, and crosses BLM lands for

approximately 12 miles. The road is clearly marked on the USGS Hughes, Alaska quadrangle,

dated 1956 (with limited revisions in 1982). Both roads provide access to active mining claims.

Other Wilderness Inventory Roads

Other documented wilderness inventory roads include those used for mining access from the

Dalton Highway to active claims via the Prospect Creek, Chapman Creek, Myrtle Creek,

Nolan, Hammond River, Marion Creek, Gold Creek, and Linda Creek roads. These roads are

“cherrystems” connected to the Dalton Highway at one end. They are closed to motorized vehicle

access from the Dalton Highway except for miners with valid claims and to federally qualified

subsistence hunters, who may use snowmobiles.

Lands Outside the Utility Corridor

Except for the Utility Corridor, which is accessed by the Dalton Highway, BLM-managed lands in

the planning area determined to have wilderness characteristics receive little visitation or resource

use. Village residents are the primary users, participating in subsistence activities such as hunting,

fishing, trapping, berry-picking, harvesting house logs, and gathering firewood. In many cases,

these activities take place on Native-owned lands that are near or adjacent to BLM-managed lands

with wilderness characteristics and may extend onto BLM-managed lands.

With no developed recreational trails and with access to much of the area limited to single-engine

aircraft, most of the inventoried units see very low levels of recreational use. This appears to be

particularly true of extremely remote areas such as the North Fork Kuskokwim River, Nulato

Hills, and Ray Mountains.

Because lands with wilderness characteristics in the planning area in general support wildlife

such as moose, caribou, Dall sheep, and grizzly, they are visited by both guided and non-guided

hunters. Hunters are likely to be in small groups that set up a “spike camp” for several days from

which they make forays for up to 2 miles (K. Egger, pers. comm.). There are no permitted guides

for multi-day recreational floating or backpacking trips, but some independent travelers probably

visit the planning area in low numbers to float the rivers, backpack/packraft, ski, snowmobile,

or run dog teams. This kind of travel is more likely to be point-to-point or out-and-back rather

than centered in one location.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 113

Utility Corridor and Dalton Highway

The Dalton Highway crosses the Brooks Range, one of the most scenic and road-accessible

portions of the entire planning area. Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve is located

to the west: 64 percent of the 8,400,000-acre park is designated wilderness, including the area

bordering the Utility Corridor from approximately Dalton Highway milepost 160 (Chapman

Lake) to Atigun Pass (milepost 244). The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge lies east of the

highway and much of it, including the Brooks Range subunit bordering the Utility Corridor, has

been recommended for wilderness designation (USFWS, 2011). State of Alaska Statute 19.40.210

prohibits motorized vehicles within 5 miles of the highway. The statute allows people to drive

snowmobiles across this 10-mile-wide corridor but they may not begin or end their trips on the

highway. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game prohibits the use of firearms for hunting

within 5 miles of the highway; however, local residents who qualify for federal subsistence

hunting permits may use both rifles and snowmobiles within 5 miles of the highway.

As a result of these land designations and regulations, recreation along the highway is, by default,

of a primitive and unconfined nature.

Most of the documented recreational use on BLM lands in the planning area occurs along the

Dalton Highway and includes permitted tour operators and hunting guides as well as independent

travelers. Records kept by the Arctic Interagency Visitor Center in Coldfoot going back to

1989 compare numbers of guided with non-guided visitors. Staff began counting visitors

hiking from the Dalton Highway to Gates of the Arctic National Park in 2000, to the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge in 2002, and to BLM-managed Utility Corridor lands in 2005 (BLM

1989–2008). Numbers for Gates of the Arctic are relatively accurate because the NPS requires

backcountry registration. Numbers for the other areas are based on voluntary registration and

casual observation and represent an unknown fraction of actual visitors. Trends in Dalton

Highway recreation use are presented in section 2.2.6.1.3, Forecast or Anticipated Demand.

Backcountry recreation that starts from the highway occurs throughout the year: in summer and

fall visitors are mostly day-hiking, backpacking/packrafting, and hunting while in winter, visitors

travel by skis or dog teams. Winter use includes hunters since the season for caribou is open much

of the winter. In some years, a human-powered ultra-endurance race called the “Alaska Mountain

Wilderness Ski Classic” takes place in the Brooks Range partly on Utility Corridor lands: the race

generally has fewer than 20 entrants. The BLM has not attempted to collect information or data

about backcountry use in a systematic way.

The Dalton Highway is increasingly popular with non-local hunters, both Alaska residents and

non-residents (personal observations by BLM staff, 1999-2010). The State restrictions on

off-highway vehicles and rifle hunting within 5 miles, along with a long season and liberal harvest

of caribou, create a unique opportunity and growing reputation for a road-accessible yet relatively

uncrowded hunting experience. Most caribou hunters travel north of the Brooks Range, where the

Central Arctic Herd generally migrates and where the terrain is treeless and less rugged than the

Brooks Range. Hunters seeking Dall sheep use the highway to gain access to the mountainous

terrain of the Brooks Range that sheep prefer.

The University of Alaska Fairbanks operates Toolik Field Station, an internationally recognized

arctic research facility located on the North Slope at Dalton Highway milepost 284, north of

Galbraith Lake. Most summer research staff and visiting educators recreationally hike in the

mountains around the Dalton Highway. These trips may add up to several hundred visitor/days

per season and preferred routes include Slope Mountain and the Atigun Gorge, among other

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 114

places (Toolik Field Station staff and J. Reed, pers. comm.). Hiking parties may include as many

as 15 people, described on websites such as PolarTREC (Teachers and Researchers Exploring and

Collaborating: http://www.polartrec.com/).

Dalton Highway Access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

In 2009, the number of documented recreational visitors traveling into the Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge was estimated at 1,000, about 12 percent of whom voluntarily reported traveling

from the Dalton Highway (USFWS, 2011). The spectacular Atigun Gorge, which is just east of

the highway and about 0.5 mile beyond BLM-managed land at milepost 271, appears to be a

major destination for hikers and whitewater boaters. It was among the top five entry/exit points

for the Arctic Refuge in a 2008 visitor survey (Christensen and Christensen, 2009). The survey

found that about 8.5 percent of hunters hiked in from the highway, but hunters were less likely

than non-hunters to use the Atigun Gorge. This may be due to the ruggedness of the terrain

and extremely challenging whitewater (Class III-IV) on the Atigun and Sagavanirktok Rivers.

However, the survey took place from June 1 to September 30, 2008, so it did not include the

winter/spring hunting season for caribou, which is preferred by many skiers and dog mushers who

use the Gorge to get beyond the State’s 5-mile restriction on rifle-hunting.

BLM Recreation Plans

The Utility Corridor Recreation Area Management Plan (BLM 1991a) proposed more recreational

development, including designated trails and signed trailheads. While possibly increasing

opportunities for primitive recreation, trails would funnel people into specific drainages, causing

more impacts and loss of solitude in those areas. In sensitive environments such as arctic tundra,

relatively few visitors can create social trails which then draw even more visitors: the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge is studying a social trail that begins on BLM lands on the Dalton

Highway and leads into the refuge at Atigun Gorge (Monz, et al., 2012). Currently, there are no

designated or developed trails, but there are no limitations on non-motorized recreational access

in the planning area. At the Arctic Interagency Visitor Center, the policy is to encourage visitors

to actively research and plan their own route to maximize the experience of true wilderness

exploration.

2.1.14.3. Trends

Since 2001, casual observation by staff at the Arctic Interagency Visitor Center indicates a steady

increase in the number of visitors traveling on the Dalton Highway. Paving of the Dalton as well

as the Elliott Highways began in 2001, and is still underway. Prior to 2001, the entire route north

from Fairbanks was rough gravel surface beginning at Elliott milepost 28. A trip to Coldfoot, a

distance of 260 miles, took 8 hours under good conditions. As of 2013, all of the Elliott Highway

section is paved, as well as over 170 miles of the Dalton Highway. Consequently, Coldfoot can

be reached in about 6 hours and with less risk of damage to passenger vehicles. Visitor center

personnel frequently hear visitors say that the trip is not nearly as rough or time-consuming

as they had expected.

The Dalton Highway and the surrounding public lands are attracting a growing number of

travelers from around the world. The increase is driven at least partly by the tourism industry,

media, and adventure travelers publishing stories in print and social media. The Internet provides

easy access to information, photo tours, blogs, and forums that give instant reviews and for

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 115

anyone in the world. Increasingly, various social media document hunting, backpacking,

packrafting, river trips, and winter treks by recreational users who cross BLM-managed lands in

the Utility Corridor (see for example Skurka 2011, Gates 2013, and Cantor 2014).

There has been a relatively rapid increase in non-subsistence hunting activity along the Dalton

Highway, particularly among caribou hunters. This is likely in response to a long and liberal

season for caribou beginning with the rapid population growth of the Central Arctic Caribou Herd

documented in 2008 (ADFG, 2011) This increase has resulted in a higher concentration of bow

hunters close to the road (rifle hunters must be a minimum of 5 miles from the highway), mostly

north of the Brooks Range where the animals sometimes concentrate. At times, the number

and distribution of hunters may result in a temporary loss of solitude in areas with wilderness

characteristics. Whether this condition will grow worse or better depends in part on the future

health of the Central Arctic Herd and the allowable harvest.

Recent films and reality-TV programs, notably the long-running series “Ice Road Truckers,”

have drawn national and international attention to the Dalton Highway, making it a destination

for many Alaska visitors. However, it is likely that very few of these visitors venture away

from the highway. Other reality-TV shows about rural Alaska (e.g., “Life Below Zero” based

in the village of Wiseman and “Yukon Men” based in the village of Tanana) may draw visitors

to remote parts of the planning area. In general, no immediate impact on lands with wilderness

characteristics is anticipated from this publicity. However, if popular media feature a specific

locale, that place can become a magnet for visitors, which can then impact naturalness and

opportunities for solitude. Well-known examples include the spectacular Arrigetch Peaks in Gates

of the Arctic National Park, and Caribou Pass in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where

numerous guided and unguided visitors concentrate in late June to see the annual migration of the

Porcupine Caribou Herd.

The rapid expansion of scientific research activities and associated structures in and beyond the

Toolik Lake Research Natural Area reduces the opportunities for solitude and the naturalness

of adjacent areas with wilderness characteristics. Activities include field crews and helicopter

traffic and the structures include such things as field camps, monitoring towers, sampling

stations, weirs, exclosures, boardwalks, and weather gauges that are highly visible in the open

tundra environment of the North Slope. Postings on the PolarTREC website mentioned above

include stories of groups of Toolik hikers approaching Dall sheep and active bird nests, including

those of raptors. Ignorance or disregard of Leave No Trace techniques may affect other users’

opportunities for solitude and may impact naturalness in areas with wilderness characteristics

near the Toolik Lake Research Natural Area.

2.1.14.4. Forecast

The majority of the lands in the planning area are expected to retain their wilderness characteristics

due to their remoteness, lack of access, and the limited demand for ground-disturbing activities at

this time.

Several ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities could impact lands with wilderness

characteristics, particularly along the Dalton Highway and on the North Slope. These are

discussed below.

● If the State statute prohibiting off-highway vehicles (19.40.210) is ever lifted, the BLM under

the current Dalton Highway Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) would implement

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 116

OHV limitations and designate specific trails. OHV use could lead to degradation of natural

conditions in sensitive environments and in areas not designated but subject to unauthorized

use. Snowmobiles in particular would allow access far into the backcountry and could

reduce opportunities for solitude, although BLM policy for Alaska considers snowmobile use

compatible with lands with wilderness characteristics. There have been numerous attempts to

lift the ban, but public sentiment has been strongly in support of retaining it.

● Adjacent lands in Gates of the Arctic National Park and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are

designated or proposed wilderness. BLM-managed lands in the Utility Corridor serve as their

“front country” so resource development or changes in management of off-highway vehicles on

BLM-managed lands could affect how, when, and where those lands are accessed.

● Continued expansion of research sites beyond the Toolik Lake RNA onto surrounding areas

that have wilderness characteristics could impact naturalness and opportunities for solitude via

cumulative effects.

● If the State of Alaska develops its “Roads to Resources,” specifically the Umiat and Ambler

roads, access to lands in the planning area would immediately increase. Should these roads be

open to the public, they could increase opportunities for primitive recreation. However, impacts

on naturalness or opportunities for solitude or non-mechanized recreation could be serious

enough to impair wilderness characteristics, especially if off-road vehicle use is allowed.

● The BLM and other agencies have documented 28 non-native plant species in the Dalton

Weed Management Area (BLM 2013). Some of these species have spread rapidly throughout

disturbed areas in the past years and some have moved off the highway right-of-way into

undisturbed habitats. If they become highly visible or cause changes in the natural ecosystem

that are noticeable to the general public, they could reduce apparent naturalness, one of the key

criteria defining lands with wilderness characteristics.

● There is increasing interest in rare earth elements and the potential in Alaska and the Spooky

Valley area of the Ray Mountains in particular (Lasley, 2011). The Alaska Division of

Geophysical Surveys conducted sampling programs to assess strategic and critical mineral

potential in 2011 and 2012, in the Melozitna and Ray Mountains-Dalton Highway areas

(ADNR 2012). About 27 percent of the planning area is currently closed to mineral location

(staking of mining claims) under withdrawals enacted in the early 1970s. Additionally, these

withdrawals close the vast majority of the BLM lands in the planning area to mineral leasing

(such as oil and gas). The BLM may recommend opening some of these lands to mineral

location and/or mineral leasing in the Central Yukon RMP. If the Secretary of the Interior acted

on the BLM’s recommendation, and depending on access and mineral potential, this could lead

to some level of mineral exploration and mineral development. Construction of mining access

roads could result in lands currently found to have wilderness characteristics no longer meeting

the 5,000 acre size threshold. Mineral exploration and development would lead, at a minimum,

to a loss of naturalness for the life of the mine and until reclamation is completed. Outstanding

opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation would be reduced near mines when mining is

ongoing. Alternatively, road access for mining activities may also increase opportunities for

primitive recreation by increasing access to nearby, currently roadless areas.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wilderness Characteristics
Analysis of Management Situation 117

2.1.14.5. Key Features

BLM staff has compiled a preliminary list of areas which have a combination of high value

resources associated with wilderness characteristics. They include:

● Ray Mountains/Spooky Valley: very unusual and spectacular geology with many granite tors,

pristine, remote with outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation (hiking,

hunting), supplemental values as an ecological island between the Alaska Range and Brooks

Range; BLM-designated Research Natural Area.

● Jim River watershed: rugged and scenic mountains, pristine watershed, outstanding

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation (hiking, fishing, hunting), supplemental

values of fish habitat and archaeology; BLM-designated Area of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC);

● Bettles River/Mathews River/Sukakpak, Dillon and Snowden Mountains: the most spectacular

mountain landscape along the Dalton Highway, geology, near-pristine (pipeline not pervasive

or omnipresent), free-flowing river, wildlife, outstanding opportunities for solitude and

primitive recreation (hiking, climbing, hunting), supplemental values (Dall’s sheep, rare

plants); includes BLM-designated Sukakpak and Snowden ACECs;

● West Fork Atigun River: spectacular landscape along the Dalton Highway on the north side of

the Brooks Range, geology, pristine (pipeline not pervasive or omnipresent), free-flowing river,

wildlife, outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation (hiking, packrafting,

hunting), supplemental values (Dall sheep); BLM-designated ACEC;

● Campsite Lakes/Sagavanirktok River/Atigun Gorge to the northern limit of BLM-managed

lands: pristine kettle lake district uncommon on the North Slope, very scenic, pipeline not

pervasive or omnipresent, outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation

(bow- and rifle-hunting, dog mushing, floating and hiking); supplemental values (Dall

sheep, important wintering area for Central Arctic Caribou Herd, fish-rearing habitat on

Accomplishment and Section Creeks, archaeological sites on Sagavanirktok River). The

Campsite Lakes area offers some of the best and only road-accessible hiking on the North Slope

that is not inside the Toolik Lake Research Natural Area. The Atigun and Sagavanirktok Rivers

together offer the only Class III-IV whitewater, road-accessible river trip on the entire North

Slope. While the Atigun River downstream from the Dalton Highway is in the Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge, the Sagavanirktok River provides the second leg of the trip and egress back to

the highway, and is also likely eligible as a Wild and Scenic River.

2.2. Resource Uses

2.2.1. Facilities

This section addresses BLM-managed administrative sites in the planning area. Campgrounds,

waysides, and the Alaska Interagency Visitor Center are discussed in section 2.2.6.1 Recreation

and Visitor Services.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Resource Uses
Analysis of Management Situation 118

Current Location and Level of Use

The BLM manages several administrative sites in the Utility Corridor Subunit. These facilities

provide housing for BLM staff manning the visitor center or conducting field work, and volunteers

manning the Yukon River Crossing Visitor Contact Station, in addition to storage of equipment

and maintenance activities.

Table 2.18. Location and Types of BLM Facilities in the Utility Corridor Subunit

Location Facility Type and # Use

BLM Cabins (4) Staff housing

Outhouse (1) Staff

Marion Creek Administrative Site Operation Facility/Bath House (1) Utilities/Staff

Maintenance Shop (1) Maintenance Crew

Solid Waste Transfer Site (1) Maintenance Crew

Bear Proof Garbage Receptacle (1) Staff

BLM Cabins (3) Staff housing

Coldfoot Outhouse (1) Staff

Bear Proof Garbage Receptacle (1) Staff

60-Mile, Dalton Highway Artesian Well/Dump Station (1) Staff/Visitors

BLM Cabins (2) Staff

7-Mile, Yukon Bridge Outhouse (1) Staff

Bear Proof Garbage Receptacle (1) Staff

Maintenance Shop (1) Maintenance Crew

Forecast or Anticipated Demand

An anticipated increase in recreation, guided and non-guided hunting, mining, surveying, and

pipeline activity will result in the need for expanded staff and maintenance facilities in the Utility

Corridor Subunit.

Key Areas or Areas of High Potential

An increase in guided and independent travelers to the Yukon Crossing Visitor Contact Station,

and Arctic Circle is expected. Staff facilities to support expected use are currently insufficient for

increased activities.

2.2.2. Forest and Woodland Products

The planning area overlaps eight ecoregions identified by Gallant et al. (1995), six of which

include forested lands. These ecoregions provide a convenient and effective structure to

characterize the forests in the planning area.

The Interior Forested Lowlands and Uplands ecoregion contains 60 percent of the unselected

BLM-managed lands and 38 percent of all BLM-managed lands in the planning area. This

ecoregion is a mosaic of forests dominated by spruce and hardwoods on rolling or rounded

hills and dissected plateaus, and characterized by a lack of Pleistocene glaciation, generally

shallow soils underlain by discontinuous permafrost, a continental climate, and a very high

frequency of lightning fires. Because the permafrost is often near freezing, disturbance of the

organic layer can easily result in thawing and associated alterations to soil physical properties

and hydrology. Distribution of forest types are primarily determined by topography and the

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Forest and Woodland Products
Analysis of Management Situation 119

associated variation in microclimate, soils, hydrology, and ecosystem processes (Chapin, et. al,

2006). Cold, wet north-facing uplands dominated by black spruce are the least productive of

any forests in interior Alaska (Ibid).

The Interior Highlands ecoregion contains 23 percent of the unselected BLM-managed lands and

14 percent of all BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Lower elevations in this ecoregion

can support open needleleaf forests and woodlands. These woodlands are often dominated by

white spruce or codominated by white and black spruce.

Ten percent of the unselected BLM-managed lands and 6 percent of all BLM-managed lands in

the planning area fall within the Brooks Range ecoregion. Forest lands occur in valleys and

lower hillslopes on the south side of the Brooks Range, extending north to the arctic treeline.

Forested lands end at approximately 68 degrees north in the Dalton Highway corridor. Hegg

(1974) conducted an inventory and forest characterization in the region. He reported that, of the

741,710 acre inventory unit, 65.6 percent was forested lands. Of those forested lands, he classified

91.2 percent as “noncommercial inoperable,” (noncommercial forest land presently carrying a

gross volume of less than 800 cubic feet per acre), 1.6 percent as “noncommercial operable,”

(noncommercial forest land presently carrying a gross volume in excess of 800 cubic feet per

acre), and 7.2 percent as “commercial” (forest land producing or capable of producing over 20

cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood under management and not withdrawn from timber

utilization). The commercial lands were composed of 23.6 percent sawtimber, 47.9 percent

poletimber, and 28.5 percent seedling/sapling. Gross volume of commercial stands was 92,104.6

thousand board feet, with an annual gross growth of 3,190.7 thousand board feet and annual net

mortality of 2,134.9 thousand board feet. All commercial forest lands had a site class of less than

50 cubic feet per acre mean annual increment. He reported that 71.1 percent of annual mortality

of growing stock on commercial forest lands was due to stream bank erosion, 14.4 percent due to

unknown causes, 10.1 percent to disease, and 4.4 percent to insects.

The Interior Bottomlands ecoregion contains 5 percent of unselected BLM-managed lands and 3

percent of all BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Needleleaf, broadleaf, and mixed forest

stands occur on a variety of sites in this ecoregion.

A small portion of the Seward Peninsula ecoregion overlaps the planning area on the western

edge. Two percent of the unselected BLM-managed lands and 1 percent of all BLM-managed

lands in the planning area fall in this ecoregion. The Alaska Range ecoregion intersects the

southeastern corner of the planning area. Less than 0.05 percent of the BLM-managed lands in

the planning area fall in this ecoregion. The forests on BLM-managed lands in both these areas

consist of sparse black spruce woodlands and peatlands, where both volume and production of

woody biomass is negligible.

2.2.2.1. Current Level and Location of Use

Commercial Forest Products: Commercial use of forest products in Interior Alaska is limited by

small-diameter logs, high defect rates in hardwoods, access limitations, infrastructure deficiencies,

and long distances to significant markets (Wurtz et al. 2006). There has been essentially no

demand for commercial timber harvest on BLM-managed lands in the planning area. There are,

however, several portable sawmills that have been operated intermittently for specific projects and

a more robust mill at Ruby that has not been operational for some time. Most forest products are

destined for local projects and not a greater area market at this time.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Forest and Woodland Products
Analysis of Management Situation 120

Biomass: There is increasing interest in the use of biomass throughout Interior Alaska. The

village of Tanana is one of the leading communities converting from fossil fuels to biomass and

is providing a model for others within the planning area with a consumption of over 500 cords

per year, most of which is harvested from the Yukon River as driftwood. As other communities

complete feasibility and engineering studies and bring projects through construction to operation,

the demand for biomass resources will increase. While most of the readily accessible wood is

not on BLM-managed lands, working circles of up to 25 miles radius and 15 miles each side of

the major rivers should be considered for biomass resources. Any wildland fires that reach the

river system may be considered a good source for biomass for the region for several years to

come. Transportation along the river corridor over snow in winter or by barge in summer may

move biomass considerable distances at a reasonable cost. Other villages that have approached

the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA 2015) or the Tanana Chiefs Conference for assistance with

biomass projects include: Kaltag, Nulato, Koyukuk, Galena, Ruby, Hughes, Nenana, Healy,

and Minto. Additional communities may consider biomass resources as fossil fuel prices rise

and they see more success stories.

In addition to community needs, the pellet mill in Fairbanks may eventually be interested in

obtaining biomass for their operation from BLM-managed lands north of the Yukon River

crossing.

Non-timber forest products: Classified as Special Forest Products, these include all vegetative

materials from mushrooms to seed collection and Christmas trees. Demand for these resources

ebbs and flows with markets and their availability. Again, most areas managed by BLM are not

adjacent to the roads or rivers except for the Dalton Highway corridor where much of the land

was burned early in the twenty-first century through a series of severe fire years. Mushrooms are

a common resource of interest in the few years following a wildland fire and may continue to

support a market as new fires occur. Commercial operations are required to obtain permits for

Special Forest Products. As the burns recover, they may provide opportunities to promote forest

thinning through commercial Christmas tree sales. Seed collection for rehabilitation projects

is another area where the BLM should consider issuing permits to project proponents for use

in revegetation of disturbed areas.

Subsistence use of forest products: Subsistence use of many forest products has occurred

throughout the region with little or no oversight since people first migrated to this region.

From the earliest settlers to the present time, people have cut “house” logs to build many of

their necessary structures. They have milled logs into boards by hand and machine to finish

construction and build various articles for local or personal use. Gathering of food is critical for

subsistence users and may include berries, mushrooms, seeds and plant parts at various times of

year. Firewood is another critical resource for many subsistence users. Historically, no permits

have been required for most subsistence or personal uses. However, as population increases and

lands are transferred to other land mangers, there is a growing interest in identifying where and

to what extent the resources are being used by issuing permits as well as returning a limited

income to the government for these resources.

Generally, the BLM has not been able to accurately track forest health on most of the resource

area. The remote nature of these lands and the lack of base monitoring information makes it

difficult to track any changes in forest health over time. The USDA and Alaska Department of

Natural Resources (DNR) Forestry participate in the Alaska Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey

to conduct aerial surveys of selected areas of the state each year and produce an annual report

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Forest and Woodland Products
Analysis of Management Situation 121

(FS-R10–FHP, 2013). Upon request, the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey will include a

limited number of specific sites that the BLM is interested in for their annual survey.

In the past, small pockets of spruce beetle and Ips pine beetle activity have affected limited stands

of black and white spruce (Picea mariana, Picea glauca), which are often fatal to much of the

stand. Various defoliation agents have affected all of the hardwood species of trees and shrubs

to varying degrees. Some of these have included aspen leaf miner, willow leaf blotch miner,

birch aphid, alder dieback, aspen dieback, birch defoliation, willow defoliation, and others.

All of the tree species are afflicted to some degree with fungal decay of roots and/or stems,

which may not kill the trees immediately, but may affect their quality for specific purposes or

their ability to withstand strong wind events.

Animal damage identified to date has been primarily limited to porcupine damage of stems and

tops, along with a limited amount of big game impact from marking of territory and rubbing of

antlers to remove velvet. None of these are considered a concern for overall forest health. Rodent

damage has not been documented, and since there has been virtually no reforestation in this area,

it has not been studied on natural regeneration after wildland fire or other disturbance.

Wildland fire is the major catastrophic concern for forest health and often consumes over 1

million acres of boreal forest in a season (Olson et al. 2011). Wildland fires have varying

intensity, even within a single event, and for the most part are a result of natural ignition. The

patchwork nature of fire provides ample opportunity for natural recovery in many instances. Fire

suppression is categorized into four levels of effort (Critical, Full, Modified, Limited) with the

highest level of protection being provided to villages and other high value resources. Much of the

boreal forest remains in the Limited Suppression category because there is no inventory or current

management plans that would assign a higher value to particular areas.

Wind storms can be another major contributor to altering forest health on a landscape scale.

Straight line winds in excess of 70 miles per hour do occur at various times and locations

throughout the planning area. These winds can flatten considerable areas of forest or just small

pockets. Wind felled trees are prone to colonization by various insect pests if they are already

present in the area. These infestations may evolve into a forest health problem in the adjacent

stands as the insects consume the down wood and look for new material.

Overall, the forests of the Central Yukon planning area are considered to be in relatively good

health with generally endemic levels of forest pests affecting the forest health.

2.2.2.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand

To the extent that the State’s “Roads to Resources” program provides improved access, demand

for small commercial sales for firewood, biomass, or local building use may increase slightly.

However, that will not do anything to resolve other limiting factors (small-diameter logs, high

defect rates, infrastructure deficiencies, and long distances to significant markets). The most

likely increase in demand is in the biomass market.

Commercial Forest Products: Lack of market demand for solid wood products in the local

areas and the difficulty in getting products to markets outside of a village area are not likely to

change significantly in the foreseeable future. Local mills will continue to produce materials

intermittently for local needs.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Forest and Woodland Products
Analysis of Management Situation 122

Biomass: Biomass has the best opportunity to expand the consumption of forest products and

the resource quality is less critical for biomass needs. Currently, the villages of Tanana, Kaltag,

Nulato, Koyukuk, Galena, Ruby, Hughes, Nenana, Healy, and Minto have considered or installed

biomass systems to meet some portion of their village energy needs. For Alaska, it is estimated

that up to 80 percent of the village energy consumption is associated with heating.

There is currently a pellet mill in Fairbanks that has the potential to use biomass material from

within 150 miles of the mill. This type of facility may use either dead material from wildland fire

or insect damage or green material from entire stands or even non-merchantable materials from

forest management projects. There may be proposals for other biomass processing facilities that

arise through the expansion of village biomass demands. These new facilities may be constructed

to meet a regional demand for biomass along a river or road system.

Non-timber Forest Products: There is no anticipated increase in demand for most non-timber

forest products except as noted here. As fires occur in areas where there is access from roads,

trails, or rivers, there is often a short-term demand for mushrooms. Much of this activity will

be commercial in nature and will be managed through the permitting process on a case-by-case

basis. Demand for other forest product materials is likely to be limited in scope and local in

nature to meet a specific need for revegetation or site rehabilitation in the immediate area. Major

development of mines, pipelines, or other infrastructure may drive demand for seed collection or

transplants close to the development.

Subsistence Use of Forest Products: Demand for subsistence use of forest products will continue

to be high near all villages within the Central Yukon. No substantial increase in use is anticipated,

but capturing the extent of this use through a (self-issuance) permitting process is one goal of the

forestry program. Documentation of use areas is desirable for future planning efforts.

Forest Health: The BLM will continue to rely on the cooperative agricultural pest surveys to

determine the location, extent, and severity of all insect and disease activities. Currently, there

are no imminent threats identified within the planning area. There is very limited access to most

of the forested areas. There is a proposed cooperative project to develop a better means for

predicting potential areas and severity of infestations based on the annual aerial surveys. Funding

for this project has not yet been fully identified.

2.2.2.3. Key Areas or Areas of High Potential

Commercial Forest Products: The most promising areas for commercial products including house

logs are stands of white spruce in areas with little to no permafrost. Many of these stands occur in

areas where there are abandoned river meanders. The BLM manages very little of this type of land

within the planning area, but these are potentially the most productive sites for forest products.

Biomass: Biomass has the potential to use a wide variety of forest and woodland materials.

Initially, the existing stands close to villages get drawn upon for biomass resources. In general, a

working circle of approximately 25 miles radius around each village and areas within 10 to 15

miles of roads or navigable rivers should be considered the areas available for biomass utilization.

Areas with wildland fire damage or insect infestations within the past 10 years are also areas to

consider for initial harvest of biomass material. Over time, areas along broad valleys with good

stands of hardwood may be managed for rapid growth species to provide biomass resources.

Non-timber Forest Products: Recently burned areas (first 5 years) are considered primary habitat

for mushroom harvesting. Sites close to roads and rivers will be preferred. Other non-timber

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Forest and Woodland Products
Analysis of Management Situation 123

forest products will be preferred when they are near the site where they will be used. This may

include holiday trees, seeds, wild seedlings and others. No areas are considered exempt from

providing these resources at the present time.

Subsistence Use of Forest Products: Subsistence use of forest products is concentrated around

villages and along roads and rivers. In some instances, these resources also come from traditional

use areas along trap lines and around fishing and hunting camps. While all BLM-managed forest

land is currently open to this use, there is a need to track use through free use permits. There may

be areas where management will be implemented to designate specific sites for some activities

to preserve certain resource values.

Forest Health: Historically, forest pests have been endemic throughout his region. Periodic

outbreaks have not been extensive in the past, but this may change with changes in climate over

time. Areas where the forest vegetation is stressed from overcrowding or drought may be the first

to feel the impacts of various vectors. Extensive stands of single species are likely to be most

seriously affected by forest pests because there would be continuous host material available in

these settings. From the recent forest health surveys (USDA, FS 2006 to 2012), the most common

pests have been defoliators of hardwood species, although Ips pine beetle and spruce beetles have

also been noted in the area.

2.2.3. Lands and Realty

The primary objective of the Lands and Realty program is to provide the public with use of the

land it needs through rightsofway, land use permits, leases, and sales. The secondary objective

is to provide support to other programs to protect and enhance the resources. Overlaying these

first two objectives is the need to support the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration process, which

involves the survey and conveyance of lands to the State of Alaska, Native corporations, and

Native allottees.

Under the Statehood Act, the State of Alaska is entitled to receive 104 million acres of federal

land. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) requires the transfer of 45 million

acres of public land to Alaska Native corporations. Approximately 4.3 million acres and 0.7

million acres of BLM-managed land in the planning area are State-selected and Native-selected,

respectively. The final conveyance priority list for Native selections was submitted to BLM on

June 9, 2008, and the priorities for State selections were submitted on December 10, 2008. The

State has overselected 25 percent on a statewide basis, and Alaska Native corporations have

over-selected as well. Therefore, some of the selected lands will remain in federal ownership

over the long term.

The Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906 (repealed with a savings provision by ANCSA) and

the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Act of 1998 (P.L. 105276) allow for the transfer of up to

160 acres of nonmineral lands to eligible Alaska Natives if certain requirements were met as of

August 31, 1971. These are referred to as Native allotments.

Conveyances to the State of Alaska, Native corporations, and individuals (Native allotments) are

ongoing. Unselected public lands in the planning area are currently retained for public use. Any

selected lands remaining after various entitlements are fulfilled, will also be retained for public

use. However, tenure adjustments, including sale, acquisition, or exchange, may be made to meet

management needs such as disposing of isolated parcels. The planning area overlaps portions

of the Northwest Arctic Borough, North Slope Borough, Denali Borough, and Fairbanks North

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Lands and Realty
Analysis of Management Situation 124

Star Borough. The planning area boundary includes 24 remote villages, 15 of which have tribal

entities, and three ANCSA Regional Corporation boundaries (Doyon Ltd., Arctic Slope Regional

Corporation, and NANA, Inc.) The needs of local communities will be considered during tenure

adjustments and may also be met by lease or sale under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.

2.2.3.1. Current Level and Location of Use

The planning area encompasses a diverse range of geographical areas, as well as widely

varied levels of population and infrastructure development. It includes the city of Fairbanks

and Fairbanks North Star Borough in their entirety, the second largest metropolitan area

in the state with over 99,000 residents. However, only a small percentage of the planning

area’s unencumbered BLM-managed lands are within the borough, consisting of mostly

scattered, isolated small parcels. Because of proximity to population centers, these parcels

see a comparatively high degree of usage for such things as communication sites and utility

rights-of-way.

The complete length of the Dalton Highway, 414 miles, is contained within the planning area,

providing opportunity for access to BLM-managed lands within the accompanying Utility

Corridor. Construction of the highway was necessary for constructing the Trans-Alaska Pipeline

System (TAPS), which runs roughly parallel to the highway. Material sites for gravel extraction

are abundant along the route, heavily utilized both for maintenance of the pipeline right-of-way

and access roads, and by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for

maintaining the highway. There are also over 1,200 federal mining claims for locatable minerals

in the planning area, many of which are near the Dalton Highway, see section 2.2.4.2 Locatable

Minerals.

Originally, the Dalton Highway was closed, intended to serve only as a supply road for the

pipeline. It was opened to public travel to Disaster Creek (milepost 211) in 1981, and the entire

length was opened to public travel in December 1994. Since then, there has been increased

interest in the Dalton Highway as a tourist destination and for sight-seeing, which has caused

an increase in permitting for tour busses and other recreational guiding operations. State statute

prohibits use of off-road vehicles within 5 miles of the Dalton Highway right-of-way. However,

such use can be authorized by permit in conjunction with other permitted activities. There is

ever increasing traffic on the highway by the general traveling public, for which services are

severely limited along the length of the route. The Utility Corridor Resource Management Plan

of 1986 attempted to address this issue through designation of specific “development nodes,”

where development of privately owned businesses offering travelers such services as fuel sales,

dining, and overnight lodging would be encouraged. Four development nodes were specified:

Yukon Crossing, Coldfoot, Chandalar, and Happy Valley. The Happy Valley and Coldfoot nodes

have since been conveyed to the State of Alaska. Traveler’s services are currently available at

the Yukon Crossing and Coldfoot locations.

BLM manages lands on both sides of the Dalton Highway from the Yukon River north to milepost

300. At the northern end of this stretch, Toolik Field Station is one of only two leases under the

Recreation and Public Purposes Act within the entire planning area. Toolik Field Station lies

within the Toolik Lake Research Natural Area (RNA), and is operated by the University of

Alaska. Growing interest in climate change has made this a highly sought-after area for research,

and the National Science Foundation has put greater focus on both the Toolik Field Station and

the Toolik RNA, bringing an increase in research projects to the area.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Lands and Realty
Analysis of Management Situation 125

The vast majority of unencumbered BLM-managed lands within the planning area do not fall

within any borough boundary, and are located in rural and remote areas away from developed

communities and settlements, without road access. The primary means of access to these lands

is by foot, dogsled, boat, offhighway vehicle, snowmobile, or aircraft. These areas often have

high scenic and recreational values. Some uses occur throughout the planning area, including

cabin leases and permits; free-use firewood permits and timber sales; and hunting, fishing, and

other subsistence use of resources.

2.2.3.1.1. Land Use Authorizations

The table below shows numbers of the various types of land use authorizations currently either

authorized or pending for the planning area according to BLM data. This table shows over 1,200

federal mining claims, but there are also over 5,000 State of Alaska mining claims authorized

within the planning area. Holders of both federal and state mining claims regularly require

authorization for access across BLM-managed lands.

Other authorized uses include gravel pits and oil and gas leases and rights-of-way, along with

other types of rights-of-way and easements. Short-term low-impact land use permits, recreation

permits, and subsistence uses play an important role throughout the planning area.

Table 2.19. Land Use Authorizations in the Central Yukon Planning Area a

Type of Authorization Currently

Authorized

Pending Total

Recorded Mining Claims – Placer

(federal only)

735 4 739

Recorded Mining Claims – Lode

(federal only)

517 0 517

Mineral Material Sales (gravel pits) 32 3 35

Government Free Use Permit Mineral

Materials (gravel pits)

19 3 22

Sec 317 Federal Highways Material

Sites (gravel pits)

38 1 39

Rights-of-Way – Roads, Highways and

Highway Facilities

62 8 70

Rights-of-Way – R.S. 2477 2 36 38

Rights-of-Way – Telephone & Power

Lines and Facilities

37 1 38

Rights-of-Way – Communication Sites 25 7 32

Rights-of-Way – Water Facilities 4 0 4

Rights-of-Way – Pipelines — TAPS 17 2 19

Rights-of-Way – TAPS — Access

Roads

129 0 129

Rights-of-Way – Pipelines — Other 3 4 7

Rights-of-Way – Other 68 14 82

ANCSA 17(b) Easements 0 7 7

Section 302 FLPMA Land Use Permits

– Low Impact

39 31 70

Recreation Use Permits 23 22 45

NPR-A Oil & Gas Leases 18 1 19

NPR-A Land Use Authorizations 11 0 11

Timber – small timber sales and free use 4 2 6

Airport Leases 4 0 4

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Lands and Realty
Analysis of Management Situation 126

Recreation & Public Purposes Act

Leases

2 0 2

Section 302 FLPMA Leases 2 0 2

Hot Springs Lease 1 0 1

Reindeer Grazing 1 0 1

aData from 2013, before the Nulato Hills was removed from the planning area

2.2.3.1.2. Withdrawals

A withdrawal withholds an area of federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry under

some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in

order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public

purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of federal land, other than property

governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (40 U.S.C. 472), from one

department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency.

Withdrawals include federal land set aside and dedicated to a present, governmental use; public

land set aside for some other public purpose, e.g., pending a determination of how the land is

to be used; an action approved by the Secretary or a law enacted by Congress that closes land

to specific uses under the public land laws (usually sale, settlement, location, and entry), or

limits use to maintain public values or reserves area for particular public use or program, or that

transfers jurisdiction of an area to another federal agency. Withdrawals are usually enacted

through a public land order or legislation.

Most of the BLM-managed lands within the planning area are under some type of withdrawal

pursuant to ANCSA 17(d)(1), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Trans-Alaska Pipeline

Authorization Act, or some other federal law. Some areas are covered by more than one

withdrawal. The effect of the withdrawal varies and can only be determined for a specific parcel

of land by reading the withdrawal order.

There are other types of withdrawals besides those authorized by ANCSA or other public laws.

These include BLM withdrawals for administrative sites and withdrawals by other agencies.

All of the withdrawals reserved for or managed by the BLM will be reviewed to determine if

they should be retained, relinquished, or whether some other action should be taken. Those

withdrawals for the use of other agencies and purposes will be reviewed for status and will

continue to be in effect until a change is required or warranted.

Table 2.20. Existing Withdrawals in the Central Yukon Planning Areaa

Public Land

Order (PLO)

Number

or other

Authority

PLO Type or Agency Description of Withdrawal Purpose

PLO 255 DOD Military Withdrawal – Fort Greely. Amended by PLOs 1153 & 2418

PLO 399 BLM Revocation of EO 1324 1/2 withdrawing public lands containing hot

springs in Alaska and amending EO 5389 to apply to hot springs in

Alaska

PLO 503 BLM Withdrawal for Administrative Site – Fairbanks District Office

PLO 533 DOD Withdrawal for Department of the Army cold weather testing site.

Amended by PLO 3013

PLO 547 DOD Military Withdrawal – Clear Station

PLO 577 USAF Military Withdrawal – Eielson Air Force Base

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Lands and Realty
Analysis of Management Situation 127

Public Land

Order (PLO)

Number

or other

Authority

PLO Type or Agency Description of Withdrawal Purpose

PLO 684 USAF Military Withdrawal – Eielson Air Force Base extension for flood control

PLO 690 DOD Military Withdrawal – Fort Wainwright. Corrected by PLO 748, revokes

PLO 139.

PLO 693 USAF Military Withdrawal – Murphy Dome

PLO 792 Townsite Withdrawal – Nulato

PLO 818 USAF Military Withdrawal – Ladd Air Force Base, now part of Fort Wainwright

PLO 843 USAF Military Withdrawal near Galena (Campion AFS) Amended by PLOs

1713, 4009 and 4723

PLO 854 USAF Military Withdrawal – Addition to Ladd Air Force Base, now part of

Fort Wainwright

PLO 1037 AK Territorial Police Amends PLO 738. Withdraws land for Alaska Territorial Police

Headquarters site – now part of Fort Wainwright

PLO 1205 USAF Military Withdrawal – Moose Creek Butte

PLO 1405 USAF Military Withdrawal — Addition to Galena Air Reserve

PLO 1521 USAF Withdrawal — Moose Creek Dyke Range. Corrected by PLO 1541;

amended by PLO 1688

PLO 1588 USAF Military Withdrawal — Tracts A, B and E near Tanana

PLO 1657 BLM Withdrawal — Ester Dome Administrative Site

PLO 1760 DOD Military Withdrawal – Fort Wainwright Addition

PLO 1769 USAF Military Withdrawal – Bullen Point Short Range Radar Site

PLO 1851 USAF Military Withdrawal – Oliktok Point Long Range Radar Site. Modified

by PLO 6679

PLO 1910 USAF Military Withdrawal – Indian Mountain

PLO 2209 USDOT / FAA Withdrawal for Umiat Airport

PLO 2214 FWS Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

PLO 2909 USDOT / FAA Withdrawal for FAA VORTAC site adjacent to Bettles Airfield

PLO 2948 DOD Withdrawal for Department of the Army – Donnelly Flats

PLO 3708 NASA / NOAA Withdrawal for NASA Facilities site on Gilmore Creek; transferred to

NOAA by PLO 6709; partially revoked by PLO 7682; extended by PLO

7710; additionally partially revoked by PLO 7763

PLO 3942 USAF Withdrawal for Indian Mountain airfield and buffer zone

PLO 3943 BLM Withdrawal for Protection of Recreational Values – Clear Creek

PLO 5150 BLM Withdrawal of lands for a Utility and Transportation Corridor

PLO 5164 USAF Military Withdrawal – Indian Mountain additional

PLO 5169 ANCSA 11(a)(3) Withdrawal for selections by Village and Regional Corporations

PLO 5173 ANCSA 11(a)(3) Withdrawal for selections by Village and Regional Corporations

PLO 5179 ANCSA 17(d)(2)(A) Withdrawal of lands in aid of Legislation concerning Addition to or

Creation of Units of the National Park, Forest, Wildlife Refuge, and Wild

and Scenic rivers Systems and for Classification

PLO 5180 ANCSA 17(d)(1) Withdrawal for Classification & for Protection of Public Interest in

lands; amended by PLOs 5193, 5242, 5250, 5251, 5254, 5257, 5321,

5391, and 5418.

PLO 5182 BLM Amended PLO 5150 (outer corridor)

PLO 5184 ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawal for Classification or Reclassification of some areas

withdrawn by Sec. 11 of ANCSA

PLO 5186 ANCSA 17(d)(1) Withdrawal for Classification & Protection of Public Interest in Lands

Not Selected by State. Amended by PLO 5254 and 5242

PLO 5187 ANCSA 17(d)(1) Withdrawal for Classification & Protection Public Interest in lands in

military reservations

PLO 5190 ANCSA 17(c) Modification & Correction of PLO 5150, Utility Corridor

PLO 5193 ANCSA 17(d)(1) Modification & Correction of PLO 5180

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Lands and Realty
Analysis of Management Situation 128

Public Land

Order (PLO)

Number

or other

Authority

PLO Type or Agency Description of Withdrawal Purpose

PLO 5237 DOD Military Withdrawal — Fort Greely Drop Area Tract F

PLO 5238 DOD Military Withdrawal — Fort Greely Maneuver Area Tract A

PLO 5242 ANCSA 11(b)(3) Withdrawal pending Determination of Eligibility of Native Communities

— Evansville

PLO 5250 ANCSA 17(d)(1) Amends PLO 5179 (as amended) to include additional lands

PLO 5251 ANCSA 17(d)(1) Amends PLOs 5180 and 5179 (as amended) to include additional lands

PLO 5563 BLM Amend EO 5389 to permit withdrawal of land under Sec 11 of ANCSA

PLO 5657 BLM Classification of Lands for Selection by State amends existing PLOs

PLO 5696 FWS Innoko National Wildlife Refuge

PLO 5697 FWS Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge

PLO 5699 FWS Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge

PLO 5700 FWS Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge

PLO 5701 FWS Selawik National Wildlife Refuge

PLO 5860 ANCSA 14(h) Withdrawal – withdraws lands for selection by Arctic Slope Regional

Corporation

PLO 5951 ANCSA 17(d)(1) Modifies and amends PLO 5179, 5250 and others to allow state selection

PLO 6092 BLM Classification and Open to Entry for State Selection – amends existing

PLOs

PLO 6533 BLM Classification and Open to Entry for State Selection; partial revocation

5150

PLO 6706 USAF Withdrawal for Indian Mountain Research Site. Extended by PLO 7727

PLO 6727 ANCSA 17(d)(1) Modify PLO 5150 to classify 25.86 acres in the Wiseman area for sale.

PLO 6951 ANCSA 22(j)(2) Village Withdrawal – Anaktuvuk Pass

PLO 7032 BLM Withdrawal of 2,560 acres for Protection of Paleoindian Site – Mesa Site

PLO 7057 BLM Withdrawal of 5 sites for BLM Administrative use in Coldfoot area

PLO 7231 BLM Partial revocation of PLO 5860

PLO 7372 BLM Withdrawal of lands for Lake Todatonten Special Management Area

PLO 7823 BLM Extends withdrawal authorized by PLO 7032 for an additional 20 years

Public Law

(PL) 92–203

Village withdrawals — Alatna; Allakaket; Galena; Hughes; Huslia;

Kaltag; Koyukuk; Manley Hot Springs; Minto; Nenana; Nulato;

Rampart; Ruby; Tanana; Evansville

PL 94–258 Designation of National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska

PL 96–487 Wild and Scenic Rivers Withdrawal

PL 106–65 DOD Military Withdrawal — Fort Greely Bombing Range; Fort Greely Air

Drop; Fort Greely Maneuver Area; Fort Wainwright Yukon Training

Area

Executive

Order (EO)

4358

USDOT / AKRR Withdrawal of Lot 1, Block 49 in Nenana for the Alaska Railroad

EO 4360 USDOT / AKRR Withdrawal of Lots 7 & 8, Block 53 in Nenana for the Alaska Railroad

EO 4374 USDOT / AKRR Withdrawal of Lots 23 & 24, Block 2 in Nenana for the Alaska Railroad

EO 5441 USDOT / AKRR Withdrawal of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 23 & 24, Block 12 in Nenana for

the Alaska Railroad

EO 7596 DOD Military Withdrawal – Fort Wainwright

EO 8020 Corps of Engineers Withdrawal of lands for Chena Flood Control project. Amended by

PLOs 1039 and 1075

EO 8847 DOD Withdrawal for War Dept. – Tanana Flats bombing and gunnery range

Air

Navigation

Site (ANS)

139

USDOT / FAA Withdrawal of Air Navigation Site at Tanana

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Lands and Realty
Analysis of Management Situation 129

Public Land

Order (PLO)

Number

or other

Authority

PLO Type or Agency Description of Withdrawal Purpose

ANS 153 USDOT / FAA Air Navigation Site Withdrawal – Manley Hot Springs Field; Nulato

Field. Modified by PLO 2517

ANS 161 USDOT / FAA Withdrawal for FAA VORTAC site adjacent to Tanana Airfield. Partially

revoked by PLO 5072

ANS 164 USDOT / FAA Air Navigation Site Withdrawal – Wiseman Airfield

ANS 267 USDOT / FAA Air Navigation Site Withdrawal – Nenana Airfield. Expanded by ANS 10

ANS 268 USDOT / FAA Air Navigation Site Withdrawal – Bettles Airfield. Amended by PLO

2116

aData for this table were generated before the Nulato Hills was removed from the planning area

2.2.3.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand

Subsistence and recreation, including guided and unguided hunting and fishing, are major uses of

the public lands in the planning area. People in the communities within the planning area rely

heavily on the public lands for both recreation and subsistence activities; particularly those in

the more isolated communities. Demand for use of the public lands is likely to increase as the

population within and adjacent to the planning area increases.

Climate research in arctic regions is currently a matter of high international interest, and

applications for research activities in the Toolik RNA and the planning area in general can be

expected to continue to increase. Communication sites and infrastructure needs are also expected

to increase, both within the more populated areas and along the Dalton Highway.

Similarly, gravel extraction from designated material sites is expected to increase with increased

use of the public roads and maintenance of the Trans—Alaskan Pipeline System, as well as

construction of additional communication infrastructure.

2.2.3.3. Key Areas or Areas of High Potential

As public usage continues to increase along the Dalton Highway, availability of traveler services

will become increasingly inadequate, and public safety would be well served by an increase in

such services. Designation of additional development nodes would help meet this need.

Isolated parcels of BLM lands, especially within the Fairbanks North Star Borough or near

communities, may be suitable for disposal either through sale or exchange. This would assist in

future land management by resulting in a more advantageous pattern of land ownership. Sales

or exchanges would likely not be considered until the parcels under consideration have been

relinquished by selecting entities and conveyance of Native allotments has been completed.

2.2.4. Energy and Minerals

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 130

2.2.4.1. Leasable Minerals

Leasable minerals are defined by the Mineral Leasing Act and are either solid or fluid leasable

minerals. Solid leasable minerals include coal, oil shale, native asphalt, phosphate, sodium,

potash, potassium, and sulfur. Fluid leasable minerals include oil, gas, coalbed natural gas, and

geothermal resources. Exploration and production of these minerals on BLM—managed lands

may only occur on leases acquired by competitive leasing.

A Leasable Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report is being developed for the

Central Yukon Planning Area. The report will be available on the Central Yukon RMP website

when complete.

2.2.4.2. Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals are minerals for which the right to explore, develop, and extract mineral

resources is established by the staking of mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872.

A Locatable Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report is being developed for the

Central Yukon Planning Area. This report will discuss mineral occurrence and potential in more

specific detail and will be available on the Central Yukon RMP website when complete.

The General Mining Law, as amended, describes locatable minerals as: minerals which include

both metallic minerals (gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, nickel) and nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar,

mica, certain limestones and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form, and gemstones).

Beginning in 1873, the U.S. Department of the Interior began defining locatable minerals as those

recognized as a mineral by the standard experts, that are not subject to disposal under some other

law, and that make the land more valuable for mining purposes than for agriculture. Therefore, it

is easier to list the minerals that are not locatable because of the complexities listed previously.

Minerals, which are normally locatable on federal lands, found on lands acquired (purchased or

received) under the Acquired Lands Act of 1947 by the United States or found on American

Indian reservations are subject to lease only (43 CFR 3500 entire sequence).

Types of Federal claims

There are two types of federal mining claims (lode and placer) and two mineral site entries

(mill and tunnel).

Lode Claims: Deposits subject to lode claims include classic veins or lodes having well-defined

boundaries. They also include other rock in-place bearing valuable minerals and may be broad

zones of mineralized rock. Examples include quartz or other veins bearing gold or other metallic

minerals and large volume, but low-grade disseminated gold deposits. Descriptions are by metes

and bounds surveys beginning at the discovery point on the claim and including a reference to

natural objects or permanent monuments. Federal statute limits lode claim size to a maximum of

1,500 feet in length, and a maximum width of 600 feet (300 feet on either side of the vein).

Placer Claims: Placer claims are defined as "...including all forms of deposit, excepting veins of

quartz, or other rock in-place." In other words, every deposit not located with a lode claim(s),

should be appropriated by a placer claim. Placer claims, where practicable, are located by legal

subdivision (aliquot part and complete lots). The maximum size is 20 acres per locator. The

maximum size in Alaska is 40 acres.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 131

Mill Sites: A mill site must be located on non-mineral land. Its purpose is to either (1) support a

lode or placer mining claim operation or (2) support itself independent of any particular claim. A

mill site must include the erection of a mill or reduction works and/or may include other uses in

support of a mining operation. The maximum size is 5 acres.

Tunnel Sites: A tunnel site is a subsurface right-of-way under federal land open to mineral

entry. It is used for access to lode mining claims or to explore for blind or undiscovered veins,

lodes, or ledges not currently claimed or known to exist on the surface. To stake a tunnel site,

two stakes are placed up to 3,000 feet apart on the line of the proposed tunnel. Recordation is

the same as a lode claim.

An individual may locate lode claims to cover any or all blind (not known to exist) veins or lodes

intersected by the tunnel. The maximum distance these lode claims may exist is 1,500 feet on

either side of the center line of the tunnel. This, in essence, gives the mining claimant the right to

prospect an area 3,000 feet wide and 3,000 feet long. Any mining claim located for a blind lode

discovered while driving a tunnel relates back to the date the tunnel site was located.

2.2.4.2.1. Current Level and Location of Use

Areas with locatable mineral deposits are dispersed throughout the Central Yukon Planning Area.

From the Dalton Highway corridor to Delta Junction, and west to the Kaltag area, there are

numerous federal and State of Alaska (state) mining claims (an estimated 1,500+ federal mining

claims (placer and lode) and over 5,200 state mining claims). There are currently no mill sites or

tunnel sites within the planning area (Figure 2.3).

Due to the size of the planning area and the dispersed nature of the mining claims, it is difficult

to graphically represent the claims on one map. So, the planning area has been broken into

several smaller geographic areas as displayed on Figures 2.4 – 2.12 and described beneath each

figure. These figures display the areas of most concentrated locatable mineral claims, but by

no means encompass all of the mining claims in the planning area. State claims are shown in

blue and the federal claims are shown in tan.

Dalton Highway Corridor and the North Slope: This area is geographically defined as the

planning area on the north slope of the Brooks Range (Figures 2.4 – 2.8) and the Dalton Highway

corridor, beginning at milepost 0.

There are no federal mining claims along the Dalton Highway north of Atigun Pass. However,

there are several state claims along the corridor between mileposts 345 and 390 (Figure 2.4).

South of that, the heaviest concentration of federal claims is at the Nolan Creek area which is near

Wiseman, but the mining claims and operations occur from the Gold Creek area (milepost 210)

south to the Prospect Creek area (milepost 135) (Figures 2.5 and 2.6).

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 132

Figure 2.3. Federal and State Mining Claims in the Planning Area

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 133

Figure 2.4. Mining Claims along the Dalton Highway: Mileposts 345–390

The state mining claims north of milepost 345 of the Dalton Highway represent the northern most

locatable claims in the planning area. However, they are well outside BLM-managed lands.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 134

Figure 2.5. Mining Claims along the Dalton Highway: Mileposts 200–265

There are few federal mining claims from milepost 200 to 265.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 135

Figure 2.6. Mining Claims along the Dalton Highway: Mileposts 125–200

There are numerous state and federal mining claims from milepost 125 to 200. The majority

of the federal claims are concentrated in the Nolan Creek area, which is north-north-west of

Wiseman. There is a mix of placer and lode claims in this area.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 136

Figure 2.7. Mining Claims along the Dalton Highway: Mileposts 40–100

From milepost 40 to 100, there are no mining claims accessible from the Dalton Highway.

However, there are numerous claims, both federal and state west of the highway. The smaller

blocks represent placer operations or small exploration operations. The large blocks of claims

represent mineral exploration being conducted for copper and rare earth elements (REE).

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 137

Figure 2.8. Mining Claims along the Dalton (Mileposts 0–40) and Elliott Highways

(Mileposts 25–115)

State mining claims within the planning area have a much different dispersal pattern than federal

claims. The Dalton Highway corridor is BLM-managed land, with some state in-holdings, so

there are very few state claims along it. However, outside the corridor, there are numerous state

claims (Figures 2.8, 2.11 – 2.12).

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 138

Figure 2.8 shows the claims around Livengood. The claims in this area are mostly state claims.

However, there are parcels of BLM—managed land and, consequently, there are also some

federal mining claims. The large block of claims north of the highway, around Livengood are

outside the planning area and not discussed in this report, as the planning area is south and west of

the Elliott Highway.

The BLM-managed lands west of the Dalton Highway corridor are not road-accessible. The

mining claims in this area are all state claims (Figures 2.11 – 2.12).

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 139

Figure 2.9. Mining Claims in the Manley Hot Springs and Tofty Areas

There are both federal and state mining claims in the Tofty area. The federal claims are on

State-selected land and top filed with state mining claims. If the land becomes a priority for State

acquisition, then the federal claims will be converted to state claims.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 140

Figure 2.10. Federal and State Claims in the Fairbanks Area

The mining claims around Fairbanks that are within the planning area, are located west of the

highway and west of Fairbanks. The claims north and east of the Elliott and Steese highways (in

the grey area on the map) are outside of the planning area. The Fairbanks area claims are the

easiest to access and the closest to a population center, therefore, there is a lot of activity. The area

south of Fairbanks is primarily state land, so all of the mining claims are state claims.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 141

Figure 2.11. Northern Planning Area (Hog River) Mining Claims

The block of claims in Figure 2.11 are in a placer gold mineral area. There are both federal

and state claims in this area. The land surrounding this block of claims is State-selected,

Native-selected, State-owned and Native corporation-owned.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 142

Figure 2.12. Mining Claims South of Galena

There are a collection of state and federal claims in various locations south of Galena and Ruby

(Figure 2.12). None are road-accessible so they must be accessed by snowmobile in winter or

by aircraft in summer.

2.2.4.2.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand

The demand for locatable minerals is dependent on: the value of the commodity, the accessibility

of the area where that occurrence is located, and the size of the deposits. With gold prices settling

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 143

down from a high of almost $2,000 per ounce, other minerals are being looked at as minerals of

importance. Currently, copper and rare-earth elements lead the pack for exploration.

Rare Earth Elements: Rare earth elements (REEs) are a group of chemical elements used in

radar systems, avionics, satellites, renewable energy systems, and consumer electronic goods.

While not particularly rare in the Earth’s crust, these elements are not often found in mineable

concentrations. China possesses an estimated 48 percent of the world’s proven resources of REEs

and is the dominant global supplier with nearly 97 percent of the world’s production. Recent

curtailment of REE exports from China and reliance on the Chinese industry for processing and

manufacturing has highlighted the fragility in the global supply-demand chain. Alaska has an

important role to play in securing a domestic supply of these strategic minerals (ADNR 2012).

Table 2.21. List of the Rare Earth Elements

Element Name

(symbol)

Applications

Scandium (Sc) X-ray tubes, catalysts for polymerization, in hardened nickel-chromium super alloys, dental

porcelain, used as a tracer in studies of oil wells and pipelines.

Yttrium (Y) De-oxidizer in stainless-steel production, strengthener in magnesium and aluminum

alloys, rechargeable batteries, medical uses, and red phosphors for color television,

superconductors, various other metallurgical applications, and in cancer fighting drugs.

Lanthanum (La) De-oxidizer in stainless-steel production, strengthener in magnesium and aluminum

alloys, rechargeable batteries, medical uses, and red phosphors for color television,

superconductors, and various other metallurgical applications.

Cerium (Ce) Glass polishing, petroleum-cracking catalysts, radiation shielding, alloys with iron for

lighter sparking flints, alloys with aluminum, magnesium and steel for improving heat and

strength properties. It has also shown promising future potential in the development of

ydrogen fuel cells, a sustainable green energy alternative.

Praseodymium (Pr) Yellow ceramic pigments, tiles, ceramic capacitors, with neodymium for goggles to shield

glass makers against sodium glare, permanent magnets, cryogenic refrigerant.

Neodymium (Nd) Ceramic capacitors, glazes and colored glass, lasers, high-strength permanent magnets,

petroleum-cracking catalysts. Neodymium is one of the most critically important rare

earth elements in terms of both existing technologies and emergent sustainable and energy

efficient future technologies.

Promethium (Pm) Small quantities of this element, manufactured in nuclear reactors, are used in the

production of nuclear batteries and for a few other specialized applications.

Samarium (Sm) In highly magnetic alloys for permanent magnets, nuclear-reactor controls and neutron

shielding, laser, infrared-absorbing glass, and as a neutron absorber in certain nuclear

reactors.

Europium (Eu) It is currently used, with yttrium, to produce red phosphors that are key to the manufacture

of energy efficient (white) compact fluorescent light bulbs, as well as to the function of most

computer and television screens.

Gadolinium (Gd) Rare-earth magnets, high refractive index glass or garnets, lasers, X-ray tubes, computer

memories, neutron capture, MRI contrast agent, NMR relaxation agent, magnetostrictive

alloys such as Galfenol, steel additive.

Terbium (Tb) Cathode-ray tubes for X-ray and color-television tubes, magnets, optical computer

memories, computer hard-drive components; magnetostrictive alloys. Magnetostrictive

materials are broadly defined as materials that undergo a change in shape due to change

in the magnetization state of the material.

Dysprosium (Dy) Rare earth magnets, lasers, magnetostrictive alloys such as Terfenol-D, control rods for

nuclear reactors, alloyed with neodymium for permanent magnets, catalysts.

Holmium (Ho) Lasers, wavelength calibration standards for optical spectrophotometers, magnets.

Erbium (Er) Infrared lasers, vanadium steel, fiber-optic technology.

Thulium (Tm) Portable X-ray machines, metal-halide lamps, lasers.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 144

Element Name

(symbol)

Applications

Ytterbium (Yb) Infrared lasers, chemical reducing agent, decoy flares, stainless steel, stress gauges, nuclear

medicine.

Lutetium (Lu) De-oxidizer in stainless-steel production, rechargeable batteries, medical uses, red

phosphors for color television, superconductors, used in nuclear technology.

Gold (placer and lode): Placer gold has been a main player throughout Alaskan history. Prior

to the purchase of Alaska from Russia, the Russians were exploring for and mining gold. Gold

mining has continued through today. The state has produced more than 32 million ounces of

gold to date, and that number increases every year. The demand for gold is as high as ever for

jewelry, electronics, investments and other industrial uses. Figure 2.13 shows areas of medium to

high placer gold potential in the planning area.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 145

Figure 2.13. Placer Gold Potential in the Planning Area

Other Minerals of Interest: Other minerals of interest include but are not limited to: copper,

silver, molybdenum, nickel, and the six platinum group elements (platinum, ruthenium, rhodium,

palladium, osmium, and iridium). A large amount of money (more than $330 million in 2012)

is spent in Alaska every year to locate or prove mineral deposits. In the planning area several

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 146

exploration projects for something other than gold are underway. The figure below shows ares of

medium to high potential for platinum group minerals.

Figure 2.14. Platinum Group Elements Potential in the Planning Area

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 147

2.2.4.2.3. Areas of High Potential for Future Use

It is not possible to pin down the areas that might be the next hot-bed of mineral activity in the

planning area. Figure 2.15 shows locations where minerals currently are of interest. Any one of

these areas might become the next Fort Knox or Red Dog mine, depending on the value of the

deposit and the economics of mining that mineral and getting it to market. As the infrastructure of

Alaska grows, so will the number of mining operations.

Dalton Highway corridor will continue to be a high-use area for locatable minerals and mining.

Although outside of the planning area, the Livengood area has been undergoing heavy exploration

for the last several years. A feasibility study report on mining the Livengood area was completed

in late 2013 (Kunter et al. 2013). The study recommended that surface mining for gold is feasible

at $1,500 per ounce. As gold prices fluctuate, the mine plan may be shelved. If the value of gold

increases, it is possible that the development plan will be put into effect.

Currently, exploration for copper, gold, and REEs are of the most interest

to industry and governments. In 2011, the governor of Alaska announced a

strategy to spur the exploration of REEs and other strategic minerals in Alaska

(http://dnr.alaska.gov/commis/priorities/securealaskasfuture_minerals.html). The end goal is to

increase mining and processing of those minerals in Alaska.

Alaska has at least 70 occurrences of rare earth elements. The mining area in the north central

planning area is listed as a prime area for REEs. The State’s strategy is to encourage exploration

and development of strategic mineral occurrences throughout Alaska. This strategy will increase

exploration on federal lands and, consequently, lead to increased mining activity for other

minerals of interest.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 148

Figure 2.15. Rare Earth Element Potential in the Planning Area

2.2.4.3. Salable Minerals

The Materials Act of 1947 allows the disposal of materials including, but not limited to, sand,

stone, gravel, common clay, by sale or free-use permit to governmental agencies and non-profit

organizations. In 1955, the Surface Resources Act removed common varieties of sand, gravel,

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 149

stone, pumice, pumicite, and cinders from the 1872 mining law and placed them under the 1947

Materials Act. Since these mineral materials are available only by sales contract, they are termed

"salable" minerals. Over the years, what is considered common and uncommon variety has

been further clarified through various court decisions. Today, salable mineral materials include

common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, clay, rock, and petrified wood.

Salable minerals, also called mineral materials, are some of the most basic natural resources, such

as sand, gravel, dirt, and rock, used in every day building, and other construction uses. These

materials generally are bulky and have low unit price. Their sheer weight makes transportation

costs very high. The BLM's policy is to make these materials available to the public and local

governmental agencies whenever possible and wherever environmentally acceptable.

Mineral materials are available through a series of competitive and non-competitive sales and by

free use permit to governmental agencies and non-profit organizations. Also, a limited amount

may be provided free to non-profit groups. Materials obtained free of charge cannot be bartered

or sold. The BLM shares a portion of the revenues from the sale of mineral materials with the

state where the minerals are produced. In the planning area, the primary user of the mineral

material sales is Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska) and the primary user of free-use

permits is the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF). Small

sales for individual use are charged a fair market royalty rate based on a per cubic yard or per

ton intended usage.

Villages in the region, due to their locations along rivers or coastlines, have developed local

sources for mineral materials for their own use. Outside of these areas, mineral materials have no

value unless they are near a project under development or a transportation corridor.

2.2.4.3.1. Current Level and Location of Use

Mineral material use in the planning area is primarily restricted to road-accessible areas. This

includes the Dalton and Elliott Highways, and parts of the Steese and the Parks Highways. The

highest use of mineral material in the planning area is along the Dalton Highway corridor.

ADOT&PF uses mineral materials to maintain and upgrade the highway. Alyeska uses mineral

materials to maintain the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System and the pipeline access roads. Figure

2.16 shows the locations of the ADOT&PF mineral material pits in the planning area.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 150

Figure 2.16. Mineral Material Sites in the Planning Area

2.2.4.3.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand

The forecast for future demand in the planning area, will be essentially the same as it is currently.

The exception to this is the possibility of a gas pipeline from Prudoe Bay along the Dalton and

Elliott Highways through the planning area, then along either the Parks or the Richardson

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Energy and Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 151

Highways to the terminus of the line. If the gas pipeline does get permitted, the mineral material

needed will come from existing or new mineral material pits along the route.

2.2.4.3.3. Areas of High Potential for Future Use

Future use for mineral materials in the planning area would be along the gas pipeline corridor,

or from any location where the ADOT&PF will build new roads to smaller communities and

villages. As the Dalton Highway continues to be used for transporting supplies to the oil fields

near Prudhoe Bay, and with increasing tourism travel, mineral materials will be needed to

continue maintaining and upgrading the Dalton, Elliott, and Steese Highways.

2.2.5. Renewable Energy

There are no existing renewable energy sites on BLM-managed lands in the planning area.

Although solar, wind, and biomass resources occur in the planning area, the development

potential of these resources is unknown.

The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a) requires that plans address existing and

potential development areas for renewable energy projects, including wind, solar, and biomass.

In cooperation with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the BLM assessed

renewable energy resources on public lands in the western United States (BLM and DOE 2003).

The assessment reviewed the potential for concentrated solar power, photovoltaics, wind,

biomass, and geothermal on BLM-managed lands in the west. Alaska was not included in this

report. Some of the site-screening criteria outlined in this report, however, may be useful in

determining potential for renewable energy development in the planning area.

The potential for commercial solar operations in the planning area is very low. One of the criteria

outlined in Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands (BLM and DOE 2003)

is a solar resource of at least 5 kilowatt hours per square mile per day. This criterion is not met

anywhere within the planning area (DOE 2008a and 2008b).

The Alaska Energy Authority, in coordination with the Department of Energy's National

Renewable Energy Laboratory and AWS True Power, published a wind resource map for Alaska

online at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programwindmap.html. The map estimates the

relative quality of wind resources in Alaska at 50 meters above ground level.

As a renewable resource, wind is classified according to wind power classes, which are based on

typical wind speeds. These classes range from Class 1 (the lowest) to Class 7 (the highest). In

general, at 50 meters, winds of Class 4 or higher can be useful for generating wind power with

large turbines and are considered good resources. Primary criteria for wind development outlined

in the Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands (BLM and DOE 2003)

included a wind power Class 4 and above for short-term, and Class 3 and above for long-term;

and transmission access within 25 miles and road access within 50 miles.

Within the planning area, wind potential is generally poor to fair (classes 1 through 3).

Additionally, most of the BLM-managed lands do not meet the criteria of being within 25 miles of

transmission lines and within 50 miles of road access.

The biomass program uses organic matter and waste products for producing products

such as paper and pulp, value-added commodities, and bio-energy or bio-based

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Renewable Energy
Analysis of Management Situation 152

products such as plastics, ethanol, or diesel. Alaska's most important biomass

fuels are wood, sawmill wastes, fish byproducts, and municipal waste (AEA 2009,

http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programsalternativebiomass.html). Wood from wildland fire

scars is a potential source of biomass from BLM-managed lands. For additional discussion on

biomass, see section 2.2.2 Forest and Woodland Products.

2.2.6. Recreation and Visitor Services

Utility Corridor Subunit

The Utility Corridor RMP (BLM 1991a) designated five recreation management areas: the

Dalton Highway, Nigu Wilderness and Iteriak ACEC, and Oolamnagavik Colville Recreation

Management Areas, and the Dalton Highway corridor and Central Arctic Management Area

(CAMA) Extensive Recreation Management Areas. In 2002, the BLM conducted an evaluation

of the Utility Corridor RMP. This evaluation found that the five recreation management areas

established by the RMP were all being managed per decisions in the RMP. However, a significant

portion of the CAMA and the Oolamnagavik Colville recreation management areas have been

conveyed to the State or Native corporations since approval of the Utility Corridor RMP.

The Dalton Highway Recreation Area Management Plan (BLM 1991b), which at the time of

approval, encompassed approximately 1.1 million acres from the Yukon River to north of the

Brooks Range, was signed on October 11, 1991. Since that time, the portion of the recreation

management area north of Slope Mountain (Milepost 300) has been conveyed to the state. This

recreation management plan describes the proposed action as:

(a) identifies on-the-ground action programs to implement recreation use and to manage recreation

resources as provided for in the Utility Corridor Resource Management Plan and Record of

Decision (RMP/ROD), signed January 11, 1991, (b) provides continuity for the management of

recreation use and recreation resources in the Dalton Highway recreation management area,

(c) provides data and establishes priorities for the preparing of budget documents including

annual work plans and packages for recreation management, recreation construction, recreation

maintenance, and recreation acquisition programs, and (d) provides a basis for monitoring

accomplishment of recreation program goals and objectives.

The Utility Corridor subunit (Figure C.3) begins at the Yukon River, which is 140 miles north of

Fairbanks, and continues through the Utility Corridor and north of the Brooks Range to Milepost

300 of the Dalton Highway. The northern edge of the planning area is approximately 388 miles

north of Fairbanks and lies within the southern edge of the arctic environment. At nearly 250

road miles in length, from the Yukon River to the northern boundary of BLM lands in the Utility

Corridor, this subunit provides a variety of recreation opportunities for a broad spectrum of

users. As a road-accessible recreation area, there are numerous opportunities for solitude and

remote experiences difficult to find elsewhere.

Recreation in the planning area is enjoyed by resident and non-resident users representing

varied recreational interests. Activities of the user groups include, but are not limited to motor

coach sight-seeing tours, back country travel, day trips from Fairbanks, camping, berry picking,

photography, fishing, big game hunting, motorcycle tours, river trips, and day hikes.

Visitors to the region include Alaska residents, non-resident U.S. citizens, and travelers from

around the world. Tour companies catering to the needs of visitors find opportunities for niche

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Recreation and Visitor Services
Analysis of Management Situation 153

markets, from the traveling public coming from specific global regions to those with very specific

interests. The region provides many urban visitors with a sense of big country and solitude

not found in many parts of the world today.

The BLM’s Utility Corridor Management Framework Plan (the land use plan that preceded

the 1991 Utility Corridor RMP), was completed in September of 1979, and assumed no public

road access. The development and infrastructure in support of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields were

restricted to commercial access north of the Yukon River, and travel by the general public

was prohibited on the Dalton Highway. In 1986, the BLM began a new planning process for

recreational use of the region which culminated in a Recreation Area Management Plan – Dalton

Highway signed October 1991. This comprehensive plan provided guidance on how, and where

and where not to build developed recreation sites (BLM 1991b).

The highway was opened to limited use for tour buses from the Yukon Crossing to Milepost

211 in 1980. The June 1981 opening of the Dalton Highway to the general public to Disaster

Creek (Milepost 211) provided the first push of large-scale recreation use deep into the region

via ground transportation. Personal correspondence with Dan Wetzel of Nature Alaska Tours

provides insight into recreational use by travelers and hunters prior to the road being open to the

general public. Mr. Wetzel describes the long drive from Fairbanks to the Yukon River crossing,

pulling a horse trailer and gear to the river where they used a ferry system to cross over and

move northward with a pack train and horses. In 1994, the highway was opened to the public to

Deadhorse, furthering the opportunities for recreational use of the region. Early statistics state

that in 1983 an estimated average of 103 vehicles crossed the Yukon River bridge and by the next

year that number had increased by nearly 15 percent.

Subsistence fishing and hunting activities are managed by the Federal Subsistence Management

Program. This program is discussed in more detail in section 2.4.2 Subsistence. Subsistence use

is not covered in this section, but this does not imply that subsistence users do not also recreate on

these lands. People using the land for subsistence experience many of the same personal benefits

as people do from recreating on public lands. In addition, much of the land described in this

section provides for an entry point into vast and remote sections of Alaska that would otherwise

be out of reach for most travelers due to time, effort, and cost to reach these areas.

The vast majority of the planning area outside of the Utility Corridor and CAMA is composed

of roadless areas where BLM-managed lands meet the criteria for primitive recreation lands.

There are villages located along the waterways and populated with primarily Alaska Natives.

For generations, these lands have been used by local residents for traditional activities in what

is now known as a subsistence lifestyle. Most villages are located along the Koyukuk and

Yukon River drainages where waterways and winter trails provide transportation corridors

between communities. Access into the region is by commercial carrier to communities and air

taxi/transporter to reach remote destinations. Due to the remoteness, rivers in the Nulato Hills in

the far western section of the planning area, such as the Tagagwik (Tag), Box, Kateel and Gisasa,

are popular with commercial guides. Other areas with commercial hunting activity include the

Hogatza (Hog), Pah, Koyukuk, Melozitna, and Tozitna rivers.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Recreation and Visitor Services
Analysis of Management Situation 154

2.2.6.1. Recreation and Visitor Services

2.2.6.1.1. Current Level and Location of Use

In response to the growing demand for visitor services, The Arctic Interagency Visitors Center

(AIVC) was first established in 1989, in Coldfoot, and staffed by seasonal BLM, NPS, and

USFWS personnel and volunteers during the summer season. In 2004, a new visitor’s center was

opened under the management of BLM with the NPS and USFWS partners staffing the facility.

Interpretive programs, displays, backcountry information, and a book store in partnership with

Alaska Geographic are all part of the services provided at the AIVC. The primary season of use

of BLM-managed and developed sites is Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend;

a season of approximately 100 days. During this time period, seasonal volunteer(s) staff the

Yukon River Contact Station at milepost 56 from late morning to early evening. In recent years,

volunteers have also provided visitor information at the Arctic Circle Wayside at Milepost 115 on

an intermittent basis.

Travel to Alaska is costly and requires a planning effort on behalf of the traveler. The February

2013 publication Economic Impact of Alaska’s Visitor Industry 2011-12 estimated that the

industry generated $3.72 billion in spending during this time frame. Of this amount, 16 percent of

visitor spending takes place in the Interior with 1 percent in the Far North.

From May 2011 to April 2012, 1,823,600 out-of-state travelers came to Alaska. An estimated 48

percent of these visitors arrived by cruise ship, 47 percent by air, and 5 percent by highway or

ferry. The majority of visitors (85 percent) traveled between May and September.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Recreation and Visitor Services
Analysis of Management Situation 155

Of the $1.24 billion of labor income attributed to this industry, 19 percent of the estimated 37,800

tourism jobs were in Interior Alaska. Of the total number of tourism jobs, a mere 1 percent is

estimated to have been in the Far North. During the reporting period, Interior Alaska gained 800

jobs or a 13 percent increase over the previous reporting period.

In 2007, the University of Alaska Fairbanks conducted a Dalton Highway Benefits-Based

Management Survey with a sample size of 284 respondents (Stegmann et al. 2008). The following

table reflects the top five primary activities the respondents participated in.

Table 2.22. Recreation Activities on the Dalton Highway

Primary Activity Percentage of Respondents Participating

Driving and Sight-seeing 77%

Photography 66%

Watching Wildlife 58%

Walking 49%

Bird Watching 33%

Visitors who travel with commercial tour operators to the Dalton Highway have a limited number

of destinations the industry caters to. Of the sample surveyed, the primary destination is the

Arctic Circle with 91 percent of respondents identifying this site as an intended destination

and 30 percent as their primary destination.

Historical data collected by the BLM and partner agency personnel, at the Yukon River Contact

station and the AIVC reflect visitor trends and reliable information about recreation users of the

Dalton Highway. Visitor contacts at these locations, as well as at the Arctic Circle Wayside, have

enabled the BLM to develop a framework that characterizes the types, origin, destination, and

general interest of Dalton Highway travelers. Agency personnel collected the data through direct

contact with independent travelers and tour groups, as well as a review of visitor registration

books (Table 2.23).

Table 2.23. Visitor Contact Data for the Dalton Highway 2008–2012

Year AIVC

Independent

Travelers

AIVC Organized

Groups

AIVC Total Yukon Crossing Total Visitor

Contacts

2008 5,937 3,720 9,657 7,278 16,905

2009 5,807 2,824 8,631 5,017 12,987

2010 5,453 2,858 8,311 9,502 17,119

2011 6,297 3,337 9,634 9,432 17,610

2012 6,249 1,938 8,187 7,473 12,871

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Recreation and Visitor Services
Analysis of Management Situation 156

Figure 2.17. Dalton Visitor Contacts 2008–2012

In 2012, the BLM permitted 13 tour operators to operate in the Dalton Highway corridor.

Additional organized groups travel through the corridor with destinations into NPS and USFWS

managed lands as well as lands managed by the State of Alaska. These operators vary greatly in

types of trips they offer and the segment of the market they cater to. Motor touring trip lengths

vary from a driving/sight-seeing day trip from Fairbanks to the Arctic Circle to multi-day trips

from Fairbanks to Deadhorse. River trips and backcountry pack trips range from a few days to

multiple weeks traversing public lands managed by the Department of the Interior and the State of

Alaska. Access for more remote trips is conducted with the support of the air transporter/air taxi

industry flying from locations such as Fairbanks, Coldfoot, and Bettles.

A typical one-day driving trip from Fairbanks to the Arctic Circle Wayside is advertised at a rate

of $185 summer tour and $200 for a winter journey. A drive and fly Arctic Circle tour rate

where travelers fly either in or out of Coldfoot is advertised at $369 to $419 per person. A 3-day

fly and drive adventure to Deadhorse and return drive on the Dalton Highway is $1,289 for

single occupancy. A multi-day cultural/adventure trip can cost around $300 per day for a 10-day

trip. One of the larger tour companies advertises a Dalton fly and drive journey inclusive of a

professionally guided trip from Fairbanks to Coldfoot/Wiseman, meals and lodging, and a return

flight from Coldfoot back to Fairbanks. A segment of the industry that appears to be growing is

winter travel to the Arctic Circle with the potential for northern lights viewing.

Permittees pay for use of public lands for private gain by participating in the fee collection

program authorized by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA, December 8,

2004). Currently, there are eight fee sites that support the tour industry. Per direction from the

BLM Chief, Division of Recreation and Visitors Service, “fees collected are to be used for

recreation related facilities, services, and programs related directly to visitor enjoyment, visitor

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Recreation and Visitor Services
Analysis of Management Situation 157

access, and health and safety.” At present, fees are assessed at $0.50 (50 cents) per person, per

visit, per site with a 12-month reporting period ending December 31 each year. In recent years,

fees collected from this industry have accounted for over $10,000 per year with 100 percent of

these funds going back into the recreation program at the BLM field office level.

Table 2.24. Dalton Highway Waysides and Campgrounds

Location Milepost

(MP)

Description Remarks

MP 56 Yukon River Crossing a Contact Station with summer season staffing, outhouses,

boat launch (State facilities), interpretive panels,

picnic tables hiking trail with river overlook, BLM

realty-permitted hotel/restaurant/work camp/fuel (summer

season only)

MP 60 5 mile campground Artisan spring, rustic campground, picnic tables, fire

rings, interpretive panels/kiosk, outhouse, dump station.

Restaurant/hotel nearby on private lands (summer season

only)

MP 86 Yukon Flats Overlook USFWS Interpretive panels

MP 98 Finger Mountain a Outhouses, interpretive trail, hiking, 360–degree panoramic

scenic views

MP 115 Arctic Circle Wayside a and

Campground

Arctic Circle sign, picnic tables, fire rings, outhouses, trails,

camping

MP 132 Gobblers Knob Interpretive panels, view of Jack White Mountains, hiking,

outhouse

MP 144 Jim River Interpretive panels, popular pull out for fishing, picnicking,

camping

MP 150 Grayling Lake a Interpretive panels, outhouse, boat access, float plane

access, wildlife viewing

MP 156 South Fork of the Koyukuk a Interpretive panels, outhouse, fishing, scenic view of

mountains

MP 175 Arctic Interagency Visitors Center aColdfoot (summer only)

AIVC, interpretive trails, seasonal interpretive programs,

living history exhibits, river access, year-round truck stop

with fuel/food/lodging, Coldfoot airport

MP 180 Marion Creek Campground Summer season only, 27 sites, potable water, volunteer

staffed, hiking trails, fee site

MP 189 Wiseman Interpretive panels, locally lead visitor programs, guest

houses, river access

MP 204 Sukakpak Mountain Wayside a Interpretive signs, outhouse, river access

MP 235 Farthest North Spruce Tree a Interpretive panels, outhouses, large parking area

MP 275 Galbraith Lake Campground Interpretive panels/kiosk, outhouse, rustic campground,

picnic tables, fishing, hiking, bear-proof food storage

MP 348 Sag River Overlook (on State

land)

Interpretive panels and view of Sag River watershed

MP 355 Last Chance Wayside Interpretive panels, outhouse, informal camping, views of

the Philip Smith Mountains

aDalton Highway Waysides – designated fee sites for Special Recreation Permit Holders

The number 1 destination for commercial and independent travelers on the Dalton Highway is the

Arctic Circle Wayside. At latitude 66 degrees 33 minutes north, this site is where the sun doesn’t

set on the summer solstice or rise at the winter solstice. The site is visited throughout the year with

commercial tours available in all 12 months. This developed area is located just north of Milepost

115 and is 59 miles north of the Yukon River, and approximately a 4-hour drive from Fairbanks

with favorable road conditions. Day trips with tour companies can last upwards of 12 hours due

to stops at popular Dalton waysides as well as photography and game watching opportunities.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Recreation and Visitor Services
Analysis of Management Situation 158

Camping is a popular activity with independent travelers and small organized groups inclusive

of those holding Special Recreation Permits. Currently, Marion Creek Campground is the only

fee site. A notice has been drafted to add the Five Mile, Arctic Circle, and Galbraith Lake

Campgrounds to the fee schedule. Fees collected at these sites through the BLM Recreation

Enhancement Act directly support recreation infrastructure and maintenance of sites.

Table 2.25. Dalton Highway Campgrounds

Name Number of

Sites

Location Amenities Attractions

Five Mile

Campground

undeveloped MP 60, 4 miles north

of Yukon River

potable water, dump

station, outhouse, picnic

tables, fire rings

Yukon River and food

service nearby

Arctic Circle

Campground

undeveloped MP 115, on hill above

Arctic Circle Wayside

No Water, outhouse,

picnic tables, fire rings

Arctic Circle, pipeline,

hiking

Marion Creek

Campground

27 MP 180, 5 miles north

of Coldfoot

potable water, dump

station, outhouse, picnic

tables, fire rings, host on

site

Hiking, fishing, visitors

center in Coldfoot

Galbraith Lake

Campground

undeveloped MP 275, 2.5 miles

off of highway near

airstrip

No potable water (creek

nearby), outhouse, trash

containers, bear proof

food storage

Hiking, fishing, wildlife

viewing, access to

backcountry, bow hunting,

near airstrip

Hunting

As reported in the Economic Impact of Alaska’s Visitor Industry 2011-12, non-resident hunters

spent $17.8 million on licenses and tags in calendar year 2011. In 2013, the gross revenue from all

Hunt/Sport Fish & Game License and Tag was $24.9 million for the state of Alaska. In addition,

the industry pumps additional money into the Alaska economy each year through the purchase

supplies, equipment, and services associated with hunting and fishing.

Permitted hunting activity in the Utility Corridor Subunit is represented by an average of six

guides holding 2930 Special Recreation Permits from 2008 to 2012. These permits are typically

issued for a duration of one to five years and are at the discretion of the BLM Authorized Officer.

The game pursued is included and it is recognized that a client may hunt more than one species.

No caribou harvest data for Units 24A and 25A are available because residents of these units

north of the Yukon River are not required to register for or report harvest of caribou. Figure 2.18

shows hunters who do not reside north of the Yukon River.

Figure 2.18 shows federal and state hunting data. Although many of these hunts do not occur on

BLM-managed lands, the users do benefit from the recreation infrastructure of the Dalton Highway

corridor. Waysides, campgrounds, the Arctic Interagency Visitors Center, and BLM-published

hard copy and electronic information all provide support for resident and non-resident hunters.

Access for many hunters is by driving north on the highway where they are moved farther afield

by the air taxi/air transporter industry. Popular air travel jumping-off spots from the highway

include Grayling Lake, Coldfoot, Galbraith Lake airstrip, and Happy Valley airstrip.

The total number of hunters in the Game Management Units adjacent to the Dalton Highway and

on BLM—managed lands is represented in Figure 2.18. Guides can be permitted by both the

BLM and the State of Alaska, which allows them to hunt throughout a Guide Use Area (a sub-unit

of a Game Management Area) per their permit from each agency.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Recreation and Visitor Services
Analysis of Management Situation 159

Figure 2.18. Number of Hunters in Units 24A and 25A, Shown by Species Hunted

BLM-managed infrastructure in the Dalton Highway corridor supports hunts on non-BLM lands.

For example, between 2001 and 2009, an average of 989 commercially supported hunters flew

into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The majority of these hunters drove from Fairbanks

and points south to Happy Valley near milepost 334 which is 34 miles north of BLM-managed

lands. Getting to Happy Valley to meet an air taxi requires travelling 244 miles of the Dalton

Highway with BLM-managed facilities.

2.2.6.1.2. Key Areas or Areas of High Potential

The Dalton Highway corridor and adjacent lands are areas with high potential for continued

and expanded recreation use. As road conditions improve and the addition of private sector

infrastructure continues, so will increased access to BLM-managed lands. Social media sites

depicting the Dalton as the last great American road trip only adds to the interest in the region.

The Arctic Circle as a travel destination continues on an upward trend as reflected in data

collected in recent surveys by BLM recreation staff.

The remoteness and cost to get to other regions in the planning area limit the potential for growth

of recreation use. This same remoteness provides those who do access these lands an opportunity

for solitude seldom found elsewhere on public lands.

2.2.6.1.3. Forecast or Anticipated Demand

Many factors influence future demand for recreational use in the planning area. The economic

downturn of the early 2000s resulted in decreased visits to BLM—managed lands by general

recreationists and those pursuing more specific activities like big game hunting. The general

rule of travel from non-Alaska residents is that trips are planned two years or more in advance,

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Recreation and Visitor Services
Analysis of Management Situation 160

therefore, there is often an echo effect for visitors to Interior Alaska that may not show up for one

to two years after an economic event.

The advent of reality TV shows on major cable networks has provided a level of exposure to

Alaska not seen before. Anecdotal information collected by visitor services staff suggest that

many travelers were inspired to travel to destinations like the Dalton Highway after watching TV

programs about the region. Visitor services staff recently collected data showing an incremental

increase in independent visitors traveling the Dalton Highway. This can be in part attributed to

popular TV shows depicting travel on the highway as well as a plethora of travel blogs, websites,

and countless YouTube videos sharing information about adventures in the far north.

As mentioned early in this section, the loss of motor coach travel on the Dalton Highway seems

to be long-term in nature. The limited lodging opportunities in support of large tour groups is

likely only one factor in the decline of this market traveling the Dalton Highway. There are

no emergency response facilities outside of Fairbanks that could respond to an incident with a

motor coach. Considering upwards of 60 travelers could be involved in an incident, it is unlikely

many travel companies in this market segment are prepared to expose their business to this kind

of catastrophic exposure.

The use of the area by commercially guided hunters is anticipated to remain steady if not decrease

over the next five years. Conflicts within the commercial hunting community have led to BLM

management designating hunt areas within Guide Use Areas, something not done to this level

anywhere else within the planning area. Concerns for the subsistence community have also been

addressed due to the potential impacts a select number of guides imposed on sheep populations

in a specific area. Special Recreation Permits for commercial hunting guide permits, as with all

Special Recreation Permits, are at the discretion of the Authorized Officer; if conflicts continue, it

is likely there will be a decrease in Special Recreation Permits for commercial guides.

A review of sheep hunting trends in the area north of Wiseman to the Brooks Range shows a

steady and continued increase of non-guided Alaska resident hunters. Very few locations in the

state provide an opportunity to drive to prime sheep hunting grounds. Hunters can hike in to hunt

sheep at their own pace. Many who drive the highway to hunt are also using air taxi services to

reach more remote areas. The use of float planes in support of big game is relatively new and is

anticipated to provide services to an ever-growing demand for hunts farther off the highway.

Lisa Shon Jodwalis, BLM Park Ranger-Interpretation, noted that while developing information

for the Drift Mine display for the Arctic Interagency Visitors Center “Data kept at the Arctic

Interagency Visitor Center show that 60 percent of visitors are independent travelers while 40

percent are on guided tours. About 5 percent of visitors are with educational groups such as

Scouts, Elderhostel, college field trips, or affiliated with the University of Alaska’s Toolik Field

Station, 110 miles to the north ... The more recent surveys show that our visitors are almost all

adults in the prime of their lives (ages 20 to 60). Over 75 percent of visitors were primarily

interested in sight-seeing, but 25 to 32 percent were also interested in wildlife and bird viewing,

hiking, camping, and education/interpretation. Children under age 13 make up only 10 percent of

visitors. The 2007 Benefits-Based study also found that over 50 percent of Dalton travelers had

some college education and about 35 percent had attended graduate school."

Day trips to the Arctic Circle appear to be increasing and tour companies in Fairbanks advertise

daily trips to this destination during the summer peak season. As a whole, the tour industry

appears to be increasing their promotion and sales of trips to the Arctic Circle.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Recreation and Visitor Services
Analysis of Management Situation 161

Winter travel on the Dalton Highway has not been measured specifically, but the issuing of recent

Special Recreation Permits to companies communicating they are conducting winter trips is

noted. Additional rest stations and increased access to popular waysides are needed as the travel

industry moves more visitors into winter season.

Additional trends include the motorcycle travel segment of the industry. Reports of commercially

supported rides, charity rides, and independent rides have all been noted by visitor services staff

at the Yukon Crossing, Arctic Circle, and the AIVC. Their interest in Dalton Highway travel may

require additional infrastructure at camp grounds to support their mode of transportation.

2.2.6.2. Environmental Education and Interpretation

2.2.6.2.1. Current Level and Location

Environmental education and interpretation represent an important component of the visitor

experience on the Dalton Highway corridor. The AIVC provides interpretive talks and walks,

trails and exhibits, and interpretive films. Discovery boxes and Junior Ranger programs are

available for families traveling with children. Production of an exterior Drift Mining interpretive

exhibit located near the AIVC is currently underway. Limited displays, guided hikes, and

orientations are delivered by volunteer(s) at the Yukon Crossing Visitor Contact Station. Wayside

panels (Table 2.24) offer solitary and social interpretive opportunities. Interpretive programmatic

and panel content includes local flora and fauna, culture, history, safety, and stewardship.

Due to limited facilities and development restrictions, there are no ranger-led interpretive or

environmental education programs offered at the Arctic Circle wayside. There are currently no

formal environmental education programs at the AIVC or other BLM sites on the Dalton Highway.

On average, 100 interpretive talks are delivered each season at the AIVC. The loss of large

motor coach visitation in 2012 resulted in a marked decrease in evening interpretive program

attendance. Continued low attendance at the AIVC could precipitate changes to the current

evening program schedule.

Table 2.26. Number of Attendees at Interpretive Programs at AIVC

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

# of

Attendees

2,078 2,365 2,852 2,811 2,068 1,834 2,097 1,079 1,059

Commercial tourism operators and guided education groups provide additional interpretive and

educational services for their respective clients in the Dalton Highway region.

2.2.6.2.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand

Demand for interpretive programs and safety/resource information will coincide with the

anticipated increase in visitation cited under section 2.2.6.1 Recreation and Visitor Services.

In addition to visitor expectations for quality interpretive experiences, formal and informal

interpretive programming delivers important resource stewardship and visitor conduct messages

that support resource protection and visitor safety.

Observations by on-site campground hosts show that campers at the Marion Creek Campground

can be reluctant to travel 5 miles to the AIVC for evening interpretive programs. In response,

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Recreation and Visitor Services
Analysis of Management Situation 162

providing facilities and conducting interpretive programs at the campground is an objective in

the near future.

Management goals and objectives for interpretive and education services, including expanded

partnerships, are outlined in the BLM Alaska Environmental Education/Interpretation/Youth

Outreach strategy initiated in 2013. The AIVC Interpretive Plan cites the need for a long-range

interpretive plan for the entire region.

2.2.6.2.3. Key Areas or Areas of High Potential

The Yukon Crossing Visitor Contact Station is a 200-square-foot building adjacent to the Yukon

River and located at Milepost 56 on the Dalton Highway. Visitation at this site is nearly equal

to visitation at the 6,227-square-foot visitor center in Coldfoot. Expanded facilities at Yukon

Crossing would provide additional interpretive and educational opportunities for travelers to

this site.

The Arctic Circle Wayside at Milepost 115 represents an area of high potential for interpretive

and education services. Fifty days of monitoring in 2013, by roving rangers, reflected an average

of 107 visitor contacts per day.

2.2.7. Travel Management

Travel and transportation are an integral part of virtually every activity that occurs on

BLM-managed public lands: recreation, wildlife management, commodity resource management,

subsistence, inter-village travel, access to private inholdings, maintenance of permitted sites

(such as communication sites), and management and monitoring of public lands. This section

addresses public travel and access.

Comprehensive trails and travel management is the proactive management of public access,

natural resources, and regulatory needs to ensure that all aspects of road, primitive road, and trail

system planning and management are considered. This includes resource management, road and

trail design, maintenance, and recreation and non-recreational uses of the roads and trails. Travel

activities in this context incorporate access needs and the effects of all forms of travel, both

motorized and non-motorized. Comprehensive trails and travel planning means providing clear

specific direction on the proper levels of land and water access for all modes of travel. Travel

management objectives serve as the foundation for appropriate travel and access prescriptions.

While many communities in the planning area have access provided by established roads and

highways, most of the public lands within the planning area are located in rural and remote

areas away from developed communities and settlements. The Parks, Richardson, Elliott and

Dalton Highways border or cross through BLM-managed lands in some areas, but the majority

of the planning area is not accessible by road. The primary means of access to these public

lands is typically a combination of travel by foot, motorboat, off-highway vehicle, snowmobile,

and aircraft.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Travel Management
Analysis of Management Situation 163

2.2.7.1. Current Level and Location of Use

Dalton Highway

Road access to BLM-managed lands in the Dalton Highway area is primarily from the State

maintained Dalton Highway. The highway right-of-way bisects the BLM-managed Utility

Corridor, which comprises approximately 2.1 million acres, includes sections of the Trans-Alaska

Pipeline System, and is the only road access to the Arctic Ocean in Alaska and the United States.

The Utility Corridor begins at the Yukon River and ends in the north near Slope Mountain

at milepost 300.

Motorized travel in the Dalton Highway corridor can be divided into several categories —

personal vehicles and commercial vehicles traveling the State owned Dalton Highway, and

permitted or authorized use. Most numerous are the commercial vehicles that use the Dalton

Highway year-round to transport personnel, goods and cargo to the oil drilling operations near

the community of Deadhorse on the North Slope. In the summer, recreational travelers arrive

to the area by self-contained vehicles such as passenger vehicles, motor homes, and vehicles

pulling trailers, and are drawn to the area by its vast array of recreational opportunities including

camping, fishing, hiking, photography, wildlife viewing, and the fall big game hunting season.

Commercial tour companies use small vans and shuttle bus vehicles to large tour buses to bring

passengers from Fairbanks north to travel the Dalton Highway to Coldfoot overnight, and then

continue on to Deadhorse, where passengers are flown back to Fairbanks. Recreational and tour

bus travelers are typically present from May through mid-September. It is during this time that

visitor use is greatest at each of the BLM-managed waysides and campgrounds along the Dalton

Highway. Some motorboat use occurs on the rivers within the subunit, especially at Prospect

Creek which has a boat put-in.

Alaska Statute sec. 19.40.210 prohibits the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) on land

within 5 miles of the right-of-way of the Dalton Highway north of the Yukon River, except

for persons who hold a mining claim near the highway and who must use land within 5 miles

of the right-of-way to gain access to the mining claim. This means that the only legal use of

OHVs is by miners. However, miners using these vehicles may not carry game, hunters, or their

gear. Access to mining claims and for rights-of-way is authorized through permits. The use of

snowmobiles is limited to the residents of Wiseman for subsistence activities, and to snowmobiles

traveling from outside the highway corridor and crossing to the opposite side of the corridor, not

for snowmobiles use beginning or ending within the corridor.

For those travelers seeking non-motorized forms of transportation, the Dalton Highway corridor

provides a variety of scenic settings. There are several BLM-developed trails at waysides,

campgrounds, and the Arctic Interagency Visitor Center (AIVC) that offer interpretation displays

and hiking opportunities. Long-distance cycling is a popular activity with some cyclists

attempting to ride from the Arctic Ocean to the southern tip of South America, although most

cyclists are doing shorter trips along the highway. Float boating activities — including river

boating, rafting, kayaking, and canoeing — may all be enjoyed on rivers crossing the Dalton

Highway Utility Corridor. In the winter, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and dog sledding are

the primary non-motorized forms of travel.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Travel Management
Analysis of Management Situation 164

Central Arctic Management Area

The Central Arctic Management Area (CAMA) WSA is a Wilderness Study Area and a

Conservation System Unit under ANILCA; as such, ANILCA provides for the use of snowmobiles

(during periods of adequate snow cover, or frozen river conditions), motorboats, airplanes, and

non-motorized surface transportation methods within the area. Due to the remoteness of the area,

as well as the features of topography, soils, vegetation, and permafrost, there are few defined

trails of any kind. Travel is generally conducted by motorized watercraft along rivers during the

summer and by snowmobile in the winter. There are no ANCSA section 17(b) easements in this

area. Fixed-wing and helicopter access is unrestricted and small fixed-wing aircraft use ridgelines

and gravel bars to access backcountry areas. OHV use and foot travel are also unrestricted. There

is no known horse or bicycle travel in the area.

Dispersed Use

The majority of the planning area is remote and receives relatively low recreational motorized use.

Most of the access and travel needs are from remote village communities for access to subsistence

camps and resources, Native allotments, and inter-village travel. Access to public lands from

most villages is provided by section 17(b) easements reserved on or across lands conveyed to

Native corporations under the ANCSA. To date, approximately 135 ANCSA 17(b) easements

have been reserved within the planning area. More will be added as remaining entitlements are

conveyed to village corporations and the Doyon Regional Corporation. In some cases, although

the easement is reserved on paper, the route may not be passable on the ground.

In the summer, villages are accessed by commercial or chartered airplanes. Barges transport

goods and cargo to river-accessible communities. Riverboats are used extensively to travel

from the villages to subsistence areas and allotments. OHV use in the form of four-wheelers

frequently occurs on Native lands adjacent to the villages. The mining operation at Hogatza

Landing is accessed by aircraft and a maintained access road. The Gates of the Arctic National

Park administrative offices are in Bettles, which also serves as the primary access point for

visitors flying into the park (outside the planning area). Authorized hunting guides use aircraft to

access hunting areas.

In the winter, use changes to snowmobiles for travel between villages and for subsistence

activities. Winter trails connect villages and provide access to allotments and subsistence areas.

The Iditarod National Historic Trail connects several village communities, as well as the frozen

Yukon River. Other rivers also serve as a winter trails between villages. The community of

Bettles uses a winter snow road as access for visitors that want to view the northern lights and to

bring in cargo and supplies via the Dalton Highway.

2.2.7.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand

Overall, the Dalton Highway will continue to be a destination for recreational travelers and

commercial users of the area. Since the Dalton Highway provides the only road access to the

North Slope and many unique areas found only in Alaska, it is perceived that the demand for

public access and recreational activities will continue to grow in the future. In addition to

anticipated increases in road travel, the intensification of non-motorized modes of travel including

recreational boating, cycling, and hiking are also predicted. As gas prices fluctuate and the

“baby boomer” generation ages, commercial bus tours have become increasingly prominent

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Travel Management
Analysis of Management Situation 165

forms of recreational travel in the area, as visitors look for more cost-effective and hassle-free

way to recreate.

Subsistence use is probably the most prominent activity related to travel management in the area.

With advances in recreational vehicle technology, areas near villages and rivers could experience

an increased level of land use and activity, particularly in participation related to OHV use and

access for subsistence use. However, this increase will most likely be limited due to the features

of topography, soils, vegetation, permafrost, lack of any defined trails, lack of road access, and

overall remoteness of the area.

In addition to possible increases in OHV use related to subsistence, the State of Alaska is

proposing to extend the Elliott Highway from Manley Hot Springs to the Yukon River near

Tanana. This will provide road access to mining operations and to the lower Yukon River

communities. In addition, the State of Alaska has proposed a road from the Dalton Highway to

the Ambler Mining District. The proposed route follows the existing winter road to Bettles and

across State and NPS lands to mining operations near the villages of Kobuk, Shungnak, and

Ambler, which are located outside the planning area. The primary use will be for mining access

and transportation to village communities. If constructed, there is potential to extend the road

to Nome and the Seward Peninsula. If the road is open to the public, there will be a dramatic

increase in the amount of use of the area and an increased demand for access routes.

2.2.7.3. Key Areas or Areas of High Potential

The Dalton Highway provides the only road access for the typical out-of-state road traveler

visiting the planning area. As a result, these developed sites have become destinations for road

travelers and tour companies:

● Yukon River Crossing Contact Station

● Arctic Circle Wayside and Campground

● The Arctic Interagency Visitor Center, and the Marion Creek Campground near Coldfoot,

Alaska

● Atigun Pass (Continental Divide)

● Galbraith Lake Campground

● Toolik Lake Research Station

The planning area contains numerous Areas of Environmental Concern, Research Natural Areas

and the Lake Todatonten Special Management Area. These areas, managed to protect their unique

environmental features or habitat. The Toolik Lake Field Station is operated by the University of

Alaska under a BLM permit for scientific research of the arctic environment.

The BLM-managed Iditarod National Historic Trail is used to connect several village communities

within the planning area, as well as the route for several competitive winter race events. The Nigu

River portion of the CAMA WSA has potential to become a designated Wilderness Area if

acted on by Congress.

Due to the features of topography, soils, vegetation, permafrost, and remoteness of the area, key

features and areas of high potential are minimal. Travel is generally by motorized watercraft

along rivers during the summer and by snowmobile travel in the winter. Therefore, waterways

and winter trails are conceivably the areas that could be considered to be key or to possess high

potential.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Travel Management
Analysis of Management Situation 166

The State of Alaska has proposed building a pioneer road from Manley Hot Springs to Tanana,

and from the Dalton Highway to Ambler. If constructed, demand for public access to those remote

areas would likely increase. Until then, mining and subsistence use will most likely remain the

most prominent activities related to travel management in the area.

2.2.8. Utility Corridor

In December 1971, Public Land Order 5150 designated lands from Prudhoe Bay on the north

coast of Alaska to Valdez in the south for a Utility Corridor, clearing the way for construction of

the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. The lands so designated were withdrawn from all forms of

appropriation under the public land laws except for location of metalliferous minerals under the

mining laws (30 U.S.C. 1201 ch. 2). The inner corridor was further closed to all mineral entry.

The lands were also withdrawn from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, from selection by the

State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act (72 Stat. 339), and from selection by any Native

group or village or regional corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Since that time, amendments to PLO 5150 have opened much of the originally designated land

for selection by the State of Alaska and Native groups qualifying under ANCSA, and the lands

have been conveyed. That portion of the Utility Corridor remaining under BLM management

(approximately 2.1 million acres) lies on either side of the Dalton Highway, from the Yukon

River north to approximately mile 300. The portion of the Inner corridor remaining under BLM

management includes about 750,000 acres.

The Utility Corridor is an essential component of the national domestic oil and gas transportation

system. It provides a route to transport a significant portion of the nation’s petroleum; the present

and future importance of access to these resources cannot be overstated.

2.2.8.1. Current Level and Location of Use

Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was completed in June 1977. Ancillary to

the pipeline are 11 pump stations, 2 of which are within the BLM-managed Utility Corridor

described above, as are 129 pipeline access roads. There is also a fuel gas line right-of-way, which

originates from Pump Station One and extends as far south as Pump Station Four, serving the fuel

needs of those pump stations on the north side of the Brooks Range.

GCI Fiber Communication Company Inc. was granted a right-of-way in 1996 from Pump Station

One in the Prudhoe oil fields along the length of the Trans—Alaskan Pipeline System all the way

to Valdez, providing communication services to communities along the Utility Corridor as well as

pipeline related facilities.

2.2.8.2. Forecast or Anticipated Demand

Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System production peaked in the late 1980s at 2.2 million barrels per day,

but has been declining since that time at a rate of 5 to 6 percent per year. Throughput is currently

less than one-third of capacity, and continues to decline.

However, as North Slope oil production decreases, there is increasing interest in the natural

gas available from the same North Slope oil fields. In April 2010, the State of Alaska enacted

legislation authorizing the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to create a subsidiary corporation

named the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, “for the purpose of planning, constructing,

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Utility Corridor
Analysis of Management Situation 167

and financing in-state natural gas pipeline projects or for the purpose of aiding in the planning,

construction, and financing of in-state natural gas pipeline projects.” The 2010 Act also created

the Joint In-State Gasline Development Team within the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation

and directed this team to produce a project plan for developing an in-state natural gas pipeline.

The resulting project plan, developed with the assistance of the Alaska Gasline Development

Corporation is the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline project, a 737-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter lean

gas pipeline intended to run roughly parallel to the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System along the

Dalton Highway corridor, and then continuing south. At current projections, pipeline construction

for the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline is anticipated to begin in 2016.

Besides the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline project, in the last six years there have also been three

applications from the private sector seeking rights-of-way for natural gas pipelines through the

Utility Corridor. Considering the high level of product demand; interest from both the State of

Alaska and private industry; and exploratory field work currently being performed, it can be

projected that construction will likely begin on a gas pipeline within the Utility Corridor in

the next several years.

The BLM is currently processing an application to authorize AT&T a right-of-way for installation

of a fiber optic transmission line as far north as Coldfoot. Although oil production and throughput

in the TAPS line may be waning, demand for the Utility Corridor is not waning or diminishing,

but simply shifting focus.

The State of Alaska has top-filed a large portion of the Utility Corridor and is interested in

obtaining title to some of these lands. In a letter to Governor Parnell dated June 22, 2012, the

Secretary of the Interior indicated that BLM would consider modifications to PLO 5150 through

the Central Yukon planning process. If the record of decision for the final RMP recommends

modification of PLO 5150 to allow state-selection within portions of the corridor and the Secretary

follows up with a modification to the PLO, portions of the corridor could become State land.

2.3. Special Designations

This section addresses special designations including both BLM designations such as Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern and congressional designations such as wild and scenic rivers

or wilderness study areas.

2.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

An Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designation highlights an area where

special management attention is needed to protect important resources or to protect human

life and safety from natural hazards. ACECs must meet the relevance and importance criteria

in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b) and must require special management to: protect the area and prevent

irreparable damage to resources or natural systems; or protect life and promote safety in areas

where natural hazards exist.

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are established and maintained for 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 (43 CFR 8223).

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Special Designations
Analysis of Management Situation 168

Section 202 (c)(3) of FLPMA mandates that the BLM give priority to the designation and

protection of ACECs in the development and revision of land use plans. Nominations for

ACECs are accepted during the public scoping period. Additionally, the BLM specifically

requested ACEC nominations from May 1 through August 29, 2014. This nomination period

was announced through a press release, a mailing to the Central Yukon RMP mailing list, and

on the Central Yukon RMP webpage. Section 2.3.1.3 Potential Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern, lists areas nominated for consideration as ACECs or RNAs by both the public and

BLM resource specialists.

2.3.1.1. Existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

BLM will review all existing ACECs listed in Table 2.27 during the planning process. The

original designation status is unclear for some and others have experienced a change in resource

status or lands status since designation. For example, some ACECs have been partially conveyed

to either the State or a Native corporation. Several ACECs were designated to protect habitat

for the federally listed peregrine falcon, which has since been delisted. Some ACECs may not

encompass the values for which they were designated such as crucial spawning habitat. Three

ACECs designated in the Utility Corridor RMP: Slope Mountain, Ivishak River, and Sagwon

Bluffs, no longer exist because the lands have been conveyed to the State.

The North River ACEC falls within the Bering Sea-Western Interior (BSWI) Planning Area

and will be covered by that RMP currently being developed by the Anchorage Field Office.

Additionally, the field office boundaries were changed in 2014, and the Nulato Hills Subunit will

become part of the BSWI Planning Area. Existing ACECs in this subunit will be reviewed

as part of the BSWI planning effort. As will any new nominations or proposed expansions to

existing ACECs in the Nulato Hills Subunit.

Table 2.27. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in the Central Yukon Planning Area

Land Use

Plan

ACEC Name BLM

Acres

Values Comments

Central

Yukon

Dulbi-Kaiyuh

Mountains

Subunit ACEC

54,250 Crucial peregrine

falcon habitat

1994 Arctic peregrine falcon delisted.

1999 American peregrine falcon delisted.

Portions of ACEC are State-selected.

Central

Yukon

Galena Mountain

ACEC

19,360 Crucial peregrine

falcon habitat;

caribou calving

grounds

1994 Arctic peregrine falcon delisted.

1999 American peregrine falcon delisted.

West section of ACEC is State-selected.

Galena Mountain ACEC Management

Plan developed in 1986.

Central

Yukon

Gisasa River

ACECa

278,000 Salmon spawning

habitat

Unencumbered BLM lands. No Habitat

Management Plan. Index weir for Yukon

River salmon management. Scoping

comments from refuge staff Koyukuk,

keeping this ACEC important for refuge

management.

Central

Yukon

Hogatza River

Tributaries ACEC

5,225 Salmon spawning

habitat

1994 Habitat Management Plan. Partially

transferred to State and Doyon Ltd.

Consider boundary adjustments. Ongoing

mining. Instream flow reservation.

Proposed 300 foot setback withdrawal

but not implemented. Clear Creek chum

salmon stock on BLM Watch List.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 169

Land Use

Plan

ACEC Name BLM

Acres

Values Comments

Central

Yukon

Indian River

ACEC

157,900 Chinook and

chum salmon

spawning habitat

Mostly unencumbered BLM lands. 1995

Habitat Management Plan developed.

Consider boundary adjustments.

Downstream mixed ownership. Proposed

withdrawal not implemented.

Central

Yukon

Inglutalik River

(CY) ACECa

71,700b Salmon spawning

habitat

Unencumbered BLM lands. ACEC

Extends into the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula

Planning Area.

Central

Yukon

Kateel River

ACECa

568,100b Salmon spawning

habitat

Unencumbered BLM lands. Proposed 300

foot mineral withdrawal not implemented.

Central

Yukon

Nulato Hills (CY)

ACECa

40,700c Crucial peregrine

falcon habitat

1994 Arctic peregrine falcon delisted.

1999 American peregrine falcon delisted.

Mostly unencumbered BLM lands. Has

same name as caribou ACEC in the

Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area,

but not related.

Central

Yukon

Shaktoolik River

(CY) ACECa

193,300b Salmon spawning

habitat

ACEC extends into the Kobuk-Seward

Peninsula Planning Area. Unencumbered

BLM lands.

Central

Yukon RMP

Sulukna River

ACEC

24,600 Salmon and

sheefish (inconnu)

spawning habitat

One of five known spawning habitats for

inconnu in the Yukon River basin. East

half is State-selected. Consider boundary

adjustment. Proposed 300 foot withdrawal

not implemented.

Central

Yukon

Tozitna River

ACEC

843,000 Salmon spawning

habitat

Large parts are State-selected. ACEC

Management Plan has been developed.

Application for instream flow reservation.

State has given filing date. Proposed 300

foot withdrawal not implemented.

Central

Yukon

Tozitna Subunit

North ACEC

129,000 Crucial caribou

calving habitat

All except 8 square miles are

State-selected. Tozitna North and

South ACEC Management Plan developed

in 1988.

Central

Yukon

Tozitna Subunit

South ACEC

62,600 Crucial caribou

calving habitat

Unencumbered BLM lands. Tozitna

North and South ACEC Management Plan

developed in 1988.

Central

Yukon

Ungalik River

(CY) ACECa

112,700b Salmon spawning

habitat

Unencumbered BLM lands. Extends into

the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning

Area.

Utility

Corridor

Galbraith Lake

ACEC

53,900 Cultural, rare or

sensitive plants,

scenic values, and

lambing areas

The entire ACEC is top-filed by the State

with high selection priority. PLO 5150

needs to be modified for selection to

attach. Current management allows for

mineral materials disposal. Gravel pit

affects scenic value.

Utility

Corridor

Jim River ACEC 202,700 Fishery,

recreation,

cultural

Large portions of ACEC are State-selected.

Current management allows for mineral

materials disposal. Consider boundary

change.

Utility

Corridor

Kanuti Hot

Springs ACEC

43 Hot spring system All State-selected. PLO 399 applies.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 170

Land Use

Plan

ACEC Name BLM

Acres

Values Comments

Utility

Corridor

Nigu-Iteriak

ACEC

40,200 Geology, cultural

resources

PL 104–333 transferred a portion of the

Nigu ACEC to Noatak National Preserve.

Part of Iteriak ACEC has been tentatively

approved for conveyance to State of

Alaska. The Mesa Site withdrawal is in

Iteriak ACEC.

Utility

Corridor

Nugget Creek

ACEC

3,300 Dall sheep

lambing areas,

mineral lick

Partially top-filed by the State. Current

management allows for mineral materials

disposal.

Utility

Corridor

Poss Mountain

ACEC

8,700 Dall sheep

lambing areas,

mineral lick

Unencumbered BLM lands. Consider

expanding to include salt lick on Gold

Creek.

Utility

Corridor

Snowden

Mountain ACEC

29,700 Dall sheep

lambing areas,

mineral lick

Unencumbered BLM lands. Consider

expanding to east around Mathews Creek

to include additional habitat. Evaluate

geology and scenic values.

Utility

Corridor

Sukakpak

Mountain ACEC

3,500 Scenic, geology Unencumbered BLM lands. Evaluate rare

plant as an additional relevant value.

Utility

Corridor

West Fork Atigun

River ACEC

9,160 Dall sheep

lambing areas,

mineral lick

Partially State-selected. Evaluate geology

and scenic quality as additional relevant

values.

aNulato Hills Subunit

bWithin the Bering Sea-Western Interior Planning Area

cPortion within the Central Yukon Planning Area

2.3.1.2. Existing Research Natural Areas

The planning area contains nine ACECs that are also designated as Research Natural Areas

(RNAs). Consistent with current policy, RNAs are designated as a type of ACEC using the ACEC

designation process (H-1601-1, Appendix C and BLM Manual 1613).

Table 2.28. Research Natural Areas in the Central Yukon Planning Area

Land Use

Plan

RNA Name Acres Values Comments

Central

Yukon

Arms Lake RNA 10,590 Sand dune complex and

associated vegetation and

limnologic characteristics

Unencumbered BLM lands.

Central

Yukon

Box River

Treeline RNAa

13,590 Vegetation complex

representing western

treeline limit in alaska.

Permafrost features.

Unencumbered BLM lands. Tributary

to Kateel River.

Central

Yukon

Ishtalitna Creek

Hot Springs

RNA

1,044 Low gradient hot springs

system.

Low priority State-selections. PLO 399

applies. Includes part of Ishtalitna Creek

to allow for water quality comparisons.

Central

Yukon

South

Todatonten

Summit RNA

655 Open system pingos Low priority State-selections. Lake

Todatonten Special Management Area

and the Lake Todatonten Pingos and

Summit RNAs geographically close to

one another, but do not overlap.

Central

Yukon

Spooky Valley

RNA

10,100 Geologic, physiographic,

vegetation, and scenic

Low priority State-selections. Anecdotal

evidence of Alaska Native spiritual

values.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 171

Land Use

Plan

RNA Name Acres Values Comments

Central

Yukon

Redlands Lake

RNA

3,829 Remnant lake and sand

dune complex

Redlands lake, last remnant of sand

dune lake. Unencumbered BLM lands.

PLO 5180 applies.

Central

Yukon

McQuesten

Creek RNA

3,930 Mid-elevation slope and

valley ecosystem and

vegetation. Low-gradient

hot springs system.

Low priority state-selections.

Communities from alpine, subalpine and

riparian zones of all aspects.

Central

Yukon

Lake Todatonten

Pingos RNA

658 Open system pingos Low priority State-selections. The Lake

Todatonten Special Management Area

and the Lake Todatonten Pingos and

Summit RNAs geographically close

to one another, but no overlap. Lake

Todatonten Pingos RNA borders the

Special Management area on the south

side for 1/2 mile.

Utility

Corridor

Toolik Lake

RNA

77,200 Research activities, cultural High priority State top filings.

Modification of PLO 5150 needed for

selection to attach. Numerous scoping

comments recommended enlarging the

RNA (section 2.3.1.3.1)

aNulato Hills Subunit, moved to Bering Sea-Western Interior RMP

2.3.1.3. Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

As part of the land use planning process, the BLM is directed by section 202 of FLPMA and the

resource management plan guidance found in 43 CFR 1610.7-2 to identify areas having unique or

high value resources that may make them eligible for designation as ACECs.

2.3.1.3.1. Adjustments to Existing ACECs and RNAs

While this report is being prepared, additional analysis of ACECs will be completed. The

following sections discuss initial interdisciplinary team ideas on additions to ACECs.

Hogatza River ACEC

In 1986, the record of decision for the Central Yukon RMP designated 42,512 acres or

approximately 41 percent of the combined watersheds of Clear Creek and Caribou Creek

(tributary to the Hogatza River) as an ACEC. The purpose of the ACEC was to protect the high

value summer chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) spawning habitat within these two drainages.

The BLM completed a habitat management plan for the ACEC in 1994 (Kretsinger et al.

1994), which outlined management objectives for the ACEC. Since the approval of the habitat

management plan, many of the State and Native land selections have been conveyed and the

original ACEC has been reduced to 5,225 acres. Currently, about 11,000 acres of BLM-managed

land in the combined watersheds of Clear and Caribou Creeks is not included in the existing

ACEC. In addition, approximately 2,740 acres of BLM-managed lands in the adjoining High

Creek watershed and 37,870 acres in the sub-watershed area of the main stem Hogatza River are

not in the existing ACEC. These areas all provide important habitat for chum salmon.

From 1995 to 2007, salmon escapement was monitored in Clear Creek. The 12-year average

chum salmon escapement for Clear Creek (1995 – 2007, excluding 1998) was 35,418 fish

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 172

(Headlee 1996, VanHatten 1997 and 1998; Esse and Kretsinger 2009; BLM unpublished data).

Escapement monitoring efforts in Caribou Creek from 2004 to2007 determined the 4-year average

chum salmon escapement to be 17,929 fish (BLM unpublished data). An aerial escapement

survey of High Creek (July 1996) reported 789 chum salmon. In addition to chum salmon, Clear

and Caribou Creeks are known to support both coho (O. kisutch), and Chinook (O. tshawytscha)

salmon.

Because of the high value salmon habitat found within the combined drainages of Clear, Caribou,

and High Creeks, it is recommended that the current boundary of the Hogatza ACEC be adjusted

to include the remaining BLM-managed lands within the combined watersheds of Clear and

Caribou creeks as well as the adjoining BLM-managed land in High Creek and the South Hogatza

sub-watershed. The adjusted ACEC boundary would include approximately 62,000 acres.

Sulukna River ACEC

In 1986, the record of decision for the Central Yukon RMP designated 10,240 acres within the

Sulukna River drainage as an ACEC to provide protection to the unique inconnu (sheefish;

Stenodus leucichthys) spawning habitat thought to be present in the lower river (Alt 1974, Alt

1985). In 2003, a cooperative study conducted by the BLM and USFWS documented the timing

and distribution of inconnu spawners within the Sulukna River. A majority of the fish were

using an area between mile 16 and mile 50 to spawn, which is upstream of the upper-most

ACEC boundary (Kretsinger and Brown 2004). A continuation of the 2003 telemetry project

was conducted as a collaborative effort by USFWS, BLM, and ADFG. Results from this study

(2005 to 2009) further refined the spawning area to between mile 16 and 57 and documented

that inconnu spawning within the Nowitna River drainage is limited to the Sulukna River (R.

Brown, USFWS, unpublished data).

The Sulukna River is one of five known spawning habitats for inconnu within the Yukon River

basin. In 2008 and 2009, the abundance of the spawning population was estimated to be 2,079

and 3,531, respectively (Esse 2011). In addition to inconnu, the Sulukna River provides habitat

to a significant number (e.g., hundreds) of coho salmon (D. Esse, BLM pers. comm.) and fall

chum salmon; humpback whitefish (Coregonus pidschian), and least cisco (C. sardinella) are also

known to use the river (Kretsinger and Brown 2004).

Administration of the Sulukna River watershed is shared by the USFWS and the BLM. The

USFWS manages the lower 1 percent (4,459 acres) of the watershed with the BLM managing the

remainder (398,573 acres). Approximately 2.5 percent of the watershed is currently designated as

an ACEC and managed by the BLM.

Based on the presence of this rare habitat (only five known inconnu spawning areas within the

Yukon River Basin), the BLM recommended that the entire Sulukna River watershed upstream of

the Nowitna River National Wildlife Refuge be added to the existing ACEC. The USFWS also

proposed that additional acres be added to this existing ACEC. The adjusted ACEC boundary

would include approximately 398,600 acres.

Indian River ACEC (tributary to the Koyukuk River)

In 1986, the record of decision for the Central Yukon RMP designated the upper portion of the

Indian River watershed as an ACEC to protect Chinook and summer chum salmon spawning

habitat. The BLM completed a habitat management plan for the ACEC in 1995, which established

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 173

management objectives and outlined initial inventory efforts for the area (Kretsinger and Will

1995).

Following a cursory inventory of the ACEC in 1993, it was determined that a substantial number

of summer chum salmon spawned in the Indian River downstream of the lower-most ACEC

boundary within T. 6 N., T. 23 E., Kateel River Meridian. Recent aerial escapement surveys

conducted in 2011 and 2012 counted 3,979 and 24,833 summer chum in the Indian River. No

Chinook salmon were counted in 2011, and only 12 were counted in 2012 (ADFG aerial survey

database). The proposed expansion would add approximately 10 additional miles of the Indian

River to the existing ACEC. The adjusted ACEC boundary would include approximately 176,500

acres.

Jim River ACEC

In 1986, the record of decision for the Central Yukon RMP designated the 200,000-acre Jim River

ACEC based on fishery, cultural, and recreation resources. Management objectives for the fish

resources included protecting and/or enhancing Chinook and chum salmon spawning areas,

overwintering habitat for resident and anadromous species, and sport fishing.

The BLM manages the entire Jim River watershed with the exception of 1,330 acres at the Jim

River mouth, which is within the Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge and on private (Native) land.

When designated, the ACEC included the Jim River drainage upstream of that portion of the

Utility Corridor designated as the “Inner corridor.” While the Inner corridor provided some

protection to aquatic resources because it was closed to mineral entry, the lower river (downstream

of the western boundary of the Inner corridor) was not afforded additional protection other than

discouraging gravel extraction in the floodplain.

Additional research in the Jim River drainage by the ADFG since establishment of the ACEC

has documented the lower Jim River as important spawning and overwintering habitat for

grayling (Fish 1998). The lower portion of the river is also used by Chinook and chum salmon

as spawning habitat (ADFG 2014).

The proximity of the Jim River/Prospect Creek watershed to the Dalton Highway continues to

attract economically feasible development opportunities (i.e., roads and mining) that threaten its

aquatic habitat and fisheries. Given the high value of the aquatic resources and habitat in the

lower Jim River, inclusion of this portion of the watershed into the ACEC is warranted. The

adjusted ACEC boundary would include approximately 303,000 acres.

In addition to the expansion proposed by the BLM, the Native Village of Allakaket nominated a

Jim River ACEC, which expanded the existing ACEC.

Kateel River ACEC (tributary to the Koyukuk River)

In 1986, the record of decision for the Central Yukon RMP designated the upper portion of the

Kateel River watershed as an ACEC to protect Chinook (O. tshawytscha) and summer chum

salmon (O. keta) spawning habitat. When established, this ACEC was 551,297 acres in size. The

proposed ACEC included the upper watershed, including the linear river withdrawals, down to

the downstream limit of the river withdrawal. Management of the ACEC was to include closure

to mineral entry within the streambed and for 300 feet on both sides of the stream from its high

water line, but this withdrawal was never implemented.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 174

Additional salmon escapement research has been undertaken in the Kateel River drainage since

establishment of the ACEC. The USFWS installed a weir in 2002 (VanHatten 2005). A total of

73 Chinook salmon and 2,853 summer chum were counted. It should be noted that salmon

numbers were depressed in the Yukon River drainage in the years surrounding this count. Aerial

surveys conducted in 2012 by ADFG counted 122 Chinook and 5,646 summer chum.The lower

portion of the river downstream of the current ACEC now has reaches listed in the Catalog of

Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes as chum salmon

spawning habitat and Chinook spawning and rearing habitat (ADFG 2014).

The intent of the original ACEC designation was to protect spawning habitat in the Kateel River

drainage. Given new data that shows the area downstream of the original ACEC is being used

by salmon for spawning, the ACEC should be expanded to include that portion of the river and

watershed. The downstream edge of this proposed ACEC expansion would border the Koyukuk

National Wildlife Refuge. The adjusted ACEC boundary would include approximately 876,600

acres.

Snowden Mountain ACEC

In 1991, the record of decision for the Utility Corridor RMP designated 29,700 acres as the

Snowden Mountain ACEC to protect Dall sheep habitat and mineral lick sites, as well as to

protect the unique geologic exposures and associated paleontology. It was established that

“crucial habitat and use periods will be monitored” and that the ACEC should be inventoried to

“identify any additional crucial sheep habitats.” Accordingly, the sheep subpopulation in the

Snowden Mountain ACEC and the surrounding vicinity has been monitored and inventoried

regularly, particularly from 2000 to 2014.

Surveys of sheep abundance conducted by ADFG have been the primary source of sheep

population monitoring for the Central Brooks Range, including the BLM-managed Dalton

Highway Corridor Management Area. The two most regularly surveyed Game Management

Units (Units 1A and 1B) have been used by ADFG to index the current status of sheep abundance

in the Central Brooks Range. The larger Unit 1A encompasses the Snowden Mountain ACEC.

Additionally, from 2009 to 2011, collared sheep locations were used to identify highly utilized

sheep habitat in relation to ACEC boundaries and survey units.

The current boundary of the Snowden Mountain ACEC does not include the area encompassing

the headwaters of Mathews Creek which is frequently used by sheep. While the established

Snowden ACEC is situated along the western slope of the Snowden Mountain massif, more

sheep activity was found to occur on the northern and eastern slopes of that ridge, east of the

existing ACEC boundary. To adequately protect important sheep habitat, the BLM should

consider expanding the Snowden ACEC eastward to the boundary of BLM-managed land near

Mathews Creek.

Notably, abundance survey results from 2012 to 2014 show reduced lamb production and/or

survival for the Snowden Mountain ACEC subpopulation; therefore, there is a high likelihood

of reduced abundance in all sheep cohorts in future years. This underscores the importance of

protecting sheep habitat to the greatest extent possible.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 175

Poss Mountain ACEC

In 1991, the record of decision for the Utility Corridor RMP designated 8,732 acres as the Poss

Mountain ACEC to protect lambing habitat for Dall sheep and known mineral lick sites. The

same habitat is used annually by pregnant ewes and mineral licks are essential to sheep health.

In 1991, the authors of the record of decision noted that “a growing number of hunters use the

Dalton Highway for easy access to hunt Dall sheep; therefore BLM needs to protect this crucial

habitat to sustain a viable sheep population...the area should be earmarked for attention since a

number of potentially disturbing activities near this habitat (principally mining) may occur with

the life of this plan.” It was established that “crucial habitat and use periods will be monitored”

and that the ACEC should be inventoried to “identify any additional crucial sheep habitats.”

Program activities outlined in the record of decision specified that an area of 160 acres around a

given mineral lick identified within the ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral entry and

location under the 1872 mining law.

A collaring study conducted from 2009 to 2011 suggests that the Poss Mountain subpopulation

is likely separated by natural and human-made barriers from other subpopulation ranges; the

isolated Poss Mountain subpopulation was shown to regularly cross Minnie Creek. This isolated

subpopulation relies on a known mineral lick within the perimeter of the current Poss Mountain

ACEC as well as a lick located to the north of the ACEC on an embankment of Gold Creek. The

Gold Creek lick is located near current human activity. To the west of the lick, a large mineral

material site (gravel pit) has been established to support road construction. To the east of the lick,

active mining is being conducted. The lick is now sandwiched between the gravel pit and a

mining operation just upstream. The current high level of human activity will greatly increase

the potential for disturbance of sheep using the lick. Further development of the area will likely

compound disturbance to this isolated subpopulation of sheep.

The BLM proposes that the Poss Mountain ACEC be extended to the north to encompass the

Gold Creek mineral lick. Furthermore, expansion to the south of the current ACEC to include

the Minnie Creek drainage should also be considered because this area is regularly used by this

population as well. The adjusted ACEC boundary would include approximately 25,500 acres.

Notably, abundance survey results from 2012 to 2014 suggest reduced lamb production in this

region; therefore, there is a high likelihood of reduced abundance in all sheep cohorts in future

years. This underscores the importance of protecting sheep habitat to the greatest extent possible.

Toolik Lake Research Natural Area

In 1991, the record of decision for the Utility Corridor RMP designated the Toolik Lake Research

Natural Area (RNA). The existing RNA is approximately 77,200 acres and is home to the Toolik

Field Station managed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The Toolik Field Station is one

of the premier arctic field stations of the United States, with a history of long-term, continuous

research that extends back almost 40 years. Work by scientists at Toolik Field Station begun in

1975 has resulted in much of what is known about the structure and function of the terrestrial

and aquatic ecosystems of the arctic foothills and tundra, the effects of climate change in these

regions, and feed backs through gas and hydrological fluxes to global climate. In addition, work

based out of the field station has resulted in a showcase of discoveries on the adaptations of plants

and animals to the Arctic and to population-level changes in distributions and the physiology

and phenology of life history traits. Much of the research currently being done near the Toolik

Field Station is either explicitly of a long-term nature or could serve as a crucial baseline for

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 176

future studies of effects of land use and climate change if the local environment is preserved for

research. The area around the field station has been chosen as the arctic site for the National

Ecological Observatory Network, an upcoming program of ecological observation that is funded

by the National Science Foundation and expected to last for 30 to 50 years.

The Toolik Field Station is a national facility, which is used by many researchers. From 2009 to

2012, in each year between 456 and 533 different scientists, staff, and contractors have worked

out of the station, conducting and supporting scientific research in the area around the station. In

each year, these scientists come from up to 109 different institutions from around the country, and

are working on up to 81 different funded research projects. More than 879 scientific publications

have resulted from work based at the station. Research around Toolik Field Station is a major

activity, at present and in the future.

Designation of the land around the Toolik Field Station as a RNA has been very important in

assuring the integrity of the long-term research originating with scientists working out of the

station, and gives scientific research a seat at the table when other land uses are being discussed.

Because of the expansion of long-term research programs beyond the current boundaries of

the RNA, the Toolik Field Station Management Team submitted a nomination to expand the

current RNA primarily eastward, with a small extension south to the area just north of the Atigun

River along the Dalton Highway, as shown in Figure 2.19. There are more than 14,000 scientific

research plots in the vicinity of Toolik Field Station, and the proposed expansion of the RNA

would pick up most of the current research plots that are on BLM-managed land in the vicinity.

The expanded RNA as proposed by the Toolik Field Station Management Team would encompass

approximately 107,800 acres.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 177

This map displays the existing Toolik Lake Research Natural Area and changes to the boundary proposed by

the Toolik Field Station Management Team

Figure 2.19. Proposed Expansion of the Toolik Lake RNA

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 178

Galena Mountain ACEC (boundary adjustment)

The Galena Mountain Caribou Herd inhabits the Koyukuk Flats and Kokrines Hills north of the

Yukon River and the village of Galena. In 1986, the record of decision for the Central Yukon

RMP designated an ACEC composed of two subunits to protect crucial caribou habitat. The

current boundaries for these subunits reflect areas this caribou herd traditionally uses as calving

grounds. The herd size is approximately 125 animals and is currently in decline due to low calf

survival and recruitment. The BLM recommends that the ACEC boundaries be expanded to

include BLM-managed lands within the core range of the Galena Mountain herd. The adjusted

ACEC boundary would include approximately 671,000 acres.

The expanded area would meet ACEC relevance criterion for a fish and wildlife resource and

ACEC importance criterion because this crucial caribou habitat has qualities that make it fragile,

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, and vulnerable to adverse change.

Tozitna North and South Subunits ACECs (boundary adjustment; ACEC

name change)

The Ray Mountain Caribou Herd inhabits the Ray Mountains and southern Kanuti Flats between

the Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers. In 1986, the record of decision for the Central Yukon RMP

designated two ACECs to protect crucial caribou habitat: Tozitna North ACEC and Tozitna

South ACEC. These areas were identified as being traditionally used as calving areas by the Ray

Mountains herd based on the location data available at the time the plan was written. However,

subsequent data acquired through regular radio-tracking efforts by the BLM and ADFG suggest

that calving occurs in a much broader area. Expanding the ACEC boundaries to include additional

BLM-managed land and both Tozitna North and Tozitna South ACECs would both simplify

management of this crucial caribou habitat, and more accurately reflect important calving grounds

for the Ray Mountains herd. The adjusted ACEC boundary would include approximately 923,000

acres.

In total, three ACECs were designated in the Ray Mountains in 1986 by the record of decision for

the Central Yukon RMP: Tozitna River, Tozitna South, and Tozitna North ACECs. The similarity

of these names creates confusion when referencing them. Therefore, it is recommended that the

area designated to protect Ray Mountains caribou habitat including the current boundaries for

Tozitna North ACEC and Tozitna South ACEC be renamed the Ray Mountains ACEC, to clearly

distinguish it from the Tozitna River ACEC.

The Ray Mountains ACEC would meet ACEC relevance criterion for a wildlife resource. It

would also meet the ACEC importance criterion as this crucial caribou habitat and caribou herd

have qualities that make them fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, and

vulnerable to adverse change.

Sukapak Mountains and Dillon Mountain

In 1991, the record of decision for the Utility Corridor RMP designated 3,500 acres as the

Sukakpak Mountain ACEC to protect unique geologic structures, folds, and faults; view of the

geologic process of mountain building and erosional forces; rare plant species; and one of the

more outstanding scenic views along the Dalton Highway corridor.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 179

The ACEC lies entirely within BLM-managed lands. Since approval of the Utility Corridor RMP,

Native and state land selections immediately east of Sukakpak Mountain have been conveyed and

the State of Alaska has top-filed the Utility Corridor.

The BLM has operated an interagency visitor center in Coldfoot from 1989 to the present and

kept visitor statistics. While freight-hauling by truck is still the primary use, the scenery and

wildlife along the highway corridor have grown in importance as resources valued by the public.

The Dalton Highway corridor is increasingly seen and marketed globally as a unique Alaskan

destination. More visitors, using more commercial tour operators, are visiting in the fall, winter,

and spring for aurora-viewing and winter scenery. During the 2013-2014 season, the BLM had

under permit 12 operators conducting tours along the Dalton Highway, of whom five conducted

winter trips as well (K. Egger, pers. comm.).

In the broad Dietrich and Bettles River valleys along the highway, timberline is at an

elevation of only about 1,200 feet, and the view from the highway is largely unobstructed

by tall trees. Sukakpak Mountain, (elevation 4,459 feet) with its unique shape and distinctive

northward-pointing horn, stands apart from the surrounding mountains and draws the eye for

miles in either direction. Its western wall is a sheer, vertical face towering 3,060 feet above the

highway, slightly less than El Capitan in Yosemite Valley. The clear water of the Bettles River

flowing along the northeast flank of the mountain adds to the overall scenic beauty.

The Dalton Highway Scenic Byway Corridor Partnership Plan (Alaska Department of

Transportation and Public Facilities 2010) identifies Sukakpak Mountain as “a dominant feature

along this stretch of the highway, a massive marble rock rising from the earth.” In its Intrinsic

Quality Assessment, the Byway Plan identified Sukakpak Mountain for both its scenic and natural

qualities, calling it “... one of the most recognized Brooks Range peaks viewable from the byway.”

To protect more of this spectacular view for highway travelers, we recommend that the boundary

of the Sukakpak Mountain ACEC be adjusted to include all BLM-managed lands extending

west to the highway right-of-way in Townships 32 N., R. 10 W., FM and south to a line along

the southern border of Sections 25 to 29 (approximately Dalton milepost 200.5 and across peak

2929); and in Townships 33 N., R 9W., and 33 N., R. 10W., FM from the Inner Corridor to far

north as the southern border of Section 12, T.33N., R.10W., FM and Sections 8 and 9 T. 33N., R.

9W., FM (approximately Dalton milepost 210).

This adjustment would also protect the scenic view of Dillon Mountain, a massive rugged Skajit

Limestone mountain of high scenic quality (A). Dillon Mountain is a spectacular 4,820-foot peak

on the opposite side of the Bettles River from Sukakpak Mountain. Together, these two peaks

form a breathtaking view, even by Alaska standards.

Extending the boundary to the highway right-of-way will also protect the frost mounds (palsas)

that border the highway on the western slope of Sukakpak Mountain. These permafrost features

are unusually abundant here. Some are ephemeral, appearing and melting in one or more seasons,

and some are more stable and long-lasting. Brown and Krieg (1983) describe the mounds and

their vegetation in detail with the calcareous fens between the mounds supporting a rich flora that

is distinct from the tops of the mounds or the nearby forest. The frost mound area supports at least

one plant species, Arenaria longipedunculata or longstem sandwort, identified as rare (Lipkin

and Parker 1995) and the ACEC description from the RMP identifies another, Orthotrichum

diminutivum, a bristle moss. Further research may show that the area between the highway and

the base of Sukakpak Mountain is an exemplary example of the frost mound-fen ecosystem.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 180

This boundary adjustment would add approximately 15,000 acres to the ACEC for a total of

18,500 acres. The expanded ACEC would meet ACEC relevance criteria for a significant

scenic value and a natural process or system including rare plants or plant communities, or rare

geological features, and ACEC importance criteria of more than locally significant qualities and

qualities or circumstances that make it exemplary and vulnerable to adverse change.

2.3.1.3.2. Nominated New ACECs

The following areas have been nominated as new ACECs, and they will be evaluated to determine

if they meet the criteria for ACEC designation. Additional ACEC nominations from the public

are anticipated, thus this document is not inclusive of all nominations.

Nutirwik Creek – High scenic quality (A) along the Nutirwik Creek to the headwaters. Wide

floodplains with narrow stream channel, major outcropping of the Skajit Limestone on Table

Mountain. Two seasonal high waterfalls at the headwaters.

Klikhtentotzna Creek (tributary to the upper Hogatza River) — for its high-value summer chum

salmon spawning habitat. Based on an aerial escapement survey conducted by BLM in 1996, the

number of summer chum salmon spawning in Klikhtentotzna Creek is on par with that of Clear

and Caribou Creeks (Hogatza River ACEC), two streams recognized as providing high-value

spawning habitat to summer chum salmon habitat within the Koyukuk River Basin (Barton 1984;

Holder and Senecal-Albrecht 1998).

During the survey of Klikhtentotzna Creek on July 12, 1996, observers documented 11,690

chum salmon. In comparison, a survey of Clear and Caribou Creeks a day later documented

16,620 and 10,470 respectively. The estimated BLM-managed acreage proposed for this ACEC

is 107,963. This ACEC could be separate or combined with the existing Hogatza River ACEC

(described previously).

Wheeler Creek (tributary to Dakli River) – Aerial escapement data for Wheeler Creek indicate

that this stream provides high-value spawning habitat to summer chum salmon. Counts conducted

in 1976, 1980, 1983, 1991, and 1995 were 7,564; 5,544; 8120; 7,801; and 15,843 respectively

(ADFG aerial survey database). The BLM-managed portion of this proposed ACEC is 143,069

acres (this acreage estimate includes the watershed area within the planning area and upstream

from the Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge).

Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River — The Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River is recognized as providing

a significant contribution to the overall Yukon River Basin Chinook salmon stock and is

considered to be one of the more productive Chinook salmon streams within the U.S. portion

of the Yukon River (Eiler et al. 2006). Based on estimates derived from the distribution of

radio-tagged Chinook, Eiler et al. (2006) found the contribution of the Teedriinjik (Chandalar)

River to be 4 percent of the overall Yukon River Chinook salmon stock. This is on par with the

Chena, Salcha, and Goodpaster Rivers, which are recognized as some of the more productive

streams within the U.S. portion of the Yukon River (Eiler et al. 2006). The Teedriinjik (Chandalar)

River also provides habitat to the largest population of fall chum salmon in the Yukon River

basin, with the number of spawners often accounting for 25 to 30 percent of the Yukon River fall

chum salmon run (JTC 2012; Melegari 2012).

The BLM currently manages about 14 miles of the Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River extending from

the confluence of the East Fork of the Chandalar, upstream to the mouth of Schilling Creek.

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 181

The estimated acreage of the proposed ACEC is 294,723.

Sethkokna River – In the early 2000s, two major multi-year projects were conducted within the

Yukon River Basin. One of these projects, the Salmon Production Habitat Survey, was conducted

by BLM in cooperation with ADFG and involved systematic trapping (using minnow traps) and

aerial surveys of all BLM-managed streams or portions of streams not previously documented

in the State’s anadromous waters catalog. The other project was the Yukon River salmon radio

telemetry project, which was a multi-agency effort initiated in 2000 by the ADFG and the

National Marine Fisheries Service (Spencer and Eiler 2004; Eiler et al. 2006). The results of both

projects documented Chinook salmon spawning in the Sethkokna River and both projects found

that the Sethkokna River is the primary producer of Chinook salmon within the Nowitna River

drainage (R. Brown USFWS, pers. comm. and BLM unpublished data). In 2014, the BLM

conducted an aerial survey of the Sethkokna River to document the number and location of adult

Chinook salmon spawning in the system. Ninety-eight Chinook and forty Chinook redds were

observed during the survey. These results, although not representative of the true number of

salmon that spawn within the drainage, do indicate that the Sethkokna River is a primary producer

of Chinook salmon within the Nowitna River drainage.

The watershed area within the planning area is 303,985 acres of which 98 percent is under BLM

management. The area proposed for this ACEC is 298,174 acres.

Accomplishment Creek ACEC (tributary to Sagavanirktok River) – The Accomplishment

Creek drainage is unique because it is one of a small number of streams flowing into the Arctic

Ocean that provides reliable ground water flow through the winter. The spring areas that exist

in Accomplishment Creek and its tributary, Section Creek, are essential to the survival of Dolly

Varden, a species sought as a subsistence and sport fishing resource. Conditions at the springs

provide spawning habitat and allow eggs to incubate and hatch, and provide an overwintering

refuge for all age classes of fish from eggs to adults.

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

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

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

rivers; including streams (i.e., Accomplishment Creek) in the Sagavanirktok River drainage

(Craig 1989b). Visitor use of the Dalton Highway corridor is also increasing with improved road

conditions. As a result, populations of Dolly Varden will continue to come under increased

sport fishing pressure from anglers accessing the Sagavanirktok River drainage via the Dalton

Highway corridor.

The BLM-managed portion of this proposed ACEC is 40,956 acres. The upstream (eastern) edge

of this watershed area borders the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

South Fork Koyukuk River ACEC –The South Fork (S.F.) Koyukuk River provides habitat

to a significant number of Chinook salmon and chum salmon. In 1990, the USFWS operated a

sonar project to estimate the number of chum salmon. The sonar project was located 1.2 miles

downstream from the confluence of the S.F. Koyukuk River and Fish Creek. Chum salmon

escapement at the conclusion of the project was estimated at 19, 485 fish (Troyer 1993). A

follow-up study conducted by the USFWS in 1996 and 1997 used a resistance board weir located

1.2 miles upstream of the confluence of Fish Creek to count fish. This project estimated chum

salmon escapement at 37,450 (1996) and 11,237 fish (1997). The estimate in 1997 was incomplete

due to high water (Wiswar 1998). Chinook salmon escapement for 1996 and 1997 was estimated

at 1,232 and 1,643 fish, respectively (Wiswar 1997 and 1998). Spawning concentrations are

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 182

known to exist near the confluence of the Jim River (Barton 1984), however, the State’s Catalog

of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes (ADFG 2014

{webpage}) documents both Chinook spawning and rearing and chum salmon spawning as

far upstream as the Mosquito Fork. The watershed area within the planning area is 1,468,491

acres of which 57.1 percent is under BLM management. The area proposed for this ACEC is

673,491 acres (45.9 percent of the watershed) and does not include the Jim River as the Jim

River ACEC is addressed separately.

2.3.2. Central Arctic Wilderness Study Area

The planning area includes the Central Arctic Management Area commonly referred to as CAMA.

Section 1001 of ANILCA directed the BLM to conduct an interdisciplinary study of natural

resources on the federal lands within CAMA. Section 1004(a) directed the Secretary to review

the suitability or nonsuitability of these lands for preservation as wilderness. The findings and

recommendations of this interdisciplinary study are found in the ANILCA Section 1001 Report

Findings and Recommendations, which was submitted to Congress in 1988. The ANILCA 1001

report serves as the Wilderness Study report required by the BLM’s wilderness study process.

American Rivers and several other conservation organizations filed a lawsuit after the 1991 ROD

was issued for the Utility Corridor RMP. This suit included a claim challenging the BLM’s

interpretation of the wilderness management requirements in sections 1001 and 1004 of ANILCA.

In an August 1993 settlement agreement, the BLM agreed to manage lands west of the Killik

River in a manner that would protect its wilderness values until Congress acts on the wilderness

recommendation. These lands are the CAMA Wilderness Study Area (WSA). The ANILCA

1001 report finds the 41,000-acre Upper Nigu River area suitable for inclusion in the National

Wilderness Preservation System, while other lands in the WSA were found nonsuitable.

Originally, CAMA included more than 3 million acres. Section 1001(f) of ANILCA states that

“Nothing in this Title [Title X] shall be construed as impeding, delaying, or otherwise affecting the

selection and conveyance of land to the State pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act, or any other

Federal law referred to in Section 102(3)(A) of this Act...” Therefore, land conveyance has been

ongoing, and much of the CAMA has been conveyed to the State or Native corporations. Within

the WSA, approximately 260,060 acres remain under BLM management. The BLM is likely to

retain the 41,000-acre Upper Nigu River block, as none of the lands in this parcel are selected.

The CAMA WSA will continue to be managed consistent with BLM Manual 6330 Management of

BLM Wilderness Study Areas and ANILCA until Congress acts on the wilderness recommendation

or releases these lands from consideration for designation. Additionally, the WSA is part of the

BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System.

2.3.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers

As part of the planning process, the BLM identified all rivers on BLM-managed lands in the

planning area that possess free-flowing condition and have at least one "outstandingly remarkable

value," and therefore, may have potential for addition to the National Wild and Scenic River

System (BLM Manual 6400, BLM 2012a).

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Central Arctic Wilderness Study Area
Analysis of Management Situation 183

Current Condition

All of the waterways in the planning area are free-flowing and many likely have attributes that

qualify as outstandingly remarkable values as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. These

values are defined as scenic, recreational, geologic, wildlife, fish, cultural (prehistoric/historic),

botanic/ecologic, and hydrologic/water quality.

Currently, no rivers in the planning area are managed to specifically protect and/or enhance

free-flowing condition, water quality, and identified outstandingly remarkable values. There are

no congressionally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or study rivers in the planning area.

Sec. 604 of ANILCA designated two rivers in the planning area for study, the Melozitna and the

Yukon-Ramparts Segment. The NPS completed a study report on the Melozitna in 1982, which

found that the river was not qualified because it lacked outstandingly remarkable values. The NPS

completed a study report on the Ramparts segment of the Yukon River in 1984 and determined

that this segment was not suitable due to lack of support by the affected Native corporations and

the State of Alaska.

The BLM has to complete a baseline inventory of eligible rivers and assign a tentative

classification (wild, scenic, or recreational). An inventory of rivers in the planning area is

underway to determine eligibility for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. Input from

agencies, organizations, and individuals who are familiar with the resource is gathered through

the scoping process and from cooperating agencies. The complete inventory process and results

will be published and made available to the public. Additionally, a summary of the inventory

results will be included as an appendix to the Draft RMP/EIS.

Indicator

In general, rivers are eligible if:

● They meet certain minimum thresholds of naturalness, and

● Possess at least one natural and/or cultural feature judged as “outstandingly remarkable” (see

below) and which is directly related to the river itself (that is, contributes to the functioning of

the river ecosystem, or owes its existence or location to the river).

A river does not need to be boatable or floatable. Rivers with intermittent flows can be considered.

Outstandingly remarkable values include:

● Scenic

● Recreational

● Geologic and/or hydrologic

● Fish and wildlife

● Botanic/ecological

● Cultural (archaeological or historic)

● Other values

The outstandingly remarkable values must be river-related and be unique, rare, or exemplary at a

regional or national scale. River-related means that the values:

● Contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem, or

● Owe their location or existence to the presence of the river.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Wild and Scenic Rivers
Analysis of Management Situation 184

2.3.4. Backcountry or Scenic Byways

The BLM’s Byways Program, established in 1989, is a component of the National Scenic Byways

Program. BLM State Directors designate BLM backcountry byways on BLM-managed public

lands. There are currently no BLM-designated backcountry byways in the planning area.

BLM’s Byways Handbook, 8357-1, 1993, provides specific direction for the BLM’s backcountry

byways program, including information on byways nomination and designation, planning

criteria, and visitor safety. Unlike most scenic byways, which are located on paved highways,

backcountry byways focus on the out-of-the-way sights to be found on gravel, dirt, or paved

roads. These are routes that may not be suitable for all vehicles. There may be winter trails

within the planning area suitable for designation as type IV backcountry byways and managed

specifically to accommodate snowmobiles.

The Dalton Highway was designated a State Scenic Byway in 1998. Administered by the Alaska

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the State Scenic Byways Program recognizes

routes that provide access to the state’s significant scenic, cultural, and recreational resources.

The Dalton Highway Scenic Byway Corridor Partnership Plan was approved in 2010.

2.3.5. Iditarod National Historic Trail

Congress designated the Iditarod National Historic Trail in 1978, in recognition of its significance

as a scenic, recreational or historic transportation route. The Iditarod Trail was specifically

designated for its historic importance. The BLM was officially delegated administrative oversight.

The Iditarod National Historic Trail retraces a winter Gold Rush trail network connecting Seward

in southcentral Alaska to Nome in northwest Alaska via the Iditarod gold mining district. The

938 mile main winter trail between Seward, Iditarod, and Nome was established by users and

the Alaska Road Commission on existing native Alaskan trails during the 1900s and 1910s.

Branching from the main route are hundreds of miles of paralleling, connecting, and side trails

that also played an important role in the historic Gold Rush, and are included as part of the

National Historic Trail System.

The Iditarod National Historic Trail was principally a winter trail. Many parts of the trail were

passable only in the winter and used frozen rivers. The trail crossed huge expanses of tundra,

which were almost completely impassable during summer months when the permafrost thawed.

The trail south of Knik was used year-round.

Most of the 30 connecting trails are on the southern and central portions of the trail. The central

portion of the trail crosses the Central Yukon Planning Area. Connecting trails in the central part

of the Iditarod Trail went as far south as Anvik on the Yukon River and as far north as Koyukuk

on the Koyukuk River. The trails connected towns and mining camps to the main route.

The Iditarod Trail passes through the boundaries of different government-managed lands,

administrative units, and Native corporation lands. The BLM has determined that 19.1 percent

of the Iditarod Trail passes through federal land, 52.4 percent through State land, 28.4 percent

through Native land, and 3.5 percent crosses waterbodies (BLM 1997). In 1977, less than

0.5 percent of the trail crossed private land (BOR 1977). The land managers include the

Kenai Peninsula Borough, Chugach National Forest, Chugach State Park, Municipality of

Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Cook Inlet Region Incorporated, the Iditarod Regional

Chapter 2 Area Profile

April 2016 Backcountry or Scenic Byways
Analysis of Management Situation 185

Educational Attendance Area, the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge, the BLM (Anchorage Field

Office), the Yukon-Koyukuk Regional Educational Attendance Area, Doyon Limited Regional

Corporation, the Bering Straits Regional Educational Attendance Area, and the Bering Straits

Native Corporation.

It is estimated that between 400 and 500 miles of the Iditarod National Historic Trail System

lies within the currently proposed Central Yukon Planning Area. At the section-level view of

generalized land status, only 1.5 miles of the trail lies on BLM-managed land; this portion of

the Ruby-Kaltag Connecting Trail (NUL-00066) crosses a small block of State-selected land

located approximately 6 miles northeast of the village of Koyukuk. A detailed analysis of land

status may identify additional small parcels of BLM-managed land crossed by segments of the

Iditarod Trail within the planning area.

Figure 2.20. Iditarod Trail System within the Central Yukon Planning Area.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Iditarod National Historic Trail
Analysis of Management Situation 186

2.4. Social and Economic

2.4.1. Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-income Populations, requires that federal agencies identify and address any

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,

policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.

Guidance for evaluating environmental justice issues in land use planning is included in the BLM

planning handbook, Appendix D (BLM 2005a). Environmental justice involves the fair treatment

and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income

with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,

regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic,

or socio-economic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental

consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of

federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.

In addition to determining if its proposed actions will adversely and disproportionally

impact minority populations, low-income communities, and tribes, the BLM has established

environmental justice principles that include promoting and providing opportunities for full

involvement of minority populations, low-income communities, and tribes in BLM decisions that

affect their lives, livelihoods, and health. Where disproportionately high adverse impacts are

anticipated, the BLM will work with local community groups/associations, governments, and

tribal leaders to determine if land disposition and/or acquisition policies affect real estate values

and real income of minority and low-income communities, and tribes.

2.4.1.1. Federally Recognized Tribes

Tribal populations are also considered to be environmental justice populations. In accordance with

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and the

President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native

American Tribal Governments, the Fairbanks Field Office will initiate government-to-government

consultation with federally recognized tribes in the planning area. Such consultation will be in

compliance with the Department of Interior’s Alaska Policy on Government-to-Government

Relations with Alaska Native Tribes, dated January 18, 2001. In Alaska, the minority population

is frequently dominated by Alaska Natives, so tribal consultation overlaps substantially with

environmental justice analyses, although neither is a substitute for the other.

The following list includes federally recognized tribes in or near the planning area.

● Alatna Village

● Evansville Village (aka Bettles Field)

● Galena Village (aka Louden Village)

● Allakaket Village

● Hughes Village

● Huslia Village

● Koyukuk Native Village

● Manley Hot Springs Village

● Nenana Native Association

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic
Analysis of Management Situation 187

● Nulato Village

● Rampart Village

● Native Village of Minto

● Native Village of Nuiqsuk

● Native Village of Ruby

● Native Village of Stevens Village

● Native Village of Tanana

● Native Village of Unalakleet

● Village of Anaktuvuk Pass

● Village of Kaltag

● Village of Venetie

2.4.1.2. Low-income Populations

Low-income populations in an affected area are identified using the statistical poverty

thresholds from the Bureau of the Census data, per U.S. Council on Environmental Quality

guidelines. In the United States, a total of 14.3 percent of the population lives below the

poverty level; the comparable estimate for the State of Alaska is lower, at 9.6 percent

(http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF).

For the Central Yukon RMP, any community having a poverty rate greater than 9.6 percent in

terms of the number of individuals below the poverty rate will be considered a low-income

community. As a result, 18 of the 30 communities within the planning area or that could be

affected by the plan are considered low-income (Table 2.31).

2.4.1.3. Minority Populations

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality guidelines for evaluating the potential environmental

effects of projects require specific identification of minority populations when either: (1) a

minority population exceeds 50 percent of the population of the affected area; or (2) a minority

population represents a meaningfully greater increment of the affected population than of the

population of some other appropriate geographic unit as a whole. Black/African American,

Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and other non-White

persons are defined as minority populations. 2

As shown in Table 2.29, 17 of the communities in or associated with the planning area are more

than 50 percent Alaska Native, for the people who, in the 2010 Census, reported that they were

one race. The only other community approaching the 50 percent level was Nenana, which was 38

percent Alaska Native. Because this is close to the 50 percent threshold, we took a closer look

to see if the proportion would increase when also considering people who reported being more

than one race. However, the proportion increased only to 40 percent, so Nenana was not added

as an environmental justice community due to minority status.

In summary, when considering both of the criteria (minority and poverty status), only 9 of the 30

communities are not considered to be environmental justice communities: Wiseman, Coldfoot,

Bettles, Anderson, North Pole, Big Delta, Delta Junction, Healy, and Fairbanks. All of the other

2The meaningfully greater analysis is generally used to make sure that no areas of minority populations are omitted if the

50 percent threshold does not identify any environmental justice populations.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Environmental Justice
Analysis of Management Situation 188

communities are subject to environmental justice considerations because of their minority status

and/or their poverty status.

Table 2.29. Minority Populations in the Central Yukon Planning Area

City/Village Total Population 2010 a Percent Alaska Native

Personsb

Percent Persons in

Poverty a

Wiseman 14 0c 0

Coldfoot 10 10 0

Bettles 14 14 0

Evansville 14 53 0

Rampart 24 96 0

Alatna 37 97 0

Allakaket 105 95 46

Stevens Village 78 85 51

Hughes 77 96 16

Huslia 275 92 38

Ruby 166 89 29

Galena 470 64 11

Tanana 246 87 13

Koyukuk 96 97 54

Nulato 264 94 25

Kaltag 190 92 25

Manley Hot Springs 79 13 40

Minto 210 90 20

Nenana 378 38 20

Venetie 166 92 32

Lake Minchumina 13 15 13

Anderson 246 3 2

McKinley Park 185 0 22

Healy 1,021 2 8

Ester 2,422 7 18

Fairbanks 31,535 10 12

North Pole 2,117 3 6

Big Delta 591 2 7

Delta Junction 958 3 7

Anaktuvuk Pass 324 83 7

aCommunity and Regional Affairs, Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development at

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/cra/DCRAExternal/Community

bEconomic Profile System data from 2010 U.S. Census available at http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt

c7 percent part Alaska Native

2.4.2. Subsistence

Subsistence is an integral part of life in Alaska. The term subsistence uses refers to the customary

and traditional uses by rural residents of wild renewable resources for direct personal or family

consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of

handicraft articles out of non-edible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for family

or personal consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for

customary trade. ANILCA was signed into law by President Carter on December 2, 1980, and

established conservation and allocation mandates for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife and

other renewable resources by rural residents on federal public lands in Alaska. Subsistence, as

used in this document, refers primarily to the federal program as set forth under Title VIII of

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Subsistence
Analysis of Management Situation 189

ANILCA (Subsistence Management and Use). The State of Alaska similarly defines subsistence

as the customary and traditional uses of wild resources for food, clothing, fuel, construction, art,

sharing and trade. However, under the State constitution, all residents of Alaska are considered

eligible subsistence users. This document does not encompass discussion of subsistence under

the State’s definition.

The State of Alaska maintained responsibility for enacting and implementing Title VIII from 1980

to 1990. The Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture assumed management responsibilities for the

mandates of Title VIII in 1990 after the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that it was in violation of

the state’s constitution (specifically the rural preference provisions). The case became known as

McDowell v. Alaska, 785 P.2d 1, 10 (Alaska 1989). As a result, responsibility for management of

wildlife, and fisheries in nonnavigable waters, on federally managed land in Alaska including

National Conservation Units and federal public lands, was assumed by the Secretaries. The 1995

Katie John v. United States (95 C.D.O.S. 9660) decision on extension of federal subsistence

management to include jurisdiction over navigable waters within and adjacent to National

Conservation Units was implemented in 2001. The provisions under Title VIII of ANILCA

provide for a continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural resident of Alaska.

Section 810 (Subsistence and Land Use Decisions) requires that the head of the federal agency

that has primary jurisdiction over public lands must evaluate the effects on subsistence for any

withdrawal, reservation, lease permitted use, occupancy, or disposition of those public lands. If

any of the above-listed actions are determined to significantly restrict subsistence uses, ANILCA

section 810 requires the agency to minimize adverse impacts upon subsistence uses and resources

and comply with a number of procedural requirements to proceed with the proposed action.

ANILCA further provides that the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for non-wasteful

subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over taking on such lands for other purposes. When

necessary to restrict taking to assure the continued viability of a fish or wildlife population

or the continuation of subsistence uses of such populations, section 804 outlines criteria that

implement a subsistence priority through limitations on uses evaluated through the following

criteria: (1) customary and direct dependence upon the population as the mainstay of livelihood;

(2) local residency; and (3) the availability of alternative resources. This is often defined as a

customary and traditional use determination, which can be applied when a need to restrict take is

determined. The Federal Subsistence Board has determined that there is customary and traditional

use of specific resources in some areas and only those communities or areas with a positive

determination can participate in harvesting those resources for subsistence uses. In many areas,

a customary and traditional use determination for specific resources has not been made, and

therefore, all rural residents are eligible to participate in subsistence activities.

Each federal land management agency has a responsibility for providing the opportunity for rural

residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to do so. Utilization of public lands in Alaska is to

cause the least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend upon subsistence uses of

the land’s resources (section 802). To carry out the responsibility for subsistence management, the

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture established the Federal Subsistence Program, which

is housed within Fish and Wildlife Service (Alaska Regional office). The Federal Subsistence

Board, ten Regional Advisory Councils and interagency staff specialists comprise the program.

The Federal Subsistence Board consists of the State or Regional Directors of the BLM, USFWS,

NPS, Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and a Chair from the user public representing

the Secretary of Interior. The Federal Subsistence Board oversees the Federal Subsistence

Management Program and sets bag limits, seasons, methods and means and other regulatory

decisions after considering recommendations from the Regional Advisory Councils, biologists,

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Subsistence
Analysis of Management Situation 190

anthropologists, and land managers. The Regional Advisory Council region that overlaps with

the planning area is the Western Interior and is referred to as the Western Interior Regional

Advisory Council.

Section 811 ensures reasonable access by rural residents to subsistence resources on federal public

lands. The appropriate use of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation

“traditionally employed for such purposes by local residents, subject to reasonable regulations”

is allowed on federal lands, including lands within the DHCMA, where non-subsistence use

of motorized vehicles is prohibited.

ANILCA does not define the meaning of rural resident. Rural means any community or area of

Alaska determined by the Federal Subsistence Board as meeting the criteria of rural. Federal

subsistence regulations, which apply only on Federal public lands, define a resident as a person

who has their primary, permanent residence for the previous 12 months within Alaska. Factors

demonstrating residence include voter registration, tax documents, and driver’s license. A

seasonal resident does not qualify. These definitions are codified in 50 CFR Part 100 and 36 CFR

Part 242 and summarized in the annual Subsistence Management Regulations booklets. Federal

lands, as defined by ANILCA, are “lands the title to which is in the United Sates after the date

of enactment of this Act.” Public lands are any lands situated in Alaska that are consistent with

the definition for federal lands, but do not include valid land selections of the State of Alaska or

selections made under the ANCSA.

Within the borders of the planning area, the Fairbanks North Star Borough was determined to be a

predominately nonrural area and residents do not qualify as subsistence users. Residents of all

other areas and communities are designated as federally qualified subsistence users. Twenty-six

recognized villages are within or immediately adjacent to the planning area and qualify as rural:

Nuiqsut, Umiat, Anaktuvuk Pass, Wiseman, Coldfoot, Bettles, Evansville, Alatna, Allakaket,

Hughes, Huslia, Kaltag, Nulato, Koyukuk, Galena, Ruby, Poorman, Tanana, Lake Minchumina,

Manley Hot Springs, Rampart, Minto, Livengood, Nenana, Anderson, and Healy.

Part or all of the following Game Management Units (Units) are within the planning area: Units

26, 25, 24, 22, 21, 20, and 19. Most BLM-managed lands within the planning area are in Units

26B, 24, 21, and 20. Each Unit has multiple species and multiple populations with varying

population dynamics. Additionally, varying degrees of commercial, sport, and subsistence

use occurs within the planning area and inter- and intra-community competition for limited

subsistence resources is often an issue. See the Wildlife, Fisheries and Vegetation sections of this

report for descriptions of wildlife, fish, and vegetation in the planning area.

2.4.2.1. Indicators

BLM policy directs the agency to incorporate its Alaska Land Health Standards and Guidelines in

land use plans and land management decisions and use the standards and guidelines to develop

specific objectives and outcome indicators in the plans (IM-AK-2004-023). There are five

standards by which the diversity and ecological health of BLM-managed land is measured,

including a locally important species standard.

The document provides indicators that help evaluate whether the standard is being met. The

indicators include physical and biological elements that describe a healthy ecosystem.. Success

indicators are relative for any given landscape, but are based upon an ability to provide the

essential habitat elements for plant and animal species, populations, and communities. The BLM

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Subsistence
Analysis of Management Situation 191

uses these indicators to monitor resource trends toward or away from the standard. Traditional

knowledge of an area can also provide information on historic and current trends.

The goal for the locally important species standard is to ensure that habitats support healthy,

productive, and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals, including

those used for subsistence. Species of local importance is defined as species of significant

importance to Native American populations (e.g., medicinal and subsistence plant and animals).

The desired condition (objective) for this standard is that habitat elements essential for those

species, populations, and communities are present and available to the extent they are consistent

with the potential/capability of the landscape. Indicators of successfully meeting the standard

include: species composition, distribution, productivity and population trends, population stability

and resilience, habitat distribution, connectivity and structure, and fire history.

IM-AK-2004-023 provides guidelines for achieving objectives and fulfilling the fundamental

physical and biological attributes that define land health. These guidelines offer guidance for

managing public lands that will help meet current and anticipated climatic and biological

conditions while considering cultural and local economic needs. For example, management

practices will consider protection and conservation of plant and animal populations of

significance; fish and wildlife will be maintained and protected; and the habitat needs of fish and

wildlife resources necessary to maintain or enhance such populations will be provided.

Implementing guidelines that maintain ecosystem health satisfies the requirements of ANILCA

Title VIII: to provide continued opportunity for rural residents to engage in a subsistence way of

life; and to utilize public lands in Alaska in ways that will cause the least adverse impact possible

on rural residents who depend on subsistence uses of resources on public lands.

2.4.2.2. Current Condition

Several important subsistence resources are found within the planning area. Most notable are

caribou, moose, Dall sheep, and Chinook and chum salmon. Many other resources, such as wood,

berries, bears, and furbearers, are also important. BLM-managed lands occur in large tracts in

Units 24, 21, and 20.

Current subsistence harvest levels of wildlife, fish and other resources in the planning area are

sustainable. Although it is difficult to measure, based on discussions at Western Interior Resource

Advisory Council and other meetings, subsistence needs by rural residents in the planning area

are not being met, particularly for salmon, moose, and sheep. The DHCMA is accessible by

non-subsistence bow hunters from the Dalton Highway. Lands outside the DHCMA are accessed

from the road as well. Harvest pressure on the most accessible areas can be very high from

subsistence users and other hunters. Currently, the BLM, the Federal Subsistence Board, and rural

residents in the planning area, in partnership with other federal agencies and ADFG, provide for

harvest quotas of some subsistence resources at threshold levels, which are determined jointly and

based on past use by rural residents. Threshold levels are those at which the Federal subsistence

user is able to harvest the minimum resources to reasonably subsist.

2.4.2.3. Trends

Harvest pressure by subsistence users in the planning area has remained consistent, with some

fluctuations over the 34 years since ANILCA was passed. Census data indicate that most

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Subsistence
Analysis of Management Situation 192

populations in the rural areas have not changed significantly, and changes are not great enough to

substantially affect pressure on subsistence resources. Census records for rural areas range from 1

year of data (Chicken and Livengood) to 12 years of data (Fort Yukon). The average number of

census data points for rural areas is 6 years.

Subsistence users target the same resources as other user groups, including nonrural residents.

Fairbanks and the Fairbanks North Star Borough have grown steadily since population census for

the area began. Since 1950, Fairbanks has increased by 556 percent (5,771 to 32,070 in 2012) and

the Fairbanks North Star Borough by 517 percent (19,409 to 100,343). Many nonrural residents

in the Fairbanks North Star Borough and other parts of the state harvest fish, wildlife, and other

resources in the same areas as do subsistence users. Trends in abundance and distribution of

subsistence resources have been variable. This is discussed in more detail in the Key Features

section below and in section 2.1.8 Wildlife.

Dall sheep are an important subsistence resource in the Central Brooks Range (Units 24A and

26B), specifically for the communities of Wiseman and Coldfoot. These sheep populations

are accessible from the Dalton Highway by non-subsistence bow hunters within the DHCMA

and rifle hunters outside the DHCMA. Road-accessible sheep populations in the state are rare,

making this area popular for sheep hunting because access is relatively inexpensive. Hunting

guides also use this area for commercial guiding of non-resident sheep hunters. This activity

has resulted in user conflict in recent years as non-subsistence hunting activity in the area has

increased. Rural residents have expressed frustration over low hunter success rates for sheep

in the DHCMA, and cite guided hunting activity and non-subsistence hunting as causes for

difficultly procuring sheep as subsistence users. User conflict will continue to be a problem

if non-subsistence sheep hunting increases.

2.4.2.4. Forecast

Future changes in demand and unpredictable fluctuations in populations or distribution of

subsistence resources make it difficult to predict the sustainability of subsistence opportunities in

many areas. In this section, possible changes in resource availability and use are considered given

the current resource management situation. Stochastic events such as severe winters and climate

shifts, and changes in demand for allowable land uses such as increased gold mining activities

spurred by favorable gold prices can affect resource distribution and availability.

The price of fuel affects the level of participation in subsistence activities, as gas prices influence

how far rural residents can afford to travel to harvest resources, but also increases the cost of

bringing groceries and other resources to remote communities. Rural residents may concentrate

harvest pressure in local areas to reduce fuel usage while continuing to offset the cost of importing

groceries to the communities, especially those not connected by road. Fuel prices can be

several dollars per gallon higher in rural areas than in Fairbanks and along major highways.. If

construction of a road from the Dalton Highway to Ambler is completed, the communities of

Bettles, Evansville, and potentially Alatna and Allakaket would become connected to the road

system. This could potentially reduce the price of fuel and cost of supplies in these communities,

and increase the ability to harvest resources farther from these communities. If construction of

the road to Ambler goes forward, it has the potential to open up areas on the south side of the

Brooks Range to non-subsistence consumptive use and access, including two Conservation

System Units within and immediately adjacent to the planning area: Gates of the Arctic National

Park and Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge. These areas are traditionally used by rural residents

of the villages of Bettles, Evansville, Allakaket, and Alatna. Game populations relied upon by

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Subsistence
Analysis of Management Situation 193

subsistence users, particularly moose and caribou, could be adversely affected by increased use.

There is concern that the road to Ambler would alter the migration of the Western Arctic Caribou

Herd (WACH). The planning area is at the outer range of the WACH winter range. The herd

uses the area sporadically, but residents of the area depend heavily on caribou as a subsistence

resource. If the road changes the migration, these residents could be impacted. The construction

of the road to Ambler and associated increase in fuel and facilities needs could also result in a

population increase in Bettles. Once established as qualified rural residents, new residents would

be eligible to hunt and fish under Federal Subsistence Regulations and would likely increase the

pressure on the area’s subsistence resources.

2.4.2.5. Key Features

Eleven caribou herds range within the planning area at least seasonally. Of these herds,

the Western Arctic, Teshekpuk, and Central Arctic are important subsistence resources for

communities in the planning area, and frequently use BLM-managed lands. There are a number of

federal (subsistence) and state moose hunts in the planning area. A detailed discussion of caribou

and moose is included in section 2.1.8 Wildlife.

Numerous streams and rivers support fish populations that provide important subsistence

resources for communities both in and near the planning area. A detailed discussion of fish and

aquatic resources is found in section 2.1.7 of this document.

2.4.3. Social and Economic Conditions

The preceding section described subsistence lifestyles in planning area communities and the

opportunities associated with BLM-managed and other lands. In the planning area, as elsewhere

in rural Alaska, subsistence use is an integral part of both social and economic conditions and

typically the aspect of communities most closely tied to BLM-managed lands.

The planning area overlaps portions of the Northwest Arctic Borough, the North Slope Borough,

the Denali Borough, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, and the Southeast Fairbanks Census

Area. However, the majority of the planning area does not fall within any of these boundaries,

so a description of social and economic conditions at the borough/census area level could be

misleading. Lumping the communities together for description would also be misleading, because

the data would be dominated by the population in the Fairbanks area. Instead, we will describe

social and economic conditions in the 30 communities that are located in the planning area or that

could be affected by the new RMP. Of these communities, 14 are unincorporated, 11 are second

class cities, two are first class cities (Galena and Tanana), and 3 are home rule cities (Fairbanks,

Nenana, and North Pole).3 In addition to the communities, boroughs, tribes, and village and

regional corporations, the Tanana Chiefs Conference provides a variety of social services to 18 of

the communities (and to 24 other communities in its service region of about 235,000 square miles).

2.4.3.1. Population

As reported in the 2010 Census, about 42,000 people live in the 30 communities, with the vast

majority (36,000) living in the Fairbanks area (Table 2.30). The population of the other 27

communities ranges from 10 (Coldfoot) to just over 1,000 (Healy). Between 1990 and 2012, the

3For definitions of the city types and Alaska’s municipal government structure, see: http://commerce.alaska.gov/dnn/dcra/

LocalGovernmentOnline/MunicipalGovernment/MunicipalGovernmentStructureinAlaska.aspx

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 194

population decreased in 18 of the communities. Several of the communities were once much

larger in the past due to mining or other opportunities, and several, including Hughes, Huslia,

Alatna, Allakaket, Galena, and Minto, were relocated in the past due to flooding.

Except for the greater Fairbanks area, two small communities on the Dalton Highway, and Bettles,

the communities are predominantly Alaska Native, with 13 having a population in 2010 that was

90 percent or more Alaska Native (Table 2.30). These data are for people who reported in the

Census that they were one race, which in most cases was the vast majority of the population.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
195 Analysis of Management Situation

Table 2.30. Population Characteristics of Central Yukon Planning Area Communities

City/Village Census Area Population

1990a

Population

2000a

Population

2010 a

Percent Alaska

Native

Percent of people 25

and over high school

graduate

Percent of people

25 and over with

Bachelor degree or

higher

Wiseman Yukon-Koyukuk 33 21 14 0 (7% part

Alaska Native)

na na

Coldfoot Yukon-Koyukuk 0 13 10 10 na na

Bettles Yukon-Koyukuk 36 43 14 14 na na

Evansville Yukon-Koyukuk 33 28 14 53 na na

Rampart Yukon-Koyukuk 68 45 24 96 na na

Alatna Yukon-Koyukuk 31 35 37 97 na na

Allakaket Yukon-Koyukuk 170 97 105 95 66 0

Stevens Village Yukon-Koyukuk 102 87 78 85 54 0

Hughes Yukon-Koyukuk 54 78 77 96 86 0

Huslia Yukon-Koyukuk 207 293 275 92 78 2.3

Ruby Yukon-Koyukuk 170 188 166 89 76 10

Galena Yukon-Koyukuk 833 675 470 64 86 20

Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk 345 308 246 87 84 20

Koyukuk Yukon-Koyukuk 126 101 96 97 74 3

Nulato Yukon-Koyukuk 359 326 264 94 81 11

Kaltag Yukon-Koyukuk 240 230 190 92 87 12

Manley Hot

Springs

Yukon-Koyukuk 96 82 79 13 84 27

Minto Yukon-Koyukuk 218 258 210 90 72 5

Nenana Yukon-Koyukuk 398 402 378 38 84 4

Ester Fairbanks North

Star Borough

(FNSB)

147 1,680 2,422 7 93 37

Fairbanks FNSB 30,843 30,224 31,535 10 90 20

North Pole FNSB 1,456 1,570 2,117 3 89 19

Lake

Minchumina

Yukon-Koyukuk 32 32 13 15 78 22

Anderson Denali Borough 628 367 246 3 95 10

McKinley Park Denali Borough 171 142 185 0 91 53

Healy Denali Borough 487 1,000 1,021 2 84 21

Chapter

2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
196 Analysis of Management Situation

City/Village Census Area Population

1990a

Population

2000a

Population

2010 a

Percent Alaska

Native

Percent of people 25

and over high school

graduate

Percent of people

25 and over with

Bachelor degree or

higher

Big Delta Southeast

Fairbanks

Census Area

400 749 591 2 89 25

Delta Junction Southeast

Fairbanks

Census Area

652 840 958 3 95 26

Anaktuvuk Pass North Slope

Borough

259 282 324 83 79 9

Venetie Yukon-Koyukuk 182 202 166 92 47 5.5

Total Population 38,776 40,398 42,325

Average 1,293 1,347 1,411 52 81 15

aCommunity and Regional Affairs, Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development at http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/cra/DCRAExternal/

Community

Chapter

2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 197

Table 2.31. Income and Poverty Characteristics of Central Yukon Planning Area

Communities

City/Village Population

2010

Per Capita

Income ($) a

Median

Household

Income ($)a

Percent Households

with Public Assistance

Income a

Percent Persons

in Poverty

Kaltag 190 14,103 23,000 60 25

Wiseman 14 na na na 0

Coldfoot 10 na na na 0

Bettles 14 45,050 94,583 na 0

Evansville 15 47,473 29,688 na 0

Rampart 24 27,200 73,750 na 0

Alatna 37 na na na 0

Allakaket 105 11,702 17,917 100 46

Stevens

Village

78 13,320 20,000 83 51

Hughes 77 16,159 40,000 29 16

Huslia 275 10,820 29,167 74 38

Ruby 166 12,659 23,594 47 29

Galena 470 27,004 58,125 22 11

Tanana 246 21,133 45,179 51 13

Koyukuk 96 14,108 19,583 45 54

Nulato 264 15,803 29,861 61 25

Manley Hot

Springs

89 25,682 31,750 41 40

Minto 210 12,383 30,179 96 20

Anderson 246 46,734 68,750 9 2

Nenana 378 27,815 59,583 43 20

Ester 2,422 33,668 80,102 9 18

Fairbanks 31,535 27,646 54,572 19 12

North Pole 2,117 32,128 71,250 11 6

Big Delta 591 20,708 47,500 9 7

Delta

Junction

958 37,282 86,193 13 7

Healy 1,021 41,427 97,778 7 8

McKinley

Park

185 27,765 46,528 0 22

Anaktuvuk

Pass

324 18,936 47,143 50 7

Venetie 166 12,037 25,000 67 32

Lake

Minchumina

13 na na 0 13

Average $24,644 $48,107 39 17.4

aEconomic Profile System data from 2010 U.S. Census available at http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt

In 19 of the 24 communities for which educational attainment data are available, 75 percent or

more of the population over age 25 had a high school degree, and the rate was over 70 percent

in two of the others (Table 2.30). In 7 communities, 20 percent or more of the population had

a bachelor’s degree or higher, with McKinley Park having the highest proportion (53 percent )

and Ester the second highest (37 percent ).

The number of housing units is generally related to population size, and the percentage of units

that are vacant is generally low (Table 2.32). Some housing units are vacant because they are

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 198

only seasonally occupied. The proportion of houses with complete plumbing facilities (hot and

cold piped water, a bathtub or shower, and a flush toilet) ranges from 0 in Rampart, Alatna, and

Stevens Village to about 95 percent or more in Fairbanks, Evansville, Anderson, Big Delta, Delta

Junction, and Healy. These compare to the Alaska average of about 88 percent and the national

average of 97 percent.

As reported by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, municipal facilities and

utilities vary widely, with the larger communities providing more facilities; this information was

not reported for the unincorporated communities (Table 2.32). Only six of the communities do

not currently have schools; these were among the smallest in population size.

Kids Count Alaska, part of a nationwide program that collects information on childrens’

well-being, found that in 2012, Alaska had among the highest rate (of all states) on

five indicators: child and teen death rates, the proportion of children with no parent

working full- time, year-round, percentage of teens not in school and not working, and

teen birth rate. On other indicators, the State was among the average or highest on five

other indicators, including percentage of children in single-parent families, percentage

of teens not in school and not graduates, and percentage of babies with low birth weight

(http://kidscount.alaska.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-KidsCountAlaska.pdf). Regional

analysis found that many of the measures of child well-being were lower in rural areas of Alaska

than in urban areas.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
199 Analysis of Management Situation

Table 2.32. Housing, Municipal Facilities, and Schools in Central Yukon Planning Area Communities

City/Village Type Number

Housing

Unitsa

Number

housing units

vacant a

% occupied

housing units

with plumbing b

Municipal Facilities and Utilities a Schools,

number of

students a

Wiseman Unincorporated 25 20 nac Connected to Alaska road system via Dalton. A

state-owned 2,000 foot by 30 foot gravel airstrip is

available, but not consistently maintained

Closed in 2002

Coldfoot Unincorporated 11 5 na na none

Bettles 2nd class city 25 16 na Volunteer Fire Department, Fire Hall, Roads, Ice

Roads, Parks & Recreation, Fuel Tank Farm

Closed in 2002

Evansville Unincorporated 25 12 95 na Closed in

2002-2003

Rampart Unincorporated 43 10 0 na Closed in 1999

Alatna Unincorporated 14 12 0 na none

Allakaket 2nd class city 58 14 100 Watering Point, Landfill, Health Clinic, Counseling

Center, Fuel Sales, U.S. Post Office, Roads

P-12, 36

students

Stevens

Village

Unincorporated 52 26 0 na P-12, 2

Hughes 2nd class city 40 9 46 Watering Point, Washeteria, Electric, Refuse

Collection, Landfill, Health Clinic, Fuel Sales,

Airport (State Contract), U.S. Post Office (Federal

Contract), General Store, Roads, Community Hall,

Bingo

K-12, 2

Huslia 2nd class city 105 14 85 Piped Water & Sewer, Honeybucket Haul,

Washeteria, Electric, Airport maintenance (State

contract), Landfill, Health Clinic, Volunteer Fire, Fuel

Sales, Head Start, City Hall/Public Safety Office,

Tribal Office, Community Hall, Roads, Harbor/Dock,

Bingo. State-funded Public Safety Officer.

P-12, 84

Ruby 2nd class city 108 46 43 Watering Point, Washeteria, Electric, Landfill, Health

Clinic, Volunteer Fire/Rescue/Ambulance, Public

Safety Facility, Fire Hall, Community Hall, Teen

Center, Library, Roads, Public Campground, Airport

Maintenance (State Contract), Roads, Community

Freezer, Sawmill, Suicide Prevention

P-12,37

Chapter

2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
200 Analysis of Management Situation

City/Village Type Number

Housing

Unitsa

Number

housing units

vacant a

% occupied

housing units

with plumbing b

Municipal Facilities and Utilities a Schools,

number of

students a

Galena 1st class city 264 74 82 Piped Water, Water Delivery, Sewage Tank Haul,

Electric Utility, Refuse Collection, Landfill,

Public Showers, Health Center, Dental Clinic,

Behavioral Health, Police Department, Volunteer

Fire Department, EMS & Ambulance, Schools Pre-K

- 12, Daycare, Galena Interior Learning Academy

Boarding School, Yukon-Koyukuk Learning Center,

Public Library, Community Hall, Roads, Parks &

Recreation, Swimming Pool

4 Schools and

4,113 students

(includes

Interior Distance

Education of

Alaska with

3,811 students)

Tanana 1st class city 136 36 48 Landfill, Airport Maintenance (state contract), River

Dock, Police, Volunteer Fire/EMS/Ambulance,

Fire Station, City School, Gravel Sales,

Roads, Maintenance & Streetlights, Equipment

Rental and Sales, Teacher Housing, Beverage

Control/Liqour Sales, Incarceration Facility, Public

Safety Housing, City Shop/Mechanical Work,

Construction/Rehabilitation, New Road Construction,

Biomass Installation, Process Fire Wood, Office

Rental, ANP, Local Financial Contributions.

K-12,40

Koyukuk 2nd class city 54 12 8 Water & Sewer Haul System, Washeteria, Electric,

Landfill, Health Clinic, Suicide Prevention, Volunteer

Fire/EMS, Library, Fuel Sales, Lodging, Parks &

Recreation

P-10,15

Nulato 2nd class city 134 42 na Piped Water, Watering Point, School Water, Piped

Sewer, Washeteria, Electric, Landfill, Health

Clinic, Public Safety Building, Fuel Sales, Roads,

Maintenance Shop, City Office, Community Hall,

Activity Center, Adult Recreation Center, Head Start

Building, Gravel Sales, Equipment Rental, Package

Storage, State-funded Public Safety Officer

P-12,44

Kaltag 2nd class city 87 17 65 Piped Water & Sewer, Washeteria, Electric, Landfill,

Health Clinic, Volunteer Fire, Fire Hall, Community

Hall, Roads, Boat Haul, Sawmill, Gravel Sales,

Equipment Rental

P-12,24

Manley Hot

Springs

Unincorporated 116 75 33 na K-12,13

Minto Unincorporated 94 29 81 na P-13,43

Chapter

2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
201 Analysis of Management Situation

City/Village Type Number

Housing

Unitsa

Number

housing units

vacant a

% occupied

housing units

with plumbing b

Municipal Facilities and Utilities a Schools,

number of

students a

Anderson 2nd class city 145 55 96 Sewage Lagoon, Volunteer Fire/EMS, Ambulance,

Health Clinic, Riverside Park, Parks & Recreation,

Gravel Sales, Building Rental, Dept. of Motor

Vehicles, Fish & Game Licenses

K-12,16

Nenana Home rule city 215 44 89 Piped Water & Sewer, Clinic, Mental Health,

Dock/Boat Ramp, Airport, Police, Volunteer

Fire/EMS, Library, Roads, Schools, Civic Center,

Visitor Center, Senior Center, City Building, Parks

2 Schools,

974 students

(includes

CyberLynx

Correspondence

Program with

766 students)

Ester Unincorporated 1,229 160 68 na na

Fairbanks Home rule city 13,056 1,522 99 Refuse Collection, Police, Fire Department, Snow

Removal/Street Maintenance, City Cemetery

24 Schools,

10,633 students

(two school

districts:

FSNB School

District and

Yukon-Koyukuk

School District

North Pole Home rule city 916 88 99 Piped Water & Sewer, Police, Fire & Ambulance,

Fire Stations, Municipal Buildings, Bingo, Building

Permits

6 Schools, 3,044

students

Big Delta Unincorporated 305 99 95 na na

Delta Junction 517 140 94 Landfill, Airstrip, Public Works Building, Fire

Station, Volunteer Fire & Ambulance, Library,

Community Center/Senior Lounge, Park, Cemetery,

Skating Rinks

5 Schools, 558

students

McKinley

Park

Unincorporated 422 313 92 na na

Healy Unincorporated 711 277 96 na 2 Schools, 840

students

Anaktuvuk

Pass

2nd class city 118 19 84 Bingo/Pull Tabs and Recreation P-12, 102

Venetie Unincorporated 85 24 3 na P-12, 51

Chapter

2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
202

Chapter

2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions

City/Village Type Number

Housing

Unitsa

Number

housing units

vacant a

% occupied

housing units

with plumbing b

Municipal Facilities and Utilities a Schools,

number of

students a

Lake

Minchumina

Unincorporated 36 30 20 na na

Average 62.35

Analysis of Management Situation

aCommunity and Regional Affairs, Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development at http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/cra/DCRAExternal/

Community

bAmerican Community Survey 2007-2011, as reported online by Research and Analysis, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development at

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/cen/acsarea.cfm

cData not available
Analysis of Management Situation 203

Alaska has one of the highest per capita alcohol consumption rates in the Nation and the

prevalence of alcohol dependence and alcohol abuse, at 14 percent, is twice the national

average (http://dhss.alaska.gov/dbh/Pages/Prevention/programs/substanceabuse/default.aspx).

The use of alcohol and other drugs among high-school aged students also is high, although

comparable to national statistics, and the rates of drinking behaviors have decreased since 1995.

Several communities have taken advantage of the local option laws allowing communities to

regulate alcoholic beverages: Allakaket and Anaktuvuk Pass have banned sale, importation, and

possession; Stevens Village and Minto have banned sale and importation; and Hughes and Huslia

have banned sale (http://commerce.alaska.gov/dnn/abc/Resources/DryDampCommunities.aspx).

2.4.3.2. Economic Conditions

As described in the Subsistence section 2.4.2, the economy in much of rural Alaska is a mixed

subsistence-cash economy, and this is true of many planning area communities. However, the

Joint Board of Fisheries and Game has designated the area immediately around Fairbanks as a

nonsubsistence area; this includes the planning area communities of Fairbanks, Ester, North Pole,

Healy, McKinley Park, Big Delta, and Delta Junction.

Cost of living in much of the planning area is higher than averages for other places in Alaska and

much higher than for the United States as a whole. A key factor that has socioeconomic effects

throughout the planning area is high fuel costs, which are especially high in the communities off

the road system. Higher fuel prices ripple through rural village lifestyles many ways, including

increasing the cost of store-bought foods through transportation and storage costs. Subsistence

activity is more expensive because of higher fuel costs for snowmobiles, four wheelers, and

motorboats, while high food prices increase the need for subsistence as a food source. The

increased reliance on subsistence as a source of food, coupled with greatly increased costs of

getting to the fish, moose, or caribou, and a poor commercial fishing season, are problems in

many villages.

Although average Alaska heating fuel and gasoline prices are slightly lower than their peak in

the summer of 2008, the statewide average cost of heating fuel has increased 65 percent and the

statewide average cost of gasoline has increased 59 percent since 2005. During July, 2013, current

retail prices for heating fuel #1 and gasoline were collected from 100 select communities across

Alaska (http://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dnn/dcra/ResearchAnalysis/FuelPriceSurvey.aspx).

The communities were selected from throughout the eight Department of Commerce Community

and Regional Affairs (DCRA) Alaska regions (Northern, Gulf Coast, Interior, Northwest,

Southwest, Western, South Central, and Southeast).

Retail price of a gallon of heating oil #1 in surveyed planning communities averages $5.26,

ranging from a low of $1.55 in Anaktuvuk Pass (one of the communities in which heating fuel

price is subsidized by the North Slope Borough) to a high of $9.00 in Hughes (Table 2.33). Retail

price of a gallon of gasoline varies across the communities, ranging from $3.65 in Fairbanks to

$9.65 in Anaktuvuk Pass, where gasoline prices are not subsidized.

The communities rely primarily on diesel for power. The residential electrical rate ranges from

$0.13 per kilowatt hour in Hughes and Anaktuvuk Pass to $0.61 per kilowatt hour in Stevens

Village (Table 2.33). These effective residential rates are much lower than they would be without

the Alaska Energy Authority's Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program, which provides economic

assistance to customers in rural areas of Alaska to compensate for the high kilowatt-hour charges

for electricity. Rates in 2012 for Anchorage were about $0.11 per kilowatt hour.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 204

As found throughout the state, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, one of the utilities serving

several planning area communities, recovers heat at nearly all of its power plants, and provides

heat to schools and other buildings and facilities at many locations. In Galena, for example, the

city buildings, school, swimming pool, and health clinic space are heated by cogeneration. Several

of the utilities serving planning area communities also utilize wind turbines to supplement diesel.

2.4.3.2.1. Income and Employment

As is common in rural Alaska, many of the communities rely on local government as a major

source of jobs; the percent of workers employed by local government ranged from 7 to 9 percent

in Fairbanks, Alatna, and McKinley Park to 71 to 72 percent in Tanana and Allakaket, with an

average of 38 percent across all communities (Table 2.34 Employment by Sector). The percentage

of workers employed by local government was above 40 percent in 14 communities.

A very small proportion of workers in the communities were employed in Natural Resources and

Mining except in Healy, where the Usibelli coal mine operates year-round and employs about

130 workers. The proportions of employment in Construction and Manufacturing, Leisure and

Hospitality, and State Government were generally low; a high proportion of employment in

McKinley Park is in Leisure and Hospitality (47 percent), as would be expected for a national park

gateway community. Larger communities and those on a major road system such as Fairbanks,

Ester, North Pole, McKinley Park, Big Delta, and Delta Junction have relatively high proportions

of employment in the Trade, Transportation and Utilities sector, as does Ruby. Big Delta, Delta

Junction, and Anderson (where a major employer is Clear Air Force Station) have the highest

proportion of employment in the Professional and Business Services, Financial, and Information

sectors. The percentage employed in Educational and Health Services also varies widely, but is

highest in Fairbanks, Hughes, Huslia, and Koyukuk.

The role of commercial fishing as an industry and employer is generally low compared to some

Alaska communities, and none of the communities is a participant in the Community Development

Quota program, but several communities (Nulato, Nenana, Kaltag, Galena, and Tanana) have a

fair number of residents with commercial fishing permits compared to the population size (Table

2.30). Another characteristic of the planning area is the seasonality and part-time nature of many

work activities; the average (by community) of employed residents who worked 50 to 52 weeks

per year was 42 percent in the planning area compared to 55 percent of workers nationally (Table

2.33, EPS 2013 using American Community Survey data from 2007-2011).4

Table 2.33 shows the number of people employed in each community, plus the number of people

who filed for unemployment insurance. The ratio of these two numbers, which serves as another

measure of work seasonality as well as work patterns, averaged 0.32 across all planning area

communities, ranging from 0.13 in Ester (and comparable rates in two very small communities) to

0.63 in Venetie and 0.54 in McKinley Park, and even higher in one very small community.

Per capita income varies from $10,820 in Huslia to $45,000 to $48,000 in Bettles, Evansville, and

Anderson (Table 2.31). Another measure of income is median household income, the number at

which half of the household incomes fall above and half fall below. Median household income

varies from $17,917 in Allakaket to $97,778 in Healy. The percent of persons living in poverty in

4The average for planning area communities is the average by community — i.e., it does not reflect the different numbers

of those employed in each community, so the rate for Hughes counts the same as the rate for Fairbanks.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 205

the communities ranged from less than 10 percent in 12 communities to 20 percent or greater

in 12 other communities.

In addition to earned income, many households receive one or more forms of public assistance

(the largest of which often comes from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The

proportion of households receiving public assistance in the 30 communities ranged from 0 to 100

percent, with residents of Allakaket, Stevens Village, Minto, Venetie, and Huslia receiving the

highest amounts, and residents of Healy, Anderson, Ester, Big Delta, Lake Minchumina, and

McKinley Park receiving the least (Table 2.33).

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
206 Analysis of Management Situation

Table 2.33. Cost of Living and Employment Conditions in Central Yukon Communities

City/Village Power type/

residential rate per

kWh after Power

Cost Equalization

(PCE) ($)a

2013 retail

price/gallon,

heating oil #1

($) b

2013 retail

price/gallon

gasoline ($) b

Number of

residents

employed c

Unemployment

insurance

claimants c

Ratio #

employed: #

unemployment

insurance

claimants

% who worked

50-52 weeks/year d

Kaltag Diesel, $0.22 5.74 6 99 31 0.31 12

Wiseman na na na 8 6 0.75 na

Coldfoot na na na 18 2 0.11 na

Bettles Diesel, $0.26 na na 15 2 0.13 81

Evansville Diesel, $0.26 na na na na na 59

Rampart na na na 8 3 0.37 100

Alatna Diesel, $0.26 7 7 10 5 0.5 100

Allakaket Diesel, $0.26 na na 111 31 0.28 12

Stevens Village Diesel, $0.61 na na 34 15 0.44 9

Hughes Diesel, $0.13 9 8.25 60 18 0.3 45

Huslia Diesel, $0.22 7 7 127 52 0.41 17

Ruby Diesel, $0.44 5.92 6.35 93 31 0.33 24

Galena Diesel, $0.31 6.03 6.8 252 43 0.17 49

Tanana Diesel, $0.31 5.5 6 136 46 0.34 17

Koyukuk Diesel, $0.55 na na 53 14 0.26 17

Nulato Diesel, $0.22 5.25 6.25 150 40 0.27 34

Manley Hot Springs Diesel, $0.16 na na 57 27 0.47 20

Minto Diesel, $0.22 5 4.95 108 45 0.42 20

Anderson na 4.18 4.18 91 14 0.15 71

Nenana na 4.18 4.18 236 70 0.3 31

Ester na na na 1,098 141 0.13 52

Fairbanks Coal, diesel, $0.22e 4.12 3.65 10,236 1,980 0.19 58

North Pole Diesel, $0.22 na na 807 127 0.16 61

Big Delta na na na 167 35 0.21 43

Delta Junction Wind turbine, intertie,

$0.22e

4.19 4.09 486 112 0.23 53

Healy Diesel, $0.22 e 4.4 3.9 476 123 0.26 61

McKinley Park na na na 100 54 0.54 31

Anaktuvuk Pass Diesel, $0.13 1.55 9.65 152 39 0.26 27

Venetie Diesel, $0.28 na na 121 76 0.63 12

Chapter

2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
207

Chapter

2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions

City/Village Power type/

residential rate per

kWh after Power

Cost Equalization

(PCE) ($)a

2013 retail

price/gallon,

heating oil #1

($) b

2013 retail

price/gallon

gasoline ($) b

Number of

residents

employed c

Unemployment

insurance

claimants c

Ratio #

employed: #

unemployment

insurance

claimants

% who worked

50-52 weeks/year d

Lake Minchumina na na na na na na 60

Average 5.27 5.88 0.32 42

Analysis of Management Situation

aCommunity and Regional Affairs, Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development

bAlaska Fuel Price Report, July 2013

cAlaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 2012

dEconomic Profile System Data 2012 U.S. Census

enot PCE eligible
208 Analysis of Management Situation

Table 2.34. Employment by Sector, Central Yukon Communities

City/Village % Employed

Natural

Resources

and Mining a

% Employed

Construction

and Manufacturing a

% Employed

Trade, Transportation and

Utilities a

% Employed

Professional

and Business

Services,

Financial,

Information a

% Employed

Educational

and Health

Services a

% Employed

Leisure and

Hospitality a

% Employed

State

Government

a

% Employed

Local

Government

a

Commercial

Fishing

Permits,

Crew

Licenses

2010 (#)b

Kaltag 3 5 12 1 11 1 na 66 9,12

Wiseman 59 25 0 12.5 0 12.5 0 0 1,0

Coldfoot 6 6 6 0 0 67 17 0 0,0

Bettles 0 0 13 33 7 20 0 27 0,0

Evansville na na na na na na na na 0,0

Rampart 12 12 12 12 12 12 0 25 1,0

Alatna 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0,0

Allakaket 1 3 7 2 9 2 2 71 0,0

Stevens

Village

0 26 0 9 3 15 0 47 3,0

Hughes 0 7 8 0 15 2 0 67 1,0

Huslia 6 2 3 2.4 16 3 0 67 0,0

Ruby 6.5 14 19 1 5 5 0 46 8,2

Galena 3 10 9 6 9 2 7 55 12,0

Tanana 4 1 11 4 4 3 1 72 12,0

Koyukuk 4 4 4 0 15 6 2 64 0,0

Nulato 3 9 3 1 13 3 0 67 8,2

Manley Hot

Springs

2 14 12 7 10 0 7 47 8,0

Minto 3 9 7 2 8 10 3 57 0,0

Anderson 3 4 13 29 3 5 3 35 0,0

Nenana 2 7 14 10 12 18 2 33 19,1

Ester 3 9 17 11 11 10 24 13 0,2

Fairbanks 4 8 23 15 15 15 9 8 109,75

North Pole 3 10 24 15 12 13 8 11 16,15

Big Delta 5 9 23 27 10 6 7 10 0,0

Delta

Junction

5 13 18 28 10 6 4 13 23,15

Healy 25 8 15 6 4 20 5 17 2,2

McKinley

Park

5 6 17 7 9 47 2 7 0,0

Chapter

2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
209 Analysis of Management Situation

City/Village % Employed

Natural

Resources

and Mining a

% Employed

Construction

and Manufacturing a

% Employed

Trade, Transportation and

Utilities a

% Employed

Professional

and Business

Services,

Financial,

Information a

% Employed

Educational

and Health

Services a

% Employed

Leisure and

Hospitality a

% Employed

State

Government

a

% Employed

Local

Government

a

Commercial

Fishing

Permits,

Crew

Licenses

2010 (#)b

Anaktuvuk

Pass

1 5 5 21 2 1 0 66 0,0

Venetie 8 8 2 1 7 2 1 62 0,0

Lake

Minchumina

na na na na na na na na 0,0

Average 6.3 8.4 10.6 9.4 8.3 11.0 3.9 37.9

aAlaska Local and Regional Information Database 2012

bAlaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Database 2012

Chapter

2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 210

2.4.3.2.2. Non-market Values

The BLM’s Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2013-131 describes when and how to consider

non-market environmental values when preparing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

analyses for BLM resource management planning and other decision-making. The IM directs

BLM managers to use estimates of non-market environmental values in NEPA analysis supporting

planning and other decision-making where relevant and feasible, and to include at least a

qualitative description of the most relevant non-market values for the affected environment and

the impacts of alternatives in NEPA analyses.

Non-market environmental values reflect the benefits individuals attribute to experiences of the

environment, uses (both active and passive) of natural resources, or the existence of particular

ecological conditions, including the full range of ecosystems goods and services) that do not

involve market transactions, and therefore, lack prices. The goal is to provide economic analysis

for resource management that considers all relevant values, not merely those that are easy to

quantify; using non-market values provides a more complete picture of the consequences of a

proposed activity than market data alone would allow.

Economists have developed a number of quantitative techniques for estimating dollar values

of non-market uses, goods and services. IM 2013-131 encourages such quantitative analysis

of non-market values when one or more of three conditions is present: a proposed action is

likely to have a significant direct or indirect effect and the quality or magnitude of the effect

can be clarified through the analysis of non-market values; if the alternatives to be considered

present a strong contrast between extractive and non-extractive uses of land and resources; or

if the magnitude of the proposed change is large. In these cases, the analysis typically requires

comparison of non-market costs or benefits to market costs and/or benefits, so the goal is to

transfer costs and benefits into the same language and terms (dollars) to allow decision-makers

and society to better compare alternative outcomes.

For example, dollar values for non-market resources and opportunities have been estimated in

a variety of Alaska settings: losses in subsistence harvest resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil

spill (Duffield 1997) and passive use losses resulting from the same oil spill (Carson et al. 2003),

sport fishing for king salmon on the Kenai River (Carson et al. 1990), wild salmon ecosystems in

Bristol Bay (Duffield et al. 2007), Alaska moose (Northern Economics 2006), and wildlife-related

trips by Alaska residents and visitors (McCollum and Miller 1994).

When these conditions or criteria are not present, the non-market values can be described

qualitatively. That is the case with the Central Yukon RMP; it is unlikely that alternatives will

incorporate significant or substantial trade-offs between market and non-market resources or uses

of BLM-managed lands. The subsistence sections of this AMS chapter, along with the other

resource sections of the AMS, describe the ecosystem goods and services present in qualitative

terms (and sometimes quantitative terms, although not in dollars).

2.4.3.3. Sociocultural Systems

Koyukon Athabascans

The kinship relations between Alaska Natives in Middle Yukon villages are often place-based,

with some families from different villages having a common ancestry in these other places; this

has influenced both trade and travel between these villages. Second, this also means that there is a

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 211

tremendous wealth of environmental knowledge about areas far outside current villages, which

has significance to resource management and ecological monitoring. Third, this means that an

individual’s sense of “home” and “belonging” and even “responsibility” is often tied to places

outside the current village location, where their ancestors walked daily (Watson and Huntington

2014; Watson and Huntington 2008).

Being the westernmost group of Athabaskan tribes in North America, Koyukon occupy what has

traditionally been a borderland region between that of Interior Athabaskan and coastal Inupiat

peoples. Historically, there have been both tensions and intense trading relationships at this

“Athabascan-Eskimo interface” (Clark 1970; see also Morlan 2000; Huntington and Elliott 2002),

with records showing shifting territorial boundaries over time, especially along the northern

Koyukon area. Indeed, the village of Alatna is predominantly Inupiat or Nunamiut, composed of

families descended from those that had moved inland during the 1930s to trade with Koyukon

(Watson and Huntington 2014; Englehard et al. 1993; Clark 1970). Englehard et al. (1993)

note that extensive rituals and intermarriage have maintained largely peaceful relations to the

present day between Inupiat and Koyukon cultural groups residing in Alatna and Allakaket, just

across the river from each other. There are also extensive trail systems for winter travel between

Koyukon and Inupiat communities throughout the western border of the area, which served as

important customary trade routes between coastal and Interior Alaskan communities (Watson

and Huntington 2014).

Oral history also indicates tensions and intermarriage when Russian explorers and military

traveled and settled the Middle Yukon in the 1700s to 1867. Given that the Russian fort was

located near present-day Nulato, both the southern Koyukon dialect and family names in those

southern villages reflect their Russian influence (Watson and Stickman forthcoming). Although

first documented by U.S. explorer Dall (1870) as the “Nulato Massacre,” oral history recounts

that this episode of inter-tribal warfare was a response to the Russian migration, with people

from the northern Koyukuk retaliating against those who they claimed brought disease into

the country (Watson and Huntington 2014).

With the sale of “Russian America” to the United States in 1867, more people from the United

States and Northern Europe migrated to the Middle Yukon to obtain riches or establish a home.

Much of this migration was drawn westward by the gold mining and trapping economies, each

of which experienced periods of boom and bust throughout the twentieth century. The military

boom during World War II included the transformation of one fish camp on the Yukon into the

community of Galena, developed into an air base for the lend-lease program. Today Galena

serves as a regional hub for the Middle Yukon; many of its families come from different villages

across the region and current residents, including a large non-Native population, participate in a

variety of cash-based jobs, as well as a subsistence way of life. By the 1970s, the mineral and

trapping economy was joined by a rich salmon egg fishery, which attracted some Asian migration

to communities along the Yukon (Watson and Stickman forthcoming). These connections to

the global capitalist economy were crucial in producing certain changes in the sociocultural

system, especially in developing the mixed cash-subsistence economy. However, these global

connections, affected by larger-scale market changes, often did not endure, such as the collapse of

the European and American fur market in the 1990s.

This brief introduction to the history of human migration and occupation of the Middle Yukon

area only begins to narrate the extensive transformations experienced by this sociocultural

system. Yet changes wrought by the colonial era and the eventual emergence of the mixed

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 212

cash-subsistence economy have not affected a number of values and practices that endure in this

society—including many of those affecting land use decisions.

2.4.3.3.1. Occupational and Interest Groups

Since the purchase of Russian America, numerous institutions have evolved to take on roles of

governance, and they remain sites of civic participation for residents of the Middle Yukon for the

governing of land and resources. In many cases, tribes argued for their inclusion in structures

of governance, such as within the migratory bird management regime run by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. It was not until 2000, that the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council

was created to make a place at the management table for Native participation in bird management

and to manage a legal harvest for Alaska Natives (Watson 2014). But, the most significant

institutional changes for the Middle Yukon occurred with the passage of ANCSA (1972) and

ANILCA (1980), which finalized a process of land selection for the different parties interested in

Alaskan land ownership, and created a corporate structure for Alaska Native development. In the

Middle Yukon, the major corporate landowner is Doyon Ltd. Corporation, but there are other

smaller village corporations that pay out dividends to their shareholders. While these corporate

structures aimed to create a source of necessary cash income for rural subsistence users, tensions

remain over resource use between these corporate interests and those of more rural, village

subsistence users. Tanana Chiefs Conference is the regional nonprofit entity also created in the

land claims process that represents these Middle Yukon tribes in terms of building tribal capacity

and advocating for subsistence rights and Native land management on a state and federal level.

However, Tanana Chiefs Conference is not a legal decision-maker for lands in the Middle Yukon.

Since the Indian Reorganization Act created recognition of Alaskan tribal governments in 1936,

communities in the Middle Yukon have developed local governmental structures to relate to

outside entities and to administer community-level needs. In these Indian Reorganization Act

governments, tribal councils are elected, along with First and Second Chiefs or Presidents,

to make decisions for the tribes. Most small Alaska Native communities, although federally

recognized as villages under the Indian Reorganization Act and/or ANCSA, are also incorporated

as second-class cities (in order to be recognized by the State of Alaska as a municipal entity) and

therefore, also have city government and staff, with elected mayors, to oversee issues such as

infrastructure needs and policing.

Besides institutions such as Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council, residents of the

Middle Yukon participate in many other wildlife and land management entities. For example,

ungulates on federal lands are managed in this area by the Western Interior Regional Advisory

Council, while there are state-level advisory groups that make management decisions on private

and tribal land. This “dual management” structure reflects that the Alaska State Constitution,

which defines a “subsistence user” as any rural Alaska resident, is out of alignment with ANILCA

(1980), which assures subsistence rights to all Alaska Natives (Watson 2007).

The proliferation of these governing institutions comes with a cost to rural communities in the

Middle Yukon: it is challenging to participate from a rural area (especially considering the costs

of travel, including the time away from subsistence labor), and many tribes and individuals lack

the financial and institutional capacity to participate as effectively as they would like in these

institutions. The administrative capacity to engage other institutions varies greatly from tribe to

tribe; currently the tribe of Nulato is the only tribe in the region with a direct fiscal relationship to

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while all other tribes work through the Tanana Chiefs Conference

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 213

to administer programs and funds for self-governance. Rural participation in institutions of

governance, therefore, remains a challenge throughout the region (Watson 2007).

2.4.3.3.2. Management and Land Use of the Local Environment

There are three ways that land use decisions are made by Alaska Native communities in the

Middle Yukon: (1) through legal governance and corporate structures and other institutions

that have emerged in the twentieth century to manage wildlife and lands; (2) through cultural

systems that guide ethical and community-level decision-making; and (3) through individual

daily practices of subsistence within the region.

Despite the numerous changes to the institutional context, studies have consistently shown that

many Koyukon cultural beliefs and associated subsistence practices remain prevalent land

management tools in the region. Anthropologist Richard Nelson worked in the area beginning in

the late 1970s and documented extensively what he called “making prayers to the raven”: a deep

respect for the human and non-human community (Nelson 1986). Writing in the era of the early

environmental movement, Nelson examined whether hunting and gathering societies were also

conservationists, and articulated a Koyukon worldview where their sense of respect amounted to

an ethics of the environment (Nelson 1986; Nelson et al. 1982). Ethnographic work conducted

over thirty years later (Watson et al. 2014; Watson and Huntington 2014 and 2008) affirms that

the Koyukon sense of “respect” involves feeling responsible for the land and its non-human

inhabitants, and rural tribes show a continued commitment to subsistence as a way of life.

In this spiritual worldview and way of knowing, land and animals are not understood as a species

separate from the human self (Huntington and Watson 2012; Watson and Huntington 2008).

That is, a hunter “becomes” the animal that is sought—they share a common identity and set of

practices, even just for a few moments, which allow a hunter to best locate a potential encounter

with that animal. Hunters think as that animal to examine places where the animal might bed

down, or seek shelter, and thereby, have intimate behavioral knowledge of those species and the

ecology within which they live (Watson et al. 2014). This way of knowing is very different

from that of western sciences like wildlife biology, which presumes an “objective” way of

understanding animals—reflected through techniques like aerial surveying (Watson 2014). This

difference in cultural beliefs is significant, because Alaska Native societies not only understand a

kinship with these other species, but they are often opportunistic in their harvest, and recount

how if a hunter shows respect, an animal will “give himself to you.” It would be disrespectful

not to accept the gift being presented to the hunter, because this spiritual worldview informs a

practice of opportunism. Other actions of resource management that are influenced by a Koyukon

worldview include active predator management, especially of wolf and bear, and frequent potlatch

ceremonies, which serve to distribute subsistence resources more widely across the region. By

contrast, Western wildlife management aims to police a separation between hunter and prey,

via regulatory windows and bag limits. These different ways of knowing, and their resultant

management actions, have often been the source of tensions between tribes and regulatory

agencies (Watson and Huntington 2008; Watson 2007).

While subsistence hunting and fishing are largely opportunistic activities, this does not mean that

Alaska Natives in the region will simply decimate all edible species. For example, Koyukon

notions of “respect” also include taboos about when and how to interact with their non-human

kin—such as limits on how many beaver to harvest from a single lodge—actions which often

reflect sophisticated understandings of population ecology (Huntington and Watson 2012; Watson

2007). In another example of the impact of worldview and values on resource management, the

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 214

emergent international governance structure called the “Inter-Tribal Fish Commission” promoted

and secured a moratorium on the subsistence Chinook salmon fishery in 2014, in efforts to

conserve the run in the Yukon River drainage (Watson and Stickman, forthcoming).

Such efforts represent a strong belief in being stewards of the ecosystem. Village residents have

developed a discourse of “local” and “non-local” hunters, which is a reflection of their belief that

human communities in rural areas are part of the ecosystem. Rural Alaska Native communities

have been documented to be an ongoing and adaptive part of the boreal ecosystem (Chapin et

al. 2010), while hunters coming from Fairbanks or other urban area may have less local and

traditional knowledge of the area; urban hunters are certainly not on the landscape at multiple

times of year to take care of the ecosystem in ways documented by village residents. This tension

often emerges in land management contexts, especially regarding “non-local” moose hunters and

associated guiding activity (Watson et al. 2014).

Subsistence and Cash Economies

Most land use decisions by local residents take place on an individual scale, in the daily lives

of the person and family who are subsisting off the land. In the Middle Yukon area, the mixed

cash-subsistence economy has a seasonal rhythm that is in currently in flux due to climate change

(Watson et al. 2014; Chapin et al. 2010). In general, subsistence resources (fish, game, firewood

and other flora) are gathered year-round, with many foods being gathered summer to fall to make

it through the winter. Summer had traditionally been a time to harvest from a variety of salmon

and non-salmon fisheries, and by fall, families would fill their caches with berries. With the recent

entrance of a moose population in the Middle Yukon area in the 1930s, fall and sometimes winter

subsistence activities would focus on moose hunting, as well as a bear harvest. Winter would

be the time to trap for small furbearers, for both the subsistence and cash markets’ demand for

thick pelts. In more mountainous areas, such as the foothills of the Brooks Range and the Nulato

Hills, caribou were once more available to harvest, and resident communities near the Brooks

Range continue to harvest Dall Sheep (Watson et al. 2014; Watson 2007). Winter moose hunting

opportunities are often limited because of travel/weather conditions or because of low moose

populations, so the springtime geese and duck hunting season has traditionally been important

for a family’s food security (Watson 2014).

Prior to contact with the West, Alaska Natives in the Middle Yukon area would experience periods

of starvation; if, for example, a warm spring was followed by a cold snap, migratory birds might

bypass the re-frozen lakes, while the quality of the re-frozen snow would make hunting small

game too noisy for much success (Nelson et al. 1987). Such experiences have at once instilled

the value of opportunism for subsistence hunters and gatherers, in addition to a desire to adapt

to new technologies to make their subsistence more efficient.

Although families no longer live as scattered groups across the landscape, modern equipment like

motorboats and snowmobiles allow residents to travel the distance of their traditional hunting

grounds. Residents of Alatna and Allakaket are more dependent on moose for their food security

and have expanded their traditional range southward in response to changing resource availability

(Watson et al. 2014).

Another reason that subsistence users seek new and efficient technologies is because the time it

takes to complete subsistence activities to provide for the household has often conflicted with

the time required to labor in the capitalist economy. Sometimes, as in trapping, the subsistence

lifestyle meshes well with the cash economy; likewise, the cash earned from firefighting both

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016 Social and Economic Conditions
Analysis of Management Situation 215

in and out of state often comes at a crucial time for purchasing gas and equipment for fall

subsistence. Nevertheless, making choices at the household scale about whether to participate in

the subsistence or cash economy in a particular season is not easy because both the environment

and global market are in flux (Kofinas et al. 2010; McNeeley and Shultzki 2011).

2.4.3.3.3. Socially Significant Places

Koyukon Athabaskan Cultural Landscape

According to the Guide to Cultural Landscapes Reports, cultural landscapes are “a geographic

area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein,

associated with a historic event, activity, or person, or that exhibit other cultural or aesthetic

values” (Page et al. 1998:12). Characteristics of an Alaska Native group’s cultural landscape

include areas of historical extended use, aboriginal trade routes, traditional use sites, and an area

of current intensive subsistence use.

An enduring tensions between the subsistence and cash economies revolves around the continued

need—and perhaps growing need—for large and connected land areas reserved for subsistence.

This need is seen not only because of development activities that either displace (caribou) or

decrease (Chinook) crucial subsistence resources, but also because of the changing ecosystem

(Euskirchen et al. 2009). For example, in a recent study mapping subsistence, Watson and

Huntington (2014) found that the food security of communities of Alatna and Allakaket was

made more vulnerable because of both development activities and climate change. While the

communities practiced a shift from salmon to non-salmon species (Andersen et al. 2012, 2004) in

response to decreases in king salmon and caribou, they also increased their dependence on moose.

But, the traditional ecological knowledge in the area indicated that the changing hydrology

brought about by climate change is making moose more vulnerable to predators and not providing

the lake habitat necessary for a healthy population. The resulting subsistence use maps produced

by this project showed growth in the area where they historically practiced subsistence, compared

with baseline studies completed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other agencies

(Watson and Huntington 2014; see also Holen et al. 2012; Marcotte and Haynes 1985).

Such subsistence patterns also underscore how land ownership maps do not reflect the ways that

the people feel they take care of the land, and how the land takes care of their communities. Some

work documents the extensive landscape of Native place names (YRDFA 2009) that show not

only the historic use of the area, but also the continued relationship that families and individuals

residing in the Middle Yukon have with places and organisms that share their home.

Chapter 2 Area Profile April 2016
Chapter 3. Current Management Direction
 

and Management Opportunities
 
Analysis of Management Situation 217

3.1. Relevant Plans and Amendments

Three land use plans cover the planning area. Additionally, some lands are not covered under

existing plans. Some of the existing plans have been amended. Several of the ACECs are covered

by ACEC or habitat management plans.

Table 3.1. List of Relevant Plans and Amendments

Document Title Year Other relevant information

Utility Corridor RMP and Record of

Decision

1991 Lawsuit filed on record of decision. Wild Rivers lawsuit

settlement agreement (8/30/1993) requires the BLM to:

review rivers in the Utility Corridor Planning Area for

eligibility and suitability for inclusion in the National Wild

and Scenic Rivers System; and manage lands in the Central

Arctic Management Area west of the Killik River in a manner

that will protect its wilderness values until Congress acts on

the wilderness recommendation.

Central Yukon RMP and Record of

Decision

1986 Decisions to revoke existing ANCSA Section 17(d)(1)

withdrawals or to approve new withdrawals have not been

implemented.

Southwest Management Framework

Plan

1986 This plan covers only a small area on the southern edge of the

Central Yukon Planning Area.

BLM Alaska Land Use Plan

Amendment for Wildland Fire and

Fuels Management

2005 Amended all BLM land use plans statewide for fire

management.

Record of Decision and Resource

Management Plan Amendments for

Geothermal Leasing in the Western

United States

2008 Amended the Central Yukon RMP to: Identify public lands

that are administratively and legally closed or open to leasing

and under what conditions; provide a comprehensive list of

stipulations and best management practices; and provide a

reasonably foreseeable development scenario for geothermal

development on federal lands. Lands withdrawn under

the authority of Section 17(d)(1) of ANCSA are identified

as closed to leasing unless the Secretary revokes these

withdrawals.

Galena Mountain ACEC

Management Plan

1986 Objectives: improve caribou habitat; protect crucial calving

areas from alteration and disturbance by human activities.

Tozitna North and South ACEC

Management Plan

1988 Objectives: improve caribou habitat; protect crucial calving

areas from alteration and disturbance by human activities.

Indian River ACEC Aquatic Habitat

Management Plan

1995 Objectives are to maintain: the capability of the aquatic habitat

to sustain annual production of 3.1 million chum salmon eggs

and 117,000 Chinook salmon eggs; natural substrate, stream

type, and geometry on all streams; minimum stream discharge

needed for natural stream channel and habitat composition;

stream bank stability, riparian cover, and woody debris; and

water quality.

Hogatza ACEC Aquatic Habitat

Management Plan

1994 Objectives are the same as Indian River ACEC above except

for production and escapement goals. These are to maintain

capability of habitat to: sustain annual production of 5 million

chum salmon fry; support a minimum annual escapement of

8,000 chum salmon in Clear Creek and 9,000 chum in Caribou

Creek.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Relevant Plans and Amendments
Analysis of Management Situation 218

Document Title Year Other relevant information

Dalton Management Area Integrated 2013 The purpose is to prevent the introduction of new invasive

Invasive Plant Strategic Plan species and control the further spread of invasive plants within

the Dalton Highway corridor. The goal is to protect fish

habitat, wildlife habitat, and other resource values in the area.

The specific objective is to apply control methods on up to

350 acres (including up to 300 acres treated with herbicides)

of the known 350 acres of invasive plant infested land in the

management area over the course of five years.

BLM Alaska Invasive Species

Management

2010 This document establishes BLM Alaska policy concerning the

coordination and management of invasive species actions on

public lands within the State. This includes other resource

management activities of the BLM, other organizations and

individuals and their actions on public lands. Based primarily

on the BLM Manual 9015 - Integrated Weed Management,

this document is in furtherance of BLM responsibilities

mandated by the legislation identified below in Authority and

the BLM manual sections and other guidance, listed under

the Reference section below. The primary goal is to protect

the environment with effective prevention, management and

treatment strategies of invasive species that cross-cut most

functional areas.

Partners Against Weeds, An Action

Plan for the Bureau of Land

Management

1996 This is a strategy to prevent and control the spread of noxious

weeds on BLM lands through cooperation with all partners. It

is divided into two sections — Introduction and Actions. The

Introduction describes the background of BLM's cooperative

weed management program, the impact of weeds on

ecosystem health, the Integrated Weed Management approach,

the use of the fire /weed model, the origin of weeds in the

United States, the legal direction for weed management, the

recognition of the importance of cooperation and partnerships,

BLM's budget, and weed program opportunities. The second

section lists seven goals and associated actions necessary for

implementing an improved weed management program.

Recreation Area Management Plan

for the Dalton Highway Recreation

Management Area

1991 Objective: Manage the recreation management area to

provide a variety of developed and semi-primitive motorized

recreation opportunities. Maintain the physical setting to

protect scenic resources in a predominantly natural setting,

consistent with development and maintenance of the Utility

Corridor.

3.2. Management Decisions

The following sections list management decisions in place under the existing plans. These

decisions form the basis for the No Action Alternative.

The tables below also address the adequacy of current management direction and options for

change.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Management Decisions
Analysis of Management Situation 219

3.2.1. Cooperative Planning

Table 3.2. Current Management and Options for Change for Cooperative Planning

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 1: A The Alaska Land Use There are This decision is not

Corridor cooperative planning agreement Council wasterminated issues where really needed at

RMP/ should be established with before any formal coordination and the land use plan

ROD the State of Alaska and other

appropriate parties through the

Alaska Land Use Council. The

proposed planning agreement

would be in accordance with

provisions contained in Sec. 1201

of ANILCA and would allow for

public participation. The zone

covered by this agreement would

correspond to the Dalton Highway

Recreation Management Area.

This area includes those lands

which, due to existing access,

are most likely to be impacted

by public use. The proposed

study recognizes that the State

of Alaska and BLM share

management responsibilities

and that management objectives

and priorities may at times be

in conflict or inconsistent. The

proposed plan would determine

how the state and BLM, working

together, could best provide for

the public's needs while also

protecting natural resources and

the subsistence lifestyle of nearby

communities.

cooperative planning

agreements were

developed. The BLM

has collaborated at

several levels with the

State and other parties

to resolve management

issues along the Dalton

Highway, including

participation in the

Dalton Highway Users

Group and, serving

as a member of the

Governor's Dalton

Highway Advisory and

Planning Board.

collaboration are

advantageous for

both agencies and

for the public.

level. Memoranda

of Understanding

between the State

and BLM can be

developed at any

time under existing

authorities. The

BLM will continue

to collaborate

with the State on

Dalton Highway

management issues

through various

user groups and

advisory boards.

3.2.2. Soil, Water, and Air Resources

Decisions in existing plans focus on maintaining water and air quality in cooperation with other

agencies, reducing soil erosion, and reserving federal instream water rights.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Cooperative Planning
Analysis of Management Situation 220

Table 3.3. Current Management and Options for Change to Soil, Water, and Air Resources

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

current Issues?

Options for Change

Utility Proposed Action 47: Ongoing. Addressed at Partially. When Currently, the BLM

Corridor Require mitigation for all project level in NEPA permitting activities, is attempting to

RMP/ activities which may result documents. We are not BLM must adhere address mitigation

ROD in accelerated soil erosion

or in water or air pollution.

Vegetative cover diversity

and condition would be

maintained. Off-road

vehicles would be restricted

to soils with low erosion

hazard or to winter use

with snow cover adequate

to prevent disturbance of

the vegetative cover. The

BLM will adhere to water

quality standards established

by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA)

and the Alaska Department

of Environmental

Conservation.

currently maintaining

vegetation cover and

density on various

land authorizations

(e.g., mines, road,

trails). OHVs are not

restricted to soils with

low erosion potential.

Damage from OHV

use conflicts with legal

requirements under EO

11989 – OHV use on

Public Lands. Water

quality requirements

are not being met on

all streams (e.g., mined

streams) – primarily

due to non-point source

pollution.

to federal and state

air and water quality

laws. While the

current management

decision is

responsive to

current issues,

mitigation to date

has been ineffective

in regard to soil

and water resource

degradation.

at the project level

through NEPA. There

is opportunity to

address at the planning

level by limiting or

excluding soil and

vegetation disturbance

activities and OHV use

in some areas.

Utility Proposed Action 48: Attempting to address Partially. The Currently, BLM uses

Corridor Floodplains and wetlands in NEPA. Not meeting BLM must adhere NEPA to address

RMP/ would be managed in all requirements of EO to EO 11988 and these EOs at the

ROD accordance with Executive

Order (EO) 11988

Floodplain Management

and EO 11990 Protection of

Wetlandsto assure continued

hydrological functions.

11988 or EO 11990.

For example, notice

level mining operations

do not follow

the minimization,

restoration, or

protection standards

because NEPA is not

required on this type of

activity.

EO 11990. These

orders were given

to avoid adverse

impacts associated

with the occupancy

and modification

of floodplains and

the destruction or

modification of

wetlands. While the

current management

decision is

responsive to current

issues, mitigation

to date has been

ineffective in

regard to floodplain

and wetland

degradation.

project level. Address

at the planning

level by limiting or

excluding surface

disturbance activities

within wetlands and

floodplains in some

areas. Add stipulations

to the RMP that ensure

the EOs, criteria

for the occupancy

and modification

of wetlands and

floodplains are being

met. Develop more

cooperative projects

with the Corps of

Engineers for wetland

mitigation monitoring.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Soil, Water, and Air Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 221

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

current Issues?

Options for Change

Utility Proposed Action 49: Ongoing. Designated Partially. Due to Currently, no leases

Corridor Designate Kanuti Hot ACEC. Some limited unique vegetative are allowed within

RMP/ Springs as an ACEC. inventory for plants. communities, ACEC the immediate area of

ROD Investigation of the

area indicated the range

extension of several plant

species. Do not allow

leases within the immediate

area of the springs or

"thawbulb" (an area roughly

corresponding to a meadow

which surrounds the hot

water pools). Conduct

additional inventory to

define the area needed under

ACEC protection more

accurately, and to aid in the

design of lease stipulations

intended to protect this

resource. If changes in the

ACEC boundary or use

restrictions result from such

an inventory, address in a

plan amendment (also see

proposed action 23).

No leases have been

authorized. Subject to

PLO 399.

designation remains

appropriate, but

additional inventory

has been limited and

no recommendations

on the suitability

of the existing

boundary have been

made.

the “thawbulb.” The

area closed to leasing

could be expanded to

encompass the entire

ACEC to preserve the

unique vegetation and

hydrologic processes

of the Kanuti Hot

Springs. Consider

revisions to the

boundary of the ACEC

based on more current

inventory.

Central Goal #4, Objective 8: Ongoing snow surveys Yes. With limited Deploy automated

Yukon Cooperate with other federal Lake Todatonten funding and mixed Snotel site at Lake

RMP/ agencies in construction and Tozinta River management of Todatonten. Install

ROD and maintenance of

water gauging stations

and snow courses.

Cooperate with state and

other federal agencies in

obtaining water quality and

quantity inventory data.

in cooperation with

National Resource

Conservation Service.

lands within the

planning area

coordination for

monitoring of

water resources

is necessary.

automated seasonal

stream gage at Tozitna

River and Lake

Todatonten.

Central Goal #4, Objective 9: Ongoing. BLM has Yes. Federal File for water

Yukon Inventory water needs and received provisional instream flow reservations on

RMP/ secure Federal Reserved priority dates for reservations are important streams

ROD Water Rights where needed. instream flow

reservations on the

Tozitna, Jim, Kanuti,

and South Fork

Koyukuk rivers and

Clear and Caribou

creeks (Hogatza River

tributaries). BLM is

currently collecting

data on Prospect Creek.

intended to preserve

the flows necessary

to protect fish and

wildlife habitat,

fish migration and

propagation; and

to maintain and

improve recreational

and subsistence

opportunities.

within the planning

area. Expand current

effort to other high

priority streams such

as, but not limited

to, the Sulukna,

Gisasa, Kateel,

Indian, Sethkokna,

and Ray Rivers;

also Klikhtentotzna,

Accomplishment, and

Section Creeks.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Soil, Water, and Air Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 222

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

current Issues?

Options for Change

Central Soil, Water, and Air Ongoing cooperation Yes. With limited Consider deploying

Yukon (pg. 13): Cooperate with on an as needed basis funding and mixed air quality meters at

RMP/ State and other agencies in in the Utility Corridor management of selected locations

ROD monitoring air quality to

verify compliance with lease

or permit requirements.

subunit; some fire

related mitigation for

wildfire smoke; and

Fairbanks North Star

Borough in winter

non-attainment.

lands within the

planning area

coordination for

monitoring of

air resources is

necessary.

along the Dalton

Highway, winter and

summer to document

current conditions.

Other agencies may

have instrumentation

deployed, for example

at Bettles, nonetheless

specific air quality

data for the Dalton

Highway corridor is

needed.

South- Watershed 1–1: Maintain Not meeting standards Partially. When Address in the RMP

west water quality of watersheds in streamsthat are being permitting activities that standards are not

MFP on BLM-managed lands

in compliance with Alaska

Water Quality Standards.

mined – primarily

a non-point source

pollution issue in some

parts of the planning

area.

BLM must adhere

to federal and state

laws in relation

to water quality.

While the current

management

decision is

responsive to current

issues, mitigation

to date has been

ineffective in regard

to non-point source

pollution.

being met in some

streams that are being

mined, primarily as

non-point source

pollution. Develop

appropriate mitigation

or best management

practices.

South- Watershed 2–1: Perfect Not applicable to See Central Yukon See Central Yukon

west legal water rights to the Central Yukon Planning Goal # 4, Objective Goal # 4, Objective 9

MFP water resource on public

lands in support of BLM

programs, and in compliance

with the Alaska Water Use

Act. Protect existing water

rights of the U.S. File for

water rights to protect

fisheries resources in the

Unalakleet, Anvik, Tuluksak

Rivers, and others as needed.

Area. These rivers are

in Bering Sea Western

Interior Planning Area.

9 above. above.

South- Watershed 3–1: Consider Same as Proposed Partially. See See Proposed Action

west protection of wetlands when Action 48 above. Proposed Action 48 above.

MFP planning or permitting

activities on BLM-managed

lands. Consider protection

of floodplains regardless

of ownership wherever

affected by BLM actions.

The Army Corps of

Engineers is lead on

jurisdictional wetlands,

but since BLM

definition includes

both jurisdictional

and non-jurisdictional

wetlands, we must meet

the BLMs policy for

maintaining proper

functioning condition,

48 above.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Soil, Water, and Air Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 223

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

current Issues?

Options for Change

the EOs, FLPMA

requirements for

protection of resources

(sec. 102, clause

8), and cooperator

responsibilities under

the State's non-point

source pollution control

strategy (req. by sect

319 CWA).

3.2.3. Vegetative Communities

The current RMPs do not meet the planning guidance for vegetative communities. There is

only one general decision for vegetative communities in the Utility Corridor RMP and none in

the Central Yukon RMP (CYRMP).

Table 3.4. Current Management and Options for Change Vegetative Communities

Decision

Source

Current

Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

current Issues?

Options for Change

Utility

Corridor

RMP/

ROD

Proposed Action

47: Vegetative

cover diversity and

condition would be

maintained.

Addressed on a

project-specific basis.

Generally, vegetative

communities are in

natural state and

disturbance is limited.

No. Does not meet

planning guidance.

Develop desired conditions

for vegetative communities in

the planning area. Consider

necessary restrictions on

use to protect vegetative

communities.

The following table compiles all decisions pertinent to riparian-wetland communities. The

requirements of EO 11990 (Floodplain Management) and EO 11988 (Protection of Wetlands)

were not adequately considered during development of the existing RMPs. Implementation of

these EOs at the project level has not been effective in meeting the protection and restoration

requirements they lay out for floodplains and wetlands. Requirements for these EOs will influence

many decisions in the revised RMP.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 224

Table 3.5. Adequacy of current management direction and options for change for

Riparian-Wetland Communities

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to current Issues?

Options for change

Utility Proposed Action Attempting to address Although the current Address the

Corridor 48: Floodplains at project level through management decision is preservation

RMP/ and wetlands would the NEPA process. The responsive to the issues, and restoration

ROD be managed in

accordance with EO

11990 (Floodplain

Management) and EO

11988 (Protection of

Wetlands).

process required by

EOs being partially

implemented: EO

requirements are not

addressed in CYRMP.

the implementation

of the EOs at the

project level not has

not been effective in

meeting the protection

and restoration

requirements of

the EOs; Efforts to

protect wetlands and

avoid disturbance

to floodplains

not documented;

alternatives to

allowing development

in floodplain and

riparian-wetlands

not documented;

restoration actions

not successful in many

instances.

requirements of EOs

through alternative

development, land-use

allocations, and

development of

standard operating

procedures; consider

maintaining existing

withdrawals or

establishing new

withdrawals from

mining in some areas

to protect floodplains

and riparian-wetlands;

Where applicable,

incorporate

riparian-wetland and

floodplain functions

into the purposes for

which ACECs were

established; limit land

use within ACECs

to activities that are

compatible with the

purpose of the ACEC.

Where floodplain

and riparian-wetland

disturbance cannot

be avoided, use

compensatory

mitigation to mitigate

loss.

Utility Proposed Action 47: Attempting to address Partially. Although the Adjust land use

Corridor Require mitigation for at project level through current management allocations to

RMP/ all activities which may the NEPA process. decision is responsive address the EO

ROD result in accelerated

soil erosion or in

water or air pollution.

Maintain vegetative

cover diversity and

condition. Restrict

off-road vehicles to soils

with low erosion hazard

or to winter use with

adequate snow cover.

Adhere to water quality

standards established

by the EPA and the

Alaska Department

Vegetative cover

and diversity not

being maintained on

site-specific locations

where activity is

occurring. Off-road

vehicles not restricted

to soils with low erosion

hazard or to winter

use with adequate

snow cover to provide

protection.

to current issues,

mitigation to date

has been ineffective

in regard to protection

of riparian-wetland

communities.

requirement to protect

riparian-wetland

habitat; enforce existing

decision to restrict

OHVs to soils with

low erosion potential

or periods of snow

cover; designate OHV

trails and harden

trails to support

anticipated loads.

Where disturbance

to riparian-wetlands

cannot be avoided,

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 225

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to current Issues?

Options for change

of Environmental develop standard

Conservation. operating procedures

for restoration; and

use compensatory

mitigation to mitigate

loss.

Utility Proposed Action 49: Ongoing. Designated Partially. Due to Additional inventory

Corridor Designate Kanuti Hot ACEC. Some limited unique vegetative should consider extent

RMP/ Springs as an ACEC. inventory for plants, communities, of riparian-wetland

ROD Do not allow leases

within the immediate

area of the springs or

"thawbulb" (an area

roughly corresponding

to a meadow which

surrounds the hot

water pools). Conduct

additional inventory to

more accurately define

the area needed under

ACEC protection, and to

aid in the design of lease

stipulations intended to

protect this resource.

but the boundary has

not been adjusted.

No leases have been

authorized. Subject to

PLO 399.

ACEC designation

remains appropriate.

Management of the

ACEC and boundaries

may need to be

revisited.

habitat associated with

the hot spring, consider

any needed boundary

changes to the ACEC,

and proactively address

requirements of EOs

11990 and 11988.

Central Goal 4, Objective 9: Ongoing. Several Partially. Securing Revise the decision

Yukon Inventory water needs of the applications instream flow to include riparainRMP/ and secure Federal for instream reservations is wetland function

ROD Reserved Water Rights

where needed.

flow reservations

have considered

riparian-wetland

function as part of the

basis for the request.

responsive to current

issues. Should include

riparian-wetland

function as a

component of future

applications.

as a component of

future instream flow

reservations.

South- Watershed 1–1: Within the Central Partially. While the Proper riparian-wetland

west MFP Maintain water quality

of watersheds on

BLM-managed lands

in compliance with

Alaska Water Quality

Standards.

Yukon Planning Area

water quality is not

being maintained in

many streams that

have been altered

by placer mining.

A majority of the

problem is associated

with non-point source

pollution.

management decision

is responsive to current

issues, mitigation

to date has been

ineffective in regard

to non-point source

pollution.

function plays

a key role in

maintaining water

quality. Protection of

riparian-wetlands and

floodplains should be

incorporated into all

plan alternatives and

land-use allocations as

a means of ensuring

water quality standards

will be met.

South- Watershed 2–1: Perfect See CYRMP Goal 4, See CYRMP Goal 4, See CYRMP Goal 4,

west MFP legal water rights to

the water resources on

public lands to support

BLM programs.

Objective 9 (above) Objective 9 (above) Objective 9 (above)

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 226

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to current Issues?

Options for change

South- Watershed 3–1: Ongoing. Partially. While the See Utility Corridor

west MFP Consider protection of

wetlands when planning

or permitting activities

on BLM-managed

lands and protection of

floodplains, regardless

of ownership.

Consideration is

given to the protection

of wetlands when

planning or permitting

activities, however, the

effectiveness of this

consideration has been

marginal at best.

current management

decision is responsive

to issues, mitigation

to date has been

ineffective in regard to

floodplain and wetlands

degradation.

RMP Proposed Action

48 (above)

Utility Proposed Action 37: In support of fisheries Yes. The Recommend new

Corridor Withdraw portions of habitat, portions of recommendation withdrawals to protect

RMP/ the Jim River, Kanuti the riparian-wetlands to withdraw these riparian-wetlands in

ROD River, and Prospect

Creek floodplains from

mineral location.

within floodplains of

the Jim, and Kanuti

Rivers and Prospect

Creek were to be

withdrawn from

mineral entry. This

withdrawal was never

completed.

floodplains from

mineral entry is

responsive to current

issues.

these areas and others

as needed.

Central Wildlife Aquatic The proposed 300 foot Partially. The decision Recommend new

Yukon Prescription 3: mining withdrawals to close these rivers withdrawals to mining

RMP/ Withdraw selected were never finalized within the Central on important streams

ROD crucial spawning habitat

from mineral location

and FLPMA sales and

leases. Including a

300 foot withdrawal on

both sides of the North

Fork Unalakleet, Kateel,

Gisasa, Tozitna, and

Indian Rivers, and Clear

and Caribou Creeks

(tributary to the Hogatza

River).

by PLO. Closure to

FLPMA sales and

leases is a planning

decision and was

approved with the

signing of the ROD.

Mineral withdrawals

will protect floodplain

and riparian-wetlands

on the identified

streams. The North

Fork of the Unalakleet

is not in the planning

area.

Yukon Planning Area

to FLPMA sales and

leases is responsive

to current issues. The

decision to implement a

mining withdrawal

on these rivers is

responsive to current

issues, but the size

of the withdrawal

could be revisited and

additional rivers could

be considered.

within the planning area

as appropriate. Identify

which lands in the

planning area would be

available for FLPMA

sale and lease. In areas

where these activities

are not appropriate,

consider closures.

Central Wildlife Aquatic These ACECs are Partially. One key When reviewing the

Yukon Prescription 9: established, but factor in protecting ACEC designations,

RMP/ Establish watershed may need boundary spawning habitat consider floodplain

ROD ACECs for the streams

identified above and also

the Sulukna River.

revisions. is recognizing the

role that floodplain

and riparian-wetland

function plays in

maintenance of aquatic

habitat.

and riparian-wetland

function as a potential

relevant and important

value in these ACECs.

Develop appropriate

management in the

ACECs to protect

floodplain and wetland

values.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 227

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to current Issues?

Options for change

Central Wildlife Aquatic The plan establishes Partially. The no Along with no-surface

Yukon Prescription: Establish a 300 foot no surface surface occupancy occupancy setbacks,

RMP/ a 300 foot no surface occupancy zone; this no setback zone would recommend mineral

ROD occupancy zone for a

portion of the Nulato

River which contains

crucialsalmon spawning

habitat.

surface occupancy zone

would not preclude

mining, but would

apply to mineral

leasing.

protect floodplain and

riparian-wetlands from

some types of activities,

but would not preclude

mining.

withdrawals to provide

complete protection

to aquatic habitat

and the floodplain

and riparian-wetland

functions that support

this habitat.

Central All withdrawals Withdrawals are subject Yes, but is not really None

Yukon are subject to valid to valid existing rights needed as a planning

RMP/ existing rights. Mining and ACECs require decision because these

ROD operations within

designated ACECs will

require plan approval.

approved mine plans

per the regulations.

issues are dealt with

through the 3809

regulations.

South- Wildlife Habitat 5–1 These HMPs were No. Unalakleet is Consider which areas

west MFP and 5–2: Prepare a

Habitat Management

Plan (HMP) to include

furbearer and non-game

species management in

planning blocks. The

floodplain forests of the

Unalakleet River are

first priority.

never completed. outside of the planning

area. No known issues

related to furbearers

and non-game species

that require plans.

would benefit from

HMPs and recommend

the appropriate plans

in the RMP. Consider

basing activity plans on

watersheds.

South- Designate the The upper Unalakleet Address this issue in Address this issue in

west MFP Unalakleet River

ACEC to provide

special management

consideration of

fisheries resources.

was designated as an

ACEC based on fishery

values. This ACEC is

not within the Central

Yukon Planning Area.

the BSWI RMP. the BSWI RMP.

Central Multiple decisions ACECs were Partially. Continue the ACECs

Yukon related to the protection established as a previously established

RMP/ of peregrine falcon means to protect for the peregrine

ROD habitat, including

designation of ACECs

the threatened and

endangered peregrine

falcon and incorporate

riparian-wetland

Utility and protection falcon. No longer function into the

Corridor of associated listed, the value of the purposes for which the

RMP/ROD riparian-wetland habitat. ACECs and associated

riparian-wetland habitat

remains important for

maintenance of healthy

populations.

ACECs are established.

All Plans Plan-level decisions

related to the

management of visual

resources (multiple

decisions all plans)

Visual resource

management classes

have been established

for the Utility Corridor.

Visual resources in

remaining areas are

considered during

NEPA.

Partially. Not all

plans have VRM

classes assigned. One

service provided by

proper functioning

riparian-wetlands

and floodplains is

the maintenance of

aesthetic character of

an area.

Include as appropriate,

the protection of

riparian-wetlands

and floodplains

when developing

management

prescriptions for the

maintenance of visual

resources.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 228

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to current Issues?

Options for change

All Plans Multiple actions or

decisions regarding

management and harvest

of forest products.

There are multiple

planning decisions in

all plans regarding

timber harvest.

Partially. Timber

harvest has the potential

to adversely impact

riparian-wetland and

floodplain function

through the removal

of large wood

(timber). No specific

consideration was

given to the protection

of riparian-wetland and

function in decisions

related to timber

harvest.

Consider how timber

harvest would be

conducted while

maintaining natural

recruitment rates of

large wood into local

stream and floodplain

environments. Develop

standard operating

procedures.

Central Multiple actions or In some areas ANCSA Partially. All mineral As a means

Yukon decisions in respect to withdrawals that were leasing decisions of protecting

RMP/ mineral leasing. Both to be lifted were should be revisited riparian-wetland

ROD RMPs proposed opening

lands to mineral leasing.

not; and in other

areas withdrawals

based on current issues

and land status. Some

and floodplain

areas, meeting the

Utility that were proposed proposed closures to requirements of EOs

Corridor for the protection of leasing may remain 11990 and 11988, and

RMP/ROD competing resources

were not implemented.

PLO 6098 opened

some lands south of

the Nowitna National

Wildlife Refuge in

1981. Most of the

planning area remains

closed to mineral

leasing.

valid. providing protection

to other identified

resource values —

consider closing

riparian-wetland and

floodplain areas to

mineral leasing. Also

see “Opportunities” for

mineral location below.

Central Multiple actions or In some areas ANCSA Partially. Where lands Consider using

Yukon decisions in respect to withdrawals that were were not opened to some of the new

RMP/ mineral location. Both to be lifted were not; mineral location, the land use planning

ROD RMPs identify decisions

to open certain lands

and in other areas

withdrawals that

requirements to protect

riparian-wetlands and

concepts to address

minimizing disturbance

Utility to mineral location and were proposed for the floodplains have been to riparian-wetlands

Corridor close certain lands to protection of competing met by default. If these and floodplains

RMP/ROD mineral location. resources were not

implemented. Much

of the planning area is

open to the location of

metalliferous minerals.

PLO 6098 opened

some lands south of

the Nowitna National

Wildlife Refuge in

1981.

lands are opened to

mineral location in

the future, then the

plan must identify how

the requirements of

EO 11990 would be

met. In addition, the

plan must demonstrate

how other resources

that are dependant

on riparian-wetland

function would be

protected (FLPMA

102(8), and how

non-point source water

quality issues (CWA

requirements) would be

addressed.

(req. by EOs) while

also ensuring that

keystone functions

and processes that

support other resources

are maintained. For

example Brost and

Beier — Use of

land facets to design

linkages for climate

change (2012).

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Vegetative Communities
Analysis of Management Situation 229

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to current Issues?

Options for change

Central Actions or decisions Decisions specifically No. No specific See “Opportunities” for

Yukon in respect to salable address protecting mention is made of mineral location above.

RMP/ minerals. certain areas such as reviewing mineral

ROD crucial wildlife habitat

or floodplains along

material permits

and sales for their

Utility portions of Prospect compliance with

Corridor Creek or Jim River. EOs 11990 or 11988

RMP/ROD or maintenance of

riparian-wetland and

floodplain function and

its role in the protection

and maintenance of

other resources.

Utility Proposed Action The transportation No. Compliance with Address requirements

Corridor 24: The draft corridor was not EOs 11990 and 11988 of EOs through

RMP/ RMP/EIS recommended designated, but a not addressed. planning process.

ROD designation of a

transportation corridor

from the Dalton

Highway to the Ambler

Mining District.

right-of-way was issued

to the city of Bettles for

winter road.

Evaluate effects of

transportation routes on

ability to establish

landscape scale

linkages (Brost and

Beier 2012).

Central Multiple actions related Transportation plans No. No consideration Same as Action 24

Yukon to transportation routes have not been of requirements of EOs above.

RMP/ and use (UC RMP completed. 11990 and 11988 into

ROD actions 25, 26, 27, 30,

31; CYRMP: Goal 2,

transportation planning.

Utility obj. 1, Access p. 10 and

Corridor 11)

RMP/ROD

3.2.4. Nonnative Invasive Species

This section discusses opportunities to change or improve management of invasive plants through

prevention, control, inventory, monitoring, partnerships, public involvement, education and

awareness in the planning area. There are no decisions for nonnative invasive species in the

Utility Corridor RMP or the Central Yukon RMP; however, the Dalton Highway Integrated

Invasive Plant Management Strategic Plan was approved in November 2013.

Prevention and Control

The establishment of voluntary or mandatory prevention standards and a protocol for reporting

detections will be a critical component of sustainable invasive plant management for the future.

Common methods of invasive plant introduction that may be addressed through prevention

include: contaminated seed, feed grain, straw, or mulch for reclamation projects; movement of

unclean vehicles, equipment or machinery from weed-contaminated areas; animals (domestic and

wildlife) that may have viable weed seed present in their digestive tract or attached to their hair or

wool; wind or waterways dispersing seed; hunters, hikers, fishers, pilots moving invasive plant

parts with viable seed; gardeners planting invasive plants as ornamentals; land owners scattering

contaminated wild bird seed or allowing invasive plants to produce seed along waterways and

roadways; and maintenance practices using gravel, road fill, or top soil contaminated with seed or

vegetative reproductive plant parts.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 230

The following prevention and control efforts have been identified as management opportunities as

part of this analysis:

1.	 develop and make publicly available early detection and rapid response materials to reduce

the need for larger, more expensive future control efforts;

2.	 continue surveys to detect new invasive plants and monitor existing infestations that might

be expanding;

3.	 ensure that seed, feed grains, straw or mulch is free of weed reproductive plant parts;

4.	 declare the area north of Coldfoot a weed-free zone to prevent northward spread, and monitor

the area regularly for early detection of nonnative invasive plant species;

5.	 declare weed free zones within 500 feet of bridges and river crossings and monitor these

areas regularly for early detection of nonnative invasive plant species;

6.	 target non-permitted activities through public outreach by using education on best

management practices;

7.	 develop best management practices for road construction material sites, sand and gravel pits,

mulch, and other material source sites (i.e., use certified weed-free materials);

8.	 require as a stipulation in all permits that operators clean all equipment before entering and

leaving project sites when operating in areas infested with weeds;

9.	 train and educate maintenance staff and truck operators to recognize weeds and report

locations of infestations to the local weed specialist;

10.	 time disturbing activities to precede seed set and ensure weed propagules are not moved to

uncontaminated sites; and

11.	 treat weeds in road decommissioning and reclamation projects and revegetate with certified

weed-free seed to speed recovery and mitigate soil erosion.

Ongoing inventory and monitoring will prioritize infestations that have already been detected in

fire-disturbed sites and populations of highly aggressive species located near a forest clearing, a

burned site, or a waterway, giving precedence to those sites with high propagule pressure. The

following management opportunities have been identified for future inventory and monitoring:

(1) conduct surveys of gravel pits, particularly those slated for closure, and make management

recommendations on a case-by-case basis; (2) prioritize monitoring sites and establish a point

infestation protocol; (3) develop a monitoring plan for post-treatment surveys of effectiveness.

Partnerships and Public Involvement

At the current level of infestation along the Dalton Highway corridor, strong efforts dedicated to

prevention, early detection, and rapid response are necessary.

These specific public participation activities have been identified as management opportunities:

1.	 encourage the use of best management practicess for road and vehicle maintenance (i.e.,

ADOT&PF and Alyeska);

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 231

2.	 encourage control of invasive plants on adjacent private property such as commercial visitor

services and in rural communities;

3.	 develop informative displays and brochures for the Arctic Interagency Visitor Center;

4.	 provide tour companies educational materials about introduction and spread of invasive

plants;

5.	 work with the ADFG to provide information to educate hunters and anglers;

6.	 arrange for community service hours to support invasive plant control projects; and

7.	 foster the establishment of cooperative agreements with stakeholders.

Education and Awareness

Increased awareness of nonnative invasive plants and the associated economic and ecological

problems will help with public understanding of the importance of a comprehensive and

sustainable long-term invasive plant management strategy.

Continued and expanded outreach and education management opportunities include:

1.	 target outreach to increase local and tribal awareness of the potential threats of invasive

plants to subsistence resources;

2.	 place educational materials at trailheads and other entry points to natural areas;

3.	 encourage stock users to tie and/or hold stock in a way that minimizes vulnerability resulting

from soil disturbance and loss of native vegetation;

4.	 develop displays and outreach programs for the general public with an emphasis on: damage

to wildlife habitat, crop, and forage production; health problems associated with weeds,

including skin irritations and allergies; and, impacts on scenic and recreational values;

5.	 educate BLM staff on invasive plant identification and reporting;

6.	 educate land use permit holders on weed identification and reporting;

7.	 target non-permitted activities through public outreach by using education on best

management practices; and

8.	 inspire public awareness about the costs and benefits associated with certain treatments.

Table 3.6. Current Management and Options for Change, Nonnative Invasive Plant Species

Decision Current Status Is Decision Options for Change

Source Management

Decision

Responsive

to Current

Issues?

Dalton Highway Establishment Currently being Yes (1) Ensure that seed, feed grains,

Integrated of voluntary or implemented. straw or mulch is free of weed

Invasive Plant mandatory prevention reproductive plant parts; (2) include

Management standards as a stipulation in all permits

Strategic Plan that operators clean equipment

before entering and leaving project

sites; (3) time disturbing activities

to precede seed set and ensure

weed propagules are not moved

to uncontaminated sites; and (4)

encourage stock users to tie and/or

hold stock in a way that minimizes

vulnerability resulting from soil

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 232

Decision Current Status Is Decision Options for Change

Source Management

Decision

Responsive

to Current

Issues?

disturbance and loss of native

vegetation

Dalton Highway Develop strong efforts Currently being Yes Include a protocol for reporting

Integrated dedicated to early implemented. detections and conduct trainings

Invasive Plant detection, and rapid

Management response involving

Strategic Plan partnerships and the

public

Dalton Highway Expand outreach and Currently being Yes (1) Increase awareness of potential

Integrated education to increase implemented. threats to subsistence resources;

Invasive Plant awareness (2) place educational materials at

Management trailheads and other entry points to

Strategic Plan natural areas; (3) create displays

and programs for the general public

with an emphasis on the risks, costs

and benefits associated with weeds

such as habitat loss, human health,

and impacts on scenic/recreational

values; (4) educate BLM staff on

identification and reporting; (5)

educate land use permit holders on

identification and reporting

Dalton Highway Continue formal Currently being Yes (1) Conduct surveys of gravel

Integrated surveys to detect implemented. pits, particularly those slated for

Invasive Plant new invasive plants, closure, and make management

Management monitor existing recommendations on a case-by-case

Strategic Plan infestations basis; (2) prioritize monitoring sites

and establish a point infestation

protocol; (3) develop a monitoring

plan for post treatment surveys of

effectiveness

Dalton Highway Establish weed-free Currently being Yes Prevent northward spread and

Integrated zones implemented. areas within 500 feet of road-river

Invasive Plant interface to prevent downstream

Management spread

Strategic Plan

Dalton Highway

Integrated

Invasive Plant

Management

Strategic Plan

Treat weeds in road

decommissioning and

reclamation projects

Currently being

implemented.

Yes Re-vegetate with certified weed-free

seed to speed recovery and mitigate

soil erosion

Dalton Highway Develop best Currently being Yes (1) Educate the public on BMPs

Integrated management practices implemented. targeting non-permitted activities;

Invasive Plant (BMPs) (2) develop BMPs for road

Management construction and material source

Strategic Plan sites; and (3) train and educate

maintenance staff and truck

operators to recognize and report

weeds

Dalton Highway Develop partnerships Currently being Yes (1) Encourage control of weeds

Integrated with other affected implemented. on adjacent properties; (2)

Invasive Plant land owners, users, provide educational materials

Management and managers about introduction and spread to

Strategic Plan commercial service operators; (3)

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Nonnative Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 233

Decision

Source

Current

Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive

to Current

Issues?

Options for Change

work with the state agencies to

provide information to educate

hunters and anglers; (4) arrange

community service projects to

control weeds; and (5) foster

the establishment of cooperative

agreements with stakeholders

3.2.5. Fish and Wildlife

Table 3.7. Current Management and Options for Change, Fish and Wildlife

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 34: Ongoing. Toolik Partially. Baseline Future permitted

Corridor Implement a systematic and Alyeska inventories are ongoing actions may need to

RMP/ monitoring program to assess also do some though not complete. require applicants

ROD impacts of human uses on

fisheries resources. Initial

inventories will establish

comparable baseline data

that can be used to develop an

aquatic habitat management plan

if significant fisheries habitat

improvements or protections are

required in the future.

monitoring. Areas of highest impact

are being inventoried

first. Information

collected is being used

to formulate mitigation

measures for permitted

actions. Anthropogenic

disturbances to

resources will continue

to increase (i.e., access,

oil and gas, locatable)

stretching capability

of staff and funding to

complete inventories

needed for management

decisions.

to provide baseline

data. Internal

workload analysis

may be needed to

direct funding and

staffing.

Utility Proposed Action 35: With the This decision No. ADFG not in Coordinate with

Corridor assistance of the ADFG, and the has not been favor of this and most the State of Alaska

RMP/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, implemented. of these lands are no to determine

ROD transplant sufficient numbers of

muskoxen to support a viable

population on BLM-managed

lands near Pingaluligit Mountain

in the Oolamnagavik Block.

Most if not all

of these lands have

been conveyed to

the State of Alaska.

longer under BLM

management.

if the State is

planning any

wildlife transplants

or introductions

within the planning

area.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Fish and Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 234

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 36: Develop a A Colville River No. Peregrine falcons N/A

Corridor habitat management plan (HMP) Special Area are no longer federally

RMP/ for the Colville River area, a Management Plan listed. Most of these

ROD nationally important area for

raptors, including the peregrine

falcon. The HMP would focus

management of peregrine

falcons in accordance with the

Peregrine Falcon Recovery

Plan- Alaska Population

(USFWS 1982) and other raptor

species concentrated in the

area. Other species emphasized

will include important big

game species and fisheries.

Management options and

stipulations would be developed

before the area is classified for

competitive or noncompetitive

mineral leasing.

was developed

in 2008. This

plan includes a

raptor monitoring

program. The area

is open to leasing

within the NPR-A.

Most of the lands

in the area have

been conveyed to

the State or Native

corporations.

lands are no longer

BLM-managed.

Utility Proposed Action 37: No new Not for aquatic species. Consider the

Corridor Restrictions on mineral entry withdrawals have Withdrawal of the Jim, need for new

RMP/ and location would be placed been done. Jim Prospect, and Kanuti withdrawals in

ROD on areas of high wildlife

(terrestrial and aquatic) resource

values, including withdrawal

of eight mineral licks (160

acres each), portions of the

floodplains of the Jim and

Kanuti Rivers and Prospect

Creek, and the southern portion

of the proposed Nigu-Iteriak

ACEC from mineral location

(Proposed Action 2). Except

for the Nigu-Iteriak ACEC,

which would be closed to

mineral leasing, the above

areas are open to leasing only

with no surface occupancy

stipulations (Proposed Action

4). In addition, the Jim River

and Ivishak River ACECs would

be designated for protection

of fisheries habitat, and six

ACECs would be designated for

the protection of crucial Dall

sheep habitat. Six mineral licks

are within ACECs (Proposed

Action 52). The other identified

mineral licks are shown on Map

2.9. Also, see the "Mineral

Resource Development" section

of Chapter 2, the foldout maps,

and Appendix N of the Proposed

RMP.

River is an ACEC.

Ivashak is now

State land. PLO

5180 still in

effect. This PLO

withdraws lands

from all forms

of appropriation

under the public

land laws,

including State

selections under the

Alaska Statehood

Act, and "from

location and

entry under the

mining laws

(except locations

for metalliferous

minerals), 30

U.S.C. Ch. 2."

In some areas PLO

5180 has been

amended to allow

for State selection.

floodplains to mineral

entry and location to

protect resource values

was not completed.

Floodplains were

delineated. Closure

was not implemented.

Partially responsive for

Dall sheep. BLM has

more data on mineral

licks. Proposed mining

withdrawals were not

implemented.

the RMP for

both fisheries and

Dall sheep and

take action to

implement them

once the RMP is

approved.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Fish and Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 235

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 38: Habitat Fire management Partially. Habitat Consider the need

Corridor improvement for moose and plan was may not be the for prescribed fire

RMP/ other species would occur implemented. No limiting factor for in the planning

ROD through implementation of

the Alaska Interagency Fire

Management Plans. Prescribed

burns may be used to reestablish

or improve habitat.

prescribed burns

have been done.

all moose populations.

Prescribed fire is not

the only tool for habitat

improvement.

area. Consider

revisions to fire

management

options. Fire

management

options can be

revised outside the

planning process.

Central Wildlife Resources, No withdrawal No. Closing these Revisit this

Yukon Terrestrial: Based on wildlife has been done to areas to sales and decision. Consider

RMP/ concerns (wintering areas of close to FLPMA leases will not address management

ROD the Western Arctic Caribou

herd), all lands within the

Tagagawik/Buckland watershed

(Nulato Subunit) and Purcell

Mountains (Hughes Subunit) are

closed to FLPMA sales/leases.

sales/leases. No

known demand for

sales/leases.

current issues. Issues

are potential future

roads and changes to

caribou migration and

wintering patterns, and

changes due to climate

change.

options for caribou

habitat that will

address current

issues.

Central Wildlife Resources, See section 3.2.20 No. This decision Revisit the

Yukon Terrestrial: Crucial caribou ACECs is unclear. Mining boundaries

RMP/ habitats within the Tozitna plans of operations are and proposed

ROD and Dulbi subunits have

been designated as ACECs.

Mineral exploration and

development is allowed in all

ACECs. An approved Plan of

Operations is required before

any ground-disturbing activity

(other than those defined under

43 CFR 3809 as casual use) can

occur.

required per regulation

in ACECs regardless of

location.

management for

these ACECs to

provide protection

for crucial caribou

habitat.

Central Wildlife Resources, Ongoing. Yes. Increase/decrease

Yukon Terrestrial: Monitoring monitoring

RMP/ programs will be continued in and/or support of

ROD cooperation with ADFG. monitoring.

Central Wildlife Resources, Aquatic: Not implemented. No. Withdrawals to Consider

Yukon Selected crucial spawning Withdrawal orders protect habitat are recommending

RMP/ habitat will be withdrawn were drafted, but not in effect. Permit new withdrawals

ROD from mineral location and

FLPMA sales and leases. These

withdrawals extend 300 feet

back along each side of the

streams mean high-water line to

also include the stream bed of

waterways unless known to be

navigable. These withdrawals

include portions of the North

Fork Unalakleet River, Kateel

River, Gisasa River, Tozitna

River, Indian River, and Clear,

Bear, and Caribou Creeks

(Hogatza River tributaries).

not implemented.

PLO 6098 opened

some lands south of

Nowitna National

Wildlife Refuge to

mining and mineral

leasing. North Fork

Unalakleet, Kateel,

and Gisasa Rivers

are in the BSWI

Planning Area.

mitigation measures are

being used to minimize

adverse effects. Some

of the rivers covered

by this decision are no

longer in the Central

Yukon Planning Area.

in the RMP and

take action to

implement them

once the RMP is

approved.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Fish and Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 236

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central Wildlife Resources, Aquatic: Done in the Partially. Given Future cooperation

Yukon Stream monitoring programs past. Changing declining budgets and will be issue driven.

RMP/ initiated in cooperation with priorities and staff, agencies should

ROD ADFG will be continued. funding constraints

preclude current

cooperative efforts.

continue to coordinate

monitoring efforts

when possible.

Central Wildlife Resources, Aquatic: See section Partially. Some ACECs Review all ACECs

Yukon Watershed ACECs have been 3.2.20 ACECs. are not located properly and consider any

RMP/ established for all portions of Management plans to protect resources of needed revisions

ROD the watershed lying above the

lower limit of identified river

withdrawals. These ACEC

designations include all lands

within the river withdrawal

area. In addition, an ACEC

designation has been placed on

that portion of the Sulukna River

(Kuskokwim Subunit) lying

within the Fairbanks District.

This designation was made

to protect identified sheefish

spawning habitat within this

drainage.

have been written

for Hogatza,

Indian, Tozitna,

and Norton Sound

drainage ACEC’s.

concern. to boundaries. If

needed, modify

boundary through

RMP. ACEC

management plans

could be developed

as part of the RMP,

removing the need

for future ACEC

management plans.

Central Wildlife Resources, Aquatic: The 300 foot Yes. A 300 foot NSO Reevaluate the

Yukon A 300-foot "no surface NSO zone is would protect aquatic need for an NSO

RMP/ occupancy" (NSO) setback established for resources in the event zone along rivers in

ROD zone has been identified for

a portion of the Nulato River

which contains crucial salmon

spawning habitat. This zone

will extend 300 feet back along

each side of Nulato River

segment mean high-water line.

If this segment is determined

to be non-navigable, the 300

foot NSO zone will extend

back along both sides of the

river center line. Note: see

Management Prescriptions p. 37

CY Plan ROD.

leasable minerals

per the RMP, but no

mineral leasing has

occurred. These

lands continue

to be withdrawn

from mineral

leasing via ANCSA

withdrawals.

of mineral leasing. the planning area

to protect fish and

aquatic species and

water quality.

Central Wildlife Resources, Aquatic: Much of this Partially. ACECs Revisit ACEC

Yukon All withdrawals are subject to decision restates require an approved designations,

RMP/ valid existing rights including regulation. plan of operation consider new

ROD properly recorded unpatented

mining claims. Areas designated

as ACECs are open to mineral

location and mineral leasing.

Lands withdrawn from

mineral location are open

to non-ground-disturbing

mineral leasing, such as oil

and gas. Mining operations

within designated ACECs will

require an approved plan of

operations prior to starting any

ground-disturbing activities

ANCSA

withdrawals are

still in place. No

new withdrawals

recommended by

the CY RMP have

been implemented.

Not all ACECs

have watershed

management plans.

per regulation. Most

ACECs remain closed

to mineral leasing

by ANCSA 17(d)(1)

withdrawals. New

mining withdrawals

to protect habitat are

not in effect. ACEC

management plans can

be done through the

RMP, removing the

ACECs. Revisit

proposed mining

withdrawals

and existing

ANCSA 17(d)(1)

withdrawals to

determine where

withdrawals should

be modified or

revoked and where

recommendations

for new

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Fish and Wildlife
Analysis of Management Situation 237

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to Current Issues?

Options for

Change

other than those described as

casual use by 43 CFR 3809.

Plan approval will require

compliance with both the

general guidelines established

in this plan and the specific

watershed ACEC Management

Plan.

need for future activity

level planning.

withdrawals are

appropriate.

Southwest Wildlife Habitat 2–1: Prepare These lands are not No. These lands are N/A

MFP habitat management plans

(HMPs) to include caribou

ranges in the Sleetmute,

Minchumina, and Lime Village

planning blocks to determine

what management actions can

be taken to improve, maintain,

or protect wintering areas,

migration routes, and calving

areas.

in the planning area

or are no longer

BLM-managed.

not in the planning

area or are no longer

BLM-managed.

Southwest Wildlife Habitat 5–1 and 5–2: Unalakleet is not in No. Not applicable to N/A

MFP Prepare an HMP to include

furbearer management in the

planning blocks. The floodplain

forests of the Unalakleet

River are first priority. Strong

consideration should be given to

non-game wildlife species in all

HMPs.

planning area. current Central Yukon

Planning Area. HMPs

are activity-level plans

and can be addressed

outside the RMP and,

if appropriate, would

consider non-game

species.

Southwest Fisheries Habitat 1–3: Unalakleet River is No. The Unalakleet N/A

MFP Designate the Unalakleet

River drainage as an ACEC to

provide special management

consideration for the fisheries

resource.

an ACEC. ACEC is not in the

Central Yukon Planning

area.

3.2.6. Special Status Species

Table 3.8. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Special Status Species

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 39: Management Measures to No. Peregrine Evaluate

Corridor practices for peregrine falcon, implement the falcons are no appropriate level

RMP/ROD a threatened species in CAMA

and an endangered species in the

southern half of the planning area,

would include (1) implementation

of monitoring activities to obtain

information to enhance population

recovery, (2) implementation of the

protection measures recommended

by the Peregrine Falcon Recovery

Peregrine Falcon

Recovery Plan

were implemented

and the peregrine

has been delisted.

Sagwon Bluffs

ACEC is State

land. The BLM

monitors raptors in

longer listed and

land ownership

in the area has

changed. Colville

River Special Area

Plan addresses this

issue.

of protection for

peregrine falcon

habitat. Consider

standard

operating

procedures to

protect raptor

nesting habitats

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 238

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Plan- Alaska Population (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1982),

(3) enhancement of populations

to a point of recovery that allows

peregrine falcons to be removed

from threatened and endangered

species lists, and (4) proposed

designation of Sagwon Bluffs ACEC

for the protection of peregrine

falcons.

the Colville River

Special Area.

throughout the

planning area.

Utility Proposed Action 40: No federally Sagwon Bluffs No. BLM follows Evaluate

Corridor listed or proposed threatened or ACEC is State land. law and policy appropriate level

RMP/ROD endangered (TE) plant species are

known to occur in the planning

area. BLM policy requires that

plants designated as "sensitive" be

accorded the full protection of the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The

sensitive plant Montia bostockii is

present in the Toolik Lake ACEC,

and Erigeron muirii is present in the

Sagwon Bluffs ACEC (Proposed

Action 52). The ESA requires

protection of TE habitat from actions

that would modify or destroy them.

All actions that might affect these

plants or their habitats would be

examined through the environmental

assessment process. Stipulations

to assure their protection would be

included in permits and leases.

The BLM follows

current policy for

sensitive species

(Manual 6840,

2001): “ensure that

actions requiring

authorization

or approval by

the BLM are

consistent with

the conservation

needs of special

status species and

do not contribute

to the need to list

any special status

species, either

under provisions

of the ESA or other

provisions of this

policy.” Montia

bostockii is a BLM

sensitive species.

for special status

species. Numerous

changes have

occurred since

1986.

of protection for

Montia bostockii

and other BLM

Alaska sensitive

species.

Utility Proposed Action 49: Species Sagwon Bluffs Partially. BLM Evaluate the

Corridor management plans for Montia ACEC is State Alaska Sensitive appropriate level

RMP/ROD bostockii in the Toolik Lake ACEC

and Erigeron muirii in the Sagwon

Bluffs ACEC would be initiated.

Additional plans would be written

and implemented if these species

are found in other areas, or if other

threatened, endangered, or sensitive

plants are located (also see proposed

action 40).

land. Inventories

were done. No

species management

plans were written.

Montia bostockii is

a sensitive species.

Erigeron muirii

occurs in more areas

than just Sagwon.

Species list has

changed since the

Utility Corridor

RMP was written.

Management plans

for other species

or areas may be

appropriate.

of protection for

these species

and other species

that have been

added to the

BLM Alaska

Sensitive Species

List (BLM 2010).

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 239

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central Threatened and Endangered No mining No. BLM follows Evaluate

Yukon Species: Crucial habitat areas for withdrawals have law and policy appropriate level

RMP/ROD peregrine falcon are separated into

three categories. The first category

(36,480 acres) deals with those

lands which have been identified

for withdrawal from all forms of

appropriation and further classified

for exchange. These lands (located

southeast of Kaltag) are withdrawn

for five years. Those lands not

exchanged or being considered for

exchange at the end of the five-year

period will be designated as ACECs.

been implemented.

No exchanges

have been done.

Peregrine falcon

was delisted in

1991. No additional

ACECs have been

designated. Land

status has changed.

for special status

species. Numerous

changes have

occurred since

1986.

of protection for

peregrine falcon

habitat. Consider

standard

operating

procedures to

protect raptor

nesting habitats

throughout the

planning area.

Central Threatened and Endangered Same as above. Same as above. Same as above.

Yukon Species: Category two lands

RMP/ROD (20,480 acres) are lands not

identified for exchange. These lands

are withdrawn from metalliferous

mineral location. All discretionary

actions, including actions associated

with oil and gas leasing, would be

reviewed for consistency with both

the ESA and guidelines established

by the Peregrine Falcon Recovery

Plan.

Central Threatened and Endangered Same as above. No Same as above. Same as above.

Yukon Species: Category three lands ACEC plans have

RMP/ROD (54,000 acres) are those identified

as ACECs. These lands are open

to mineral entry and location,

and mineral leasing. The ACEC

management plan will require that

all actions within the ACEC be

consistent with existing protective

guidelines established by the

Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan.

An approved plan of operations will

be required for all ground-disturbing

activities associated with mineral

exploration/development (casual use

as defined under 43 CFR 3809 is

excepted).

been developed.

43 CFR 3809

requires a mining

plan of operations in

ACECs.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Special Status Species
Analysis of Management Situation 240

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central Threatened and Endangered Existing 17(d)(1) No. Not responsive No opportunity

Yukon Species: Any ground-disturbing and other to current issues, for change in

RMP/ROD activities associated with existing

federal mining claims on lands

withdrawn for threatened and

endangered species will require an

approved plan of operations before

activities are initiated.

withdrawals would

trigger the need for a

mining plan in areas

currently under

withdrawal from

locatable mineral

entry. These areas

are limited.

no candidate or

listed species in

planning area,

restates regulations.

planning effort,

addressed in

3809 regulations.

Central Threatened and Endangered Monitored for 5 N/A N/A — currently

Yukon Species: Peregrine falcon years after delisting. more than 5 years

RMP/ROD monitoring programs will be

continued in cooperation with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Included in general

raptor surveys as

they occur.

post-delisting.

3.2.7. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Table 3.9. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Wildland Fire Ecology

and Management

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 50 and Appendix N: Replaced by Yes. Required No changes

Corridor Fire will be managed according to the BLM Alaska under current Fire recommended

RMP/ROD standards and procedures outlined in the

Alaska Interagency Fire Management

Plan. Areas of critical, full, modified,

and limited suppression are defined. A

major focus of fire suppression in the

Utility Corridor would be the protection

of the facilities needed for the transport

of energy minerals.

Land Use Plan

Amendment

for Wildland

Fire and Fuels

Management

(BLM 2005b)

Management Plan.

Central Fire Management (pg. 13): The Replaced by Yes. Required No changes

Yukon Central Yukon Planning Area is BLM Alaska under current Fire recommended

RMP/ROD included under three approved

interagency fire management plans.

Actions dealing with implementation

and modification of approved fire plans

will be implemented in accordance

with guidelines contained in the plans.

Plan review and monitoring evaluations

are conducted on an annual basis.

Modifications of existing protection

boundary lines will be coordinated with

affected land owner(s) and Alaska Fire

Service.

Land Use Plan

Amendment

for Wildland

Fire and Fuels

Management

(BLM 2005b)

Management Plan.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management
Analysis of Management Situation 241

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Amend- Cooperate and collaborate with other Ongoing Yes. Required No changes

ment for federal, state, and Native land managers, under current Fire recommended

Wildland and with othersuppression organizations Management Plan.

Fire and to address issues and concerns related

Fuels Man- to wildland fire management in Alaska

agement and to implement operational decisions.

Implement the most current fire

management plan.

Amend- Apply four wildland fire management Ongoing Yes. Required No changes

ment for suppression options: Critical, Full, under current Fire recommended

Wildland Modified, and Limited. Management Management Plan.

Fire and options are ecologically and fiscally

Fuels Man- sound, operationally feasible, and

agement sufficiently flexible to respond to

changes in fire conditions, land use

patterns, resource information, new

technologies, and new scientific

findings. These options may be

adjusted periodically. The designation

of a management option pre-selects

strategies to accomplish established land

use and resource objectives.

Amend- Actions will be taken to protect specific Ongoing Yes. Required No changes

ment for sites that have been identified for under current Fire recommended

Wildland special fire management protection. Management Plan.

Fire and Site-specific actions may be taken

Fuels Man- to protect structures, cultural and

agement paleontological sites, small areas of

high resource value, and threatened

and endangered species habitat to give

suppression agencies more specific

guidance for small sites.

Amend- Fuels management activities assist Ongoing Yes. Required No changes

ment for in achieving the objectives stated for under current Fire recommended

Wildland wildland fire management options. Management Plan.

Fire and Prescribed burning, mechanical and

Fuels Man- manual treatments may also be used.

agement Projects may be implemented in support

of scientific research and in cooperation

with BLM cooperators and partners.

Amendment for

Wildland

Fire and

Fuels Management

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.

Ongoing Yes. Required

under current Fire

Management Plan.

No changes

recommended

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management
Analysis of Management Situation 242

3.2.8. Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Table 3.10. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Cultural and

Paleontological Resources

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

current Issues?

Options for Change

Utility Proposed Action 51: Cultural Ongoing through Yes No changes

Corridor resources would continue to be NEPA process recommended

RMP/ROD inventoried and evaluated as part

of project or activity planning.

Such evaluation would consider

the significance of the proposed

project and the sensitivity of

cultural resources in the affected

area. Stipulations would be

attached as appropriate to assure

compatibility of projects with

management objectives for cultural

resources.

and “Section 106”

[54 USC 306108]

review process.

Utility Proposed Action 51: In addition, Ongoing. Subject to Yes. Expand rationale

Corridor the southern portion of the interim management Limitations for limiting

RMP/ROD Nigu-Iteriak ACEC would be

closed to ground-disturbing

activities, in large part because of

the cultural resources in the area.

guidelines

because of WSA

designation. Part

of the ACEC

transferred to NPS.

Known cultural

resources within the

ACEC are found on

lands managed by

the NPS.

on grounddisturbing

activities are

appropriate

because of the

status of the area

as a WSA.

ground-disturbing

activities to other

resources besides

cultural.

Utility Proposed Action 51: The Ivashak ACEC has No. Nomination The Galbraith Lake

Corridor proposed Galbraith Lake and been conveyed to to the register is ACEC is far larger

RMP/ROD Ivishak River ACECs contain

cultural resources eligible for

inclusion on the National Register

of Historic Places.

the State of Alaska.

No sites have been

nominated for the

register; this is not

something BLM

normally does.

not a planning

decision.

than necessary for the

enhanced protection

of cultural resources.

The ACEC could be

diminished in size

if only considering

cultural resources.

Central Goal #2, Objective 6: Protect Ongoing. 36 CFR Yes No changes

Yukon cultural resources in accordance 800 requires that the recommended

RMP/ROD with the requirements of 36 CFR

800. Avoid adverse impacts

to significant cultural and

paleontological sites.

BLM “accounts”

for impacts to sites

determined eligible

for inclusion on

National Register of

Historic Places —

not “avoid impacts.”

Central Goal #1, Objective 13: Manage Ongoing. Yes Consider designating

Yukon cultural and paleontological sites in the RMP

RMP/ROD resources for a balance of

current and future scientific use,

socio-cultural use, and public

interpretation.

for future use per

the BLM Planning

Handbook.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 243

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

current Issues?

Options for Change

Central Cultural and Paleontological Ongoing. 36 CFR Yes No changes

Yukon Resources: Management of 800 directs agency recommended

RMP/ROD cultural and paleontological

resources with other land use

proposals would avoid or mitigate

impacts, where possible and

warranted. Consumptive uses of

archaeological and historical sites

would be allowed for scientific use

and interpretation.

decisions to “avoid,

minimize, and

mitigate” adverse

affects to cultural

resources. NEPA

process allows for

protection of a wider

variety of cultural

resources.

Central Goal #4, Objective 6: Maintain Section 110 Yes, but funding Consider need for

Yukon and expand the inventory of inventory is funded is outside the inventory to support

RMP/ROD cultural and paleontological

resources to enable the BLM

to respond with compliance

requirements for ground-disturbing

activities.

only through annual

1050 Program

flexible funds.

Sustained Section

110 inventory work

is vulnerable to

swings in annual

1050 Program fund

levels.

RMP process. implementation of

RMP decisions.

Pursue funding

outside the planning

process.

Southwest Minerals 3–1: Identify known Ongoing through Yes Recommend

MFP paleontological resources and

others discovered through other

resource development in order to

protect significant sites.

NEPA process

and “Section 106”

[54 USC 306108]

review process.

“Section 106”

[54 USC 306108]

introductory training

for all field office

staff involved in

project permitting.

Southwest Cultural Resources 1–1: Assure Ongoing through Yes, required by No changes

MFP that potential ground-disturbing

projects planned or authorized by

the BLM are examined in order

to protect significant cultural

resources. Cultural clearances

could be performed either by a

BLM-archeologist or contracted,

by the permittee, to professional

archeologists recognized by the

BLM.

NEPA process

and “Section 106”

[54 USC 306108]

review process.

law. recommended

3.2.9. Visual Resources

The overall goal of the Visual Resources Management (VRM) program is to minimize impacts on

visual resources. Scenic quality is maintained using the VRM Objectives assigned in land use

plans or other policy documents. All of the subunits in the existing Central Yukon RMP have

scenic quality rate ratings, but do not have VRM classifications assigned, i.e., VRM Class I –IV.

The Utility Corridor RMP, however, has both VRM and scenic quality classifications.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Visual Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 244

Table 3.11. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Visual Resources

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 32: PLO Ongoing. Impacts Partially. The Dalton Options for

Corridor 5150 withdraws the Utility to visual resources Highway has become change are limited

RMP/ROD Corridor and dedicates it

to long-term utility and

transportation needs; utility and

energy transportation functions

supersede other considerations.

Management must allow for

activities which could require

major modification of the

existing landscape. Therefore,

Inner corridor lands would be

managed as visual resource

management (VRM) Class IV.

To the extent feasible, minimize

the visual impacts of authorized

activities, especially in Class

A scenery areas. Special

attention would be given to the

protection of visual resources

within Galbraith Lake and

Sukakpak Mountain ACECs.

are minimized

during the NEPA

process.

an important tourist

destination for Alaska

and maintenance of

visual quality is very

important. There may

be other areas with high

scenic values besides

Galbraith Lake and

Sukakpak Mountain

ACECs.

within the Inner

corridor because

of the overriding

designation of

the area as a

Utility Corridor.

Review and

update the visual

resource inventory.

Determine most

appropriate VRM

classes, based on

current issues

and proposed

alternatives in the

Draft RMP.

Utility

Corridor

RMP/ROD

Table 2.3: Dalton Corridor

Extensive Recreation

Management Area – VRM

Class III

Ongoing. Impacts

mitigated through

NEPA process.

Possibly not. This area

is within the viewshed

of the Dalton Highway,

an important tourist

destination and some

areas may warrant a

more protective class.

Review and

update the visual

resource inventory.

Determine most

appropriate

visual resource

Utility

Corridor

RMP/ROD

Table 2.3: OolamnagavikColville Recreation

Management Area – VRM

Class III Ongoing. Impacts

mitigated through

NEPA process.

The majority of

Most of the area is no

longer BLM-managed

lands. Class III

may be appropriate

on the remaining

BLM-managed lands.

Utility Table 2.3: Central Arctic Most of the area is no

Corridor Management Area – VRM these areas have longer BLM-managed management

RMP/ROD Class IV been conveyed to

the State or Native

corporations.

lands. VRM classes on

remaining lands should

be commensurate

with activities likely

to occur on adjacent

lands.

classes, based

on current issues

and proposed

alternatives in the

Draft RMP.

Utility

Corridor

RMP/ROD

Table 2.3: Nigu — Suitable for

Wilderness – VRM Class I

Ongoing. Impacts

mitigated through

Yes. This is a

wilderness study area.

Utility Table 2.3: Iteriak ACEC – Class III may

Corridor VRM Class III NEPA process. be appropriate

RMP/ROD on the remaining

BLM-managed lands.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Visual Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 245

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central

Yukon

RMP/ROD

Goal #1, Objective 10:

Manage lands in conformance

with visual quality standards in

order to maintain scenic values.

Mitigate visual impacts where

surface disturbances occur.

Ongoing. Impacts

mitigated through

NEPA process.

Visual resource

classes have not

been assigned.

Yes, but resource

management classes

need to be assigned.

Conduct a visual

resource inventory

for the Central

Yukon Planning

Area. Determine

most appropriate

visual resource

management

classes, based

on current issues

and proposed

alternatives in the

Draft RMP.

Central

Yukon

RMP/ROD

Visual Resources (pg.12):

Areas of outstanding scenic

value in the Ray Mountains

would be managed where

possible to retain the existing

character of the landscape.

Other areas would be managed

to lessen impacts from

other activities. Potential

impacts would be evaluated,

and mitigative measures

implemented on a case-by-case

basis through the environmental

analysis process.

VRM identified

for special

consideration in

this area. Ray

Mountains treated

differently. Much

of this area is

State-selected.

Partially. Through

this planning process,

other areas besides

the Ray Mountains

may be identified as

having high scenic

value and it may be

appropriate to retain

the existing character

of the landscape in

these other areas as

well.

Central Visual Resources (pg.12): The Most of the Yes. If there are Determine if

Yukon viewshed of the Unalakleet viewshed is important viewsheds viewshed for

RMP/ROD National Wild River, outside outside the for the WSR corridor Unalalkeet WSR

the designated corridor, would planning area. within the Central exists within the

be managed with an awareness Impacts mitigated Yukon Planning area, a planning area. If

of the important scenic values through NEPA higher VRM class may so consider this

associated with the river. process. be warranted. when setting VRM

classes.

Southwest

MFP

Visual Resources 1–1: Define

the seen areas of the Unalakleet

River and manage those

sections outside of the Wild

River Corridor as VRM ClassII.

Management will particularly

address potential tributary

crossings for transportation,

rights-of-ways, and utilities

outside the Wild River Corridor.

All but 2,000

acres of the river

corridor isis

in the Bering

Sea-Western

Interior planning

area. Corridor is

managed as VRM

Class II. Impacts

mitigated through

NEPA process.

VRM Class II is

appropriate for

designated wild and

scenic rivers, but most

of the corridor is not

within the Central

Yukon Planning Area.

Conduct a visual

resource inventory

for the Central

Yukon Planning

Area. Determine

most appropriate

visual resource

management

classes, based

on current issues

and proposed

Southwest Visual Resources 2–1: Ongoing through Yes. alternatives in the

MFP Evaluate all proposed the NEPA process. Draft RMP.

management activities by

using the visual resource

management contrast rating

system and encourage those

projects that are compatible

or designed to be compatible

with the character of the natural

landscape.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Visual Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 246

3.2.10. Forestry and Woodland Products

Table 3.12. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Forestry and Woodland

Products

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 44: The proposed RMP Ongoing, no Yes. Some Revisit this

Corridor would allow commercial harvest of timber requests made to limitations on decision based

RMP/ resources in the Utility Corridor for salvage date salvage may be on revised

ROD purposes, such as after clearing operations

along rights-of-way, or of fire-killed timber

appropriate on

a case-by-case

basis.

visual resource

inventory,

ACECs, and

current issues.

Utility Proposed Action 45: The proposed RMP Ongoing, a Unknown. Increase

Corridor would permit use of timber resources, few firewood Location and information

RMP/ such as firewood and house logs, on permits and quantity of about subsistence

ROD a case-by-case basis. Should future

monitoring indicate any intensive use areas

(i.e., where demand may be exceeding

supply), a forestry management activity

plan would be initiated.

subsistence

permits issues

to date.

subsistence

harvest is not

documented.

Subsistence

harvest policy

has changed.

harvest activities.

Educate

subsistence users

about changes in

policy.

Utility

Corridor

RMP/

ROD

See also Proposed Action 43 under

Subsistence

Central Goal #1, Objective 8: Maximize Ongoing, Yes, little or no Revisit this

Yukon opportunities for the harvest of forest allowed demand for forest decision based

RMP/ products where feasible and practical. products. User on current issues.

ROD hopes for biomass

harvest, but BLM

least accessible

biomass on the

landscape.

Central Forestry Resources (pg. 11): All Ongoing, never Yes, responsive to Increase

Yukon forest lands are open to subsistence and implemented current issues information

RMP/ commercial timber harvest except crucial due to low to the extent about subsistence

ROD wildlife habitat and the eight RNAs.

Timber may be harvested on subsistence

study/exchange withdrawals under a

subsistence or personal use type permit. No

commercial sales will be permitted on these

withdrawals.

demand. RNAs

were never

withdrawn.

Subsistence

studies were

never done.

that they exist.

Subsistence

harvest policies

have changed

from previous

planning effort.

No demand

for commercial

harvest.

harvest activities.

Educate

subsistence users

about changes in

policy.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Forestry and Woodland Products
Analysis of Management Situation 247

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central Forestry Resources (pg. 11): Data on Ongoing, little No. Little known Partner with US

Yukon forest lands will be accumulated and done to date. about forest Forest Service

RMP/ maintained until identified needs require a productivity, for inventory of

ROD more intensive forest inventory. health, and

phenological

shifts.

forest product

status. Planning

Handbook

requires

establishment

of ‘desired

cut levels’

but without

demand and/or

inventory can’t

be accomplished.

South- Forestry 1–1: Provide for the use of Ongoing, little Yes, responsive Increased

west forestry products throughout the planning done to date. to current issues. information about

MFP area with priority in areas open for

settlement entry.

Settlement laws

have expired.

Although little or

no demand in the

part of the area

covered by this

MFP.

the use of forest

products.

3.2.11. Livestock Grazing

There are no current livestock grazing permits in the revised planning area. Both the Utility

Corridor and Central Yukon RMPs prohibit livestock grazing, other than that associated with

recreational purposes such as pack horses. The Southwest MFP allows for grazing, but has

minimal overlap with the Central Yukon Planning Area. There may be interest in reindeer grazing

at the community level. The RMP provides an opportunity to consider and analyze potential

impacts of reindeer grazing.

Table 3.13. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Livestock Grazing

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility

Corridor

RMP/ROD

Proposed Action 46: Under

current management, grazing

permits are not allowed. The

proposed RMP would continue

this policy. Any horse grazing

north of the Yukon River

is currently associated with

pack trips for recreational

purposes. These activities

Ongoing, never

requested. Could

be authorized

for recreation

permits. Special

rules dictate that

livestock corralled

only in BLM

corrals prior to

Yes. There is

no demand for

traditional livestock

grazing permits

and the area is not

suitable for such use.

Grazing associated

with pack trips can

be accommodated

Revisit special

rules regarding

livestock (pack

animal) use

in the Dalton

Highway

Recreation

Management

Area.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Livestock Grazing
Analysis of Management Situation 248

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

can be accommodated under a

temporary use permit.

entry, but corrals

were never built.

under temporary use

permits.

Central Yukon

RMP/ROD

Goal #3, Objective 3: Prohibit

domestic livestock grazing due to

identified wildlife conflicts and

the lack of suitable grazing lands

within the planning area.

Ongoing, no

known permit

requests

Yes. Same as above.

Possible interest in

reindeer grazing.

Southwest Range Management 1–1: Allow Ongoing, no Possibly for reindeer.

MFP seasonal grazing for domestic

livestock on a local level where

public demand warrants, and

where determined compatible

with other resources.

known permit

requests

Lands are notsuitable

for cattle orsheep and

disease transmission

is a concern.

Evaluate

allowing

reindeer grazing

under the

Alaska Reindeer

Southwest Range Management 1–2: Ongoing. Possibly for reindeer. Grazing Act.

MFP Allow seasonal grazing for

reindeer or muskoxen on a

level to protect other resources.

Exclude Unalakleet and Avik

Rivers and their significant

tributaries from grazing leases.

Unalakleet and

Anvik Rivers are

outside of the

current planning

area.

Muskoxen are

wildlife, not domestic

livestock.

3.2.12. Minerals

3.2.12.1. Leasable Minerals

Table 3.14. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Leasable Minerals

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 4: All lands, ANCSA No. These Review all

Corridor except for split-estate (the withdrawals withdrawals existing

RMP/ROD subsurface estate has been

conveyed to ASRC) and the

southern portion of proposed

Nigu-Iteriak ACEC (the proposed

Nigu wilderness area), would

be open to the exploration and

development of leasable minerals.

No surface occupancy stipulations

would apply to the Inner corridor,

eight identified mineral licks,

Ivishak River and Kanuti Hot

Springs ACECs, and streams

closed to mineral location, i.e.,

floodplains of the Jim River

and Prospect Creek downstream

from the eastern boundary of the

Inner corridor, and the Kanuti

River downstream of the western

boundary of the Inner corridor.

Seasonal closures may also

be applied to areas crucial to

prohibit leasing.

These withdrawals

were not modified

to open 5.8 million

acres to leasing as

recommended

in the Utility

Corridor RMP.

No surface

mineral access

since no known

demand for use.

Most lands with

high oil and gas

potential have

been conveyed to

the State or Native

corporations.

Ivishak and

Sagwon Bluffs

ACECs no longer

date from the

early 1970s.

Withdrawals need

to be reviewed and

a determination

made to maintain,

modify, or revoke.

If lands are

opened to the

mineral leasing

laws, then no

surface occupancy

stipulations

and seasonal

restrictions should

be considered.

withdrawals.

Consider opening

some lands to the

mineral leasing

laws through

modification

of existing

withdrawals.

On lands

recommended

open to mineral

leasing, develop

the appropriate

leasing

stipulations to

protect sensitive

resources.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 249

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

species covered by the ESA,

e.g., the Sagwon Bluffs ACEC.

Currently, there are no lands

open to mineral leasing within the

planning area. Under the proposed

RMP, approximately 5.8 million

acres would be open to leasing.

exist because

these lands were

conveyed.

Utility Proposed Action 5: The coal Would be Yes. There has Defer decisions

Corridor screening process, including considered in been no interest on coal in the

RMP/ROD the application of unsuitability

criteria, has not been conducted

for this proposed RMP. This does

not imply that coal exploration,

leasing, and development are

incompatible with this proposed

plan. If an application for a coal

lease is received sometime in the

future, an appropriate land use and

environmental analysis, including

the coal screening process, will be

conducted to determine whether

or not the applied-for coal areas

are acceptable for development

and for leasing consideration.

The plan would be amended as

necessary.

plan amendment

if application

received; no

interest to date.

from industry.

There is no need

to conduct the coal

screening process

at this time.

RMP until there

is an application

or interest from

industry. At that

time, conduct the

coal screening

process and

amend the RMP

as appropriate.

Central Yukon

RMP/ROD

Goal #1, Objective 2: Asrequired

by Section 1008 of ANILCA,

provide opportunities for mineral

leasing and development.

ANCSA

withdrawals

prohibit leasing.

No. These

withdrawals

date from the

early 1970s.

Withdrawals need

Review all

existing

withdrawals.

Consider opening

Central Yukon Leasable Minerals: ANCSA some lands to the

RMP/ROD Approximately 8,768,334

acres of land will be open to

mineral leasing (including oil

and gas leasing). An additional

1,349,673 acres within the Seward

1008 Buckland Basin and Purcell

Mountains management units

will be opened to mineral leasing

under this plan (10,118,007 acres

total).

withdrawals

prohibit leasing.

These withdrawals

were not modified

to open 10 million

acres to leasing as

recommended in

the Central Yukon

RMP.

to be reviewed and

a determination

made to maintain,

modify, or revoke.

If lands are opened

to the mineral

leasing laws, no

surface occupancy

stipulations

and seasonal

restrictions should

be considered.

mineral leasing

laws through

modification

of existing

withdrawals.

On lands

recommended

open to mineral

leasing, develop

the appropriate

leasing

stipulations to

protect sensitive

resources.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 250

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central Yukon Leasable Minerals: The ANCSA Possibly. There Review all

RMP/ROD following areas (706,450 acres) withdrawals may be values on existing

will be closed to all mineral prohibit leasing. these lands that withdrawals to

leasing. These were warrant closing determine which

● Unalakleet WSR withdrawal not lifted as them to mineral lands should

(28,249 acres) recommended leasing. There remain closed

● Eight RNAs (43,010 acres) in the Central may be additional to the mineral

● Subsistence withdrawal study Yukon RMP. areas not on this leasing laws.

areas (174,144 acres) New proposed list where closures Consider no

● Withdrawal/exchange lands Central Yukon are also warranted. surface occupancy

(461,047 acres) withdrawals or seasonal

were never stipulations to

implemented. protect sensitive

resources as

alternative

to closure if

appropriate.

Central Yukon

RMP/ROD

Leasable Minerals: Mineral

leases within areas having an

identified subsistence interest,

but not designated as withdrawn

from mineral leasing [Rodo River,

Kateel River, South Fork Huslia

River, Tagagawik River, Ray

River and the three tributaries

of Squaw Creek (northwest of

Rampart)] will be subject to a

300-foot "no surface occupancy"

setback zone along either side

of the water course (measured

from the mean high-water line or

center line of non-navigable water

courses).

Although a

300 foot no

surface occupancy

setback has

been identified,

ANCSA

withdrawals

prohibit leasing.

These withdrawals

were not lifted as

recommended

in the Central

Yukon RMP.

Additionally,

lands with high

mineral potential

have mostly been

conveyed.

Yes. A no surface

occupancy set back

from rivers is a

valid protective

measure.

However, the

sites where such

a set back is

desired need to be

revisited based on

current land status

and management

issues. Also,

the width of the

setback should be

reviewed.

Review all

existing

withdrawals to

determine which

lands should

be opened or

closed to the

mineral leasing

laws. In areas

recommended

to be opened,

consider no

surface occupancy

setbacks from

the rivers,

particularly those

with anadromous

fish spawning

habitats. Consider

closure to mineral

leasing as well

Central Yukon

RMP/ROD

Leasable Minerals: Mineral

leases within areas withdrawn

for anadromous fish spawning

habitat will have a "no surface

occupancy" setback zone which

corresponds with the outer

withdrawal limits. Designated

portions of the Nulato River

having important anadranous fish

spawning habitat will have a "no as no surface

surface occupancy" setback zone occupancy.

which runs along both sides of

the river and is measured 300 feet

back from the mean high water

line.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 251

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Southwest Minerals 1–1: BLM-managed ANCSA Possibly. Closure Same as above.

MFP lands open to oil and gas leasing

under section 1008 of ANILCA

with the following exclusions:

Unalakleet River drainage,

raptor nesting areas along the

Kuskokwim River, and peregrine

falcon active or historic nesting

areas.

withdrawals

prohibit leasing.

These withdrawals

were not lifted as

recommended in

the Southwest

MFP.

to mineral

leasing to protect

resources is a valid

decision. Some

of the areas listed

are not within the

Central Yukon

Planning Area.

Southwest Minerals 1–2: Provide ANCSA No. There has Defer decisions

MFP opportunities for leasing or

permitting of coal reserves for

local use.

withdrawals never

lifted; no interest

in coal leasing to

date.

been no interest

from industry.

There is no need

to conduct the coal

screening process

at this time.

on coal in the

RMP until there

is an application

or interest from

industry.

Southwest Minerals 1–3: Identify ANCSA Possibly. If there Review existing

MFP opportunities for leasing

of geothermal resources on

BLM-managed lands.

withdrawals

never lifted;

No geothermal

interest. Little

overlap with

Central Yukon

Planning Area.

are geothermal

resources with

development

potential within

the Central Yukon

Planning Area.

withdrawals

and geothermal

potential.

Consider opening

some lands to the

mineral leasing

laws. On lands

recommended

open to

geothermal

leasing, develop

appropriate

leasing

stipulations to

protect sensitive

resources.

3.2.12.2. Locatable Minerals

Most of the planning area is covered by Secretarial level withdrawals issued through public

land orders (PLOs) in the early 1970s. These are referred to as ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals.

Some of these withdrawals close lands to all mineral location and entry, others allow for entry

and location for metalliferous minerals only. See sections 2.2.3.1.2 and 2.2.4.2 of this document

for more details.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 252

Table 3.15. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Locatable Minerals

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 2: The decision Partially. These Review all existing

Corridor Approximately 1.7 million to open large withdrawals withdrawals to

RMP/ROD acres of public land are open to

locatable mineral development.

Under this proposed RMP,

approximately 4.7 million acres

would be open to mineral location.

The following areas would remain

closed: the Inner corridor, 160

acres surrounding the Kanuti Hot

Springs under PLO 399 (August

20, 1947), and the southern portion

of the proposed Nigu-Iteriak

ACEC (recommended Nigu

wilderness area). In addition,

the floodplains of the Jim River

and Prospect Creek downstream

from the eastern boundary of

the Inner corridor (which is

the limit of salmon spawning

habitat), 8 identified mineral

licks (160 acres each), and the

floodplain of the Kanuti River

downstream from the western

boundary of the Inner corridor, or

any wilderness area designated

by Congress would be closed

to mineral location [Action 33

(wilderness), Action 37 (wildlife),

and Action 52 (ACECs)]. All

closures are discretionary, except

for the recommended Nigu

wilderness area, the Kanuti Hot

Springs withdrawal, or any area

that Congress may designate as

wilderness.

portions of the

planning area to

mineral location

has not been

implemented.

PLO 6098

opened some

lands south

of Nowitna

National

Wildlife Refuge

to mining and

mineral leasing.

The decision to

close specific

areas to mineral

location through

new withdrawals

has not been

implemented.

date from the

early 1970s.

Withdrawals need

to be reviewed and

a determination

made to maintain,

modify, or

revoke. It may

be appropriate to

retain withdrawals

in some areas, but

the location of

areas proposed for

withdrawal need to

be reviewed based

on current land

status and issues.

determine which

lands should be

opened or closed to

the mining laws.

Based on this

review, recommend

partial revocation

of existing

withdrawals and

new withdrawals

to the Secretary of

the Interior. For

new withdrawals,

follow the process

outlined in Section

1326 of ANILCA.

Central Yukon

RMP/ROD

Goal #1, Objective 1: Consistent

with Departmental policy,

provide opportunities for mineral

exploration location, development,

and extraction under the 1872

mining law as amended.

Some areas

are open to

metalliferous

mineral location

and entry.

Other areas are

withdrawn by

existing PLOs.

Yes. Opportunities

should be provided

on some lands.

Review all existing

withdrawals to

determine which

lands should be

opened or closed to

the mining laws.

Based on this

review, recommend

partial revocation

of existing

withdrawals and

new withdrawals to

the Secretary of the

Interior.

Central Yukon

RMP/ROD

Locatable Minerals: An

additional 73,865 acres of

land located within the Purcell

Mountains Soil Map Unit of the

Seward 1008 study will be open to

mineral location.

For the

most part,

withdrawals

have not been

revoked. Part of

this unit is open

to metalliferous

Unknown. Need

to determine

current land status

and resources of

concern.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 253

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

location and

entry.

Central Yukon Locatable Minerals: The No new Partially. These Review all existing

RMP/ROD following areas (1,207,762 acres)

will be closed to mineral location,

subject to valid existing rights.

Mining on valid existing claims

located within fish spawning

habitat withdrawals, RNAs, and

withdrawals for threatened and

endangered species will require a

plan of operations.

● Spawning habitat of selected

anadromous streams (15,776

acres) including portions of the

North Fork Unalakleet River,

Kateel River, Gisasa River,

Tozitna River, Indian River,

and Clear, Bear and Caribou

Creeks (Hogatza River Tributary

streams);

● Crucial peregrine falcon habitat

(20,480 acres)

● Kaltag and Nulato River

watersheds (460,000 acres)

● Eight RNAs (43,010 acres)

● Subsistence withdrawal study

areas (179,200 acres)

● Withdrawal/exchange lands

(461,047 acres)

● Unalakleet WSR withdrawal

(28,249 acres)

withdrawals

have been

implemented.

Some of the

subject lands

may be closed

by existing

withdrawals.

Other lands are

currently open

to metalliferous

mineral entry

and location.

Land status may

have changed.

withdrawals

date from the

early 1970s.

Withdrawals need

to be reviewed and

a determination

made to maintain,

modify, or

revoke. It may

be appropriate to

retain withdrawals

in some areas, but

the location of

areas proposed for

withdrawal need

to be reviewed

based on current

land status and

issues. There may

be additional areas

not currently listed

where withdrawal

is appropriate.

withdrawals to

determine which

lands should be

opened or closed to

the mining laws.

Based on this

review, recommend

partial revocation

of existing

withdrawals and

new withdrawals to

the Secretary of the

Interior.

3.2.12.3. Salable

Table 3.16. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Salable Minerals

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 3: Consistent Ongoing. Partially. Develop a needs

Corridor with the transportation of energy Permit-based Proliferation of assessment for

RMP/ROD minerals as the primary purpose

of the Utility Corridor, mineral

material (gravel) permits and sales

would be allowed throughout the

planning area with safeguards

for specific areas. Extraction of

gravel from already disturbed sites

would be encouraged. Any new

site would be approved if judged

not in conflict with crucial wildlife

habitat, other important resource

values, recreation opportunities,

approval rather

than economically

feasible analysisbased approval.

gravel pits along

the highway is of

concern.

gravel on the

Dalton Highway

in cooperation

with ADOT

and Alyeska.

Zone areas on the

Dalton Highway

as closed to new

material sites.

Develop

appropriate

stipulations for

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 254

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

or the purposes of the proposed

ACECs. Of special concern are

portions of the streambeds and

floodplains of Prospect Creek, the

Jim River, and the Ivishak River in

proximity to the highway. Because

of additional resource values

(e.g., recreational fishing, salmon

spawning) along these streams

in the entire Utility Corridor,

extraction of mineral materials

through permit or sale would only

be approved in the floodplains if

it were demonstrated that no other

economically feasible sites were

available.

areas open to

mineral materials.

Utility Proposed Action 3: Closed Ongoing. Sagwon Partially. Areas Review and

Corridor to mineral material extraction Bluffs was conveyed recommended revise areas

RMP/ROD would be the Nigu-Iteriak ACEC

and whatever area is designated

wilderness by Congress, Kanuti

Hot Springs and Sukakpak

Mountain ACECs, and the eight

identified mineral licks. Seasonal

closures or other appropriate

restrictions may also be applied to

areas crucial to species covered by

the Threatened and Endangered

Species Act, e.g., the Sagwon

Bluffs and Toolik Lake ACECs.

to the State of

Alaska.

closed need to be

reviewed based

on current issues

and land status.

New ACECs

may be proposed

through the

planning process.

recommended

closed based on

current issues

and land status.

Develop

appropriate

stipulations for

areas open to

mineral materials.

Central Yukon Goal #1, Objective 3: Provide Ongoing. Impacts Yes. There is Same as above.

RMP/ROD opportunities for mineral material

sales where environmentally

feasible.

minimized through

NEPA process. Low

demand in Middle

Yukon Drainages

Subunit.

likely to be a

need for mineral

materials in the

future.

Assess needs for

gravel for the

State’s Roads

to Resources

program.

3.2.13. Renewable Energy

There are no specific decisions for renewable energy in either the Utility Corridor or Central

Yukon RMPs. There is increasing interest in renewable energy and it is BLM policy to address

renewable energy in land use plans. Infrastructure capable of supporting large renewable energy

projects in the planning area is very limited. The RMP provides an opportunity to address this

resource.

3.2.14. Recreation

The Utility Corridor RMP (BLM 1991a) designated five recreation management areas: the

Dalton Highway, Nigu Wilderness and Iteriak ACEC, and Oolamnagavik Colville Recreation

Management Areas, and the Dalton Corridor and CAMA Extensive Recreation Management

Areas. In 2002, the BLM conducted an evaluation and found that the five recreation management

areas were all being managed per decisions in the RMP. However, a significant portion of the

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Renewable Energy
Analysis of Management Situation 255

CAMA and the Oolamnagavik Colville recreation management areas have been conveyed. See

section 2.2.6 of this document.

Table 3.17. Current Management and Opportunities for Change for Recreation

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for Change

Utility Proposed Action 28: Designate The following See below. See below.

Corridor the following recreation areas were

RMP/ROD management areas (RMAs).

See Table 2.3 of the Proposed

RMP.

designated.

However, land

status has changed.

Utility Proposed Action 28: Dalton Ongoing. A Yes. The Dalton Revisit this

Corridor Highway RMA: This area recreation area Highway has a recreation

RMP/ROD generally corresponds to

the inner Utility Corridor

and includes those lands

within the Corridor adjacent

to existing roadways. The

primary recreational uses

include road-related sightseeing,

overnight lodging and developed

camping, interpretative services,

and fishing. The primary

Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS) classes for

this area would be Roaded

Modified and Roaded Natural.

A Rural classification will apply

to areas surrounding nodes (see

Appendix G Proposed RMP for

description of these classes).

Recreation facility development,

information signs, interpretive

facilities, and the presence

of seasonal staff will involve

intensive management presence

in this area.

management

plan is being

implemented.

The part of the

RMA north of

Atigun Pass has

been conveyed to

the State.

high visitation rate

and is a popular

destination for

recreationists. The

BLM has invested

significant dollars

into developing

recreational

opportunities

including: an

Interagency Visitor

Center, waysides,

and campgrounds.

management

area designation

and management

objectives for the

area, in light of

current policies,

visitor use patterns,

and changes in land

status. Establish

recreation and visitor

services objectives,

allowable uses

and supporting

management

decisions for the

RMA.

Utility Proposed Action 28: To Camping Partially. Revisit this decision,

Corridor protect the on-going and future is currently Limitations on in light of current

RMP/ROD research work near Toolik Lake,

a campground would not be

established on the shores of the

lake. No recreation use cabins

will be constructed on or near

Toolik Lake. An interpretive

site at Galbraith Lake or at the

junction of Dalton Highway

and the access road to the

Toolik Lake research facilities

would describe the purpose

and importance of the research

activities in the area. Though

recreation facility development

is being considered north of 68°

N latitude (see Table 2.3), no

overnight campground facilities

prohibited in the

Toolik Lake RNA.

camping are

appropriate in the

current RNA. If the

RNA is expanded

through this planning

process, limited

camping in some

areas may be

appropriate.

issues, visitor

use patterns, and

changes in special

designations.

Establish recreation

and visitor

services objectives,

allowable uses

and supporting

management

decisions for

the RMA and

ACECs/RNAs.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Recreation
Analysis of Management Situation 256

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for Change

would be constructed unless the

State makes the decision to allow

general public travel north of

this line. Guides and outfitters

would be allowed use of the

Galbraith Lake area, but no

ground-disturbing activities or

development (e.g., fuel storage

or equipment storage facilities)

would be allowed.

Utility Proposed Action 28: Dalton Ongoing. No. BLM policy for Revisit the decision

Corridor Corridor Extensive RMA: The recreation and visitor to make this area an

RMP/ROD Outer Utility Corridor, the

Venetie block, and several tracts

of land (125,000 acres) near

or adjacent to the corridor.

Primary recreational uses

would include hunting, fishing,

backpacking, and snowmobiling.

The area generally falls under

Primitive-Traditional ROS

classification. There would be

no new recreational facility

development in this area.

services has changed

since approval of

the RMP. Issues in

the area may have

changed.

extensive recreation

management area

in light of pending

land conveyance,

current issues, and

guidance in BLM

Handbook-8320-1.

Utility

Corridor

RMP/ROD

Proposed Action 28:

Oolamnagavik-Colville

Extensive RMA: Primitive

and semi-primitive recreation

experiences would be

emphasized. Land acquisitions

are proposed in order to provide

coherent natural boundaries

to this block of land to ease

management. The primary uses

of this area would be hunting;

fishing, backpacking, and river

floating. No development of

recreational facilities.

Most if not all

of this area has

been conveyed

to the State of

Alaska. The area

remaining under

BLM management

is within the

CAMA WSA. No

land acquisition

has occurred.

No. Land status

has changed. BLM

no longer manages

much of this area.

There are no major

recreation issues

in this area driving

designation as a

RMA.

Revisit the decision

to make these areas

extensive recreation

management areas in

Utility Proposed Action 28: CAMA Much of this No. Land status light of pending land

Corridor Extensive RMA: Emphasize area has been has changed. BLM conveyance, current

RMP/ROD primitive and semi-primitive

recreation experiences. The

primary recreational uses

would be hunting, fishing, and

backpacking. No recreational

facility development.

conveyed to the

State or Native

corporations.

no longer manages

much of this area.

There are no major

recreation issues

in this area driving

designation as a

RMA.

issues, and guidance

in BLM Handbook

8320–1

Utility Proposed Action 28: Nigu Ongoing. Land Possibly not. There

Corridor Wilderness and Iteriak ACEC status has changed are no major

RMP/ROD RMA: The primary recreational

uses of these areas would include

kayaking, rafting, backpacking,

and fishing.

with conveyance

to State and Native

corporations.

recreation issues

in this area driving

designation as a

RMA.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Recreation
Analysis of Management Situation 257

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for Change

Utility Proposed Action 29: Complete A recreation area Yes for the Dalton Revisit decisions to

Corridor Recreation Area Management management Highway RMA. designate RMAs.

RMP/ROD Plan for each of these RMAs

to aid in the implementation of

recreation facility development.

Highest priority would be given

to the Dalton Highway RMA.

plan has been

completed for the

Dalton Highway

RMA.

Possibly not for the

other RMAs.

Designation of

RMAs would

drive the need for

management plans.

Central Goal #4, Objective 7: Monitor Ongoing to the Yes Consider need for

Yukon recreation uses to determine the extent funding designated RMAs.

RMP/ROD need for providing future access

and facilities.

available. Focused

on recreation

permits.

Central Recreation Resources (pg. Ongoing. Possibly. Land Consider the need

Yukon 12): The primary objective status and issues for designated

RMP/ROD for management of recreation

resources will be to allow

opportunities that presently

exist, and support or encourage

opportunities for improving

access. This will require

continued close coordination

with other programs to assure

that recreational opportunities

are expanded, not limited, by

on-going proposals.

have changed since

approval of the RMP.

RMAs.

Central Recreation Resources (pg. 12): This has not been Possibly. Hot Evaluate

Yukon Hot Springs: All undeveloped done. Attempted springs should management of

RMP/ROD hot springs will be studied

for their suitability for remote

public-use cabins with winter

access trails.

to visit hot springs

in 2015, but due

to weather was not

accomplished.

be evaluated and

managed for most

suitable uses.

hot springs in light

of current issues,

spring specific

values, visitor

use patterns, and

changes in special

designations.

3.2.15. Transportation and Access

See section 2.2.7 for more background information.

Table 3.18. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Transportation and Access

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility

Corridor

RMP/

ROD

Proposed Action 24: To facilitate

issuance of rights-of-way from

the Ambler Mining District to the

Dalton Highway in accordance

with the provisions of Sec.

201(4)(b-e) of ANILCA, the draft

RMP recommended designation

of a transportation corridor near

Prospect/Pump Station 5 (Map

2.1). Because the State of Alaska

The transportation

corridor was not

designated, but a

right-of-way was

issued to the city of

Bettles for winter

road access. Land

conveyance has

resulted in changes

Yes. The State

has proposed

constructing an

all-weather road

to the Ambler

mining district

that would follow

the current Bettles

right-of-way across

Reconsider

establishing a

transportation

corridor and/or

analyze impacts

for the proposed

year-round road.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Transportation and Access
Analysis of Management Situation 258

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

expressed a strong interest in

obtaining these lands to develop

access to State and Native lands to

the west of the Utility Corridor, the

area identified in the draft RMP

as the "Ambler Mining District

Transportation Corridor" will be

opened to State selection under

this proposed RMP (see proposed

action 6).

in land ownership

patterns.

BLM-managed

lands.

Utility Proposed Action 25: Facilitate A right-of-way No. The State N/A

Corridor State access to State lands to was issued to the was issued a No longer an issue.

RMP/ the east of Coldfoot, an "access State of Alaska right-of-way for

ROD corridor" from the Coldfoot node

to the east would be opened to state

selection (see proposed action 6).

for the Slate Creek

Trail.

the historical route.

Utility Proposed Action 26: Elsewhere, Ongoing. Yes. The State of Work with State

Corridor allow appropriate access to Determined on a Alaska currently and other land

RMP/ State/private lands from the Utility case-by-case basis. restricts motorized management

ROD Corridor, although no specific

routes are defined. Appropriate

locations for rights-of-way from

the Dalton Highway should be

determined through cooperative

planning. Specific definitions of

rights-of-way would await the

filing of rights-of-way applications

by the State of Alaska.

travel off of the

Dalton Highway.

agencies to

determine what type

and where access is

appropriate.

Utility Proposed Action 27: The An evaluation Yes. Travel Complete a Travel

Corridor proposed RMP encourages the of current and management Management Plan

RMP/ BLM to join with the National projected OHV planning is required and establish

ROD Park Service, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the State of

Alaska to evaluate current and

projected OHV use in the corridor

and possible routes of access to

State land and to the boundaries of

conservation units adjacent to the

Corridor. This OHV evaluation

proposal is also mentioned under

"Recreation Resources" below

and is an issue appropriate for

consideration through proposed

cooperative planning (see proposed

action I).

use was not done. by BLM policy. supplemental rules

to implement.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Transportation and Access
Analysis of Management Situation 259

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 30: The State statute Yes. State law is Work with State to

Corridor planning area is designated as prohibits OHV still in effect. identify potential

RMP/ “limited” to OHV use. At present, use within 5 routes through the

ROD State law prohibits ORVs within

5 miles of the Dalton Highway

right-of-way except when being

used in conjunction with mineral

development (Alaska Statute

19.40.210). Federal recreation

program regulations prohibit

operation of an OHV in violation

of state laws and regulations which

relate to OHV use, standards,

registration, operation and

inspection [43 CFR 8341.1(d)].

Consequently, no noncommercial

casual (recreational) or commercial

recreational OHV use (e.g., use

by guides and outfitters) can

be authorized or permitted by

BLM within 5 miles of the

Dalton Highway right-of-way.

Therefore, recommendations

under this proposed RMP relating

to allowable recreational uses of

OHVs will not apply within 5 miles

either side of the Dalton Highway;

nor will OHV access points

identified in this plan be developed

at this time. The recreational OHV

policy stated in this proposed RMP

will be held in abeyance until such

time as (1) the State and BLM

reach an acceptable agreement on

suitable OHV use in the restricted

area, (2) State law changes, or (3)

federal regulations change.

Nigu WSA and Iteriak

ACEC are limited type 4.

The reminder of the planning area

is limited type 2.

miles of the

Dalton Highway

right-of-way

except when used

in conjunction

with mineral

development.

Utility Corridor.

Revisit OHV

designations outside

of the Utility

Corridor.

Utility Proposed Action 31: The plan An evaluation of Yes. Until the Work with State to

Corridor proposes an off-road vehicle use OHV use was not State restriction identify appropriate

RMP/ evaluation for Corridor lands done due to the on motorized OHV use within the

ROD to be conducted by the BLM

in cooperation with the State of

Alaska, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, and National Park

Service. This evaluation should

be an element of the cooperative

planning effort discussed under

proposed action 1, and would

address current OHV uses in

the Corridor and recreational

access to lands (both federal and

state) adjacent to the Corridor.

State motorized

restrictions within

the corridor.

off-highway travel

is changed, this may

not be a priority

task.

Utility Corridor.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Transportation and Access
Analysis of Management Situation 260

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

At a minimum, results of this

evaluation should determine

the extent of OHV use in the

Corridor and specify the need,

if any, to reclassify lands to

prohibit or allow (with or without

restrictions) their use in specific

areas. Reclassification of lands for

OHV use after the use evaluation,

if necessary, will be through a plan

amendment.

Central Goal #2, Objective 1: Require Ongoing. Yes. Limiting Consider changing

Yukon permits for off-road vehicles in Determined on a vehicle weight vehicle weight limits

RMP/ excess of l,500 pounds using case-by-case basis. reduces impacts to match the State’s

ROD federal lands. to resources. vehicle curb weight

limit.

Central Access (pg. 10): Access to Ongoing. Generally yes. Review OHV

Yukon or across public lands will be Determined on a Some slight changes limitations based

RMP/ considered on a case-by-case basis. case-by-case basis. may be warranted. on new issues and

ROD Under this RMP, the use of vehicles

of greater than 1,500 pounds gross

vehicle weight (GVW) will be

allowed by authorization only.

Vehicle use may be authorized

under a mining plan of operations

(43 CFR 3809), with a permit

(43 CFR 2800 or 43 CFR 2920),

or by other appropriate means.

Approval would be subject to

conditions which minimize the

impact to other land uses and/or

prevent unnecessary damage to the

environment.

new technology.

Consider changing

vehicle weight limits

to curb weight.

Central

Yukon

RMP/

ROD

Access (pg. 10): Normally, use of

vehicles greater than 1,500 pounds

GVW will be limited to winter

months with adequate snow cover

and would be limited to existing

trails where practical. Under

certain circumstances, the AO may

authorize summer moves. These

circumstances include, but may not

be limited to the following when:

1. A winter move is

impracticable.

2. A summer move would not

result in undue or unnecessary

impacts.

3. An existing trail would be

used and the proposed limits

would not damage the trail

to the extent that it becomes

unusable by other users

(recreation vehicles).

Ongoing.

Determined on a

case-by-case basis.

Yes, but technology

has changed and

new information is

available.

Review stipulations

for winter overland

moves based on

current issues, new

technology, and

any new research

on impacts of such

moves. Consider

changing vehicle

weight limits to curb

weight.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Transportation and Access
Analysis of Management Situation 261

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

4. Specialized equipment such as

low-ground-pressure vehicles

would be used to minimize

impacts.

Central Access (pg. 11): Management ANCSA section Yes. Continue with No changes

Yukon of l7(b) easements will be 17(b) easements current management recommended.

RMP/ in accordance with current are administered practices.

ROD management policy. in accordance

with current

management

policy.

Central Access (pg. 11): Any proposed Not located N/A N/A

Yukon access into or through the within the current

RMP/ Unalakleet Wild River Corridor planning area

ROD as identified in the approved river

management plan is subject to Title

XI of ANILCA.

boundary.

Central

Yukon

RMP/

ROD

Goal #4, Objective 5: Process

R.S. 2477 right-of-way claims.

There is currently

no MOU in place.

R.S. 2477 claims

must be settled

through the courts.

No. R.S. 2477

claims must be

settled through the

courts. This is

outside the scope of

N/A. Outside scope

of RMP.

Central Access (pg. 11): R.S. 2477

Yukon right-of-way assertions will be the RMP.

RMP/ processed in accordance with

ROD the existing Memorandum Of

Understanding (MOU).

Central Access (pg. 11): Based on future A transportation Yes. BLM policy Develop Travel

Yukon needs, a transportation plan may plan was not done. is to develop Management Plan(s)

RMP/ be prepared for all or part of the Travel Management tiered from the RMP

ROD lands within the planning area. Plans for all

BLM-managed

lands.

decisions.

Southwest Recreation 2–1: Designate Not located N/A N/A

MFP BLM-managed lands in the

Minchumina block as restricted to

winter OHV use only.

within the current

planning area

boundary.

3.2.16. Utility Corridors and Communications

In December 1971, PLO 5150 designated the Utility Corridor to allow construction of the

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Portions of the corridor have been conveyed to the State of Alaska.

Approximately 2.1 million acres of the Utility Corridor remains under BLM management. See

section 2.2.8 of this document. Other rights-of-way, such as for fiber optic lines have or may be

approved within the corridor. The Utility Corridor RMP designated development nodes along

the corridor.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Utility Corridors and Communications
Analysis of Management Situation 262

Table 3.19. Current Management and Options for Change Utility Corridors and

Communications

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 17: Designate Coldfoot and This decision has Consider the

Corridor four development nodes: Yukon Happy Valley been implemented need for any

RMP/ROD Crossing, Coldfoot, Chandalar,

and Happy Valley (Maps 2.3-2.6).

Coldfoot and Happy Valley,

included in areas opened to State

selection, would be managed as

nodes until such time as the lands

were conveyed. The areas around

Prospect and Pump Station 3,

designated as nodes in the previous

land use plan, would no longer be

designated or managed as nodes

while the lands are under federal

management. Governmental units

and energy transportation facilities

would be allowed to locate outside

the nodes if the needs or purposes

of the facility were better met

outside the node. Commercial

activities not directly related to

road traffic (e.g., horse corral or

grazing areas) would be considered

for permit approval in areas

outside the nodes. Such activities

would be screened from the Dalton

Highway, where appropriate, by

vegetation and distance.

development nodes

conveyed to State.

BLM administrative

sites were withdrawn

as planned at

Coldfoot, but not

Happy Valley.

Yukon Crossing and

Chandalar nodes

remain, with no

significant changes.

No commercial

development has

occurred outside of

the designated nodes.

for Coldfoot

and Happy

Valley nodes.

Partially.

Development

nodes are needed,

but locations

and sizes of

nodes could be

reconsidered. The

State is interested

in obtaining

ownership of

more of the

corridor, which

may include

some of the

development

nodes.

new development

nodes, the need to

revise boundaries

of existing nodes,

the removal of

nodes, or changes

to management

within nodes.

Consider

modification of

PLO 5150 to

allow conveyance

of parts of the

corridor to the

State.

Proposed Action 17: Continue

the policy of allowing the location

of State road maintenance

camps at the Yukon Crossing

(7-Mile), Coldfoot, Chandalar

Shelf, and Slope Mountain. The

lands occupied by the Alaska

Department of Transportation

and Public Facilities Jim River

maintenance camp would be

opened to State selection.

Coldfoot and

Happy Valley

development nodes

conveyed to State.

Yukon Crossing and

Chandalar nodes

remain, with no

significant changes.

Yes None

Proposed Action 17: No homesite

development would be offered at

any nodes.

Ongoing. Yes None

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Utility Corridors and Communications
Analysis of Management Situation 263

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 17: Yukon No new airstrip No. The State Re-visit the

Corridor Crossing node (7,050 acres): In developed at this does not appear Yukon Crossing

RMP/ROD the long term, if growth at the

Yukon Crossing area warrants, the

existing airstrip should be closed

and a new airstrip constructed

along the northeast/southwest

trending ridge in Sec. 1, T. 12 N.,

R. 11 W., Sec. 6, T. 12 N., R. 10

W.; and Secs. 31 and 32, T. 13

N., R. 10 W. Fairbanks Meridian.

The state has applied for an airport

lease on this site.

node, and no current

application from

the State for such.

Existing 5 Mile

Airport authorization

expired in December

2014. AKDOT&PF

has requested the

area, not as an airport,

but as an extension to

the road right-of-way

for storage and

miscellaneous uses.

to be interested

in a new airstrip

at this location.

However, they are

interested in using

the site in other

ways.

node to determine

if any changes to

the boundary or

management are

needed.

Utility Proposed Action 17: Coldfoot This node has been No. The Consider the

Corridor node (7,000 acres): If demand for tentatively approved conveyance need for any

RMP/ROD facility expansion should occur

that cannot be accommodated in

secs. 15 and 16 along the Dalton

Highway and above the Slate

Creek floodplain, consideration

would be given to permitting

actions north of Slate Creek in

sec. 10. The floodplain boundary

of Clara Creek would require

mapping before an area in sec. 10

could be identified. If lands within

this node are conveyed to the State,

five sites totaling approximately

20 acres would be retained by the

BLM for use by federal agencies

to facilitate their management

responsibilities within the area.

for conveyance to

the State. The BLM

retained five sites

for administrative

purposes, totaling

100 acres, via PLO

7057.

portion of this

decision has been

completed.

More research

is needed to

determine if use

of lands north of

Slate Creek are

needed.

new development

nodes, the need to

revise boundaries

of existing nodes,

the removal of

nodes, or changes

to management

within nodes.

Utility Proposed Action 17: Chandalar No BLM Partially. No Consider the

Corridor Shelf Node (1,700 acres): administration site recent interest need for any

RMP/ROD Currently located within

this node boundaries are a

BLM administration site, a

State-held airport lease, and a State

highway maintenance camp. No

commercial activities are located

within the node, but interest has

been expressed in developing

a service facility and lodge.

The BLM could accommodate

anticipated road-related uses in

this node along with the current

government and energy transport

activities.

found on MTP,

otherwise no change.

No recent interest

in commercial

activities.

in commercial

facilities, but

State facilities

within the node.

new development

nodes, the need to

revise boundaries

of existing nodes,

the removal of

nodes, or changes

to management

within nodes.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Utility Corridors and Communications
Analysis of Management Situation 264

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 17: Happy Conveyance to the No. This node N/A

Corridor Valley Node (1,600 acres): State tentatively is no longer

RMP/ROD The boundary of this node

encompasses the areas permitted

to several guides/outfitters and

the governmental units clustered

along the airstrip. If the lands

within this node are conveyed

to the State, a site (or sites)

would be retained by the BLM as

necessary or appropriate to fulfill

its management function within

the area.

approved. No sites

were retained by

BLM as originally

anticipated.

BLM-managed

land.

Utility Proposed Action 18: Modify the The Inner corridor Potentially. Some Consider if

Corridor boundary of the Inner corridor to boundary has not public comments modification

RMP/ROD conform better to current and future

needs for energy transportation.

The Inner corridor was designated

before the final alignments of the

current highway and pipelines

were determined to minimize

conflicts with new mining claims.

Now that these alignments are in

place the boundary of the Inner

corridor should be modified.

Appendix N provides a precise

description of proposed changes in

this boundary. PLO 5150 would

be modified to conform with these

proposed changes.

been modified. noted that the

corridor is wider

than necessary.

Alternatively, a

gas pipeline could

be authorized

within the

corridor.

of the Inner

corridor boundary

is appropriate.

Re-visit the

proposed

boundary changes

in Appendix N

of the Proposed

RMP.

3.2.17. Land Tenure

Many of the land tenure decisions in the Utility Corridor RMP have been implemented. One

remaining issue in the planning area is isolated small tracts of BLM-managed lands that are

no longer manageable and should be considered for disposal through either sale or exchange.

Additionally, the State of Alaska has requested modification of existing withdrawals to allow

conveyance of lands within the Utility Corridor to the State. See section 2.2.3 of this document.

Table 3.20. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Land Tenure

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility

Corridor

RMP/ROD

Proposed Action 6: Open

approximately 0.7 million acres

of land within the Corridor to State

selection. These lands are located

in four different areas or units:

(1) Corridor lands south of the

Yukon River, originally described

in the preferred alternative of

the draft RMP (25,000 acres);

(2) Prospect Unit (55,000 acres)

(1) Corridor lands south

of the Yukon River

were opened for State

selection and were

subsequently selected

and conveyed.

(2) The Utility Corridor

RMP Record of Decision

determined not to open

(1) This action has

been completed

(2) The local

public tend to

be opposed to

the transfer,

therefore, the

decision is

responsive to

their concerns.

(2) Revisit

the decision

to retain the

Utility Corridor

in federal

ownership or

to allow State

selection.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Land Tenure
Analysis of Management Situation 265

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

which corresponds closely to lands in the Prospect area However, the

the "Ambler Mining District to State selection. State and other

Transportation Corridor" defined interests have

in the draft RMP as well as lands (3) The Utility Corridor requested the

occupied by the nearby State of

Alaska highway maintenance

camp and state maintained

RMP Record of Decision

determined that the

Coldfoot node should be

transfer and

therefore, this

decision is not

public airstrip (Map 2.1);

(3) Coldfoot Unit, which

includes the node described

opened to State selection,

but the transportation

corridor to the east would

responsive to

their concerns.

(3) The Coldfoot

in the draft RMP as well as a

transportation corridor to the

east (26,000 acres; Map 2.2);

be omitted, and the total

acreage reserved for

administrative use would

development

node has been

conveyed and

and (4) Sagavanirktok Unit,

described in the supplement to

be increased from 20

acres to 100 acres.

adequate acreage

has been reserved

the draft RMP (Appendix J) as

Corridor lands north of Toolik

Lake (600,000 acres).

(4) The Sagavanirktok

Unit lands were opened

for State selection and

were subsequently

selected and conveyed.

for BLM’s

administrative

purposes.

(4) This action has

been completed.

Utility Proposed Action 7 as modified Lands within the (see Proposed This RMP

Corridor by the Utility Corridor Record Coldfoot Unit were Action 6) will revisit

RMP/ROD of Decision: A portion of selected and conveyed, the decision

the Coldfoot Unit, identified except for five sites to retain the

in the RMP as the "Coldfoot (totaling 100 acres) were Utility Corridor

Development Node" (see map retained, per the The in federal

2.4, Proposed RMP, page 2-17) Utility Corridor RMP ownership

would be made available for Record of Decision. and consider

State selection. The remainder The Happy Valley recommending

of the Coldfoot Unit would not node was selected and modification

be available for State selection. conveyed, without of PLO 5150

Should access be required to retaining any portion for to allow State

State-owned lands east of the an administrative site. selection.

Coldfoot node, the BLM will The Prospect Unit was

entertain an application for a not opened for selection,

right-of-way for access to these nor conveyed.

lands. The Prospect Unit would

be retained by BLM.

Utility Proposed Action 8: The draft The lands within the There are Consider State

Corridor RMP identified lands for possible Coldfoot node have been divergent selection as a

RMP/ROD sale within the Coldfoot and transferred to the State. opinions on this first priority and

Yukon Crossing nodes. As a The lands within the issue. Land sales direct sale as a

result of public comments, under Yukon Crossing node have not been second priority.

the proposed plan these lands have been retained but identified as an

would not be made available are top-filed for State issue during the

for sale. Sale of lands within 5 selection. current scoping

miles of the Dalton Highway is period.

currently prohibited under State

law.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Land Tenure
Analysis of Management Situation 266

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 9: Amend These lands have been N/A N/A

Corridor PLO 5150, as amended by PLO conveyed to the State of

RMP/ROD 5182, to allow State selection in

the remainder of the Gas Arctic

east-west energy transportation

corridor adjacent to the Arctic

Wildlife Refuge. This area is

approximately 30,000 acres in

size and involves land in T. 1 S.,

R. 24 and 25 E., Umiat Meridian.

Alaska.

Utility Proposed Action 10: Disposal These lands have not Yes. Isolated Revisit the

Corridor of small tracts of public land been conveyed or small tracts of decision for

RMP/ROD would be encouraged just west of

the upper reaches of the Middle

Fork Chandalar River through

exchange with or selection by the

State of Alaska.

selected, status remains

unchanged.

BLM-managed

lands are difficult

to manage.

disposal of these

lands through

State selection,

exchange with

the State or

private entities,

or direct sale.

Utility Proposed Action 11: To Unknown. More Unknown. Revisit this

Corridor consolidate federal land information is needed decision based

RMP/ROD ownership, the relinquishment of

State selections on four isolated

tracts of land (15,000 acres)

located south of the Brooks Range

between the Utility Corridor and

adjacent Conservation System

Units would be requested. Also,

should the State choose not to

select the "Sagavanirktok Unit,"

relinquishment of an isolated tract

of land (12,000 acres) north of the

Brooks Range located between

the Utility Corridor and the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge would

be requested.

on the location

of these lands.

The Sagavanirktok

Unit was selected and

conveyed.

upon other

proposed

decisions in the

draft RMP.

Utility Proposed Action 12: Encourage Land acquisitions along Unknown Reevaluate

Corridor exchanges with appropriate the Killik River have this decision.

RMP/ROD land owners to provide for

federal ownership of a corridor

surrounding the Killik River. This

corridor would be a multiple-use

management area focusing

on protection of the riverine

environment connecting the

Gates of the Arctic National Park

with the Colville River. Also,

encourage the acquisition of lands

for multiple-use management

on the western and eastern sides

of the Oolamnagavik block

to consolidate federal land

ownership.

not been pursued. Most,

if not all, of these lands

have been conveyed to

Native corporations.

The BLM

could consider

either pursuing

conservation

easements or

land exchanges

if a corridor is

desired.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Land Tenure
Analysis of Management Situation 267

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 13: Split estate conditions No. These Research land

Corridor Encourage the acquisition of the on 274,000 acres in lands have been status and

RMP/ROD approximately 274,000 acres of

subsurface estates from the Arctic

Slope Regional Corporation

(ASRC) or the disposal of the

corresponding 274,000 acres

of surface estates to ASRC to

end the "split-estate" conditions

in CAMA and to increase land

consolidation.

CAMA are unknown.

Most of CAMA has

been conveyed.

conveyed. determine if

split-estate is

still an issue on

any lands.

Utility Proposed Action 14: Resolve This action was This is no longer N/A

Corridor unauthorized occupancies in accomplished as stated. an issue.

RMP/ROD Wiseman by selling lots to the

owners of cabins. PLO 6727

modified PLO 5150 and classified

the lands for sale. The affected

lands have been determined

suitable for disposal, and BLM is

expecting to sell surveyed lots in

Wiseman to the cabin owners in

accordance with the FLPMA and

the existing land use plan (i.e., the

MFP).

Utility Proposed Action 15: Make No disposals have been There may be Evaluate

Corridor lands available for disposal to made under the R&PP interest for R&PP potential interest

RMP/ROD qualified applicants under the

R&PP Act to accommodate

future public purpose needs in

Wiseman, Coldfoot, and Yukon

Crossing/7-Mile area.

Act. leases in the

future for these

areas.

and needs for

R&PP leases and

disposals.

Utility Proposed Action 16: The draft Congress made these This is no longer N/A

Corridor RMP recommended transfer of lands part of ANWR on an issue.

RMP/ROD approximately 48,000 acres of

BLM-managed lands within the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

(ANWR) to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. These lands

were withdrawn by Public Land

Order 6607 and were remnants of

a gas pipeline corridor no longer

receiving active consideration.

August 18, 1988 (P.L.

100-395).

Central Goal #1, Objective 4: Provide Settlement laws have This is no longer N/A

Yukon continued public settlement expired. Minchumina an issue.

RMP/ROD opportunities in the Minchumina

Settlement block up until

expiration of the Alaska

settlement laws on October

21, 1986.

Settlement block is not

in the planning area.

Central Realty Actions, Settlement: The 11 patents were issued This is no longer N/A

Yukon existing Minchumina settlement 1988 – 2005 for an issue.

RMP/ROD area will remain open to FLPMA

lease and sale proposals.

Homesites and Trade

and Manufacturing sites

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Land Tenure
Analysis of Management Situation 268

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Southwest Lands 2–1: Consider for Settlement laws have No longer an issue N/A

MFP settlement entry public lands

excluding those with mineral

interest, legal exclusions, crucial

habitat, and environmentally

sensitive areas. Priority blocks

for review of settlement potential

are: Minchumina, Lime Village,

Goodnews, Anvik River,

Sleetmute.

expired. None of

these blocks are in

the planning area.

Central Goal #1, Objective 6: Provide Ongoing Yes Evaluate

Yukon opportunities for FLPMA leases potential interest

RMP/ROD and sales on federal lands

where environmentally feasible

and where compatible with

management objectives.

and needs for

FLPMA leases

and sales.

Central Goal #1, Objective 7: Identify This has not been Yes. Isolated Establish criteria

Yukon federal lands for exchange when implemented. Criteria small tracts of and priority areas

RMP/ROD in the national interest to provide

manageable land patterns and

lower administrative costs.

and priority areas for

exchange have not been

established.

BLM-managed

lands are difficult

to manage.

for exchange.

Central Realty Actions, Exchange: Land tenure in the area Yes. Land Establish criteria

Yukon Lands within the original ANCSA of Kaltag and Nulato exchange is and priority areas

RMP/ROD village withdrawal boundary

which were not selected by

village or regional corporations

will be made available for

exchange. These lands are located

in the vicinity of Kaltag, Nulato,

Allakaket/Alatna and Hughes.

The existing withdrawal or its

equivalent will be retained for 5

years. Exchange negotiations for

these lands could be conducted

with the State of Alaska, the

village or regional corporations,

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

is virtually unchanged,

no exchanges have

occurred. In the area

of Hughes northeast

toward Allakaket and

Alatna some exchange

has taken place, but land

tenure pattern could be

further consolidated for

efficiency.

responsive to

the issue of

consolidating

land ownership

and improving

ease of

management. A

checkerboard

land status

still exists

around many

communities.

for exchange.

Central Realty Actions, Exchange: Unknown. More Potentially. Establish criteria

Yukon information is needed The USFWS and priority areas

RMP/ROD Three tracts identified as sensitive

to management of adjacent lands in

the Koyukuk and Kanuti National

Wildlife refuges are to remain

withdrawn and be classified as

available for exchange. Through

withdrawal, these lands will be

maintained in an unencumbered

state, thus simplifying future

exchanges. The BLM would

consider offered lands which:

to determine which

specific tracts of land

this decision refers to.

is concerned

about activities

on lands adjacent

to refuges and

indicated in

their scoping

comments that

some landsshould

be considered

for addition to

refuges.

for exchange.

Consider minor

adjustments to

conservation

system units as

allowed under

section 3103(b)

of ANILCA.

● Consolidate BLM-managed

lands,

● Contain identified mineral

values, or

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Land Tenure
Analysis of Management Situation 269

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

● Contain other resource values

comparable to those transferred

through exchange.

If there is no interest in exchange

during the 5 year withdrawal

period, these tracts will be

managed for multiple use under

plan prescriptions that are in place

on contiguous BLM-managed

lands. Note: These lands are

not available for consolidating

inholdings, ANILCA boundary

adjustments, or for parks or

wildlife refuges.

Central Realty Actions, Exchange: The Unknown. Not clear Possibly. If this Revisit which

Yukon single township in the Yanert which parcel this is. parcel is still lands should be

RMP/ROD drainage (Nenana subunit) will

not be available for exchange.

This township is adjacent to a

large tract of BLM-managed land

in the Anchorage District.

Parcel in question may

have been conveyed to

the State or be outside

of the Central Yukon

Planning Area.

under BLM

management

and is adjacent

to large block

of BLM lands,

then this decision

would still be

appropriate.

made available

for exchange

based on current

land status and

manageability.

3.2.18. Land Use Authorization

Table 3.21. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Land Use Authorization

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for Change

Utility Proposed Action 19: Consider Ongoing. Yes Consider the need for

Corridor FLPMA leases on federal Development any new development

RMP/ROD lands where environmentally

feasible and compatible with

management objectives.

Previously disturbed sites

would be considered prior to

allowing uses on undisturbed

sites, giving first priority to

locations within development

nodes. Where the proposed

uses or site requirements would

not be compatible within a

development node, leases

would be considered outside of

a node.

nodes have been

under utilized,

there has been

no need for

or interest in

authorizations

in areas outside of

the development

nodes.

nodes, the need to revise

boundaries of existing

nodes, the removal of

nodes, or changes to

management within

nodes.

Utility Proposed Action 20: Allow No leases have Possibly not. Leases Revisit the decision

Corridor for leases with restrictions been issued or that would result in to allow for leases

RMP/ROD within the Kanuti Hot Springs

ACEC. However, no lease

would be allowed within the

immediate area or "thawbulb"

applied for within

the Kanuti Hot

Springs ACEC.

Unknown if the

development of the

hot springs area is of

concern; particularly

when the relevant

within Kanuti Hot

Springs ACEC.

Review ACEC

boundaries to more

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Land Use Authorization
Analysis of Management Situation 270

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for Change

of the springs (an area roughly

corresponding to the meadow

which surrounds the hot water

pools). Undeveloped hot

springs on federal land are

few in number, and little is

known about the resource value

of this particular hot spring.

Additional inventory work is

recommended to define more

accurately the area needed

under ACEC protection and

to aid in the design of lease

stipulations intended to protect

this resource. If changes in

the ACEC boundary or use

restrictions result from this

inventory work, they would be

addressed in a plan amendment

(also see proposed action 51).

recommended

inventory was

preformed.

and important value

for the ACEC is the

hot springs.

accurately define the

area needed and develop

standard operating

procedures to protect

ACEC values.

Utility Proposed Action 21: Make Ongoing, notably Yes. There is a need No changes

Corridor lands available to federal at Toolik, for these types of recommended.

RMP/ROD and State agencies and

research organizations for

needed administrative and

support facilities where

environmentally feasible and

compatible with management

objectives. Consider previously

disturbed sites prior to allowing

uses on undisturbed sites.

Coldfoot, and

Marion Creek

where there

are existing

administrative

sites.

facilities and use of

previously disturbed

sites is desirable.

Utility Proposed Action 22: Make Lands within the No. BLM will not This decision is no

Corridor lands available within the Utility Corridor authorize landfills longer valid.

RMP/ROD Utility Corridor where needed

to accommodate public solid

waste disposal sites operated

by appropriate governmental

agencies or private operators.

The environmental feasibility

of site location and methods of

disposal would be a primary

consideration. Consider

previously disturbed sites prior

to allowing uses in new areas.

have not been

made available

for solid waste

disposal sites.

on federal lands, due

to the potential

for release of

hazardous materials

to the environment

and long-term

monitoring

requirements.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Land Use Authorization
Analysis of Management Situation 271

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for Change

Utility Proposed Action 23: Until No action by Yes None

Corridor Congress acts on BLM's Congress. Wild

RMP/ROD wilderness recommendations,

planning area lands north

of 68° N latitude (CAMA)

must be managed to protect

their wilderness values in

accordance with BLM's

"Interim Management Policy

and Guidelines for Lands

Under Wilderness Review.”

Only those lands within the

Dalton Highway "viewshed,"

determined nonwilderness in

character (BLM 1980), would

be available for utility and

transportation systems. Other

impacting activities outside

the Dalton Highway viewshed

would also be prohibited until

Congress acts on the wilderness

recommendation.

Rivers lawsuit

settlement

agreement

(8/30/1993)

requires the BLM

to manage lands

in the CAMA

west of the Killik

River in a manner

that will protect

its wilderness

values until

Congress acts

on the wilderness

recommendation.

Central Realty Actions, FLPMA Sales There has been Possibly. FLPMA Revisit areas where

Yukon and Leases: All lands within no interest in sales and leases are FLPMA leases and

RMP/ROD the planning area will be open

to FLPMA leases and sales

except lands within:

● The Tagagawik/Buckland

watershed

● Purcell Mountains Soil Map

Unit (Hughes Subunit)

● Eight RNAs

● Identified 300-foot “no surface

occupancy” setback zones

● Subsistence study areas

● Withdrawn crucial wildlife

habitat

● The Unalakleet WSR Corridor

● Lands withdrawn for possible

exchange

FLPMA leases

in the area.

Some of the

referenced areas,

such as the

Unalakleet WSR

corridor, are not

within the Central

Yukon Planning

Area.

not appropriate

in some of the

listed areas such

as RNAs, but may

be appropriate in

other areas.

sales would not be

allowed.

Central Goal #1, Objective 14: Ongoing, see Possibly, see below See below

Yukon Continue leases on hot below

RMP/ROD springs which presently

have authorized development.

Central Goal #2, Objective 5: Prohibit Ongoing, see Possibly, see below See below

Yukon leasing of undeveloped hot below

RMP/ROD springs in order to allow for

noncommercial, public use of

these resources.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Land Use Authorization
Analysis of Management Situation 272

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for Change

Central Leases on undeveloped Tolovana Not necessarily. Consider an alternative

Yukon hot springs will not be Hot Springs, There are interested that would allow

RMP/ROD issued within the Central

Yukon Planning Area.

Renewal or reassignment

of existing leases would be

allowed. Public shelter cabins

could be constructed in the

vicinity of hot springs which

are not presently developed.

originally

authorized in

1968, is the

only existing hot

springs lease. No

new leases have

been issued for

hot springs.

No public shelter

cabins have been

constructed.

parties that would

like to propose

leasing some of the

hot springs. There

is interest in public

shelter cabins in

some areas. There

are a limited number

of undeveloped hot

springs remaining in

Interior Alaska.

leasing of hot springs.

Consider an alternative

that would prohibit

leasing of hot springs.

Southwest Lands 1–2: Allow Ongoing Yes. There is a Rights-of-way can

MFP rights-of-way grants throughout

the planning area on a

case-by-case basis.

public need for

rights-of-way.

be addressed on a

case-by-case basis and

conditions placed to

prevent unnecessary or

undue degradation.

Southwest Lands 1–3: Make public lands Ongoing Yes. There is a Consider identification

MFP available for the development

of electronic communications

facilities sites.

public need for

communication

sites.

of priority areas for

communication site

location. Require

collocation of facilities

to reduce the number of

sites needed.

Southwest Lands 2–2: Assure that Unauthorized No. Section 1316 of 2920 regulations could

MFP the existence and erection

of temporary or permanent

structures and shelters to

be used in conjunction with

hunting, trapping, and fishing

are consistent with resource

management principles.

structures exist,

but possibly not

within the Central

Yukon Planning

Area.

ANILCA allows

for temporary

structures, but policy

is needed.

be used for permitting,

but subsistence use

cabins have not been

addressed in policy.

3.2.19. Withdrawals

As discussed in section 2.2.3.1 of this document, virtually all of the BLM-managed lands in the

planning area are under some type of withdrawal. All of the withdrawals that are reserved for

or managed by the BLM will be reviewed to determine if they should be retained, relinquished,

or modified. Those withdrawals for the use of other agencies and purposes will be reviewed for

status and will continue to be in effect until a change is required or warranted.

The State of Alaska has specifically requested that the BLM consider modification of PLO 5150

to allow conveyance of lands within the Utility Corridor to the State. Additionally, the State

supports revocation of ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals to open lands to mineral entry and mineral

leasing. Other interested publics have indicated interest in retaining many of these withdrawals,

including PLO 5150.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Withdrawals
Analysis of Management Situation 273

Table 3.22. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, Withdrawals

Decision

Source

Current Management

Decision

Status Is Decision Responsive

to Current Issues?

Options for Change

Utility

Corridor

RMP/ROD

See Land Tenure section

3.2.17

Central Yukon Table 1-1 (pg. 14): No new Not necessarily. There Review all recommended

RMP Recommends 1,207,762

acres of withdrawals.

withdrawals

have been

issued.

have been changes in

land status and resources

since 1986.

withdrawals. Make new

recommendations based

on current issues.

Southwest Minerals 2–1: Review No existing Yes. All existing Review all

MFP those areas that are

presently closed to the

various mining laws and

the Mineral Leasing Act

of 1920 for potential

opening under these

laws. First priority

area for review is the

Minchumina planning

block.

withdrawals

have been

revoked or

modified.

withdrawals should

be reviewed. The

Minchmina Block is

not in the planning area.

recommended withdrawal

revocations. Make new

recommendations based

on current issues.

3.2.20. Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern

See section 2.3.1 for descriptions of existing ACECs and Research Natural Areas (RNAs).

Additionally, see Scoping Report for the Central Yukon RMP and Central Yukon Resource

Management Plan Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Report on the Application of the

Relevance and Importance Criteria, both available online at www.blm.gov/ak/cyrmp.

Table 3.23. Current Management and Opportunities for Change, ACECs and RNAs

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 52; Table 2.4: These ACECs were Partially. There Consider

Corridor Designate 13 ACECs. Toolik designated. Toolik may be other areas nominations for

RMP/ROD Lake ACEC would also be

classified as an Research Natural

Area to protect ongoing and

future research.

Lake is an RNA. that qualify as

ACECs. Some of

the current ACECs

may no longer be

appropriate.

new ACECs,

revisions to

boundaries of

existing ACECs,

and nominations to

remove ACECs.

Utility Proposed Action 52: Plans of operation Partially. ACEC management

Corridor Management Common to All are required per 43 Regulations require can be included in

RMP/ROD Utility Corridor ACECs: Prepare

a base map of appropriate scale;

prepare an ACEC management

plan; conduct monitoring;

conduct some level of cultural

resource inventory; plans of

operation are required.

CFR 3809. ACEC

management plans

have not been

completed. GIS

coverage of existing

ACECs and RNAs is

available.

mining plan of

operations within

ACECs. This is not

a planning decision.

the RMP, removing

the need for

step-down ACEC

management plans.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 274

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Galbraith Lake ACEC (56,000 Ongoing. Plans Yes. It is known Current ACEC

Corridor acres): Protect habitats crucial of operations are that notable plant boundary is

Proposed to threatened, endangered, required per 43 CFR and animal species likely inclusive

RMPPro- candidate, or sensitive plant 3809. No mineral occupy this area. of representative

posed Ac- and animal species; withdrawn leasing has occurred. Protection of sheep sensitive habitat for

tion 52: from mineral entry as part

of Inner corridor; no surface

occupancy for leasable minerals;

Require plans of operation

with protective stipulations

and mitigation measures to all

surface-disturbing activities

to avoid restricting sheep

movement, unduly disturbing

sheep habitat, or affecting

any other protected resource;

All BLM-authorized camps

and support facilities located

within the confines of the

ACEC, including cabins and

tent frames, shall be temporary

and must be removed after their

purpose has been accomplished;

Aircraft associated with all

BLM-authorized land use

activities shall be required to

fly a minimum of 2,000 feet

above ground level (AGL)

from May 1 to August 31,

unless doing so would endanger

human life or be an unsafe

flying practice; All recreational

facilities will be consistent

with the Dalton Highway

Recreation Area Management

Plan (RAMP), and will minimize

disturbance to protected

resources within the ACEC;

Allow the development of public

campground facilities; Establish

cooperative agreements for

cultural resource research and

excavation; Allow use by

guides and outfitters, but no

ground-disturbing activities in

association with guides and

outfitters.

Galbraith Lake

campground exists,

but development is

minimal.

lambing areas is

crucial considering

recent population

fluctuations.

plants and animals.

Current boundary

includes relevant

cultural sites.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 275

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Ivishak River ACEC These lands have No. Lands are no N/A

Corridor (3,800 acres): Approve been conveyed to the longer managed by

RMP/ROD new mineral sites only if State of Alaska. This BLM.

Proposed no other economically feasible ACEC no longer

Action 52: sites are available; allow

temporary and casual use

permits; Protect habitats

considered crucial to threatened,

endangered, candidate, or

sensitive plant and animal

species; Protect fisheries habitats

and populations, including

char spawning, overwintering,

and nursery/rearing habitat;

Protect crucial raptor habitats,

especially peregrine falcon;

Plans of operation with

protective stipulations and

mitigation measures will be

applied to all ground-disturbing

activities to avoid unduly

disturbing aquatic, riparian,

and threatened, endangered,

or candidate species, including

plants. Nonsurface occupancy

stipulations apply to oil and

gas leasing activity; Establish

cooperative agreements for

cultural resource research and

excavation.

exists

Utility Jim River ACEC (200,000 Ongoing. Mining Partially. Current Adjust current

Corridor acres): Protect fisheries Plans of Operation ACEC boundary boundary of

RMP/ROD habitats and populations, required by excludes important the ACEC to

Proposed including salmon spawning, regulation. Peregrine fish habitat. include the river

Action 52: overwintering, and

nursery/rearing habitat;

Require plans of operation

with protective stipulations and

apply mitigation measures to

all surface-disturbing activities

to avoid unduly affecting

aquatic and riparian habitat

or threatened, endangered, or

candidate species (including

plants and peregrine falcons),

or affecting any other protected

resource; Seasonal use and

surface occupancy restrictions,

including oil and gas leasing,

may be identified once

inventory and monitoring

studies have been conducted;

All BLM-authorized camps and

support facilities located within

the confines of the ACEC,

including cabins and tent frames,

falcon no longer a

listed species.

Substantial

numbers of fish

(i.e., salmon,

grayling) use

habitat downstream

of boundary.

downstream of the

current boundary.

See section 2.3.1.3

of this document

for more details.

Withdraw the entire

watershed from

mineral location,

mineral material

sales, and leasing.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 276

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

shall be temporary and must

be removed after their purpose

has been accomplished; Protect

habitat crucial to threatened and

endangered species, especially

peregrine falcons; Approve new

mineral material sites within

the floodplain only if no other

economically feasible sites are

available.

Utility Kanuti Hot Springs ACEC No leases have been Yes. Due to Currently, no leases

Corridor (40 acres): Restrict leasing authorized and no unique vegetative are allowed within

RMP/ROD and development to actions development has communities, the the immediate area

Proposed which would not directly affect occurred. Kanuti Hot Springs of the “thawbulb.”

Action 52: the hot springs, any identified

crucial wildlife habitat, and

rare, endangered or listed

plant species; The ACEC and

surrounding lands (total of

approximately 160 acres) closed

to mineral entry under PLO

399 of August 20, 1947, which

withdrew from entry and all

forms of appropriation all hot

springs in Alaska; No surface

occupancy stipulations apply

for mineral leasing within the

ACEC; Maintain water quality

of spring area and adhere to

EPA and State water quality

standards; All ground-disturbing

activities having any effect on

the resources within the ACEC

will require plans of operation

and appropriate mitigation to

eliminate or minimize any

adverse impacts; Close to gravel

extraction.

was designated an

ACEC under the

Utility Corridor

RMP.

This area could

be expanded to

encompass the

entire ACEC

to preserve the

unique vegetation

and hydrologic

processes of the

Kanuti Hot Springs.

Utility Nigu-Iteriak ACEC (64,000 39,682 acres of Possibly. Needs Review the ACEC

Corridor acres): The upper Nigu section BLM-managed additional review. to determine if

RMP/ROD has been recommended to lands remain in this any changes to

Proposed Congress for wilderness ACEC. Lands within the boundary or

Action 52: designation in the Central Arctic

Management Area Wilderness

Recommendations and Final

EIS (USDOI, BLM; 1988b) and

the Alaska National Interest

Lands Conservation Act Section

1001 Report (USDOI, BLM;

1988b). Until Congress either

designates or releases these

areas from consideration, both

areas will be managed to

protect their wilderness values

in accordance with interim

wilderness management policy

a portion of the Nigu

section have been

transferred to the

Noatak National

Preserve by PL

104-333. Lands

within a portion of

the Iteriak section

have been transferred

to the State of Alaska.

management are

needed.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 277

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

and guidelines; Regardless of

congressional action, the upper

Nigu section would remain

closed to mineral location,

mineral materials extraction,

and mineral leasing; the Iteriak

section would be opened to

mineral development (entry and

leasing), but closed to mineral

materials extraction; Require

plans of operation for any mining

activities in the northern section;

Only OHV use for subsistence

purposes would be allowed.

Utility Nugget Creek ACEC (3,300 This action has been Partially. The Review the current

Corridor acres), West Fork Atigun implemented as currently boundary of all

RMP/ROD ACEC (8,500 acres), and described. implemented action three ACECs.

Proposed Poss Mountain ACEC (8,000 for Poss Mountain Consider adjusting

Action 52: acres): Mineral lick sites

(160 acre parcels), would be

closed to mineral entry and

location, to surface occupancy

by BLM-authorized land

activities, and to mineral

materials extraction. Nonsurface

occupancy stipulations would

apply to mineral leasing;

Only allow mineral materials

extraction with stipulations to

prevent disturbance of Dall

sheep habitat or access; Plans

of operation with protective

stipulations and mitigation

measures would be applied to

all ground-disturbing activities

to avoid restricting sheep

movement, unduly disturbing

sheep habitat, or affecting

any other protected resource;

All BLM-authorized camps

and support facilities located

within the confines of the

ACEC, including cabins and

tent frames, shall be temporary

and must be removed after their

purpose has been accomplished;

Aircraft associated with all

BLM-authorized land use

activities shall be required to fly

a minimum of 2,000 feet above

ground level (AGL) from May

1 to August 31, unless doing so

would endanger human life or

be an unsafe flying practice.

ACEC includes

some, but not

all of important

habitat for sheep

inhabiting this area.

Extension of the

ACEC area will be

recommended.

the Poss Mountain

ACEC to include

mineral lick on

Gold Creek. See

section 2.3.1.3 of

this document for

more details.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 278

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Sagwon Bluffs ACEC (42,200 Only 2,560 acres of No. The ACEC no Consider standard

Corridor acres): Protect habitats crucial BLM-managed lands longer exists and operating

RMP/ROD to species considered threatened, remain in this ACEC. peregrine falcon is procedures to

Proposed endangered, candidate or The remainder has no longer listed. protect raptor

Action 52: sensitive by U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service or the State of

Alaska; All BLM-authorized

land use activities shall follow

the protective measures for

peregrine falcons identified

in the Peregrine Falcon

Recovery Plan (September

1982); Nonsurface occupancy

stipulations would be applied

to plant habitat (Erigeron

muirii) locations; Plans of

operation with protective

stipulations and mitigation

measures will be applied to

all ground-disturbing activities

to avoid unduly disturbing

peregrine falcons and their

habitats, or affecting any other

protected resource; Establish

cooperative agreements for

cultural resource research and

excavation.

been conveyed to the

State. The remaining

BLM lands are under

Airport Lease. For all

practical purposes,

this ACEC no longer

exists. Peregrine

falcon is no longer a

listed species.

nesting habitats

throughout the

planning area.

Evaluate the

appropriate level

of protection for

Erigeron muirii and

other species that

have been added

to the BLM Alaska

Sensitive Species

List (BLM 2010)

where they occur

on BLM-managed

lands.

Utility Slope Mountain ACEC These lands have N/A N/A

Corridor (5,100 acres): Mineral licks been conveyed to

RMP/ROD (160 acre parcels), would be the State, ACEC

Proposed closed to mineral entry and designation no longer

Action 52: location, to surface occupancy applies.

Appendix by BLM-authorized land

K activities, and to mineral

materials extraction. No surface

occupancy stipulations would

apply to mineral leasing;

Only allow mineral materials

extraction with stipulations to

prevent disturbance of Dall

sheep habitat or access; Plans

of operation with protective

stipulations and mitigation

measures would be applied to

all ground-disturbing activities

to avoid restricting sheep

movement, unduly disturbing

sheep habitat, or affecting

any other protected resource;

All BLM-authorized camps

and support facilities located

within the confines of the

ACEC, including cabins and

tent frames, shall be temporary

and must be removed after their

purpose has been accomplished;

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 279

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Aircraft associated with all

BLM-authorized land use

activities shall be required to

fly a minimum of 2,000 feet

above ground level from May

1 to August 31, unless doing

so would endanger human

life or be an unsafe flying

practice; Protective measures

for peregrine falcons will be

those measures identified in the

Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan

(September 1982).

Utility Snowden Mountain ACEC This action has been Partially. Consider extension

Corridor (28,000 acres): Mineral implemented as Protection of sheep of the Snowden

RMP/ROD lick sites (160 acre parcels), described. habitat areas is ACEC, along the

Proposed would be closed to mineral crucial considering eastern edge of

Action 52: entry and location, to surface

occupancy by BLM-authorized

land activities, and to mineral

materials extraction. No surface

occupancy stipulations would

apply to mineral leasing;

Only allow mineral materials

extraction with stipulations to

prevent disturbance of Dall's

sheep habitat or access; Plans

of operation with protective

stipulations and mitigation

measures would be applied to

all ground-disturbing activities

to avoid restricting sheep

movement, unduly disturbing

sheep habitat, or affecting

any other protected resource;

All BLM-authorized camps

and support facilities located

within the confines of the

ACEC, including cabins and

tent frames, shall be temporary

and must be removed after their

purpose has been accomplished;

Aircraft associated with all

BLM-authorized land use

activities shall be required to

fly a minimum of 2,000 feet

above ground level from May

1 to August 31, unless doing

so would endanger human life

or be an unsafe flying practice;

All recreational facilities would

be consistent with the Dalton

Highway Recreation Activity

Management Plan (RAMP), and

will minimize disturbance to

recent population

fluctuations.

Snowden Mountain

ACEC and adjacent

habitat to the

east is an area

of high sheep

density relative

to other portions

of the Dalton

Highway Corridor

Management Area.

the ACEC to the

eastern extent of

BLM-managed

lands. See section

2.3.1.3 of this

document for more

details.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 280

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

protected resources within the

ACEC.

Utility Sukakpak Mountain ACEC This action has been Partially. The To protect more

Corridor (3,500 acres): Mineral materials implemented as scenery along the of this spectacular

RMP/ROD extraction would not be allowed described. highway has grown view for highway

Proposed on the slopes of Sukakpak in importance as travelers, consider

Action 52: Mountain; Mineral location

will not be allowed in the

ACEC. (This area is located

within the Inner corridor.); No

surface occupancy stipulations

would be applied to mineral

leasing in the ACEC; All

recreational facilities would

be consistent with the Dalton

Highway Recreation Activity

Management Plan (RAMP);

Recreational opportunities of the

area will be emphasized by trail

development.

a resource valued

by the public. The

Dalton Highway

is increasingly

seen and marketed

globally as a

unique Alaskan

destination.

Sukakpak

Mountain is a

highly visible

and photographed

landmark.

expanding the

Sukakpak ACEC

to protect more

of the viewshed,

including that of

Dillon Mountain on

the opposite side

of the Bettles River

from Sukakpak.

Utility Toolik Lake ACEC/RNA These management Partially. Rare plant Protections should

Corridor (82,000 acres): Protect habitats restrictions have habitat is present be placed in the

RMP/ROD crucial to species considered been implemented and a management ACEC which would

Proposed threatened, endangered, as described. A activity plan for limit the disturbance

Action 52: candidate or sensitive by

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

or the State of Alaska; All

authorized actions would be

reviewed to avoid conflict with

ongoing research projects in

the area; Mineral location will

not be allowed in this ACEC.

(The area is located within the

Inner corridor.); Nonsurface

occupancy stipulations would

be applied to mineral leasing.

(The area is located within the

Inner corridor.) No surface

occupancy stipulations would

be applied to plant habitat

(Montia bostockii) locations;

No recreational camping would

be permitted. No public

use campgrounds would be

developed at Toolik Lake; OHV

access for research activities

would be allowed through

permit; Guiding operations

would not be authorized at

Toolik Lake; The sale of mineral

materials would be confined to

already disturbed sites. New

sites would be considered only

if no other economically feasible

alternatives are available; No

management plan

and programmatic

EA were prepared.

A rare plant

inventory was done

in 2002, but no

species management

activity plan was

prepared for Montia

bostockii .

Montia bostockii

should be prepared.

Yellow-billed loon

inhabit the area

encompassed by

this ACEC. The

species is a BLM

Alaska sensitive

species. USFWS

issued a finding

(FR Vol. 79, No.

190, Wednesday,

October 1, 2014)

that a decision to list

the yellow-billed

loon as threatened

or endangered is

not warranted at

this time. The loon

was removed from

the candidate list.

of nesting

and brooding

yellow-billed loons

consistent with

BLM policy for

management of

sensitive species.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 281

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

lands within the RNA would

be made available for disposal

(State selection, exchange,

or sale); Prepare a detailed

management activity plan for

the Toolik Lake Research

Natural Area Plan, including the

Galbraith Lake ACEC; Prepare

a species management activity

plan for the sensitive plant

species, Montia bostockii.

Central RNAs (pg. 12), Cultural All eight RNAs have Further RNA Review all existing

Yukon Resources (pg. 40, #4), been designated. specific review is RNAs to determine

RMP/ROD Appendix H DRMP/EIS:

Eight RNAs (43,000 acres total)

are designated in the Nulato,

Tozitna, Kuskokwim, and

Hughes subunits. Designated

RNAs are Box River Treeline,

Redlands Lake, Arms Lake,

Ishtalitna Creek Hot Springs,

McQuesten Creek, Spooky

Valley, Lake Todatonten Pingos

and South Todatonten Summit.

Closed to commercial timber

harvest (p. 11 of ROD).

Closed to mineral leasing.

Recommended withdrawn from

mineral location and entry.

Recommended

withdrawals have not

been implemented.

RNAs are closed to

mineral leasing.

needed to determine

this.

if any changes

to boundaries or

management are

needed.

Central RNAs (pg. 12): The eight No new withdrawals Partially. No Revisit

Yukon RNAs would be proposed for have been withdrawals from management

RMP/ROD inclusion into the Ecological

Reserve System. These RNAs

would be closed to FLPMA

leases and sales, mineral entry

and mineral leasing. There

would be no restriction on

hunting and fishing by the public

or subsistence activities within

the RNAs. Access through

RNAs for vehicles over 1,500

pounds GVW would be allowed

by permit. An approved plan of

operations would be required for

any ground-disturbing activity

on existing mining claims within

RNAs.

implemented.

Other management

prescriptions for

RNAs are ongoing.

Unknown if RNAs

were proposed for

inclusion in the

Ecological Reserve

System or if this

program still exists.

More research is

needed.

mining have been

implemented.

prescriptions for

RNAs based on

current issues and

technology.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 282

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central Wildlife, Terrestrial (pg. These ACECs were Partially. Crucial Review current

Yukon 6), Table 1–2 (pg. 15): designated. habitat and actual and historic

RMP/ROD Crucial caribou habitats in the calving range may caribou locations,

Tozitna and Dulbi subunits are be only partially and specifically,

designated as ACECs: represented within calving locations to

1. Galena Mountain ACEC current ACEC determine correct

(24,800 acres) boundaries and/or location for ACECs

2. Tozitna North ACEC may have shifted and/or ascertain

(127,000 acres) over time and whether boundary

3. Tozitna South ACEC (5,134 currently be expansions are

acres) offset from what justified.

was previously

established.

Central Wildlife Resources, Aquatic These ACECs Partially. Review all

Yukon (pg. 6), Table 1–2 (Pg. 15): were designated. Conveyance of existing ACECs

RMP/ROD Designated fishery ACECs: North River and lands has changed to determine if

Nulato Subunit Unalakleet ACECs land ownership changes are needed

1. Inglutalik River ACEC are not in the patterns, affecting to boundaries

2. North River ACEC planning area. These the land base of or management

3. Shaktoolik River two ACECs will be some ACECs. prescriptions based

4. Kateel River ACEC addressed by the Monitoring of the on current issues

5. Gisasa River ACEC BSWI RMP. Sulukna River has and land status,

6. Ungalik River ACEC shown that most and additional data

7. Unalakleet River ACEC of the sheefish are collected since

Kuskokwim Subunit

1. Sulukna River ACEC

Tozitna Subunit

spawning upstream

of the ACEC.

Monitoring of the

Hogatza and Indian

approval of the

1986 RMP.

1. Tozitna River ACEC River ACECs has

Hughes Subunit shown that some

1. Indian River ACEC important salmon

2. Hogatza River Tributaries habitats in these

ACEC rivers are outside

of the ACEC

boundaries.

Central Inglutalik River ACEC This ACEC is in No. The ACEC N/A

Yukon (71,700 acres): Recommended the BSWI Planning is no longer in the

RMP/ROD open to mineral location and Area. planning area.

mineral leasing. Mining plans of

operation required. Additional

requirements will be identified

in the ACEC management plan.

Central

Yukon

RMP/ROD

Shaktoolik River (193,300

acres):

This ACEC is in

the BSWI Planning

Area.

No. The ACEC

is no longer in the

planning area.

N/A

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 283

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central Kateel River ACEC (568,000 Most of this ACEC Partially. Chinook N/A

Yukon acres): Recommended is in the BSWI spawning and

RMP/ROD withdrawal of crucial spawning

habitat from mineral location

and FLPMA sales and leases.

This withdrawal would extend

300 feet from each side of the

stream mean high-water line and

also include the stream bed of

non-navigable reaches.

Planning Area.

No ACEC

management plan

has been done.

Selected crucial

spawning habitat was

not withdrawn from

mineral location and

FLPMA sales and

leases.

rearing habitat and

chum spawning

habitat exists in

the lower river

reach that is

outside the current

ACEC boundary.

Most of this ACEC

is no longer in the

planning area.

Central Gisasa River ACEC (278,000 This ACEC is No. The ACEC N/A

Yukon acres): Recommended in the BSWI is no longer in the

RMP/ROD withdrawal of crucial spawning

habitat from mineral location

and FLPMA sales and leases.

This withdrawal would extend

300 feet from each side of the

stream mean high-water line and

also include the stream bed of

non-navigable reaches.

Planning Area.

No ACEC

management plan

has been done.

Selected crucial

spawning habitat was

not withdrawn from

mineral location and

FLPMA sales and

leases.

planning area.

Central

Yukon

RMP/ROD

Ungalik River ACEC (112,700

acres)

This ACEC is in

the BSWI Planning

Area.

No. The ACEC

is no longer in the

planning area.

N/A

Central Unalakleet River (278,400 This ACEC is in No. The ACEC N/A

Yukon acres): Recommended the BSWI Planning is no longer in the

RMP/ROD withdrawal of crucial spawning

habitat from mineral location

and FLPMA sales and leases.

This withdrawal would extend

300 feet from each side of the

stream mean high-water line and

also include the stream bed of

non-navigable reaches.

Area. planning area.

Central Sulukna River ACEC (24,600 This ACEC is Partially. Inconnu Adjust current

Yukon acres): Complete ACEC designated, but does (sheefish) spawning boundary of the

RMP/ROD management plan. not encompass all

crucial spawning

habitat. Proposed

management for the

ACEC is unclear in

the ROD.

documented in

the Sulukna River

upstream of the

ACEC. One of

only five known

spawning areas in

the state.

ACEC to include

the entire Sulukna

River watershed

upstream of the

Nowitna River

National Wildlife

Refuge. See section

2.3.1 for more

details.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 284

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central Tozitna River ACEC (786,700 This ACEC is Partially. Implement

Yukon acres): Recommended designated, but Recommended withdrawals from

RMP/ROD withdrawal of crucial spawning

habitat from mineral location

and FLPMA sales and leases.

This withdrawal would extend

300 feet from each side of the

stream mean high-water line and

to also include the stream bed of

non-navigable reaches.

crucial spawning

habitat was not

withdrawn from

mineral location and

FLPMA sales and

leases.

withdrawals were

not implemented.

mineral entry

and location.

Include all active

stream channels

in the watershed.

Withdraw the entire

watershed from

mineral location,

mineral material

sales and leasing.

Central Indian River ACEC (158,000 This ACEC is Partially. Current Adjust current

Yukon acres): Recommended designated, but ACEC boundary boundary of the

RMP/ROD withdrawal of crucial spawning

habitat from mineral location

and FLPMA sales and leases.

This withdrawal would extend

300 feet from each side of the

stream mean high-water line and

to also include the stream bed of

non-navigable reaches.

crucial spawning

habitat was not

withdrawn from

mineral location and

FLPMA sales and

leases.

excludes important

salmon habitat.

Substantial number

spawn downstream

of boundary.

ACEC to include

approximately 10

additional miles of

the Indian River.

Seesection 2.3.1 of

this document for

more details.

Central Hogatza River Tributaries This ACEC is Partially. Current Adjust current

Yukon ACEC (5,225 acres): Includes designated, but ACEC boundary boundary of the

RMP/ROD portions of Clear, Caribou, and

Bear Creeks. Recommended

withdrawal of crucial spawning

habitat from mineral location

and FLPMA sales and leases.

This withdrawal would extend

300 feet from each side of the

stream mean high-water line and

to also include the stream bed of

non-navigable reaches.

crucial spawning

habitat was not

withdrawn from

mineral location

and FLPMA

sales and leases.

Original ACEC

was approximately

155,000 acres. Due

to land conveyance,

the remaining ACEC

is only 5,225 acres.

excludes high-value

salmon habitat

(chum, coho, and

Chinook).

ACEC to include

remaining BLM

lands within

the combined

watersheds of

Clear and Caribou

Creeks, as well

as the adjoining

BLM lands in

High Creek and

the South Hogatza

sub-watershed. See

section 2.3.1 of this

document for more

details.

Central Dulbi River Threatened and This ACEC is Possibly not. More Review ACEC to

Yukon Endangered ACEC (54,200 designated. No review is needed. determine if it still

RMP/ROD acres): Also commonly referred

to as the Dulbi-Kaiyuh ACEC.

Complete ACEC management

plan.

ACEC management

plan was developed.

This ACEC was

designated to protect

peregrine falcons

which were delisted

in 1991.

meets designation

criteria. Review

land status to make

sure sufficient lands

remain in BLM

management to

protect relevant

and important

values. Make

a determination

on retaining,

modifying, or

eliminating the

ACEC.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 285

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central Galena Mountain ACEC This ACEC is Possibly not. The Review ACEC to

Yukon (19,400 acres): Recommended designated. No ACEC does not determine if it still

RMP/ROD open to mineral leasing and

location. Monitor in cooperation

with ADFG.

ACEC management

plan was developed.

encompass all

crucial caribou

habitat.

meets designation

criteria. Review

land status to make

sure sufficient lands

remain in BLM

management to

protect relevant

and important

values. Make

a determination

on retaining,

modifying, or

eliminating the

ACEC.

Central ACECs (pg. 12): All ACECs in Aquatic ACEC Yes. 43 CFR 3809 Implement new

Yukon the Central Yukon Planning Area management plans requires a mining 3809 regulations.

RMP/ROD require that ground-disturbing

activities associated with mineral

exploration and development be

conducted under an approved

plan of operations. Casual

uses as defined under 43

CFR 3809 are exempt from

this requirement. Additional

requirements will be identified

in the appropriate ACEC

management plans.

completed for

Tozitna River

Watershed, Hogatza

River tributaries; and

Indian River.

plan of operations

in ACECs.

Review ACECs

to determine if

a withdrawal is

appropriate.

Central Threatened and Endangered Management was No. Peregrine Make a

Yukon Wildlife, (pg. 7): The ACEC consistent with falcon is no longer determination

RMP/ROD management plan for threatened

and endangered species ACECs

will require that all actions

within the ACEC be consistent

with existing protective

guidelines established by

the Peregrine Falcon Recovery

Plan.

peregrine falcon

recovery plan; no

ACEC management

plans were ever

developed; peregrine

falcons were delisted

in 1991.

a federally listed

species.

on retaining,

modifying, or

eliminating

peregrine falcon

ACECs. If

retained, determine

appropriate

management and

the need for ACEC

management plan.

The BLM nominated the following areas for consideration as ACECs. Additional nominations

may be forthcoming from the public and cooperating agencies. All nominated ACECs will be

evaluated as part of the Draft RMP/EIS. See section 2.3.1.3 of this document for more specific

information on these proposals.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern
Analysis of Management Situation 286

Table 3.24. Potential New ACECs for Fisheries

Potential ACEC Is Decision Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for Change

Klikhtentotzna Creek (tributary to

the upper Hogatza River)

Yes. High-value chum salmon

spawning habitat.

Evaluate watershed for ACEC

designation. If it meets the criteria,

consider adding these lands to

Hogatza ACEC.

Wheeler Creek (tributary to Dakli

River)

Yes. High-value chum salmon

spawning habitat.

Evaluate watershed upstream of

Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge

for ACEC designation.

Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River Yes. Provides a significant

contribution to the overall Yukon

River Basin Chinook salmon stock

and is one of the more productive

Chinook salmon streams within the

U.S. portion of the Yukon River.

Provides habitat for up to 25 – 30

percent of the Yukon River fall chum

salmon run.

Evaluate the BLM-managed portion

of the Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River

for ACEC designation, extending

from the confluence of the East Fork

of the Chandalar, upstream to the

mouth of Schilling Creek

Sethkokna River Yes. Chinook salmon spawning

habitat. Primary producer of

Chinook salmon in the Nowitna

River drainage.

Evaluate the BLM-managed portion

of the Sethkokna River for ACEC

designation.

South Fork Koyukuk River Yes. Provides high-value habitat for

both Chum and Chinook salmon.

Evaluate watershed upstream of

Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge for

ACEC designation.

Accomplishment Creek Yes. Unique springs habitat used

year-round by Dolly Varden.

Evaluate Accomplishment and

Section Creek watersheds on

BLM-managed land for ACEC

designation..

3.2.21. National Trails

The Iditarod National Historic Trail runs through the planning area. Little if any of the designated

trail is located on BLM-managed lands. See section 2.3.5.

Table 3.25. Current Management and Management Opportunities for Iditarod National

Historic Trail

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Central Yukon

RMP/ROD

Objective #12 (pg. 2),

Recreation (pg. 12): Manage

the Iditarod National Historic

Trail in cooperation with

the BLM, Anchorage Field

Office as outlined in the Trail

Management Plan

This decision is

ongoing. Most if

not all of the trail

in the planning

area is not on

BLM-managed

lands.

Yes. The Anchorage

Field Office

manages the

majority of the trail

and takes the lead in

issuing permits.

No changes are

recommended.

3.2.22. Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are no designated wild and scenic rivers in the planning area. See section 2.3.3.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 National Trails
Analysis of Management Situation 287

Table 3.26. Current Management and Options for Change, Wild and Scenic Rivers

Status Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive

to Current

Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility The RMP has no decisions for Wild and The required WSR Yes. BLM Conduct WSR

Corridor Scenic Rivers (WSR). Wild Rivers lawsuit review has not policy requires inventory, and

RMP/ROD settlement agreement (8/30/1993) requires

BLM to do a WSR review.

been completed. looking

at WSR

eligibility and

suitability.

make eligibility and suitability determinations.

Central Recreation Resources (pg. 12): The The Unalakleet No. Other Conduct WSR

Yukon Unalakleet WSR is managed per the River WSR corridor is rivers in the inventory, and

RMP/ROD Management Plan administered by the

Anchorage Field Office. Use authorizations

are coordinated with the Central Yukon Field

Office. The viewshed of the river, outside of

the designated corridor would be managed

with an awareness of the important scenic

values associated with the river.

in the Anchorage

Field Office and

will be covered by

the BSWI RMP.

planning area

have not been

evaluated for

eligibility or

suitability.

make eligibility and suitability determinations for

rivers in planning area.

3.2.23. Wilderness Study Areas

The Central Arctic Management Area (CAMA) Wilderness Study Area (WSA) is located in the

planning area. See section 2.3.2 for more details.

Table 3.27. Current Management and Options for Change, Central Arctic WSA

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 33: The upper Nigu Waiting for action Yes. BLM Manual None

Corridor River area (approximately 41,000 acres) is from Congress. 6330 Management

RMP/ recommended for wilderness designation of Wilderness Study

ROD (Map 2.8). This recommendation was

submitted to the President and Congress

through the ANILCA Section 1001 Report

Findings and Recommendations (USDOI,

BLM; 1988b) on December 14, 1988.

Areas and ANILCA

dictate how the lands

will be managed

until Congress acts

on the wilderness

recommendation or

releases these lands

from consideration

for designation.

Amer- Central Arctic Management Area: Lands Ongoing. Much Yes. CAMA is a None

ican in the CAMA WSA will continue to of the WSA has WSA and must be

Rivers et be managed consistent with the Interim been conveyed. managed as such.

al. v. Lu- Management Policy and Guidelines for About 260,000

jan et al. Lands under Wilderness Review and acres remain

7/30/91 ANILCA until Congress acts on the

wilderness recommendation or releases

these lands from consideration for

designation.

under BLM

management,

but some of

these lands are

selected and may

be conveyed.

Utility

Corridor

Proposed Action 28 (pg. 2–26): In the

CAMA extensive recreation management

Ongoing Yes. Currently

rafting, wildlife, and

Recreation

decisions

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Wilderness Study Areas
Analysis of Management Situation 288

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

RMP/

ROD

area, primitive and semi-primitive

recreation experiences would be

emphasized. The primary recreational

uses would be hunting, fishing, and

backpacking. No recreational facility

development would take place.

landscape viewing

are ongoing summer

activities in the area.

must be

consistent

with WSA

management.

3.2.24. Social and Economic

3.2.24.1. Subsistence

See section 2.4.2 for background information.

Table 3.28. Current Management and Options for Change, Subsistence

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Section 810 Procedural requirements mandated by Ongoing per Yes. Statewide None. This

Policy section 810 of the Alaska National

Interest Lands Act (ANILCA) are

followed for all authorized actions. All

actions are evaluated on a case-by-case

basis.

BLM Alaska

policy.

policy. Not really

a land use planning

decision.

is policy, not

an RMP-level

decision.

Utility Proposed Action 41: The proposed Recommended Partially, needs Potential

Corridor RMP would withdraw lands from new withdrawals further review expansion of Jim

RMP/ROD mineral entry and location to protect

subsistence resource values. The

Kanuti and Jim Rivers and the

Prospect Creek withdrawals from

mineral location and mineral materials

extraction, if possible, serve to protect

salmon spawning areas(see the Mineral

Resources Section). Protection of these

spawning areas would aid in protecting

fishery resources used by downstream

rural subsistence-based communities.

Additional subsistence resource

protection is provided through the

withdrawal of known mineral lick (i.e.,

natural salt lick) sites from mineral

location and by the establishment of

ACECs around sheep lambing areas.

were not

completed.

ACECs for

sheep habitat

are established.

since more

information

available now

for sheep

habitat. Salmon

spawning habitat

is downstream

of current ACEC,

needs reevaluation.

River ACEC for

salmon spawning

habitat, additional

and/or expand

current ACECs

for sheep habitat

and mineral licks.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Social and Economic
Analysis of Management Situation 289

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility Proposed Action 42: The proposed Not Study was never OHV use

Corridor OHV use evaluation and study implemented conducted, State evaluation

RMP/ROD would fully consider the effects on

subsistence resources resulting from

any changes in land classification for

off-road vehicle use. BLM will work

closely with the State of Alaska and

other federal agencies during the OHV

evaluation period to appropriately

design stipulations for the protection of

subsistence resources.

law closes the

DHCMA to OHV

use but makes

exceptions to OHV

use for access

to (1) oil/gas

exploration and

(2) valid mining

claims.

targeting

mining-related

use of OHVs

and consequent

impacts on

subsistence

resources.

Utility Proposed Action 43: Local use Ongoing Unknown, location Increase

Corridor of forest products for subsistence and quantity information

RMP/ROD purposes would be allowed on a

free-of-charge basis if demand does not

exceed supply. In those areas where

the supply of forest products is limited,

a fee may be charged.

of subsistence

harvest is not

known and because

subsistence harvest

policy has changed

since last planning

effort.

about subsistence

use of forest

products. Educate

subsistence users

about policy

changes to

forest product

utilization.

Central Goal #1, Objective 9: Provide for Ongoing Yes. Statewide None

Yukon protection of subsistence uses and policy. Not really

RMP/ROD needs as required by section 810 of

ANILCA.

a land use planning

decision.

Central Goal #4, Objective 11: Inventory and Ongoing Yes Increase BLM

Yukon monitor subsistence uses and needs in participation and

RMP/ROD accordance with sec. 810 of ANILCA,

and in cooperation with ADFG and

rural communities.

support of ADFG

Community

Subsistence

Harvest Surveys.

Central Subsistence Resources: Three see below, next 3 see below, next 3 see below, next 3

Yukon categories of withdrawals designed rows rows rows

RMP/ROD to protect subsistence resource values

are proposed. These withdrawals

will retain existing closures or

close lands to all activities until

scheduled subsistence studies or other

identified actions are complete. These

withdrawals are described as follows:

See below.

Central Subsistence Resources: River Study Withdrawals Unknown, but Investigate current

Yukon Areas: A linear withdrawal of 300 feet were not some of these need for study

RMP/ROD on either side of the stream's mean

high-water line to also include the

stream bed of waterways not known

to be navigable. Lands within river

study areas will be withdrawn from

all forms of appropriation including

mineral leasing for a 3 year period.

This withdrawal category applies to the

lower Kateel River, a segment of the

South Fork Huslia River, and the Rodo

River. During this withdrawal period,

subsistence studies will be conducted

established and

studies were

not conducted.

Lower Rodo

River is on

State and Native

corporation

lands. Upper

segments are

BLM-managed.

Kateel River is

in the BSWI

lands are no longer

managed by the

BLM or are outside

the planning area.

and withdrawal.

Consider other

options for

protecting

subsistence use

areas besides

withdrawals.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Social and Economic
Analysis of Management Situation 290

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

by BLM in cooperation with ADFG or

by a BLM contact, funding permitting

in either case. On completion of the

studies, recommendations will be made

concerning retention, modification, or

repeal of the withdrawal.

Planning Area.

South Fork

Huslia River is

on USFWS lands

or outside the

planning area.

Central Subsistence Resources: Subsistence Withdrawals Unknown. More Investigate current

Yukon Study Areas/Retention Lands: There were not research is needed. need for study and

RMP/ROD are three tracts of land in this category.

One tract is located approximately

13 miles south-southwest of Galena

and the other two are located 18

and 25 miles northeast of Galena,

respectively. Lands in this category

will be withdrawn from all forms of

appropriation for a 3 year period. The

study and withdrawal requirements of

this category are the same as those for

River Study Areas listed above.

established and

studies were

not conducted.

Other than 160

acre Native

allotment, these

lands remain

under BLM

management.

Establishing a 3

year withdrawal

period is not

feasible, given

ANILCA

requirements for

Congressional

approval of

withdrawals over

5,000 acres.

withdrawal.

Central Subsistence Resources: Withdrawals Short-term Investigate current

Yukon Withdrawal/Exchange Lands: These were not withdrawals from need for study

RMP/ROD are lands located within the ANCSA

original village withdrawal boundaries,

which were not selected. Lands in this

category are located in the vicinity of

Allakaket/Alatna, Hughes, Nulato and

Kaltag. A subsistence study will be

completed on these lands during the 5

year withdrawal period. The findings

of these studies will be considered

when the withdrawals are reviewed

after the 5 year exchange period.

established and

studies were not

conducted.

mining are not

really feasible.

and withdrawal.

Look at other

options besides

withdrawals.

Determine which

lands are suitable

for exchange in

the RMP.

Central Subsistence Resources: The BLM Ongoing Yes Increase

Yukon will continue to exchange and cooperative

RMP/ROD coordinate the collection of subsistence

data with ADFG Subsistence Division.

projects in

conjunction with

ADFG. Increase

participation/

support of ADFG

Community

Subsistence

Harvest Surveys.

Central Subsistence Resources: Based Although a 300 Yes. A no surface Review all

Yukon on identified subsistence usage, foot no surface occupancy setback existing

RMP/ROD designated portions of the following

streams will have 300 foot wide

(each side) "no surface occupancy"

setback zones. These zones will extend

from the center line of the river or

stream. The affected river areas are the

Tagagawik River (Nulato subunit), the

Ray River, and three short tributaries

of Squaw Creek (Tozitna Unit). Lands

within these zones will be closed to

FLPMA sales or leases, and surface

occupancy

setback has

been identified,

ANCSA

withdrawals

prohibit leasing.

Withdrawals

were not lifted.

Additionally,

lands with high

mineral potential

from rivers is a

valid protective

measure.

However, the

sites where such

a setback is desired

need to be revisited

based on current

land status and

management

issues. Also,

withdrawals to

determine which

lands should be

opened or closed

to mineral leasing

laws. In areas

recommended

to be opened,

consider no

surface occupancy

setbacks from

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016 Social and Economic
Analysis of Management Situation 291

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

occupancy in conjunction with mineral

leasing activities. The zones will be

open to mineral location (no presently

known potential).

have mostly

been conveyed.

the width of the

setback should be

reviewed.

rivers, particularly

those with

anadromous fish

spawning habitats.

Central

Yukon

RMP/ROD

Subsistence Resources: The Kaltag

and Nulato River watersheds have

been closed to mineral entry and

location since village residents use

these watersheds as their principal

source of potable water.

No new

withdrawals

have been

implemented.

The referenced

rivers are either

outside the

planning area

or are on Native

corporation lands.

Ensure that

potable water

protection

adequately meets

public health

needs for all

communities.

3.2.24.2. Public Safety

Table 3.29. Current Management and Options for Change, Hazardous Materials

Decision

Source

Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for

Change

Utility

Corridor

ROD

See section 3.2.25 Administrative Stipulations. Ongoing Partially Review and if

needed, revise

administrative

stipulations.

Develop

standard

operating

procedures for

planning area.

Central

Yukon

RMP/ROD

Objective 12 (pg. 4): Inventory and provide

management for hazardous waste sites.

Ongoing Yes

3.2.25. Administrative Stipulations

The following list of standard stipulations apply within the Utility Corridor Planning Area.

Application of these stipulations is recommended for protecting the resource values as outlined in

the Utility Corridor Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The source for all of these stipulations is Appendix

L of the Utility Corridor RMP/ROD (BLM 1991a).

Appendix L stipulations are narrow in scope and do not cover all current and foreseeable future

authorizations. Some stipulations are too specific for land use planning-level decisions. Others

reference a BLM organization that no longer exists due to office reorganization over the past 24

years. Some stipulations merely reiterate regulations. Similar stipulations do not exist for the

Middle Yukon Drainages Subunit.

As part of this planning effort, the BLM will review and revise all administrative stipulations in

light of current issues, current policy, new information, climate change, and revised planning area

boundaries. Many of the stipulations are responsive to current issues, but they should be applied

to a broader range of activities than just seismic exploration. In some cases, summer and winter

stipulations are repetitive and should be applied year-round. Stipulations should be consistent to

the extent possible with adjacent planning areas such as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

(NPR-A), the Eastern Interior RMP, and the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Administrative Stipulations
Analysis of Management Situation 292

Summer Stipulations

The stipulations listed below are applied as appropriate on authorized activities that will occur

during the summer. The intent behind the stipulations is generally being implemented. All the

following stipulations will be reviewed, revised, or dropped as appropriate during this planning

process. Only those identified as potentially needing change are listed in Table 3.30.

1.	 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arctic District Manager, or his delegate, is the

Authorized Officer (AO).

2.	 A letter of non-objection will be required from the State of Alaska and/or the appropriate

Native corporations before entry onto any state or Native-selected land.

3.	 The Permittee must notify the BLM immediately of any changes or modifications in plans

covering field operations.

4.	 The Permittee will conduct an environmental briefing of all employees, contractors, and

subcontractors, including pilots, which will cover these stipulations. A copy of these

stipulations shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the crew quarters.

5.	 No historic site, archeological site, or paleontological resource shall be disturbed in any

manner, nor shall any item be removed. Any site discovered during the course of field

operations will be reported promptly to the AO and in the completion report (Stipulation #14).

6.	 All operations must not impede rural residents from pursuing their traditional subsistence

activities (ANILCA, PL 96-487).

7.	 The Permittee will be financially responsible for any fire caused by field operations that

gets out of control.

8.	 Harassment of peregrine falcons (50 CFR 17.3) and eagles (50 CFR 22.3) is not permitted.

Activities will be restricted, as described in the table below. If peregrine falcons are

encountered in cliff areas during permitted activities, leave the area and follow the

restrictions. Any site discovered during the course of field operations will be reported

promptly to the AO and in the completion report (Stipulation #14). If the field party needs to

revisit an area with a potential nest site, contact the BLM for more information.

9.	 No feeding, chasing or buzzing by aircraft of any wildlife.

10.	 The Permittee shall protect all survey monuments, witness corners, and reference monuments

against destruction, obliteration, or damage. Any damaged, destroyed, or obliterated

monuments and corners shall be reestablished to the original exact location at the Permittee's

expense. A record of the reestablishment shall be submitted to the AO.

11.	 The Permittee shall hold the United States harmless against and from all demands, claims, or

liabilities of any nature arising directly or indirectly from any operation on the land.

12.	 The following data will be submitted to the BLM, Alaska State Office:

a.	 A location map of all field sampling sites at a scale of 1:250,000 or larger.

b.	 Quality legible copies of all original observations and recordings, including descriptions

of rock and hydrocarbon samples taken, keyed to the location map required in (a).

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Administrative Stipulations
Analysis of Management Situation 293

c.	 Results of all analyses conducted on rock and hydrocarbon samples, including, but not

limited to, geochemical techniques, reservoir and source rock property determinations,

and paleontologic and palynologic information.

Items (a) and (b) are due within 30 days after the last day of permitted use. Item (c) is due

within 30 days of completion of analyses or within one year of completion of the permitted

activity, whichever comes first. All data clearly marked as proprietary or confidential will be

kept confidential according to the standards and conditions set forth in BLM Manual 1273.

All third party requests for access to such data will be referred to the Permittee. There will

be no publication of or public access to the data or derived interpretations or conclusions

without the express written consent of the Permittee.

13.	 The BLM reserves the right to impose closure of any area to operators in periods when fire

danger or other dangers to natural resources are severe.

14.	 Upon program completion or within 30 days of cessation of operations, a final summary

report shall be submitted to the BLM including:

a.	 A description of all work performed.

b.	 Charts, maps, or plats depicting the areas and blocks in which the exploration was

conducted and specifically identifying the lines of geophysical traverses.

c.	 The dates actual exploration was conducted.

d.	 A statement that all terms and conditions have been complied with, or that corrective

measures shall be taken to rehabilitate the lands or other resources.

15.	 All fuel containers must be marked with the operator's name, date purchased, and contents.

No fuel storage or refueling of equipment shall be allowed within the flood plain of a river or

lake.

16.	 All refuse, fuel, food tins, human wastes, and debris must be recovered from the public lands

to approved collection sites. Garbage and human wastes may not be buried.

17.	 The foregoing provisions do not relieve the contractor or his subcontractor of any

responsibilities or provisions required by any applicable laws or regulations.

Table 3.30. Stipulations for Summer Authorized Actions Needing Change, Utility Corridor

RMP

Stipulation #Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for Change

Summer 4 The Permittee will conduct an

environmental briefing of all

employees, contractors, and

subcontractors, including pilots,

on the stipulations. A copy of

stipulations shall be posted in a

conspicuous place in the crew

quarters.

Possibly

not being

followed.

Yes, but needs some

revision.

In addition to briefing,

Permittee must provide

all subcontractors and

pilot a copy of the

BLM permit and all

stipulations.

Summer 8 Harassment of peregrine falcons

(50 CFR 17.3) and eagles (50

CFR 22.3) is not permitted.

Following restrictions apply :

Ongoing.

Peregrine

falcons are no

longer a listed

species.

Possibly not. Nest

sites of other species

besides falcons

and eagles may

require protection.

Identify priority raptor

species. Revisit permit

stipulations for activities

near raptor nests.

Consider consistency

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Administrative Stipulations
Analysis of Management Situation 294

Stipulation #Current Management Decision Status Is Decision

Responsive to

Current Issues?

Options for Change

1. Maintain a minimum aircraft

altitude of 1,500 feet above

nest level from April 15 to

August 31.

2. All ground-level activity is

There may be new

information to

support changes

to these stipulations.

with adjacent planning

areas such as NPR-A,

Eastern Interior,

and Kobuk-Seward

Pensinsula.

prohibited from April 15

through August 31.

3. Prohibit activities with high

noise levels within 2 miles

of nest sites from April 15

through August 31.

Summer 15 All fuel containers must be

marked with the operator's name,

date purchased and contents.

No fuel storage or refueling

of equipment shall be allowed

within the floodplain of a river

or lake.

Ongoing.

Refueling

within

floodplains

problematic.

Yes, but need

to allow for

site-specific project

requirements and

further details.

Revise to account for the

fact that sometimes

it is necessary to

store fuel and refuel

within a floodplain.

Revise to address

ADEC regulations.

Allow for burning of

combustibles under

favorable conditions.

Build in AO discretion to

modify on case-by-case

basis.

Summer 16 All refuse, fuel, food tins, human

wastes, and debris must be

recovered from the public lands

to approved collection sites.

Garbage and human wastes may

not be buried.

Winter – Seismic Stipulations

The stipulations listed below apply to any operation under a Notice of Intent or permit for

geophysical exploration in the Utility Corridor Planning Area. No seismic exploration has

occurred in the planning area. Much of the planning area is closed to mineral leasing by ANCSA

17(d)(1) withdrawals. Additionally, most of the land on the north slope has been conveyed to the

State or Native corporations. Thus, geophysical exploration would be unlikely. Some of these

stipulations, however, have general applicability to other activities besides seismic exploration.

Some stipulations restate laws or regulations and others are too detailed for a land use planning

document. Similar stipulations do not exist for the Middle Yukon Drainages Subunit. All the

following stipulations will be reviewed, revised, or dropped as appropriate during this planning

process.

General Winter – Seismic

1.	 The BLM Arctic District Manager or delegate is Authorized Officer (AO) for this permitted

activity.

2.	 Communication shall be addressed to: Arctic District Manager, 1150 University Ave,

Fairbanks, Alaska, 99709

3.	 The AO or designated field representative may issue temporary suspension orders for any

activity if operations are in non-compliance with permit stipulations.

4.	 Requests to resume suspended activities shall be made directly to the AO when

noncompliance has been corrected.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Administrative Stipulations
Analysis of Management Situation 295

5.	 In matters of disagreement between the AO and the Permittee, appeals may be made directly

to the BLM State Director.

6.	 This permit is not valid for seismic exploration until the AO receives detailed descriptions

and plats of proposed shot lines (scale at least 1:250,000) and principal contacts, including

field representatives, are identified by both parties.

7.	 The U.S. Government reserves access to all geophysical data, processed geophysical

information, reprocessed geophysical information, and interpreted geophysical information

collected by the Permittee pursuant to this permit. The BLM Division of Minerals, Chief

Branch of Mineral Assessment, shall act on the government's behalf.

8.	 The Permittee may be requested by the AO to furnish quarters and transportation for

designated field representatives or observers to inspect operations.

Environmental Winter – Seismic

1.	 Permittee will conduct an environmental briefing for all employees, contractors, and

subcontractors that will cover the stipulations attached to the permit.

2.	 All operations will be conducted in such a manner as not to cause damage or disturbance to

any fish or wildlife and subsistence resources.

a.	 No seismic vehicle operations within one-half mile of any denning barren ground

grizzly or any denning polar bear.

b.	 No chasing by vehicles or buzzing by aircraft of any wildlife. Particular attention

will be given to not disturbing caribou.

c.	 Operators shall prohibit their employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and

their employees, while on duty or living at any camp or mobile camp, from feeding

wild animals or birds or from leaving garbage or other potentially edible items which

would attract wild animals or birds. Garbage will be kept in covered containers while

waiting incineration.

d.	 Aircraft shall maintain 1,000 foot altitude (except for takeoff and landings) over

designated caribou concentration areas during the specific time period designated unless

doing so would endanger human life or be an unsafe flying practice.

3.	 All operations shall be conducted with due regard for good resource management and in such

a manner as not to block any stream or drainage system, to change the character or course of

a stream, or to cause the pollution or siltation of any stream or lake.

4.	 All activities shall be conducted so as to avoid or minimize disturbance to vegetation.

5.	 Seismic operations will begin only after the seasonal frost in the tundra and underlying

mineral soils has reached a depth of 12 inches, and the average snow cover is a depth of

6 inches.

6.	 Seismic operations will cease when the spring melt of snow begins; approximately May 5

in the foothill areas exceeding 300 feet in elevation; approximately 15 May in the northern

coastal areas. The cut-off date will be determined by the AO.

7. To prevent surface disturbance, tracked vehicles will not execute tight turns by locking

one track.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016	 Administrative Stipulations
Analysis of Management Situation 296

8.	 The Antiquities Act (34 Stat 225; 16 U.S.C. 431-433) prohibits the appropriation, excavation,

injury or destruction of any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any other object

of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the United States. No historic site,

archeological site or camp, either active or abandoned, shall be disturbed in any manner

nor shall any item be removed. Should such sites be discovered during the course of field

operations, the AO will be promptly notified.

9.	 All operations must not impede rural residents from pursuing their traditional subsistence

activities (ANILCA, PL 96-487).

Operational Winter – Seismic

1.	 Exploration activities will use low ground pressure vehicles of the rolligon, ARDCO,

Trackmaster, Nodwell or of a similar type. The limited use of tractors, equipped with wide

tracks or "shoes," will be allowed to pull the camp and fuel trailers. Any exceptions to this

stipulation will require the written approval of the AO.

2.	 Crossing of waterway courses shall be made using a low-angle approach to not disrupt the

naturally occurring stream or lake banks.

a.	 Alteration of the banks of a watercourse is prohibited.

b.	 If snow ramps or snow bridges are utilized at watercourse crossings for bank protection,

they shall be substantially free of soil and/or debris. Snow bridges shall be removed or

breached immediately after use or before spring break-up.

c.	 Equipment shall not enter open-water areas of watercourses.

d.	 To avoid additional freezedown of deep water pools harboring overwintering fish,

watercourses shall be crossed at shallow riffle areas from point bar to point bar

whenever possible.

e.	 Compaction or removal of the insulating snow cover from the deep-water pool areas of

rivers known to harbor overwintering fish shall be avoided.

3.	 No bulldozing of tundra areas, trails, or seismic lines will be allowed. This stipulation,

however, does not prohibit the clearing of drifted snow along a trail or seismic line nor in a

camp, to the extent that the tundra mat is not disturbed. Also, it does not prohibit the clearing

of snow on a lake or river ice surface to prepare an aircraft runway.

4.	 Camps will be situated on gravel bars, sand, or other durable lands. Where leveling of trailers

or modules is required and the surface has a vegetative mat, leveling will be accomplished

with blocking rather than leveling with a bulldozer.

5.	 Camps will not be located on frozen lakes or on river ice. The location of camps on river

sand or gravel bars is allowed and, where feasible, encouraged.

6.	 The contractor shall protect all survey monuments, witness corners, and reference

monuments against destruction, obliteration, or damage. He shall, at his expense, re-establish

damaged, destroyed, or obliterated monuments and corners in their original exact position. A

record of the re-establishment shall be submitted to the AO.

7.	 Water Quality: all parties shall comply with applicable "Water Quality Standards" of the

State of Alaska as approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Administrative Stipulations
Analysis of Management Situation 297

a.	 Waste water shall receive treatment conforming to federal requirements for secondary

treatment if Arctic-tested package treatment facilities are used.

b.	 If chemical recirculating sewage facilities are used, they shall be kept separate from

the gray wash and kitchen waste water. Gray wash water and kitchen waste water

may be filtered to remove the solids and the liquid discharged to the land surface. All

solids and sludges shall be incinerated.

8.	 Emissions from equipment and burning materials shall be held within federal and State

air quality standards.

9.	 Solid Waste

a.	 A solid waste management plan must be approved by Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation (ADEC) prior to initiating field work (Ref. PL 94-580).

If approved by the ADEC, all combustible solid waste, including cartons and used

lubricating oils will be incinerated or returned to the base of operations for approved

disposal. All non-combustible solid waste, including fuel drums, will be returned to

the base of operations for approved disposal. There will be no burial of garbage or

bulldozing of any area for the burial of anything.

b.	 Seismic lines shall be left clean of all foreign debris including, but not limited to, wire,

lathe, pin flags and reflectors.

10.	 Fuel Handling and Storage

a.	 A hazardous liquid spill control and contingency plan for each geophysical party will be

submitted to the AO prior to beginning operations (40 CFR 112).

b.	 Oil spills will be incinerated in approved receptacles but not on lake or river ice.

c.	 Although fuels may be off-loaded from aircraft on the ice, there will be no storage of

fuels on lake or river ice, even on a temporary basis. This applies to any activity on

any river or lake.

d.	 All fuel spills will be cleaned up immediately, taking precedence over all other matters,

except the health and safety of personnel. Spills will be cleaned up utilizing absorbent

pads or other approved methods. As soon as possible, but not later than 24 hours, notice

of any such discharge as defined in Alaska Statute Title 18, Chapter 75, Article 2,

will be given to: the AO in Fairbanks and such other federal and State officials as are

required by law to be given such notice.

e.	 Ample oil spill cleanup materials (absorbents) will be carried by each seismic crew and

stored at all fueling points and vehicle maintenance areas.

f.	 State and federal safety standards for fuel handling will be followed.

g.	 Drip basins or absorbent diapers will be placed under all non dry-disconnect-type fuel

line couplings.

11.	 All fuel containers used, including barrels and propane tanks, must be marked with

Permittee's name, fuel type, and purchase date (e.g., GSI, Hydraulic Fluid,1983).

12.	 Field parties will keep daily records of seismic lines completed, fuel haul and camp move

routes, and campsites utilized.

13.	 The foregoing provisions do not relieve the contractor or his subcontractors of any

responsibilities or provisions required by any applicable laws or regulations.

14.	 A copy of these stipulations shall be posted in a conspicuous place in each camp site

established for the purpose of geophysical exploration within NPR-A.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Administrative Stipulations
Analysis of Management Situation 298

15.	 More than one Permittee may be approved to conduct geophysical activities in the same area

within NPPR-A or other public lands. In such a case, it is incumbent upon the Permittees to

resolve any conflicts in their activities. The AO will curtail all activities within certain areas

if resolution cannot be achieved by the Permittees.

Notice of Completion

1.	 A final summary report shall be submitted to the AO within 30 days of completion or

cessation of operations. This report shall include:

a.	 Program completion date.

b.	 Field effort in crew weeks.

c.	 Line miles of surveys completed.

d.	 Summary of incidents or accidents (including reported oil spills).

e.	 Location map on 1:250,000 scale showing location of lines actually shot, campsites

utilized, and routes used for fuel hauls and camp moves.

f.	 The AO shall receive copies of Permittee's notification to the BLM Alaska Chief,

Division of Minerals, in order to demonstrate satisfaction of permit stipulations 1.6

and Permit Attachment 1.

Bonding

1.	 Permittee must file with the AO evidence of bonding. A rider to either a $50,000 nationwide

or $25,000 statewide bond shall pertain to the NPR-A and Arctic Resource Area seismic

activities. This bonding requirement shall apply separately to each seismic train.

Geophysical Data

1.	 Inspection, selection, and submission of geophysical information and data:

a.	 The Permittee shall notify the BLM Alaska Chief, Division of Mineral Assessment

(CDM), immediately, in writing, of the acquisition, processing, reprocessing, or

interpretation of any geophysical information or data collected under this permit.

b.	 All such data and information collected by the Permittee shall be available for inspection

by the CDM. At any time within five years after receiving a notice of the acquisition,

processing, reprocessing, or interpretation of any geophysical information and data, the

CDM may select all or part of the geophysical information.

c.	 If the CDM decides to keep all or a portion of the geophysical information and data,

he shall notify the Permittee, in writing, of his decision.

d.	 In the event that geophysical data, processed geophysical information, reprocessed

geophysical information, or interpreted geophysical information is transferred from the

Permittee to a third party, or from a third party to another third party, the transferor shall,

in writing, so notify the CDM and shall require the receiving third party, in writing,

to abide by the obligations of the Permittee as specified in this section as a condition

precedent to the transfer of information or data.

e.	 Each submission of geophysical data, processed geophysical information, reprocessed

geophysical information, and interpreted geophysical information, shall contain, unless

otherwise specified by the CDM, the following:

i.	 An accurate and complete record of each geophysical survey conducted under

the permit, including digital location data and final allocation maps of all survey

stations.

ii.	 All seismic data developed under a permit presented in a format and of a quality

suitable for processing.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities

April 2016 Administrative Stipulations
Analysis of Management Situation 299

iii.	 Processed geophysical information derived from seismic data with extraneous

signals and interference removed, presented in a format and of a quality suitable

for interpretive evaluation, reflecting state-of-the-art processing techniques.

iv.	 Other geophysical data, processed geophysical information, reprocessed

geophysical information, and interpreted geophysical information obtained from,

but not limited to, vibroseis logs, gravity and magnetic surveys, and special studies

such as refraction and velocity surveys.

2.	 Reimbursement to Permittees:

a.	 After the delivery of geophysical data, processed geophysical information, and

reprocessed geophysical information selected by the CDM, and upon receipt of a

request for reimbursement and a determination that the requested reimbursement is

proper, the Permittee or third party shall be reimbursed for the cost of reproducing the

selected information and data at the Permittee's or third party's lowest rate or at the

lowest commercial rate established in the area, whichever is less.

b.	 The Permittee shall not be reimbursed for the cost of any interpretations performed or

reproductions thereof submitted.

3.	 Disclosure of information and data to the public:

a.	 The CDM may only make information and data submitted by a Permittee available in

accordance with the requirements of and subject to the limitations of the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 2).

b.	 No information or data, determined by the CDM to be exempt from public disclosure,

shall be provided to any affected state, or be made available to the executive of any

affected local government or to the public, unless the Permittee and all persons to

whom such Permittee has sold the information or data under promise of confidentiality

agree to such an action.

4.	 Disclosure to independent contractors:

a.	 The CDM reserves the right to disclose any information or data acquired from a

Permittee to an independent contractor or agent for the purpose of reproducing,

processing, reprocessing or interpreting such information or data. The CDM shall notify

the Permittee who provided the information or data of intent to disclose the information

or data to such independent contractor or agent.

b.	 Prior to any such disclosure, the contractor or agent shall be required to execute a

written commitment not to transfer or to otherwise disclose any information or data to

anyone without the expressed consent of the CDM. The contractor or agent shall be

liable for any unauthorized use by or disclosure of information or data to third parties.

Chapter 3 Current Management Direction and

Management Opportunities April 2016
Chapter 4. Areas of Ecological Importance
 
Analysis of Management Situation 301

Identifying areas of relative ecological importance helps show the trade-offs when establishing

land use allocations and management requirements. Understanding relative ecological importance

should guide land use allocations, rather than preclude uses. This information should feed into

alternative development by helping to identify opportunities for maintaining or restoring habitats.

4.1. Areas of Relative Ecological Importance to Guide Land Uses

and Management

The following list describes areas of ecological importance in the Central Yukon Planning Area.

● Areas that have ice laden or permafrost soils are sensitive to overland vehicle use and can be

susceptible to melting and thermokarsting if the surface organic layer is disturbed. Using

construction techniques that provide ground insulation will avoid disturbing permafrost and

ice-laden soils.

● Lowland wetland areas can be impacted by overland vehicle use and travel resulting in

extensive mud holes developing along travel routes. As vehicles attempt to go around these

muddy areas, they cause ever-widening disturbances that can result in multiple parallel trails

hundreds of feet wide. In many situations, locating routes in the uplands with better soil

conditions can reduce resource impacts and damage.

● Limiting travel methods and routes in sensitive areas, such as riparian zones, critical habitat,

or calving areas, can reduce conflicts and resource impacts.

● Undisturbed hot springs contain unique hydrologic processes and vegetative communities that

are sensitive to disturbance. Locating surface disturbance well away from these areas will

reduce damage and preserve hydrologic functions.

● Riparian-wetlands are recognized as some of the Nation’s most ecologically important

areas, which is the reason that their protection has been incorporated into law and BLM

policy. Riparian-wetlands only make up about 2.4 percent of the planning area (area of

non-permafrost-controlled riparian-wetlands) and yet are considered a keystone element

necessary for maintaining ecological processes. The natural functions that riparian-wetlands

perform fall into three major categories: (1) hydrology and sediment dynamics, (2)

biogeochemistry and nutrient cycling, and (3) habitat and food web maintenance (NRC 2002).

These functions are displayed in a variety of services to which society has assigned value.

These services include: the maintenance of water quality and water quantity; fish and wildlife

production; flood protection; recreational opportunities and aesthetic value; wildlife viewing

opportunities; maintenance of genetic diversity and species richness; production of wood (for

fuel and building material); a moderating influence on the microclimate of streams and forests

and related fire behavior; lake shoreline and streambank erosion control; maintenance of stream

form, floodplain connectivity; hyporheic and ground water connectivity; exchange of nutrients;

and the counter-balancing function of methane release and carbon sequestration as it relates to

overall greenhouse gas emission. In addition, lotic riparian-wetlands span elevational gradients,

thus providing landscape connectivity and migratory corridors that will allow many species

to evolutionarily adapt to a changing climate regime. Riparian-wetlands are very sensitive to

land-use activities that alter vegetation cover and/or alter geomorphic or hydrologic formative

processes. Recovery following disturbance is largely dictated by the pace of natural processes

Chapter 4 Areas of Ecological Importance

Areas of Relative Ecological Importance to Guide

April 2016 Land Uses and Management
Analysis of Management Situation 302

and commonly spans multiple decades. Recovery after disturbance of permafrost controlled

riparian-wetland is often not possible and the area is considered an irretrievable loss.

● Unique vegetation communities and animal habitats are associated with special geological

features within the planning area (e.g., bluffs, sand dunes, hot springs, mineral licks). Some of

these unique features are recognized within the current plans as ACECs or RNAs, but not all

locations of these unique geological features are known or listed in any records. It is important

that areas such as these are identified prior to human disturbance.

● Some human-created features are prone to colonization by birds (e.g., raven nests on tower-like

structures, bank swallow colonies in sand/gravel piles, cliff swallows on building eaves).

Although the habitat is created by humans, the same restrictions apply to “take” of the species

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Standard language in the permitting process should

encourage permittees to reduce or eliminate habitat creation in areas of ongoing use where the

animals may restrict development activities and/or be a nuisance.

● Beaver are common within the planning area. Beaver activity on the Alaskan landscape has

been demonstrated to have some important roles in ecosystem function, including potentially

essential roles in vegetation succession as well the creation and retention of waterfowl and

moose habitat. Although they are often considered nuisances, their role in ecosystem function

should be taken into account and considered prior to large-scale disturbance of beaver-inhabited

landscapes.

● Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) designated in each of the existing plans

(including those proposed for the new plan) focus management on areas where special attention

is needed to protect important historical, cultural, and scenic values, fish and wildlife resources,

natural systems and processes, and to protect human life and safety from natural hazards.

Established ACECs in the two current plans have significant values with established special

management measures.

● Key ecological areas for fish are those habitats that support specific life history stages

(overwintering, spawning, rearing) and provide connectivity as fish move between habitat

types as part of their life cycle. Areas of human use of fish through subsistence, commercial,

and sport harvest also determines important areas for protection and guides land use allocation

and management.

Known important watersheds include those with streams that were previously designated as

ACECs in the Central Yukon and Utility Corridor plans because of their high-quality fish

habitat. Additional streams including Accomplishment Creek, Section Creek, South Fork

Koyukuk River, Teedriinjik (Chandalar) River, Wheeler Creek, Klikhtentotzna Creek, and

Sethkokna River also have a high level of importance either as habitat or to users.

Areas of high fish resource values in the planning area will be verified through a Watershed

Aquatic Resource Value rating index developed for the Central Yukon Field Office in

conjunction with this plan. Once completed, these data will help guide land use allocation and

management decisions related to fisheries resources.

Chapter 4 Areas of Ecological Importance April 2016
Chapter 5. Consistency / Coordination with
 

Other Plans
 
Analysis of Management Situation 304

The table below lists some of the existing plans applicable to the planning area or to lands

adjacent to the planning area. Other plans will be identified as the planning process progresses.

Table 5.1. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

Document Title Date/Adopted Summary

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range

Transportation Plan

September 2012 Interagency approach to long-range transportation

planning in Alaska.

Dalton Highway Recreation Area

Management Plan

November 1991 Recreation management plan for the Dalton Highway

corridor.

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

Integrated Activity Plan

Environmental Impact Statement

February 21, 2013 Established best management practices for the

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska which is adjacent

to the CAMA WSA and Nigu-Iteriak ACEC.

FNSB Regional Comprehensive

Plan

September 13, 2005 Fairbanks North Star Borough’s overall plan for land

use and community growth over the next few decades

AK DNR Tanana Basin Area Plan Amended 2009 State of Alaska resource management plan for the

area specified

AK DNR Eastern Tanana Area Plan In development State of Alaska resource management plan for the

area specified

AK DNR Yukon Tanana Area Plan In development State of Alaska resource management plan for the

area specified

AK DNR Kuskokwim Area Plan March 22, 1988 State of Alaska resource management plan for the

area specified

Tanana Valley State Forest

Management Plan

Updated 2001 Alaska Division of Forestry plan for management of

Tanana Valley State Forest

Final Environmental Impact

Statement, Renewal of the Federal

Grant for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline

System Right-of-Way

November 2002 The BLM is the lead federal agency for monitoring

the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System operations. The EIS

evaluated alternative decisions, analyzed impacts, and

considered mitigation measures applicable to all parts,

and any part, of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System,

regardless of the underlying land ownership.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge

System National Invasive Species

Management Strategy

Completed 2003 The National Strategy provides specific action

items to achieve the following four invasive species

management goals: (1) increase awareness; (2) reduce

the impacts to refuge habitats; (3) reduce impacts

to neighboring lands; and (4) use and develop new

integrated pest management approaches.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Revised 2008 The plan provides vision, goals, and objectives

for future management of these refuges. It does

not specifically address invasive species; however,

the emphasis on preserving biodiversity includes

the prevention of invasive plant establishment and

proliferation.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Koyukuk, Northern Unit Innoko,

and Nowitna National Wildlife

Refuge Revised Comprehensive

Conservation Plan

Revised 2009 The plan provides vision, goals, and objectives for

future management of these refuges. Management

categories include Minimal Management (91 percent),

Wild River (2 percent), and designated Wilderness

(7 percent).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge Revised

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Record of decision

for revised plan

2015

The plan provides vision, goals, and objectives for

future management of the refuge. Management

strategies include Wilderness Management, Wild

River, and Minimal Management.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Yukon Flats National Wildlife

Refuge Revised Comprehensive

Conservation Plan

Completed 1997 The plan provides vision, goals, and objectives for

future management of the refuge.

Chapter 5 Consistency / Coordination with

Other Plans

April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 305

Document Title Date/Adopted Summary

U.S. National Park Service General

Management Plan, Land Protection

Plan, and Wilderness Suitability

Review, Gates of the Arctic National

Park and Preserve

Completed 1986 The plan provides direction for management of

wilderness, wild rivers, natural and cultural resources,

access, subsistence, recreation and visitor use, and

NPS operations and facilities. It also includes

measures to protect park purposes and values and

determine suitability of nonwilderness lands within

the park for inclusion in wilderness.

U.S. National Park Service Fire Completed 2003 Provides direction for the fire management program

Management Plan for Gates of the that is responsive to the park’s natural and cultural

Arctic National Park and Preserve resource objectives and to safety considerations for

park visitors, employees, and facilities.

U.S. National Park Service Completed in 1986. Amendments have replaced large sections of the 1986

Consolidated General Management Amended in 1997 General Management Plan. Sections of the original

Plan Denali National Park and

Preserve

and 2006. plan that are still valid have been combined with

amendments into this consolidated plan.

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service Invasive Plant

Management Plan

Approved 2010 The plan uses an adaptive management approach to

controlling infestations on park lands throughout the

Alaska Region. A decision tree identifies appropriate

control methods, including physical and chemical

treatments. It also includes monitoring of program

effectiveness as well as the effectiveness of mitigating

measures with best management practices.

North Yukon Planning Commission June 2009 The plan is designed to protect the significant natural

North Yukon Land Use Plan and cultural resources of the region while still

allowing for current and future economic development

opportunities. It does not address nonnative invasive

species directly, but it does define best management

practices for reclamation of surface disturbances

including the use of native, endemic plants whenever

possible.

State of Alaska Department of

Transportation and Public Facilities

(ADOT&PF)Integrated Vegetation

Management Plan

Adopted 2013 This plan will assist ADOT&PF in its responsibility

to manage the vegetation upon its lands to improve

safety and to control invasive plant species in a

cost-effective manner. The plan is for the Northern

Region, which overlaps the planning area.

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range

Transportation Plan

Adopted 2012 Joint plan between BLM, NPS, USFWS, Forest

Service, Federal Highway Administration, and

ADOT&PF. Provides for coordinated planning and

decision making for long-term transportation systems

in Alaska.

National Invasive Species Council Adopted 2008 This is not a comprehensive list of all federal invasive

2008–2012 National Invasive species actions. It is a targeted set of priority strategic

Species Management Plan action plans with objectives and implementation tasks

that are intended to be completed over a 5 year period.

The over-arching strategic goals and strategic action

plan objectives remain consistent with the 2001 Plan,

of which this is the first revision. The accomplishment

of specific implementation tasks and performance

elements will be dependent upon agency budgets, and

in some cases, legal or regulatory changes.

Chapter 5 Consistency / Coordination with

Other Plans

April 2016
Chapter 6. Specific Mandates and Authority
 
Analysis of Management Situation 307

6.1. Mandates and Authorities Pertaining to All Resources

This chapter lists mandates and authorities applicable to public lands managed by the BLM. It

provides an overview of the legal and policy direction guiding management of BLM-managed

lands in Alaska. While an effort was made to include all relevant laws, regulations, and policies,

it is not a comprehensive list.

The mandates and authorities listed apply broadly to all BLM programs. In most cases, these will

not be repeated under specific program areas. Additional program-specific laws and regulations

are listed under each program. Each section lists relevant laws, executive orders, federal

regulations, general policy, applicable NEPA documents, memoranda of understanding (MOUs),

BLM manuals and handbooks, and any applicable State laws and regulations that may affect BLM

management. In some cases, programs with a lot of overlapping authorities were combined into

one section (such as Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Species). For programs where there are no

applicable MOUs, NEPA documents, or relevant State laws, these sections are not listed.

6.1.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3101 et

seq.): Provides for the special designation of certain public lands in Alaska and conservation

of their fish and wildlife values; management for subsistence uses of fish, wildlife, and other

renewable resources on public lands by residents of rural Alaska; and protection of wildlife

resources on North Slope lands impacted by oil and gas exploration and development activities.

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 16011629f, 16311642):

Provides for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska,

based on aboriginal land claims. It requires transfer of 45 million acres of public land to Native

corporations.

The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 (PL 85508): Requires the transfer of 104 million acres of

public land to the State of Alaska.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1701 et

seq.): Provides for administration of public lands through the BLM, provides for management of

the public lands on a multiple-use basis, and requires land use planning. The act establishes as

public policy that in general, public lands will remain in federal ownership, and also authorizes:

acquisition of lands or interests in lands consistent with the mission of the Department and

land use plans; protection of resource values; preservation of certain lands in their natural

condition; compliance with pollution control laws; delineation of boundaries in which the federal

government has right, title, or interest; review of land classifications in land use planning; and

modification or termination of land classifications when consistent with land use plans; sale of

lands if the sale meets disposal criteria; issuance, modification, or revocation of withdrawals;

exchange or conveyance of public lands if in the public interest; outdoor recreation and human

occupancy and use; management of the use, occupancy, and development of public lands through

leases and permits; determination of the suitability of public lands for rights-of-way purposes and

specifications of the boundaries of each right-of-way; and recordation of mining claims. The act

further directs the Secretary of the Interior to take any action necessary to prevent "unnecessary

or undue degradation of the lands."

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Mandates and Authorities Pertaining to All Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 308

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.):

Establishes a national policy for the protecting and enhancing the human environment. This act

requires that agencies prepare environmental impact statements for federal actions expected to

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In addition, agencies are required to

use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach in planning and decision-making processes that

will affect the environment.

Environmental Quality Improvement Act as amended (42 U.S.C. §4371 et seq.): Establishes

the Office of Environmental Quality to support the work of the Council of Environmental Quality

and to further assure that each federal department and agency involved with programs affecting

the environment implement appropriate policies.

Executive Order (EO) 13148, Leadership in Environmental Management, April 21, 2000:

Makes federal agencies responsible for ensuring that all necessary actions are taken to integrate

environmental accountability into day-to-day decision making and long-term planning processes,

across all agency missions, activities, and functions. Environmental management considerations

must be a fundamental and integral component of federal government policies, operations,

planning, and management.

EO 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, March 5, 1970 (35 FR

4247), as amended by EO 11991, May 24, 1977: States that the federal government shall

provide leadership in protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation’s environment to sustain

and enrich human life. It provides for monitoring, evaluating, and control on a continuing basis of

the activities of each federal agency to protect and enhance the quality of the environment.

Secretarial Order 3226A1, Climate Change Impacts, January 16, 2009: Directs agencies to

consider and analyze potential climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning

exercises, setting priorities for scientific research and investigations, developing multiyear

management plans, and/or when making major decisions regarding the potential utilization of

resources.

6.1.2. Policies

BLM policies are outlined in a variety of sources including manuals, handbooks, executive

orders (EO), and Instruction Memoranda (IM), and are too numerous to list here. The FLPMA

is BLM’s organic act and it establishes a national policy that "... public lands be managed in a

manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air

and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values..." BLM manuals include specific

policy for each subject. The BLM Alaska Statewide Land Health Standards (BLM 2004) outline

BLM Alaska’s policy on land health.

1.	 BLM Manual 1601: Land Use Planning (BLM 2000)

2.	 BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 (BLM 2005a)

3.	 BLM Handbook H-1790-1, National Environmental Policy Handbook (BLM 2008c)

4.	 A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with

Intergovernmental Partners (BLM 2012b)

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 309

6.2. Air Quality

6.2.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders

Clean Air Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7418): Requires federal agencies to comply with

all federal, state, and local requirements regarding the control and abatement of air pollution. This

includes abiding by the requirements of State Implementation Plans.

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109): Requires and encourages preventing

and reducing waste streams and other pollution through minimization, process change, and

recycling. Encourages and requires developing of new technology and markets to meet objectives.

EO 11738, September 10, 1973: This order directs each federal agency to enforce the Clean Air

Act and the Clean Water Act when procuring goods, materials, and services.

EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, October 13, 1978 (43 FR

47707): This amended EO states that each agency is responsible for ensuring that all necessary

actions are taken for the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution, with

respect to federal facilities and activities under the control of the agency.

● 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910: Occupational Safety and Health Standards,

special provisions for air contaminants.

● 40 CFR Protection of the Environment; PART 50: National Primary and Secondary

Ambient Air Quality Standards.

● 40 CFR 61: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

● 43 CFR 3809: Surface Management Regulations.

● 43 CFR 3715: Use and Occupancy Under Mining Laws.

6.2.2. Policies

Department of Interior and BLM policies are generally encompassed by the federal laws and

regulations listed above and may provide specific guidance for particular issues. It is the policy of

the BLM to ensure BLM activities are conducted in a manner that achieves and maintains air

quality standards in cooperation with other agencies responsible for maintaining air quality

(BLM Manual 7300).

6.2.3. MOUs

● Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department

of the Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analysis

and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental Policy

Act Process (2011).

6.2.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● BLM Manual 7000 Series: Soil, Water, and Air Management (various release dates)

● BLM Manual 7200 Series: Water Resources (various release dates)

● BLM Manual 7300: Air Resources (2009)

● BLM Manual 9211: Fire Planning (2012)

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Air Quality
Analysis of Management Situation 310

● BLM Handbook 9211-1: Fire Planning (2012)

6.2.5. State Laws and Regulations

● Alaska Statute (AS): Water, Air, Energy and Environmental Conservation (Title 46):

Environmental conservation laws for the State of Alaska.

● Alaska Administrative Code (18 AAC 50) State of Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards

and Regulations

6.3. Soil Resources

6.3.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Classification and Multiple-Use Act (78 stat. 986, U.S.C. 1411-18), 43 CFR 1725.3-3(h) as of

October 1, 1981: One of the objectives of public land management listed in the act is “Watershed

Protection,” which is defined as the protection, regulated use, and development of any public

lands in a manner to control runoff; to minimize soil erosion, siltation, and other destructive

consequences of uncontrolled water flows; and to maintain and improve storage, yield, quality,

and quantity of surface and subsurface waters.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1984 (7 U.S.C. 4201–4209): Federal agencies are to

(a) identify and take into account the adverse effects of their programs on the preservation of

farmland, (b) consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could lessen adverse effects, and (c)

ensure that their programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with state and units of local

government and private programs and policies to protect farmland.

Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, as amended, April 27, 1935 (PL

74-46): By Reorganization Plan No. IV and Secretary Order 2835, this act authorizes the BLM to

conduct and publish surveys, investigations, and research relating to the character of soil erosion;

to disseminate information on erosion prevention measures; and to conduct demonstration

projects in areas subject to wind and water erosion. The act further provides for the “preservation

and improvement of soil fertility, promotion of economic use and conservation of land, and

diminution of exploitation and wasteful and unscientific use of national soil resources.”

Soil and Water Resource Conservation Act of November 18, 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2001): This

act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to appraise the Nation’s soil and water resources on a

continuing basis and to develop and update periodically a program for furthering the conservation,

protection, and enhancement of the soil and water resources.

Soil Information Assistance for Community Planning and Resource Development Act of

1966, September 7, 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3271 et seq.): This Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture

to provide assistance to states and other public agencies in classifying and interpreting kinds of

soil and in intensifying use and benefits of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The act further

provides for consulting with other federal agencies to assure coordination of work.

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109): Requires and encourages preventing

and reducing waste streams and other pollution through minimization, process change, and

recycling. Encourages and requires developing new technology and markets to meet objectives.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 State Laws and Regulations
Analysis of Management Situation 311

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.): Requires

considering protection and/or reestablishment of fish and wildlife habitat during the design,

assessment, and implementation of reclamation plans and during designation of areas unsuitable

for mining. It requires applying unsuitability criteria prior to coal leasing and proposed mining

operations for minerals or mineral materials other than coal.

Watershed Protection and Flood Control Act of 1954, as amended, August 4, 1954: Under

this act, the federal government is directed to cooperate with states and their political subdivisions,

soil or water conservation planning areas, flood prevention or control planning areas, and other

local public agencies to prevent erosion or floodwater and sediment damage.

EO 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26951): Directs federal agencies

to provide leadership and take action on federal lands to avoid, to the extent possible, the longand short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.

Agencies are required to avoid the direct or indirect support of development on floodplains

whenever there are practical alternatives and evaluate the potential effects of any proposed action

on floodplains.

EO 11989, Off-road Vehicles, May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26959): Directs heads of federal agencies

to close areas to off-road vehicle use whenever it is determined that use of off-road vehicles is

causing or will cause considerable adverse impact to soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or

certain other resources on the public lands.

● 40 CFR 1500-1508, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act, July 1, 1986.

6.3.2. Policies

Department of Interior and BLM policies are generally encompassed by the federal laws and

regulations listed above and may provide specific guidance for particular issues. In general, it

is BLM policy to collect and maintain soil resource information consistent with management

needs and to develop, test, and apply soil interpretations to guide use and management of soils

and related resources. (BLM Manual 7100).

6.3.3. MOUs

National Cooperative Soil Survey Memorandum of Understanding (1978).

6.3.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● BLM Manual 7000: Soil, Water, and Air Management

● BLM Manual 7100: Soil Resource Management

● BLM Technical Reference 1734-7: Ecological Site Inventory (2001)

● BLM Technical Reference 1737-19: Riparian-Wetland Soils (2003)

● BLM Manual 6521: State Agencies

● BLM Technical Note 405: A framework for analyzing the hydrologic condition of watersheds.

(1998)

● BLM Technical Note 371: Determining hydrologic properties of soils

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 312

6.3.5. State Laws and Regulations

Alaska Statute 41.10: Soil and Water Conservation

6.4. Water Resources

See section 6.5, Vegetative Communities for additional authorities related to water resources.

6.4.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Classification and Multiple-Use Act (78 stat. 986, U.S.C. 1411-18), 43 CFR 1725.3-3(h) as

of October 1, 1981: One of the 10 objectives of public land management listed in the act is

“Watershed Protection,” which is defined as the protection, regulated use, and development of any

public lands in manner to control runoff; to minimize soil erosion, siltation, and other destructive

consequences of uncontrolled water flows; and to maintain and improve storage, yield, quality,

and quantity of surface and subsurface waters.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended through PL 104-150, the Coastal Zone

Protection Act of 1996: Sets a national policy to protect, develop, and restore or enhance the

Nation’s coastal zone. It authorizes the states to take over management of the coastal zone

management program. The State of Alaska manages this program through the Department of

Governmental Coordination (DGC).

Control of Pollution from Federal Facilities (33 U.S.C. 1323) 1970: Establishes that federal

agencies shall be subject to all requirements and administrative authorities, processes, and

sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water pollution in the same manner, and to the

same extent as any nongovernmental entity, including the payment of reasonable service charges.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (PL 99-645): This act authorizes the purchase of

wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund monies and requires the Secretary to establish

a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan and to continue the national wetlands inventory.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) (33 U. S. C. 1151, 1251, 1254, 1323,

1324, 1329, 1342, 1344) as amended. The act intends to restore and maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Required are: (1) compliance with state

and other federal pollution control rules, (2) no degradation of instream water quality needed to

support designated uses, (3) control of nonpoint source water pollution by using conservation

or best management practices, (4) federal agency leadership in controlling non-point pollution

from managed lands, and (5) rigorous criteria for controlling discharge of pollutants into waters

of the United States.

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1001): Authorizes the Secretary

to issue leases for the developing and using geothermal resources on lands administered by

the Secretary, including public, withdrawn, and acquired lands; national forests or other lands

administered by the Forest Service, including public, withdrawn, and acquired lands; lands

conveyed by the U.S. subject to a reservation to the U.S. of geothermal steam and associated

geothermal resources. This authority has been delegated to the BLM, given the assurance that the

land may continue to be used adequately for the purposes for which it was withdrawn or acquired.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 State Laws and Regulations
Analysis of Management Situation 313

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. §§ 4401-4413): Provides

federal matching funds to public-private partnerships for wetland habitat conservation projects in

North America.

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109): Requires and encourages preventing

and reducing waste streams and other pollution through minimization, process change, and

recycling. Encourages and requires developing new technology and markets to meet objectives.

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 210): Requires compliance with all

federal, state, or local statutes for safe drinking water.

Safe Drinking Water Act 1996 (PL 104-182): Provides the states with more resources and

authority to enact the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 300f). This amendment directs

the states to identify source areas for public water supplies that serve at least 25 people or 15

connections at least 60 days a year.

Soil and Water Resource Conservation Act of November 18, 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2001): Directs

the Secretary of Agriculture to appraise the Nation’s soil and water resources on a continuing

basis and to develop and update periodically a program for furthering the conservation, protection,

and enhancement of the soil and water resources.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.): Requires

considering protection and/or reestablishment of fish and wildlife habitat during the design,

assessment, and implementation of reclamation plans and during designation of areas unsuitable

for mining. It requires applying unsuitability criteria prior to coal leasing and proposed mining

operations for minerals or mineral materials other than coal.

Water Quality Act of 1987, as amended from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.): Reauthorizes the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and

strengthen pollution standards.

Watershed Protection and Flood Control Act of 1954, as amended, August 4, 1954: Directs

the federal government to cooperate with states and their political subdivisions, soil or water

conservation planning areas, flood prevention or control planning areas, and other local public

agencies to prevent erosion or floodwater and sediment damage.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.): Provides for

the development and management of certain rivers. The purposes for which Wild and Scenic

Rivers are added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System) are made

explicit in section 1(b)—specifically, to protect a river’s free-flowing condition, water quality,

and outstandingly remarkable values.

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands, February, 8, 1972 (37 FR 2877):

Establishes policies and provides procedures for controlling or directing use of off-road vehicles

on public lands, with the goal of protecting resources, promoting the safety of all users, and

minimizing conflicts among various uses.

EO 11738, September 10, 1973: Directs each federal agency to enforce the Clean Air Act and

the Clean Water Act when procuring goods, materials, and services.

EO 11752 - December 19, 1973: Mandates that federal agencies shall provide national leadership

to protect and enhance the quality of air, water, and land resources through compliance with

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders
Analysis of Management Situation 314

applicable federal, state, interstate, and local pollution standards. This order directs federal

agencies to design, construct, manage, operate, and maintain their facilities in a manner to protect

and enhance environmental quality through cooperation with state and local governments. This

order cross-references the need to comply with several environmental acts such as the Clean Air

Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Solid Waste Act, Noise Control Act, Insecticide and

Pesticide Acts, and NEPA.

EO 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26951): Directs federal agencies

to provide leadership and take action on federal lands to avoid, to the extent possible, the longand short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.

Agencies are required to avoid the direct or indirect support of development on floodplains

whenever there are practical alternatives and evaluate the potential effects of any proposed action

on floodplains.

EO 11989, Off-road Vehicles, May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26959): Directs heads of federal agencies

to close areas to off-road vehicle use whenever it is determined that use of off-road vehicles is or

will cause considerable adverse impact to soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or certain

other resources on the public lands.

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 25, 1977 (42 FR 26961): Requires federal agencies

exercising statutory authority over federal lands to avoid to the extent possible, the long- and

short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. It directs

federal agencies to identify, protect, enhance, and manage wetlands on public lands.

6.4.2. Policies

Department of Interior and BLM policies are generally encompassed by the federal laws and

regulations listed above and may provide specific guidance for particular issues. In general, it

is BLM policy to collect and maintain water resource information consistent with management

needs and to develop, test, and apply water interpretations to guide use and management of water

and related resources (BLM Manual 7000).

6.4.3. MOUs

● Memorandum of Understanding between the National Association of Conservation Districts

and the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (2013).

6.4.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● BLM Manual 7000: Soil, Water, and Air Management

● BLM Manual 7200 Series: Water Resources (various release dates)

● BLM Manual 1737: Riparian and Wetland Management

● BLM Handbook H-1741-2: Water Developments

● BLM Manual 6521: State Agencies

6.4.5. State Laws and Regulations

Alaska Statute (AS): Water, Air, Energy and Environmental Conservation (Title 46):

Environmental Conservation laws for the State of Alaska.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 315

● AS 46.03.710

● AS 46.03.070

● AS 46.03.850(a)-(c)

● AS 46.03.780(a)

● AS 16.10.010(a)(1)

● AS 16.10.010(a)(2),(3)

● AS 41.17.010(5)

● AS 41.17.055(d)

● AS 41.17.060(b)(2)

● AS 41.17.060(b)(5)

● Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 70.020(b)(9)

● AAC 70.020(b)(12)

6.5. Vegetative Communities and Invasive Species

6.5.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Carlson-Foley Act 1968 (PL 90-583): Directs agencies to enter upon lands under their

jurisdiction and destroy noxious plants growing on such lands.

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 (PL 101-646): Expands

the administration of federal grants to acquire, restore, and enhance wetlands of coastal states.

This act provides for a matching grant program to fund wetland conservation projects.

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended by Sec. 15, Management of Undesirable

Plants on Federal Lands, 1990 (PL 93-629): “...cooperate with other federal and state agencies,

and others in carrying out operations or measures to eradicate, suppress, control or prevent or

retard the spread of any noxious weed.”

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1975 (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.): Establishes

an extensive regulatory system for controlling the sale, distribution, and application of pesticides.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: Directs the BLM to take any action

necessary to prevent unnecessary and/or undue degradation of public lands and authorizes the

BLM to enter into cooperative agreements.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (PL 99-645): Authorizes the purchase of wetlands

from Land and Water Conservation Fund monies and requires the Secretary to establish a National

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan and to continue the national wetlands inventory.

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901-1908): Establishes a national

policy and commitment to improve conditions on public rangelands. It provides for the

improvement of range conditions to assure that rangelands become as productive as feasible for

watershed protection, livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and other rangeland values. This act

establishes a national policy to inventory and identify current public rangelands, soil and water

conditions, and trends, and to manage, maintain, and improve the condition of these lands. Range

improvement is defined to include providing water, stabilizing soil and water conditions, and

providing habitat for wildlife. The act also requires monitoring to reflect changes in soil and

water conditions over time.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Vegetative Communities and Invasive Species
Analysis of Management Situation 316

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. §§ 4401-4413): Provides

federal matching funds to public-private partnerships for wetland habitat conservation projects in

North America.

Noxious Weed Control Act of October 2004: Establishes a program to provide assistance

to eligible weed-management agencies for noxious weed problems through the Secretary of

Agriculture.

Plant Protection Act 2000: Replaces the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974. Consolidates and

modernizes statutes pertaining to plant protection and quarantine. It permits the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service to address all types of weed issues and to take emergency action to

address incursion of noxious weeds.

Federal Seed Act of 1939 [7 U.S.C. 1551-1611].

Federal Plant Pest Act of 1957 [7 U.S.C., Section 150aa-jj].

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 25, 1977 (42 FR 26961): Requires federal agencies

exercising statutory authority over federal lands to avoid to the extent possible, the long- and

short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. It directs

federal agencies to identify, protect, enhance, and manage wetlands on public lands.

EO 11987, Exotic Organisms, May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26949): Directs federal agencies, to the

extent permitted by law, to restrict the introduction and/or importation, and funding of exotic

species into natural ecosystems on lands they administer. It also encourages state and local

governments, and private citizens to prevent introduction of exotic species.

EO 31112, Invasive Species, February 3, 1999 (64 FR 27655): Directs federal agencies to

prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for their control, and minimize the economic,

ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause.

6.5.2. Policies

The BLM's policy is to maintain, restore, or improve riparian-wetland ecosystems to achieve a

healthy and proper functioning condition that assures biological diversity, productivity, and

sustainability. The BLM Alaska policy is outlined in: BLM-Alaska Invasive Species Management

2010.

It is the policy of the BLM to adhere to the following policies pertaining to nonnative, invasive

species:

● Effectively integrate invasive species prevention, control, and management activities into all

affected programs within all Field Offices. All employees must be responsible, in some part,

for invasive species prevention, reporting, and control. On all district and cooperative invasive

species control projects, district personnel will explore all available techniques (manual,

mechanical, cultural, biological and chemical) of integrated invasive species management,

in determining invasive species control recommendations. Human safety, the environment,

efficacy, and economics will be considered in all proposed invasive species projects. The health

of those individuals using herbicides will be protected by complying with all pertinent label

instructions and BLM Manual requirements.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 317

● Preventive measures will be considered and included in permitted actions when practical

and are listed under Appendix C: Annual Weed Prevention and Treatments Schedule – BMPs

(BLM 2010b). In general, larger existing invasive species infestations will be treated either by

contracted licensed applicators under the supervision of BLM Project Inspectors (District/Field

Office invasive species coordinators), by Alaska Department of Agriculture (DOA) employees

via the BLM State Office contract with DOA, the borough invasive species supervisors or their

employees, and or staff/contractors from other official partners authorized to treat invasive

species within the State identified on lands managed by the BLM.

● Consider invasive species issues in NEPA and ensure that all planning documents, include

prevention, early detection and rapid response, risk assessment results, recommendations,

or mitigation measures to prevent invasive species spread and to control invasive species

infestations. W.O. Instruction Memo No. 99-178, makes invasive species a part of the NEPA

Critical Elements list (1999).

● District invasive species team members will report the acres treated, monitored, or inventoried

and invasive species outreach/education contacts made monthly. Report these actions by the

correct activity, program element and project code. Most any activity code can be used to

fund invasive species projects. The district invasive species coordinator will be the district

program element lead for program elements specific to invasive species accomplishments. If

applicable, ensure that pesticide application reports are properly completed. Other district

employees authorized to spray will submit their pesticide application reports to the invasive

species team at least weekly.

6.5.3. NEPA Documents

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western

States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (September 2007). The record of decision

for this document allows for the use of four new approved herbicides, provides updated analysis

on 17 currently approved herbicides, and identifies those herbicides that the BLM will no longer

use on public lands. The decision also guides the use of herbicides for field-level planning and

on-the-ground projects designed to restore and sustain important riparian, range, and wildlife

habitat on public lands under BLM management. In addition, the decision establishes a protocol

for assessing human health and ecological risks of future herbicide use. The record of decision

does not authorize any specific actions on the ground; site-specific analysis under the NEPA

is still required at the project level.

6.5.4. MOUs

Memorandum of Understanding for the Establishment, Endorsement and Support of the Alaska

Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management. The BLM signed this MOU on

September 21, 2000.

6.5.5. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● BLM Manual 5800: Forest Protection and Forest Pest Management

● BLM Manual 1737: Riparian-Wetland Area Management

● BLM Manual 1740: Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 NEPA Documents
Analysis of Management Situation 318

● BLM Manual 1745: Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation and Reestablishment of Fish,

Wildlife and Plants

● BLM Manual 9011: Chemical Pest Control

● BLM Manual 9014: Use of Biological Control Agents of Pests on Public Lands

● BLM Manual 9015: Integrated Weed Management

● BLM Manual 9220: Integrated Pest Management

● Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management, January 1996.

6.5.6. State Laws and Regulations

State agencies may designate a species as noxious if it directly or indirectly imposes economic or

ecological effects to agriculture, navigation, fish and wildlife, wild lands, or public health. Most

states have developed lists of prohibited or regulated noxious and invasive plant species. Alaska

Administrative Code (AAC) Title 11 34.020, designed for agricultural purposes, lists prohibited

and restricted noxious weeds and refers to prohibitions against contamination with seed of select

species for commercial sale.

Alaska provides statutory support for management activities through AS 03.05.010 and AS

44.37.030, which authorize the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture to

prevent the importation and spread of pests that are injurious to public interest and for the

protection of the agricultural industry. Statutory support is expanded in AAC Title 11 Chapter

34 with regulations for noxious weed control and rules for the establishment of quarantines,

inspections, noxious weed lists, and control measures. More recent State regulatory developments

include the prohibition of footgear with absorbent felt or other fibrous material on the soles while

sport fishing in the fresh waters of Alaska, effective January 1, 2012. It was adopted to reduce the

potential for introduction and spread of invasive organisms, including plants, into Alaska waters.

Aquatic nonnative invasive plants are not yet a threat to the planning area, however, prevention

efforts may preclude future infestations with species such as Elodea nuttallii.

6.6. Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Species

See sections 6.4 Water Resources, 6.5 Vegetative Communities and Invasive Species, and 6.20

Tribal Interest and Subsistence for additional mandates and authorities pertaining to fish and

wildlife.

6.6.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.): Provides

for the special designation of certain public lands in Alaska and conservation of their fish and

wildlife values; management for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources on public lands by

residents of rural Alaska; and protection of wildlife resources on North Slope lands impacted by

oil and gas exploration and development activities.

Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) as amended by the Eagle Protection

Act of 1962 (PL 870884): Provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle by

prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession and commerce of

such birds (including their parts, nests, or eggs).

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 State Laws and Regulations
Analysis of Management Situation 319

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.): Provides

for the protection of endangered species, threatened species, and their habitats, and requires

federal agencies to ensure that the continued existence of listed species is not jeopardized and that

designated critical habitat of listed species is not destroyed or adversely modified. This act directs

federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize threatened and endangered species,

and to use their authority to assist in the recovery of these species.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901-2911): Authorizes financial and

technical assistance to the states for the developing, revising, and implementing conservation

plans and programs for non-game fish and wildlife.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.): Directs that

wildlife conservation be given equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of

water-resource development.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 7421; 92 Stat. 3110): Authorizes the

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to assist in training of state fish and

wildlife enforcement personnel; to cooperate with other federal or State agencies for enforcement

of fish and wildlife laws; and to use appropriations to pay for rewards and undercover operations.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265) as

amended in 1996: Defines the term essential fish habitat (EFH), and provides guidelines for the

description, identification, conservation, and enhancement of EFH. The National Marine Fisheries

Service considers all waters listed in the State of Alaska’s Catalogue of waters important for the

spawning, rearing, and migration of anadromous fish as EFH. This act calls for direct action to

stop or reverse the continued loss of fish habitats and requires federal agencies to consult with

the Secretary of Commerce regarding any activity, or proposed activity, authorized, funded, or

undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715) and treaties

pertaining thereto: Establishes federal responsibility to protect migratory birds and authorizes

the Secretary of the Interior to regulate hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712): Implements conventions

or treaties between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Russia, and Mexico for protecting migratory

birds. It establishes a federal prohibition on take of migratory birds.

Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust

Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act: Clarifies the responsibilities of the

component agencies, bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior, when actions taken

under authority of the Endangered Species Act and associated implementing regulations affect,

or may affect, Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of American Indian tribal

rights. This order acknowledges the trust responsibility and treaty obligations of the United

States toward Indian tribes and tribal members and its government-to-government relationship in

dealing with tribes.

Sikes Act of 1974 as amended (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.): Provides for the conservation,

restoration, and management of wildlife species and their habitats in cooperation with state

wildlife agencies, including establishment of a hunting and fishing stamp program with revenues

to be spent upon lands on which fees are collected.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders
Analysis of Management Situation 320

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.): Requires the

consideration of protection and/or reestablishment of fish and wildlife habitat during the design,

assessment, and implementation of reclamation plans and during designation of areas unsuitable

for mining. It requires application of unsuitability criteria prior to coal leasing and proposed

mining operations for minerals or mineral materials other than coal.

Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104 297) October 11, 1996: Amended the habitat

provisions of the Magnuson Act. The re-named Magnuson-Stevens Fish Conservation Act (16

U.S.C. 757a-757g; 79 Stat. 1125) authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to enter

into cooperative agreements with the states and other non-federal interests for conservation,

development, and enhancement of anadromous fish and to contribute up to 50 percent as

the federal share of the cost of carrying out such agreements. Authorized are investigations,

engineering and biological surveys, research, stream clearance, construction, maintenance, and

operations of hatcheries and devices and structures for improving movement, feeding, and

spawning conditions. The BLM is authorized to conduct studies and make recommendations to

the Environmental Protection Agency concerning measures for eliminating or reducing polluting

substances detrimental to fish and wildlife in interstate or navigable waters, or their tributaries.

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries, June 7, 1995 (60 FR 30769): Directs all federal agencies to

enhance recreational fish species and provide increased recreational fishing opportunities.

EO 13186, Migratory Birds, January 10, 2001 (66 FR 3853): Directs agencies within the

Executive Branch to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, with

the goal of promoting the conservation of migratory bird populations.

EO 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation, August 16, 2007 (66

FR): Directs federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on

public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department

of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of

hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100, Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in

Alaska: Implements the Federal Subsistence Management Program on public lands within the

State of Alaska, pursuant to Title VIII of ANILCA.

43 CFR 24, Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Policy: State-Federal

Relationships: Clarifies and supports the authorities and responsibilities of federal and state

agencies responsible for managing the Nation's fish and wildlife and promotes cooperative agency

management relationships which advance science based resource management programs. This

policy is intended to reaffirm the basic role of the states in fish and resident wildlife management

and to foster improved conservation of fish and wildlife.

50 CFR 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Implements the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, and identifies species of wildlife and plants determined to be endangered or

threatened with extinction.

50 CFR 600.905, Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions, Purpose, Scope, and NMFS/Regional

Fishery Management Council Cooperation: Addresses the coordination, consultation, and

recommendation requirements of sections 305(b)(1)(D) and 305(b)(2–4) of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act. The purpose of these procedures is to promote the protection of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

in the review of federal and state actions that may adversely affect EFH.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders
Analysis of Management Situation 321

PLO 7372, Withdrawal of Public Land for the Lake Todatonten Special Management Area;

Alaska: Creates the Lake Todatonten Special Management Area to protect fish, wildlife, and

habitat. Withdraws approximately 37,579 acres from location, entry, and patent under the mining

laws. This order may only be amended or revoked by an act of Congress.

6.6.2. Policies

It is BLM policy to manage habitat with an emphasis on ecosystems to ensure self-sustaining

populations and a natural abundance and diversity of wildlife, fish, and plant resources on

public land (BLM Manual 6500). It is the policy of the BLM to conserve listed species and the

ecosystems upon which they depend; to use the BLM's existing authority in furtherance of the

purposes of the Endangered Species Act; to ensure that all actions authorized, funded, or carried

out by the BLM are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act; to cooperate with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service in planning and providing for the

recovery of listed species; to retain in federal ownership all habitat essential for the survival and

recovery of any listed species, including habitat that was used historically, that has retained its

potential to sustain listed species, and is deemed to be essential to their survival (BLM Manual

6840). Additionally, consistent with existing laws, the BLM shall implement management plans

that conserve candidate species and their habitats and shall ensure that actions authorized, funded,

or carried out by the BLM do not contribute to the need for these species to become listed (BLM

Manual 6840).

Instruction Memorandum 2008-050, Migratory Bird Treaty Act–Interim Management

Guidance: Provides interim guidance to enhance coordination and communication toward

meeting BLM’s responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186,

and is considered a primary agency effort to minimize unintentional take of migratory birds and

optimize migratory bird management related to BLM activities.

Instruction Memorandum AK-2010-007, BLM Alaska Policy regarding Predator Control by

the State of Alaska: “Unless predator control activities conflict with on-going or anticipated BLM

authorized actions, land use plan decisions for a given area, or create a threat to public safety, the

BLM’s position on the State’s predator control program is: Predator control is a State function.”

6.6.3. MOUs

Master Memorandum of Understanding between Alaska Department of Fish and Game and

the BLM: Parties agree to cooperate in the management of fish and wildlife resources and habitat

on BLM lands in such a way as to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife populations.

Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of the Interior BLM and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds: Parties

agree to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying and implementing strategies

that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds through

enhanced collaboration.

6.6.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● BLM Manual 1745: Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation, and Reestablishment of Fish,

Wildlife, and Plants

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 322

● BLM Manual 6500: Wildlife and Fisheries Management

● BLM Manual 6521: Cooperative Relations

● BLM Manual 6523: Nongovernmental Organizations

● BLM Manual 6524: Research

● BLM Manual 6525: Sikes Act Wildlife Programs

● BLM Manual 6600: Fish, Wildlife and Special Status Plants Inventory and Monitoring

● BLM Manual 6720: Aquatic Resources Management

● BLM Manual 6780: Habitat Management Plans

● BLM Manual 6840: Special Status Species Policy

6.6.5. State Laws and Regulations

AS 41.14.840: Requires construction and maintenance of a fishway and a device for downstream

passage of migrants for any obstruction built across a stream frequented by anadromous or

resident fish species. Plans and specifications are subject to review and approval by the Alaska

Department of Natural Resources.

AS 41.14.870: Requires the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) to specify the

rivers, lakes, and streams that are important for the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous

fish. In addition, anyone wanting to construct a hydraulic project, or use, divert, obstruct,

pollute, or change the natural flow or bed of a specified water body, or operate a vehicle in these

waterbodies, is required to contact ADNR for written approval before beginning the activity.

Alaska State Regulation 5 AAC 39.222: Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon

Fisheries requires that the State manage salmon fisheries such that salmon stocks and habitat are

maintained at levels of resource productivity that assure sustained yields.

Alaska State Regulation 11 AAC 195.010: The Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning,

Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes is the means by which the Alaska Department of

Natural Resources specifies waterbodies that are important for the spawning, rearing, or migration

of anadromous fish.

AS 16.20.180–16.20.210: The purpose of this statute is to establish a program for the continued

conservation, protection, restoration, and propagation of fish or wildlife that are now and may

in the future be threatened with extinction.

6.7. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

6.7.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act of 1989 (PL 100-428, as amended by PL 101-11,

April 7, 1989)

Reciprocal Fire Protection Act of May 27, 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1856): Authorizes

agencies that provide fire protection for any property of the U.S. to enter into reciprocal

agreements with other fire organizations to provide mutual aid for fire protection.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003: Provides direction for the fuels management program.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 State Laws and Regulations
Analysis of Management Situation 323

Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of October 29, 1974 (88 Stat. 1535; 15 U.S.C.

1601): Established the United States Fire Administration and its National Fire Academy to

improve safety.

6.7.2. Policies

BLM fire policies are outlined in the following documents.

● 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review, U. S. Departments

of Interior and Agriculture: National fire policy document.

● Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, January 2001,

U. S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture: Update of national fire policy.

● Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, February

13, 2009, Fire Executive Council

6.7.3. NEPA Documents

Alaska Land Use Plan Amendment for Wildland Fire and Fuels Management

Environmental Assessment and FONSI and Decision Record (BLM 2005b): Amended all

land use plans in Alaska for wildland fire and fuels management.

Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan Tanana/Minchumina Planning Area

1982 and Amendment 1984: First of 13 Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plans for

Alaska. This includes an environmental assessment.

6.7.4. MOUs

Alaska Statewide Master Agreement with Exhibits, July 2012. Updated annually.

6.7.5. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● Department of Interior Manual 620, April 1998: Gives fire policy direction with a chapter

specific to Alaska.

● BLM Manual 9211–1, various release dates: BLM fire planning direction.

● BLM Manual 9238–1, various release dates: BLM fire trespass direction.

● BLM Manual 9235–1, various release dates: BLM fire prevention direction.

6.7.6. Other Local Plans

Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan 1998 (AIWFMP): Fire management

plan that consolidates and supersedes the 13 original Alaska interagency fire plans into one

document. It covers the entire state of Alaska.

Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan 2010 (AIWFMP): Fire management

plan that updates and supersedes the 1998 version.

Bureau of Land Management-Alaska Wildland Fire Management Plan 2005: Updates BLM

Alaska fire management direction.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 324

The following Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plans cover the planning area along with the

NEPA document for Tanana/Minchumina Planning Area 1982 and Amendment 1984.

1. Arctic Slope Planning Area, March 1986

2. Upper Yukon/Tanana Planning Area, April 1984

3. Kobuk Planning Area, April 1984

4. Seward Peninsula Planning Area, April 1984

5. Yukon/Togiak Planning Area, June 1983

6. Kuskokwim/Illiamna Planning Area, June 1983

6.8. Cultural and Paleontological Resources

6.8.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Cultural Resources

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.): Protects cultural resources on federal lands and

imposes penalties for excavation or appropriation without a permit.

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461-467): Declares national policy to identify and preserve

historic sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, providing a foundation

for the National Register of Historic Places.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.): Established

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the State Historic Preservation

Officer (SHPO), and mandates their role in the oversight of federal undertakings. Section 106

of the act requires federal agencies to provide the SHPO and/or the ACHP an opportunity to

comment on any undertakings that might affect historic properties. Other important provisions

of the act require federal agencies to inventory their lands and to consult and cooperate with

other managers and interested publics.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.): Establishes a national

policy to “... preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage....”

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 13, 1971 (36

CFR 8921): Directs federal agencies to locate, inventory, nominate, and protect federally owned

cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and ensure that their plans

and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of non federally owned resources.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, which amends the Reservoir Salvage

Act of 1960 (PL 86-523; PL 93-291; 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.): Directs all federal agencies, in

regards to all manner of projects, to take into account their impacts on archaeological, historical,

and scientific data, and provide funding if necessary to recover such data.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.): Establishes a

national policy that “... the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of

scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and

archaeological values....”

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Analysis of Management Situation 325

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996) and EO 13007 Indian

Sacred Sites (1996): Declares the United States policy of protecting and preserving the inherent

right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise traditional religions; including access to

religious sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials

and traditional rites, for the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiian.

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (PL 96-95; 16 U.S.C.

470aa-mm): Establishes the authority to require permits to excavate or collect archaeological

resources from the public lands, and provides serious penalties for those convicted of violating

the act.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 1241-1249):

Requires the repatriation of American Native human remains, funerary objects, and objects of

cultural patrimony that are housed in museum collections controlled by federal agencies or in

museums that have accepted federal funds. It also contains provisions that apply to the future

excavation of such materials.

Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections (36 CFR

79), 1990: These federal regulations, as required by NHPA, the Reservoir Salvage Act,

and Archeological Resources Protection Act, provide minimum standards for the long-term

management and care of new and existing archeological collections, including the associated

records and reports. The regulations acknowledge that curation involves real costs to the owners

of collections, and that it is the responsibility of the federal agency that manages or managed the

land on which a collection was recovered to fund its long-term care.

EO 13287, Preserve America, March 3, 2003: Supports efforts to preserve, maintain and use

the nation’s federally owned historic properties by promoting community economic development,

particularly heritage tourism, through local private-federal partnerships.

Paleontological Resources

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (PL 111–11; 16 U.S.C. 470aaa.): Provides

requirements for managing and protecting paleontological resources on federal land. The act

includes provisions allowing for casual or hobby collecting of common invertebrate and plant

fossils on BLM and Forest Service land, permit and curation requirements, prohibited acts,

data confidentiality requirements, and criminal and civil penalties resulting from the theft or

vandalism of resources.

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (PL 96-95; 16 U.S.C. 470ee):

Prohibits the unauthorized removal of fossils that are in an archaeological context.

Damage to Government Property (18 U.S.C. 1361): Fossils on federal lands have been

interpreted as a type of government property, and their unauthorized disturbance resulting in

damage is regarded as damage of government property.

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (PL 100-691) and Title 43 CFR Subpart 37:

Address protection of significant caves and cave resources, including paleontological resources.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-579; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.):

Requires that the public lands be managed in a manner that protects the "... quality of scientific

..." and other values, which has been interpreted to include paleontological resources. The act

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders
Analysis of Management Situation 326

also requires the public lands to be inventoried and provides that permits may be required for the

use, occupancy, and development of the public lands.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.): Establishes a

national policy to “... preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national

heritage...,” which has been interpreted to include paleontological resources. The act also

indicates that "...a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of

the natural and social sciences ... in planning and decision making..." be followed.

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 and 43 CFR Title 3162: Provide for the protection of

natural resources and other environmental concerns and can be used to protect paleontological

resources where appropriate.

Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas Form 3100-11: Provides for inventories and other

short-term studies to protect objects of scientific interest, such as significant fossil occurrences,

and requires that operations conducted under oil and gas leases minimize adverse impacts to

natural and cultural resources.

Theft of Government Property (18 U.S.C. 641): Fossils on federal lands have been interpreted

as a type of government property, and their unauthorized collection is regarded as theft of

government property.

Secretarial Order 3104: Grants to the BLM the authority to issue paleontological resource

use permits for lands under its jurisdiction.

● 36 CFR, Subpart 62: Addresses procedures to identify, designate, and recognize National

Natural Landmarks, which include fossil areas.

● 43 CFR 3622: Addresses the free use collection of petrified wood as a mineral material for

non-commercial purposes.

● 43 CFR 3621: Addresses collection of petrified wood for specimens exceeding 250 pounds

in weight.

● 43 CFR 3610: Addresses the sale of petrified wood as a mineral material for commercial

purposes.

● 43 CFR, Subparts 3802 and 3809: Address protection of paleontological resources from

operations authorized under the mining laws.

● 43 CFR 8200: Addresses procedures and practices for managing lands that have outstanding

natural history values, such as fossils, which are of scientific interest.

● 43 CFR 1610.7-2: Addresses the establishment of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

for managing and protecting significant natural resources, such as paleontological localities.

● 43 CFR 8364: Addresses the use of closure or restriction of public lands to protect resources.

Such closures or restrictions may be used to protect important fossil localities.

● 43 CFR 8365.1-5: Addresses the willful disturbance, removal and destruction of scientific

resources or natural objects and 8360.0-7 identifies the penalties for such violations.

6.8.2. Policies

The BLM recognizes paleontological resources as constituting a fragile and nonrenewable

scientific record of the history of life on Earth, thus representing an important and critical

component of America's natural heritage. The BLM will exercise stewardship of these resources

as a part of its public land management responsibility (BLM Manual 8270).

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 327

Cultural resources are recognized as fragile, irreplaceable resources with potential public

and scientific uses, representing an important and integral part of our Nation's heritage. The

BLM manages cultural resources under its jurisdiction or control according to their relative

importance, protecting against impairment, destruction, and inadvertent loss, and encouraging

and accommodating the uses determined appropriate through planning and public participation.

Apart from certain considerations derived from specific cultural resource statutes, management of

cultural resources on public lands is primarily based on FLPMA, and is governed by the same

multiple-use principles and the same planning and decision-making processes as are followed in

managing other public land resources (BLM Manual 8100).

6.8.3. MOUs

National Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (1997): The BLM,

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic

Preservation Officers (SHPO) signed a nationwide agreement in March 1997, with the purpose of

simplifying and streamlining the process for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act. One of the major driving forces behind development of the agreement was the

expectation that by simplifying compliance, BLM cultural resource personnel and funds could be

freed up to accomplish more proactive management. Under the programmatic agreement, each

BLM state was to work with the local SHPO to develop a protocol setting out the specifics

of the compliance process.

Alaska protocol (2014): In February 2014, the State Director and the Alaska State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO) signed a new Programmatic Agreement to replace 1998 Alaska

protocol, which was called for in the National Programmatic Agreement. The protocol provides

for the discretionary involvement of the SHPO in a wide range of BLM activities, including

planning and fieldwork. BLM Alaska is free under the protocol to determine what type of

inventory is appropriate for undertakings without consulting with the SHPO, and may avoid

case-by-case review except for certain specified circumstances or where BLM has determined

that there is a probability of cultural resources being impacted. The BLM is required to submit

copies of all reviews of cultural resources annually for SHPO review.

Programmatic Agreement Regarding Congressionally Authorized Land Transfers to

the State of Alaska (2002):The Programmatic Agreement, signed by the BLM State Office,

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, and the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in September 2002, and its accompanying Instruction

Memorandum No. AK-2004-005, establishes and provides instruction to BLM employees on how

to handle the transfer of lands from federal to state jurisdiction in lieu of complying with Section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

6.8.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

Cultural Resources

The BLM cultural resource program is laid out in the 8100 section of the BLM Manual (various

release dates). Various sections establish appropriate levels of inventory, procedures for

evaluating sites, protection of sites, issuance of permits under the Archaeological Resources

Protection Act of 1979, and other aspects of the program.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 MOUs
Analysis of Management Situation 328

● BLM Manual 8100: The Foundation for Managing Cultural Resources

● BLM Manual 8110: Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources

● BLM Manual 8120: Tribal Consultation Under Cultural Resources

● BLM Manual 8130: Planning for Uses of Cultural Resources

● BLM Manual 8140: Protecting Cultural Resources

● BLM Manual 8150: Permitting Uses of Cultural Resources

● BLM Manual 8170: Interpreting Cultural Resources for the Public

Paleontological Resources

The BLM paleontological resource program is laid out in the 8270 section of the BLM Manual.

Various sections discuss land-use planning and environmental review, assessment and mitigation,

proactive management, and issuance of permits.

● BLM Manual 8270: Paleontological Resource Management

● Handbook H-8270-1: General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource

Management.

6.8.5. State Laws and Regulations

AS 41.35.200: Which applies only to State lands, makes the disturbance of “historic, prehistoric,

or archeological resources” a class A misdemeanor. According to AS 41.35.230, “historic,

prehistoric, and archeological resources” includes “deposits, structures, ruins, sites, buildings,

graves, artifacts, fossils, or other objects of antiquity which provide information pertaining to the

historical or prehistorical culture of people in the state as well as to the natural history of the state.”

AS 11.46.482(a)(6): Which applies to all lands in Alaska, makes the intentional disturbance of

a grave site and the intentional destruction and unauthorized removal of any human remains

from a site a class C felony.

AS 12.65.5: Which applies to all lands in Alaska, requires, in part, the immediate notification

of a peace officer of the State and the State Medical Examiner of the discovery of any human

body or its remains when death has been caused by unknown or criminal means. The Alaskan

State Troopers interprets this statute to include all human remains, regardless of age. The State

Troopers or State Medical Examiner may defer to the opinions of the field archaeologist on scene

if ancient remains (over 100 years old) are found, and may initiate no further investigation.

6.9. Visual Resources

6.9.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

FLPMA, NEPA, and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (see section 6.13)

are the primary federal laws providing authority for visual resource management.

6.9.2. Policies

The BLM has a basic stewardship responsibility to identify and protect visual values on public

lands (BLM Manual 8400).

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 State Laws and Regulations
Analysis of Management Situation 329

6.9.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● BLM Manual 8400: Visual Resource Management

● BLM Manual 8431: Visual Resource Contrast Rating

● BLM Handbook H-8410-1: Visual Resource Inventory

6.10. Wilderness Characteristics

6.10.1. Policies

Managing wilderness resources is part of the BLM’s multiple-use mission. The BLM will

consider the wilderness characteristics of public lands when undertaking land use planning

and will use the land use planning process to determine how to manage lands with wilderness

characteristics as part of the BLM’s multiple-use mandate. BLM policy is described more fully in

BLM Manuals listed in section 6.10.5.

6.10.2. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

BLM Manual 6310: Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands. March

15, 2012

BLM Manual 6320: Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use

Planning Process. March 15, 2012

6.11. Forestry and Woodland Products

See section 6.15 Renewable Energy for additional information regarding woody biomass.

6.11.1. Federal laws, regulations, statutes and orders

Act of May 14, 1898, Section 11: allows eligible applicants the opportunity to harvest free use

timber in Alaska. 16 U.S.C. 615a amends this act to allow the sale of small sales of timber

in Alaska.

Protection Act of September 20, 1922 (16 U.S.C. 594): Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior

to protect and preserve timber owned by the United States on public lands under the jurisdiction

of the Department of Interior.

Department of Interior Appropriations Act of 1976 (PL 94-165): Prohibits the sale of

unprocessed timber on federal lands west of the 100th meridian.

● 43 CFR 5400: Sales of Forest Products, General

● 43 CFR 5500: Nonsale Disposals, General

● 43 CFR 5510: Free Use of Timber

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 BLM Manuals and Handbooks
Analysis of Management Situation 330

6.11.2. MOUs

The Establishment of a Reciprocal Commercial Mushroom Permit Program; between

BLM, Northern Field Office, and State of Alaska DNR/Northern Regions. This MOU

was established after the 2004 fire season to address an anticipated high level of commercial

mushroom harvest and provide coordination on permit sales between the two agencies.

6.11.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

Specific policies regarding forest management and forest product sales may be found in the

BLM Manual sections listed below.

● BLM Manual 5000: Forest Management

● BLM Manual 5400: Sales of Forest Products

● BLM Handbook H-5400-1, Timber Sale Procedure Handbook: Contains basic authorities

and policies for the sale of forest products from BLM managed lands.

6.11.4. State Laws and Regulations

Alaska State regulations (11 AAC 95.185 - 11 AAC 95.255) describe specific forest

management harvest practices required by Alaska State law.

6.12. Livestock Grazing

The BLM removed the grazing regulations under 43 CFR Part 4200, which implemented the

livestock grazing program on BLM-managed lands in Alaska in October 1998, because they were

considered obsolete (Federal Register 1998). There are currently no grazing permit holders

under BLM's livestock grazing program in Alaska. The BLM does not anticipate receiving new

applications. The amount of BLM-managed lands suitable for livestock grazing has decreased

dramatically because of conveyance of land to Native corporations and the State of Alaska.

6.12.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Alaska Livestock Grazing Act of March 1927 (43 U.S.C. 316, 316a-316o): This act allows

the government to lease the grazing privileges on the grazing districts established in Alaska to

qualified applicants.

The Reindeer Industry Act 1937 (25 U.S.C. Subsection 500m) authorizes the Secretary’s

regulation of reindeer grazing on federal public lands.

EO 12548, Grazing Fees, February 11, 1986 (51 FR 5985): Provides for establishment of

appropriate fees for grazing domestic livestock on public rangelands.

● 43 CFR Part 4200-1: Authority for grazing privileges. The BLM is authorized under the

Alaska Livestock Grazing Act (Act of March 4, 1927, 43 U.S.C. 316, 316a-316o) to lease to

qualified applicants the grazing privileges on the grazing districts established in Alaska.

● 43 CFR Part 4300: Grazing Administration, Reindeer, General

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 MOUs
Analysis of Management Situation 331

6.13. Minerals

This section is split into three parts: Leasable Minerals, Locatable Minerals, and Mineral

Materials. The laws listed below generally apply to all three categories of minerals.

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) (30 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.): Establishes

policy of fostering development of economically stable mining and minerals industries, their

orderly and economic development, and studying methods for disposal of waste and reclamation.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.): Requires the

consideration of protection and/or reestablishment of fish and wildlife habitat during the design,

assessment, and implementation of reclamation plans and during designation of areas unsuitable

for mining. It requires application of unsuitability criteria prior to coal leasing and proposed

mining operations for minerals or mineral materials other than coal.

6.13.1. Leasable Minerals

6.13.1.1. Federal laws, regulations, statutes and orders

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.): Provides for leasing of coal,

phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, gas, oil shale, native asphalt, solid and semi-solid bitumen,

bituminous rock, and gilsonite on lands owned by the United States.

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351-359): Provides for leasing of

coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, gas, oil shale, and sulfur on lands owned or acquired

by the United States.

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1001): Authorizes the Secretary

to issue leases for developing and using geothermal resources on lands administered by the

Secretary, including public, withdrawn and acquired lands; lands conveyed by the U.S. subject

to a reservation to the U.S. of geothermal steam and associated geothermal resources. This

authority has been delegated to the BLM, given the assurance that the land may continue to be

used adequately for the purposes for which it was withdrawn or acquired.

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976: Requires that all public lands available for

coal leasing be leased competitively. With two exceptions: (1) preference right lease applications

where a lease may be issued on a noncompetitive basis to owners of prospecting permits pre-dating

the Federal Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 1976; and (2) modifications of existing leases where

contiguous lands of less than 160 acres are added non-competitively to an existing lease.

Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1701): Authorizes the

Secretary of the Interior to implement and maintain a royalty management system for oil and gas

leases on federal lands, Indian lands, and the Outer Continental Shelf. It includes the development

of enforcement practices that ensure the prompt and proper collection and disbursement of oil and

gas revenues owed to the U.S. and Indian lessors, and those inuring to the benefit of states.

Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. 226, et seq.):

Establishes a new oil and gas leasing system, and changes certain operational procedures for

onshore federal lands. It requires the BLM to offer all lands available for leasing competitively

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 332

prior to leasing noncompetitively and adds environmental provisions to the leasing process. The

act also provides for inspections and enforcement of operations once commenced.

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq.): Mandates extensive planning for oil spills

from tank vessels and onshore and offshore facilities. It establishes comprehensive elements of

damage for oil spills, and disposes strict liability on those responsible for oil spills.

Energy Policy Act of 1992: Among other things, this act authorizes issuance of both competitive

and noncompetitive leases for a 10-year period. Both types of leases continue for as long

thereafter as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities.

Alaska Land Status Technical Corrections Act of 1992: Amends Section 905 of ANILCA. It

reserves to the U.S. all interests in oil, gas, and coal in the conveyed lands, and the right of the

U.S. or of lessee or assignee of the U.S., to enter on lands conveyed to the applicant or to the heirs

of the applicant, to drill, explore, mine, produce, and remove the oil, gas, or coal.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L 109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801): Encourages energy efficiency and

conservation, promotes alternative and renewable energy sources, reduces our dependence on

foreign sources of energy, increases domestic production, modernizes the electricity grid, and

encourages the expansion of nuclear energy.

● 43 CFR 2880: Rights-of-Way under the Mineral Leasing Act

● 43 CFR 3000: Minerals Management

● 43 CFR 3100: Oil and Gas Leasing

● 43 CFR 3150: Onshore Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration

● 43 CFR 3160: Onshore Oil and Gas Operations

● 43 CFR 3200: Geothermal Resource Leasing

● 43 CFR 3400: Coal Leasing

6.13.1.2. Policies

● Maintain opportunities for mineral exploration and development while maintaining other

resource values.

● Ensure that oil and gas operations on federal lands are conducted in accordance with all

applicable regulations, Onshore Orders, Notices to Lessees, and permit conditions of approval.

6.13.1.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● BLM Manual 2880: Oil and Gas Pipelines

● BLM Manual 3107: Continuation, Extension or Renewal

● BLM Manual 3150: Onshore Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration Surface Management

Requirements

6.13.2. Locatable Minerals

6.13.2.1. Federal laws, regulations, statutes and orders

General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.): Provides for locating and

patenting mining claims for locatable minerals on public lands in specified states. This act

established few details on how to regulate mining on the public lands. Therefore, rules and

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Locatable Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 333

regulations have been developed largely in response to extensive mineral case law established

through Interior Board of Land Appeals and the courts.

● 43 CFR 3809 (Surface Management): Prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the

public lands by operations authorized by the mining laws.

● 43CFR 3715 (Use and Occupancy Under the Mining Laws): The purpose of this subpart is

to manage the use and occupancy of the public lands for developing locatable mineral deposits

by limiting such use or occupancy to that which is reasonably incident. The Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) will prevent abuse of the public lands while recognizing valid rights and

uses under the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.) and related laws governing the public

lands, regardless of when those rights were created. The BLM will take appropriate action to

eliminate invalid uses, including unauthorized residential occupancy of the public lands.

● 43 CFR 3600 (Mineral Materials Disposal): The regulations in this part establish procedures

for exploring, developing, and disposing of mineral material resources on the public lands, and

for protecting resources and the environment. The regulations apply to permits for free use

and contracts for sale of mineral materials.

6.13.2.2. Policies

● Encourage the domestic mining industry to explore, develop, and extract minerals from the

public lands, and reserved federal mineral estates, while regulating such uses to ensure that the

public lands are not subject to unnecessary or undue degradation from such activities.

● Ensure that the public lands, and federal interests in reserved mineral estates, are not misused or

abused by parties that use the General Mining Laws for purposes over than what is permissible

under the General Mining Laws or FLPMA (BLM Manual 3800).

6.13.2.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

BLM Manual series 3800 (various release dates) provides guidance and policy for management

of locatable minerals.

● BLM Manual 3800: Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws

● BLM Manual 3830: Location, Recording and Maintenance of Mining Claims, Mill and

Tunnel Sites

● BLM Manual 3833: Recordation of Mining Claims

● BLM Manual 3860: Mineral Patent Applications

● BLM Manual 3861: Surveys and Plats

● BLM Manual 3862: Lode Mining Patent Applications

● BLM Manual 3863: Placer Mining Claim Patent Applications

● BLM Manual 3864: Mill Site Claim Patent Applications

● BLM Manual 3870: Adverse Claims, Protests, Contests, and Appeals

● BLM Manual 3890: Mineral Investigations

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Locatable Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 334

6.13.3. Salable Minerals

6.13.3.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Act of July 23, 1955; 69 Stat. 934: Removed common varieties of sand, gravel, cinders, pumice,

and clay from the category of locatable minerals and placed them under the Materials Act of 1947,

establishing them as salable minerals. The act also provides for multiple use of the lands and

surface resources on mining claims (primarily affected public access across mining claims and the

use and development of timber resources on mining claims).

Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906, (43 U.S.C. 270-273, 34 Stat. 197, as amended by

70 Stat. 954).

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, (43 U.S.C. 1601).

Materials Act of 1947, as amended (61 Stat. 681, 30 U.S.C. 601-604 et seq.) as amended:

Provides for the sale of common variety materials (sand, stone, gravel, and common clay) for

personal, commercial, or industrial uses.

● 43 CFR 3600: Mineral Materials Disposal

● 43 CFR 3710: Public Law 167; Act of July 23, 1955

● 43 CFR 3814: Disposal of Reserved Minerals Under the Stockraising Homestead Act

6.13.3.2. Policies

BLM policy is to dispose of mineral materials, provided adequate measures are taken to protect

the environment and that damage to public health and safety is minimized. Since disposal of

mineral materials is discretionary, no disposals will be made if it is determined by the Authorized

Officer that the total damage to public lands and resources would exceed the expected public

benefits derived from any proposed disposal (BLM Manual 3600, BLM 2013).

6.13.3.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

Manual section 3600: Mineral Materials Disposal (2002) provides the policies, procedures, and

references for processing the disposal, exploration, development, and mining of mineral materials,

and reclamation of lands disturbed by such activities.

6.14. Recreation and Visitor Services

See section 6.16 Transportation and Access for additional authorities affecting recreation and

visitor services.

6.14.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines: Sets guidelines for accessibility to

places of public accommodation and commercial facilities by individuals with disabilities.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.): Requires access to facilities

designed, built, altered, or leased with federal funds.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Salable Minerals
Analysis of Management Situation 335

Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (PL 104-134):

Directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the BLM, to develop and implement a pilot

recreation fee demonstration program to determine the feasibility of cost recovery for operation

and maintenance of recreation areas and sites.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.)

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users of

2005 (PL 109-59): Provides funding for recreational trails.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 (Public Law 105-178): Provides

funding for recreational trails.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.)

EO 11200: Providing for Establishing User Fees Pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation

Act of 1965, February 26, 1965 (30 FR 2645)

EO 13195: Trails for America, January 18, 2001 (66 FR 7391).

EO 12962: Recreational Fisheries, June 7, 1995 (60 FR 30769)

6.14.2. Policies

It is BLM policy to ensure the continued availability of public lands and related waters for

a diversity of resource-dependent outdoor recreation opportunities while maintaining its

commitment to managing the public lands as a national resource in harmony with the principle of

balanced multiple use (BLM Manual 8300).

It is BLM policy that a complete and up-to-date inventory of recreation values, uses, and

opportunities be maintained for input into, and monitoring of, resource management plans,

recreation area management plans, recreation project plans, environmental assessments and

impact statements, operational plans, recreation information management system, and annual

statistical reports. The level and detail of the inventory will depend on the complexity and

importance of the recreation issues (BLM Manual 8310).

It is BLM policy to plan for outdoor recreation in response to the issues, concerns, and problems

identified in the resource management planning (RMP) process. In this context, the BLM

identifies and evaluates public recreation needs and recreation resources on the public lands

to determine the allocation of resource for recreation and the extent of required services and

management (BLM Manual 8320).

It is BLM policy that proposed recreation projects are identified in, and derived from, approved

recreation area management plans, and fulfill identified management objectives for specific

areas (BLM Manual 8323).

6.14.3. MOUs

Federal Lands Hunting, Fishing, and Shooting Sports Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding

among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 336

Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and multiple Private

Organizations. BLM MOU WO-250–2007–03, August 2006.

6.14.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● BLM Handbook H-2930-1: Recreation Permit Administration

● BLM Handbook H-8410-1: Visual Resource Inventory

● BLM Handbook H-8431-1: Visual Resource Contrast Rating

● BLM Manual 2930: Recreation Permits and Fees

● BLM Manual 8300 Series: Recreation Management

● BLM Manual 8310: Recreation Inventory

● BLM Manual 8320: Planning for Recreation Resources

● BLM Manual 8322: Recreation Area Management Plans

● BLM Manual 8323: Recreation Project Planning

● BLM Manual 8351: Wild and Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction for Identification,

Evaluation, and Management

● BLM Manual 8360: Visitor Services

● BLM Manual 8362: Interpretive Services

● BLM Manual 8400 Series: Visual Resource Management

● BLM Manual 8410: Visual Resource Inventory

● BLM Manual 8430: Application of Visual Resource Management Principles to Protect

Planning and Design

● BLM Manual 8431: Visual Resource Contrast Rating

● BLM Manual 9100: Facilities Planning, Design, Construction and Maintenance

● BLM Manual 9130: Sign Manual

6.15. Renewable Energy

6.15.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

See section 6.13, Leasable Minerals for more detail.

● Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L 109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801)

● Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1001)

6.15.2. Policies

Wind: It is the BLM's general policy to encourage development of wind energy in acceptable

areas. Wind energy site testing and monitoring activities are usually in conformance with and

can be accommodated by existing land use plans without a need for a land use plan amendment

(IM 2006-216).

Solar: The BLM’s general policy is to facilitate environmentally responsible commercial

development of solar energy projects on public lands (IM 2007-097).

Biomass: The BLM's general policy is to encourage use of biomass from public lands.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 BLM Manuals and Handbooks
Analysis of Management Situation 337

6.15.3. NEPA Documents

Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the

Western United States. December 2008. BLM-WO-GI-09-003-100-FES-08-44.

6.15.4. MOUs

Memorandum of Understanding On Policy Principles For Woody Biomass Utilization for

Restoration and Fuel Treatments On Forests, Woodlands, and Rangelands between the U.S.

Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Energy (June

18, 2003). The purpose of the MOU is to demonstrate a commitment to develop and apply

consistent and complementary policies and procedures across three federal departments to

encourage utilization of woody biomass by-products when ecologically, economically, and legally

appropriate, and consistent with locally developed land management plans.

6.16. Transportation and Access

This section addresses federal laws and authorizations that allow the BLM to construct and

maintain transportation features and infrastructure, and to administer and manage access across

BLM-managed lands.

BLM’s Byways Program, established in 1989, is a component of the National Scenic Byways

Program. BLM State Directors designate BLM Back Country Byways on BLM public

lands. Other Byway designations – such as National Scenic Byways, All-American Roads,

State Scenic Byways, or National Forest Scenic Byways – may also occur on portions of

BLM—managed lands, but must be designated through a State Department of Transportation or

other federal agency. Since many BLM-designated byways cross other federal, state, county, and

private lands, their designation and management can vary based on the agency responsible for

managing the byway.

6.16.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971:

Access to public lands from most villages is provided by section 17(b) easements reserved on or

across lands conveyed to Native corporations under the Alaska Native Settlement Claims Act

(ANCSA). To date, approximately 135 ANCSA section 17(b) easements have been reserved

within the planning area. More will be added as remaining entitlements are conveyed to village

and regional corporations. The Native corporations’ final selection priorities were submitted on

June 10, 2008, and the identification of easements on these final selections has been completed,

with the Central Yukon FO recommendations forwarded to the BLM Alaska State Office.

Easement management issues are resolved through the development of memoranda of

understanding and cooperative agreements. While many easements allow motorized use, some

easements are limited to non-motorized travel only, or seasonally to summer or winter travel due

to trail conditions. Access by ANCSA section 17(b) easements may be temporarily closed or

restricted to protect public health and safety, or the condition of the trail.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 NEPA Documents
Analysis of Management Situation 338

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3101

et. seq.):

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) has provisions that allow access

for specific purposes on federally managed lands in Alaska.

Section 811: Ensures that rural residents engaged in subsistence uses shall have reasonable

access to subsistence resources on all federal public lands in Alaska by use of snowmobiles,

motorboats, and other means of surface transportation traditionally used for such purposes by

local residents, subject to reasonable regulation.

Section 1109: Ensures any valid right of access which existed prior to ANILCA.

Section 1110(a): Ensures the use of snowmobiles (during periods of adequate snow cover,

or frozen river conditions in the case of wild and scenic rivers), motorboats, airplanes, and

non-motorized surface transportation methods for traditional activities (where such activities

are permitted by this act or other law) and for travel to and from villages and home sites on

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

lands designated as wilderness study areas.

Section 1110(b): Ensures adequate and feasible access shall be allowed to inholdings and other

valid occupiers within or effectively surrounded by conservation system units and wilderness

study areas in Alaska, including valid mining claims and subsurface rights.

Section 1111(a): Allows access across conservation system units and wilderness study areas to

adjacent State or private lands for the purposes of survey, geophysical, exploratory, or other

temporary uses.

Section 1310: Allows the use of reasonable access for operating and maintaining new and

existing air and water navigation aids, communication sites and related facilities, and facilities

for weather, climate, and fisheries research.

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines: Sets guidelines for accessibility to

places of public accommodation and commercial facilities by individuals with disabilities.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.): Requires access to facilities

designed, built, altered, or leased with federal funds.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.)

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century: Provides funding for access to federal lands

and for BLM roads.

National Trails System Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq.): Establishes a

national trails system and requires that federal rights in abandoned railroads be retained for

trail or recreation purposes, or sold with the receipts to be deposited in the Land and Water

Conservation Fund.

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users of

2005 (PL 109-59): Provides funding for transportation enhancements and recreational trails.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders
Analysis of Management Situation 339

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 (Public Law 105-178): Provides

funding for recreational trails.

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands, February, 8, 1972 (37 FR 2877):

Establishes policies and provides procedures for controlling or directing use of off-road vehicles

on public lands, with the goal of protecting resources, promoting the safety of all users, and

minimizing conflicts among various uses.

EO 11989, Off-road Vehicles, May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26959): Directs heads of federal agencies

to close areas to off-road vehicle use whenever it is determined that such use is causing or will

cause considerable adverse impact to soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or certain other

resources on the public lands.

EO 13195, Trails for America, January 18, 2001 (66 FR 7391): Directs federal agencies to

protect, connect, promote, and assist trails of all types throughout the United States to the extent

permitted by law and where practicable, and in cooperation with tribes, states, local governments,

and interested groups.

6.16.2. Policies

It is BLM policy that off-road vehicle use is an acceptable use of public land wherever it is

compatible with established resource management objectives (BLM Manual 1626, BLM 2011).

Historic Routes and Revised Statute 2477

“Revised Statute 2477” (R.S. 2477) was adopted by Congress in the 1866 Lode Mining Act and

granted rights-of-way for constructing highways across public land not reserved for public uses.

Congress repealed R.S. 2477 in 1976 with enactment of the FLPMA; however, it expressly

preserved those rights-of-way which existed on the date that FLPMA was passed. Over the years

BLM’s policy regarding recognition of those rights granted pursuant to R.S. 2477 has undergone

several changes. The most recent change came with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision

in the case of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Management, 425 F.3d 735

10th Cir. 2005. In short, the court found that the BLM lacks the authority to make binding

determinations on the validity of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. As a result of that decision, current

BLM policy is to make only informal, nonbinding determinations (of the validity of an R.S. 2477)

for its own land use planning and management purposes.

The issue of determining the validity of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way is outside the scope of the RMP.

Land use planning does not affect valid R.S. 2477 rights or future assertions. In the absence

of specific regulation or law, the validity of all R.S. 2477 rights-of-way is determined on a

case-by-case basis through the federal courts.

The State of Alaska and the Alaska Outdoor Council have identified approximately 50 potential

R.S. 2477 trails in the planning area; however, only one has been determined to be valid by

a court of appropriate jurisdiction. The State of Alaska initiated litigation in 2004 (State of

Alaska v. United States, F970009CV) seeking to quiet title an R.S. 2477 route (Slate Creek)

across BLM-managed public lands between Coldfoot and Chandalar Lake. The parties reached a

settlement agreement in 2005, which concluded the litigation and resulted in the State holding a

60 foot wide right-of-way along Slate Creek to State lands outside the Utility Corridor. The Final

Judgement from U.S. District Court states that except for the question of width, the right-of-way

shall be treated as if it were established under R.S. 2477 for the purposes of determining the scope

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 340

of property rights, permissible uses, and extent of any federal regulatory authority. Although

treated like an R.S. 2477 right-of-way, settlement of the case did not establish one way or the

other whether the Slate Creek route was established under R.S. 2477.

6.16.3. MOUs

The BLM and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities have several

memoranda of understanding (MOU) which address construction and maintenance of waysides

along the Dalton Highway. These MOUs were approved from 1999 to 2006. These MOUs are

being considered for revision with a goal of combining them all into one master MOU covering

maintenance of facilities along the Dalton Highway.

Federal Lands Management Agencies Regional Long Range Transportation Plan – Alaska

Region, 2009: Developed by the BLM, NPS, USFWS, USDA, and Alaska Department of

Transportation and Public Facilities. Provides a tool for the agencies to work together to set

statewide transportation policies and leverage funding. Meets requirements for federal land

management agencies to conduct long-range transportation planning.

6.16.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● BLM Manual 1626: Travel and Transportation Management (BLM 2011).

● BLM Manual 6250: National Scenic and Historic Trail Administration.

● BLM Manual 8330: Trail Management Areas—Secretarial Designated National Recreation,

Water, and Connecting and Side Trails.

● BLM Manual 8353: Trail Management Areas—Secretarial Designated National Recreation,

Water, and Connecting and Side Trails.

● BLM Handbook H-8342-1: Travel and Transportation Management (BLM 2012c).

● BLM Handbook H-9113-1: Roads Design.

● BLM Handbook H-9115-1: Primitive Roads Design.

6.16.5. State Laws and Regulations

● 11 Alaska Administrative Code 96.020: Generally Allowed Uses on State Land

● 19 Alaska Administrative Code 40.210:

James Dalton Highway, Prohibition of Off-Road Vehicles

6.17. Land Tenure, Land Use, and Withdrawals

6.17.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203, 85 Stat. 688): Requires the transfer

of 45 million acres of public land to Alaska Native corporations.

Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Act of 1998 (Section 432 of Public Law 105-276, Sect. 432,

112 Stat. 2516): Amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to allow certain Alaska

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 MOUs
Analysis of Management Situation 341

Native veterans serving in the military between 1969 and 1971 an opportunity to apply for a

160-acre Native allotment on eligible federal lands.

The Act of May 24, 1928, as amended (49 U.S.C. App. 211-213): Authorizes the Secretary to

lease contiguous unappropriated public lands (not to exceed 2,560 acres) for a public airport.

Condemnation Act of 1888, as amended (40 U.S.C. 257): Authorizes officers of the government

to procure real estate for erecting a public building or other public uses, through condemnation,

under judicial process, whenever it is necessary or advantageous to the government to do so.

Engle Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 156): Provides that withdrawals for the Department of Defense for

more than 5,000 acres shall be made by Congress.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as amended (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.):

Authorizes: acquisition of lands or interests in lands; delineation of boundaries in which the

federal government has right, title, or interest; sale of lands; exchange or conveyance of public

lands; management of the use, occupancy, and development of public lands through leases and

permits; determination of the suitability of public lands for rights-of-way purposes; review of

land classifications in land use planning; modification or termination of land classifications when

consistent with land use plans; modification, or revocation of withdrawals.

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 (43 U.S.C. 2301): Allows the BLM to

retain receipts from land sales and to use them to cover administrative costs and acquire properties

to improve the Nation’s land management pattern.

Federal Power Act of 1920 as amended (16 U.S.C. 818): Allows other uses of federal

waterpower withdrawals with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.):

Provides for the establishment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, special BLM

accounts in the Treasury, the collection and disposition of recreation fees, the authorization for

appropriation of recreation fee receipts, and other purposes. Authorizes planning, acquisition,

and development of needed land and water areas and facilities.

Native Allotment Act of 1906, as amended in 1956: The act allowed an Alaskan Indian and/or

Eskimo to receive up to 160 acres of vacant and unappropriated land. It requires the adjudication

of hundreds of small acreage sites throughout Alaska, which must be settled prior to completing

the final survey and transfer of lands under both the ANCSA and the Statehood Act.

Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869): Authorizes the

Secretary to classify public lands for lease or sale for recreation or public purposes. The act was

amended in 1988 to provide for suitable public lands to be made available for use as solid waste

disposal sites, in a manner that will protect the United States against unforeseen liability.

Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, November 16, 1973: Authorizes the Secretary of the

Interior to oversee the construction, maintenance, operation, and termination of the Trans-Alaska

Pipeline.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1971 (42

U.S.C. 4601): Provides policy for federal acquisition of lands and interests in lands, and ensures

the fair treatment of persons whose real property is acquired or who are displaced as a result

of a federal project.

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders
Analysis of Management Situation 342

6.17.2. Policies

FLPMA establishes as public policy that in general, public lands will remain in federal ownership.

Additional policy is laid out in the BLM manual sections listed below.

It is general policy of the BLM to: give proper consideration to the major or principal right-of-way

use on the public lands; provide for right-of-way use of the public land; and allow owners of

non-federal lands surrounded by public land managed under FLPMA, a degree of access that will

provide for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the non-federal land (BLM Manual 2801).

6.17.3. NEPA Documents

Final Environmental Impact Statement Renewal of the Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska

Pipeline System Right-of-Way. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

November 2002.

6.17.4. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

● BLM Manual 2200: Land Exchanges

● BLM Manual 2801: Rights-of-Way General

● BLM Manual 2802: Lands Available for FLPMA Grants

● BLM Manual 2803: Qualifications for Holding FLPMA Grants

● BLM Manual 2804: Applying for FLPMA Grants

● BLM Manual 2805: Terms and Conditions for FLPMA Grants

● BLM Manual 2806: Rent

● BLM Manual 2807: Grant Administration

● BLM Manual 2808: Instruction Memoranda

● BLM Manual 2809: Special Considerations

● BLM Manual 9310: Appraisal of Real Property

● Department of the Interior Manual 603: Withdrawals

6.18. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

This section includes discussion of Research Natural Areas (RNAs) which are considered a type

of area of critical environmental concern (ACEC).

Section 202 (c)(3) of FLPMA mandates that the BLM give priority to the designation and

protection of ACECs in the development and revision of land use plans. ACECs must meet the

relevance and importance criteria in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b) and must require special management

to: protect the area and prevent irreparable damage to resources or natural systems; or protect

life and promote safety in areas where natural hazards exist.

Research Natural Areas (RNA) are established and maintained for the 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 (43 CFR 8223).

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 343

6.18.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

43 CFR Part 1610.7-2(b): Designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Areas

having potential for Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designation and protective

management shall be identified and considered throughout the resource management planning

process.

43 CFR Part 8223: Areas established as research natural areas shall be of sufficient number and

size to adequately provide for scientific study, research, and demonstration purposes.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as amended (Section 202 (c)(3)): Gives

priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern.

6.18.2. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

BLM Manual 1613: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. This manual section provides

direction regarding research natural areas.

6.19. Wilderness Study Areas

This section addresses federal laws and authorizations that pertain to the management of the

Central Arctic Management Area Wilderness Study Area (WSA).

6.19.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Wilderness Act of 1964: Established a national policy to preserve wilderness, established a

definition of wilderness, and asserted the exclusive power of the Congress to designate wilderness

areas.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–579) (Section

603):Provides for areas recommended for designation as wilderness to be managed in such a way

as to not impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.

ANILCA (Public Law 96–487) Section 707, 1001, 1004, 1315, 1317, 1320: Requires the BLM

to conduct an interdisciplinary study of natural resources on the federal lands within the Central

Arctic Management Area and directs the Secretary of the Interior to review the suitability or

nonsuitability of the lands for preservation as wilderness.

ANILCA Section 1001 Report Findings and Recommendations (BLM 1988b): The report

serves as the wilderness study report for the Central Arctic Management Area required by the

BLM’s wilderness study process.

Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1976 (PL- 104–333): Section 302

Anaktuvuk Pass Land Exchange transferred lands from a portion of the Nigu River area from

the Central Arctic Management Area WSA to the National Park Service, Gates of the Arctic

National Park and Preserve.

American Rivers Settlement (August 30, 1993): American Rivers et al. v. Bruce Babbitt et

al.: As part of the suit settlement, the BLM agreed to manage lands west of the Killik River

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority

April 2016 Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders
Analysis of Management Situation 344

in a manner that would protect their wilderness values until Congress acts on the wilderness

recommendation.

Public Land Orders (PLOs) affecting the planning area:

● PLO 5179 3/9/1972: Withdrew lands for classification – no selections allowed, no mining, no

mineral leasing

● PLO 5250 9/12/1972: Added lands within the Central Arctic Management Area WSA to PLO

5179. No selections allowed, no mining, no mineral leasing.

● PLO 5396 9/14/1973: Amended 5179 allowing regional corporation to select lands. Retains

closure to mining and mineral leasing.

● PLO 5556 12/10/1975: Amended PLO 5179 by deleting lands. No mineral leasing.

● PLO 5653 11/16/1978: Emergency withdrawal of certain lands in Alaska for protection of

resources. No selections allowed.

● PLO 5654 11/17/1978: Legal description for lands in PLO 5653.

● PLO 5860 5/4/1981: Allowed Arctic Slope Regional Corporation to select lands. Closed to

State selection, mining, and mineral leasing.

● PLO 5951 5/29/1981: Amended PLO 5179 to allow State selections. No mineral leasing.

● PLO 7032 2/28/1994: Withdraws 2,560 acres to protect paleoindian site known as the Mesa site

for a period of 20 years. Closes lands to settlement, sale, and mining, but not to mineral leasing.

● PLO 7231 12/20/1996: Amended PLO 5860 to allow the State to select lands.

● PLO 7823: Extends duration of the withdrawal created by PLO 7032 for an additional 20-year

period.

6.19.2. NEPA Documents

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Wilderness Recommendations for the Central Arctic

Management Area Wilderness Study Area Alaska. Department of the Interior, BLM September

1988.

6.19.3. BLM Manuals and Handbooks

BLM Manual 6330: Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas

6.20. Tribal Interest and Subsistence

6.20.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3101 et. seq.): Title

VIII provides for the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska, including both

Natives and non-Natives, on the public lands.

EO 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, May 19, 1998

(63 FR 27655): Provides, in part, that each federal agency shall establish regular and meaningful

consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in developing regulatory practices

on federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.

EO 13007, American Indian and Alaska Native Religious Freedom and Sacred Land

Protections, May 24, 1996 (61 FR 26771): Directs federal agencies to accommodate access to

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 NEPA Documents
Analysis of Management Situation 345

and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and avoid adversely

affecting the physical integrity of such sites.

6.20.2. Policies

Instruction Memorandum AK-86-350: Policy for Section 810 Compliance with the Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (August 26, 1986).

6.21. Social and Economic Conditions

6.21.1. Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes and Orders

EO 12898, Environmental Justice, February 11, 1994 (49 FR 7629): Requires that each

federal agency consider the impacts of its programs on minority and low income populations.

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109): Requires and encourages preventing

and reducing waste streams and other pollution through minimization, process change, and

recycling. Encourages and requires developing new technology and markets to meet objectives.

6.21.2. Policies

Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-167, Social and Economic Analysis for Land Use

Planning: Provides guidance on integrating social science and economic information into land

use planning; supplements guidance in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1).

Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-169, Use of the Economic Profile System in Planning

and Collaboration: describes the Economic Profile System (EPS) and provides guidance for the

use of EPS as a community involvement technique and a source of economic data in planning

and NEPA analysis.

Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-131, Guidance on estimating nonmarket values: directs

BLM managers and staff to utilize estimates of nonmarket environmental values in NEPA analysis

supporting planning and other decision-making where relevant and feasible.

Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, 1997: The

Council on Environmental Quality guidance on complying with environmental justice objectives

during the NEPA process. Available online at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf

Chapter 6 Specific Mandates and Authority April 2016 Policies
Analysis of Management Situation 346

Acronyms
 ACC: Alaska Administrative Code

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ADFG: Alaska Department of Fish and Game

AIVC: Alaska Interagency Visitor Center

ANCSA: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANILCA: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

AO: Authorized Officer

AS: Alaska Statute

ASRC: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

ATV: All-terrain vehicle

BLM: Bureau of Land Management

CAA: Clean Air Act

CAMA: Central Arctic Management Area

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

DHCMA: Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area

DOI: U.S. Department of the Interior

EFH: Essential fish habitat

EIS: Environmental impact statement

EO: Executive Order

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act

IM: Instruction Memorandum

MFP: Management Framework Plan

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NPS: National Park Service

NSO: No surface occupancy

OHV: Off-highway vehicle [new terminology]

April 2016 Acronyms
Analysis of Management Situation 347

ORV: Off-road vehicle [old terminology]
 

ORV: Outstandingly remarkable value [pertaining to wild and scenic rivers]
 

P.L.: Public Law
 

PLO: Public Land Order
 

R: Range

RAMP: Recreation Activity Management Plan

RMP: Resource Management Plan

RNA: Research Natural Area

ROD: Record of Decision

ROW: Right-of-way

SRMA: Special Recreation Management Area

SRP: Special Recreation Permit

T: Township

TAPS: Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

TE: Threatened and Endangered [species]

U.S.C.: U.S. Code

USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS: U.S. Geological Survey

VRI: Visual Resource Inventory

VRM: Visual Resource Management

WSA: Wilderness Study Area (CAMA WSA)

WSR: Wild and Scenic River [Unalakleet WSR]

April 2016 Acronyms
Analysis of Management Situation 348

Adaptive Management:

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

(ACEC):

Casual Use:

Curb Weight:

Designated Trail:

Gross Vehicle Weight

Rating:

Linear Transportation

Feature:

Glossary

A system of management practices based on clearly identified

outcomes, including monitoring, to determine if management

actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating management

changes that will best ensure that outcomes are either met or the

outcomes are re-evaluated. Adaptive management recognizes that

knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain,

making this the preferred method of management in those cases.

An area within the public lands where special management attention

is required to protect important historic, cultural, or scenic values;

fish and wildlife or natural systems or processes; or to protect life

and safety from natural hazards.

Means any short-term non-commercial activity that causes no

appreciable damage or disturbance to the public lands, their

resources or improvements, and which is not prohibited by closure

of the lands to such activities. See 43 CFR 2920.0-5(k).

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.”

A narrow section of developed linear travel way, with an approved

designation for traversing by means of human-powered, stock, or

off-highway vehicle forms of transportation. Travel on designated

trails allows a 100 foot wide travel way (50 feet either side of center

line of trail). Motor vehicle designations include parking along

designated routes and at facilities associated with designated routes

when it is safe to do so and will not cause damage to resources.

This provision recognizes that, from a practical standpoint, one

vehicle width from the edge of the route surface may be necessary

to park a vehicle, allow another party to pass, perform a repair,

allow dispersed camping off the trail, and allow enough area to

navigate around obstacles until a trail can be repaired.

Total weight of 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 manufacturer’s

limitations). Pull-behind trailers are not included in the GVWR

calculation for the vehicle.

Engineering term used to describe building and non-building

facility and transportation construction, which includes roads,

primitive roads, and trails that are included in the Facility Asset

Management System (FAMS). Assets are maintained through the

annual maintenance and deferred maintenance programs. (See the

BLM Roads and Trails Terminology Report.)

April 2016 Glossary
Analysis of Management Situation 349

Off-highway Vehicle

(OHV):

● Road: A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for

use by low-clearance vehicles having four or more wheels, and

maintained for regular and continuous use.

● Primitive Road: A linear route managed for use by four-wheel

drive or high-clearance vehicles. These routes do not customarily

meet any BLM road design standards. Unless specifically

prohibited, primitive roads can also include other uses such as

hiking, biking, or horseback riding.

● Trail: Linear routes managed for human-powered, stock, or

off-highway vehicle forms of transportation or for historical or

heritage values. Trails are not generally managed for use by

four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles.

OHV is synonymous with off-road vehicles (ORV). ORV is defined

in 43 CFR 8340.0-5 (a): Off-road vehicle means 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 while being used for

emergency purposes; (3) Any vehicle whose use is expressly

authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially

approved; (4) Vehicles in official use; and (5) Any combat or

combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense

emergencies.

Off-highway Vehicle
 

Area Designations:
 

Refers to the land use plan decisions that permit, establish

conditions, or prohibit OHV activities on specific areas of public

lands. All public lands are required to have OHV designations (43

CFR 8342.1). The CFR requires all the BLM-managed public lands

to be designated as Open, Limited or Closed to off-road vehicles,

and provides guidelines for designation. The definitions of Open,

Limited and Closed are provided in 43 CFR 8340.0-5 (f), (g) and

(h), respectively.

● “Open” designations are used for intensive OHV use areas where

there are no special restrictions or where there are no compelling

resource protection needs, user conflicts, or public safety issues

to warrant limiting cross-country travel. See 43 CFR 8340.05(f).

● “Limited” designations are used where OHV use is managed to

meet specific resource management objectives. Management

of OHVs may include limiting the number or type of vehicles,

time, or season of use; allowing permitted or licensed use

only; limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails; or other

limitations necessary to meet resource management objectives,

including certain competitive or intensive use areas that have

special limitations. See 43 CFR 8340.05(g).

April 2016 Glossary
Analysis of Management Situation 350

Off-road Vehicle (ORV):

Public Land Order

(PLO):

R.S. 2477:

R&PP lease:

Record of decision

(ROD):

Recreation activity

management plan

(RAMP):

Recreation and Public

Purposes (R&PP) Act:

Rectify, mitigation:

Reduce or eliminate over

time, mitigation:

Research Natural Area

(RNA):

● "Closed" designations are used for an area or trail where off-road

vehicle use is prohibited, except where authorized by the BLM.

See 43 CFR 8340.05(h).

The legal term used in the 43 CFR 8340 regulations. See the

Off-highway Vehicle definition.

Congressional or secretarial orders defining withdrawals of public

lands by statute or secretarial order from operation of some or all

of the public land laws.

A provision originally part of the 1866 Mining Act that states in

its entirety, “The right-of-way for the construction of highways

over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.”

In 1873, the provision was separated from the Mining Act and

reenacted as Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477. In 1938, it was recodified

as 43 U.S.C. Section 932. FLPMA repealed both the 1866 Mining

Act and R.S. 2477, but all rights-of-way that existed on the date of

the repeal (October 21, 1976) are preserved under 43 U.S.C. Section

1769. The State of Alaska recognizes approximately 650 R.S. 2477

routes throughout the State. The assertion of these routes has not

been recognized, and current BLM policy is to defer any processing

of R.S. 2477 assertions except where there is a demonstrated and

compelling need to make a determination.

A lease issued by the federal government under the Recreation &

Public Purposes Act for use of public lands for community and

recreational purposes, such as parks and cemeteries.

A public document associated with an environmental impact

statement (EIS) that identifies all alternatives, provides the final

decision, the rationale behind that decision, and commitments to

monitoring and mitigation.

An activity-level or step-down plan to develop more specific

management guidelines for a special recreation management area.

An act authorizing the sale or lease of public lands for recreational

or public purposes to State and local governments and to qualified

non-profit organizations.

Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the

affected environment. (40 CFR 1508.20)

Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and

maintenance operations during the life of the action. (40 CFR

1508.20)

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

April 2016 Glossary
Analysis of Management Situation 351

Residual impact:

Right-of-way (ROW):

Scoping:

Sensitive Species:

Snowmobile:

Special Forest Products:

Special Recreation

Management Area

(SRMA):

Special recreation

permit:

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.

Impacts from a land-use authorization that remain after applying

avoidance, minimization, rectification, and reduction/elimination

measures; also referred to as unavoidable impacts.

The legal right to pass over another owner's land, or the area over

which a right-of-way exists.

The process used to determine, through public involvement, the

range of issues that the RMP should address.

Those wildlife, fish, or plant species designated by the BLM

Alaska State Director, usually in cooperation with the State agency

responsible for managing the species, as sensitive. They are: (1)

species under status review by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or

the National Marine Fisheries Service; (2) species whose numbers

are declining so rapidly that federal listing may be necessary; (3)

species with typically small and widely dispersed populations; or

(4) species inhabiting ecological refugia or other specialized or

unique habitats.

A motorized vehicle designed for use over snow that runs on 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, is

steered using handlebars, and has a seat designed to be straddled

by the operator. A snowmobile does not include machinery used

strictly for grooming non-motorized trails.

Any “non-timber” forest resource. Special forest products may

include: bark, boughs, burls, floral greenery, mushrooms, sap, wild

berries, and Christmas trees.

Areas where the management emphasis is on recreation, though

other resource uses and development are allowed.

A means of authorizing recreational uses of public lands and waters.

Special recreation permits are issued for specific recreational uses

as a means to manage visitor use, protect natural and cultural

resources, and provide a mechanism to accommodate commercial

recreational uses. There are four types of permits: commercial,

competitive, organized groups/events, and individuals or groups in

special areas.

April 2016 Glossary
Analysis of Management Situation 352

Special Status Species:

State-selected:

Subsistence:

Sustained yield:

Travel Management

Area (TMA):

Travel Management

Objective (TMO):

Travel Management

Plan (TMP):

Unencumbered/

unencumbered BLM

lands:

Special Status Species include: endangered species, threatened

species, proposed species, candidate species, State-listed species,

and BLM Alaska sensitive species.

Formerly unappropriated and unreserved public lands that were

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 will

be managed by the BLM. ANILCA allowed for overselection by

the State by up to 25 percent of the entitlement (sec. 906 (f)).

Therefore, some State-selected lands will eventually be retained in

long-term federal management.

Subsistence is defined by federal law as “the customary and

traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable

resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter,

fuel, clothing, tools or transportation; for the making and selling

of handicraft articles out of nonedible by-products of fish and

wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; and

for the customary trade, barter or sharing for personal or family

consumption.”

The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level

annual or regular output of the various renewable resources of the

national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land.

(43 U.S.C. sec. 1702(h)).

Polygons or delineated areas where travel management (either

motorized or non-motorized) needs particular focus. These areas

may be designated as Open, Limited and Closed to motorized use

and will typically have an identified and/or designated network of

roads, trails, ways and other routes that provide for public access

and travel across the planning area. All designated travel routes

within travel management areas should have a clearly identified

need and purpose, as well as clearly defined activity types, modes

of travel, and seasons or timeframes for allowable access or other

limitations.

A documented description of each route to identify management

objectives, establish maintenance levels, and ensure resource

management objectives are being met.

The document that describes the process and decisions related

to the selection and management of the transportation network.

This document can be an appendix to the RMP or a stand-alone

document subsequent to the RMP.

Public lands that have not been selected by the State of Alaska or

Native organizations. These lands will be retained in long-term

federal management.

April 2016 Glossary
Analysis of Management Situation 353

Utility Type / Terrain	 Any recreational motor vehicle other than an all-terrain vehicle,

Vehicle (UTV):	 motorcycle, or snowmobile designed for and capable of travel over

unpaved roads, traveling on four or more low-pressure tires, a curb

weight less than 1,500 pounds or less, and a maximum width of

64 inches or less. Utility type vehicles do not include vehicles

specially designed to carry a person with disabilities.

Visual Resource	 A means of managing visual resources by designating areas as

Management (VRM):	 one of four classes: Class I– maintaining a landscape setting

that appears unaltered by humans; Class II– designing proposed

alterations so as to retain the existing character of the landscape;

Class III– designing proposed alterations so as to partially retain

the existing character of the landscape; and, Class IV– providing

for management activities which require major modifications of the

existing character of the landscape.

Wild and Scenic River,	 A river that is part of the National Wild and Scenic River System.

Wild River:	 In Alaska, most Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) were designated

through the ANILCA.

Wilderness	 These attributes include the area's size, its apparent naturalness, and

characteristics:	 outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined

type of recreation. They may also include supplemental values.

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. Usually enacted

through a public land order or legislation.

April 2016	 Glossary
Analysis of Management Situation 354

References Cited
 Adleman, J.N. and E. Bluemink. 2013, Second annual Alaska strategic and critical minerals

summit: Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys Miscellaneous

Publication 151. 17 p.

Alaska Commercial Fisheries Commission. 2010. Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry

Commission Permit Database for 2010. Online at: http://www.cfec.state.ak.us/cpbycen/

2010/Mnu.htm.

Alaska Department of Commerce. Community and Regional Affairs, Community and Economic

Development. Online at: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/cra/DCRAExternal/

Community.

Alaska Department of Commerce. 2013. Alaska Fuel Price Report: Current community

conditions, July 2013. Online at: https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/4/pub/

Fuel_Price_Report_Jul_2013.pdf.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2008. 2008 Integrated

Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Alaska Department of

Conservation, Anchorage, Alaska. 136 p. Accessed 10/8/2009 online at

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/waterbody/2008_final_integrated_report.htm.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2010. Alaska’s Final 2010

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, July 15, 2010. Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2012. Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation 18 AAC Water Quality Standards, April 8, 2012. Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2013. Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, June 25,

2013. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Air Monitoring and Quality

Assurance Program, Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 1973. Alaska’s wildlife and habitat. Anchorage,

Alaska. 144 p.

ADFG. 2011. Caribou Management Report of survey-inventory activities, 1 July 2009-30 June

2010. Division of Wildlife Conservation. P. Harper, ed. Juneau, Alaska.

ADFG. 2013a. Fish distribution database. State of Alaska special status species. Online at:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov.

ADFG. 2013b. Chinook salmon stock assessment and research plan, 2013. Alaska Department

of Fish and Game, Chinook Salmon Research Team, Special Publication No. 13-01,

Anchorage, Alaska.

ADFG. 2013c. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2010 - 30

June 2012. Division of Wildlife Conservation. P. Harper ed. Juneau, Alaska.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 355

ADFG. 2014. Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of

Anadromous Fishes. Online at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov.

ADFG. 2015. Anadromous Waters Catalog, 2015 Regulatory Atlas Maps. Online at:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/index.cfm?ADFG=maps.maps.

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD). 2011. American

Community Survey 2007–2011, as reported online by Research and Analysis. Online at:

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/cen/acsarea.cfm.

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD). 2012. Alaska

Local and Regional Information Database. Research and Analysis. Online at:

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2012. Fact Sheet: Alaska Strategic

Minerals/Rare Earth Elements, Online at: http://dnr.alaska.gov/commis/priorities/

securealaskasfuture_minerals.html.

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 2010. Dalton Highway Scenic Byway

Corridor Partnership Plan, Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2015. Online at: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/

AEEE/Biomass.

Alaska exotic plant information clearinghouse database (AKEPIC). 2014. Online at:

http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/.

Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (AIWFMP). 1998. Updated in 2010.

Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (AIWFMP). 2010..

Alt, K.T. 1974. A life history study of sheefish and whitefish in Alaska. Alaska Department of

Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-9-6, Volume 15, Juneau, Alaska.

Alt, K.T. 1985. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters of western Alaska.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Project F-9-17, Volume 26, Juneau, Alaska.

Andersen, D.B., B. Retherford, and C. L. Brown. 2012. Climate Change and Impacts on

Subsistence Fisheries in the Yukon River Drainage, Alaska, April 2012 Annual Report,

Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program Project 10-250.

Andersen, D. B., C. L. Brown, R. J. Walker, and K. Elkin. 2004. Traditional Ecological

Knowledge and Contemporary Subsistence Harvest of Non-Salmon Fish in the Koyukuk

River Drainage, Alaska,” Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence,

Technical Paper 282.

Andrews, E. 1986. Yukon River Subsistence Fall Chum Fisheries: An Overview. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 157.

Arundale, W. H., and E. Jones, 1989. Historic land use processes in Alaska's Koyukuk River area,

Arctic, 42(2): 148-162.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 356

Arundale, W. H., Clark, D. W., & Quick, P. M. 1989. Current perspectives on western boreal

forest life: Ethnographic and ethnohistoric research in late prehistoric and historic

archaeology—a preface. Arctic, 42(2): 85-96.

Arnett, H. 2005. Harrison Creek Reclamation, Phase 1: An Overview of Issues and Approaches

for the Reclamation of Placer Mined Lands. Doc. No. WO 769306. Prepared by USKH,

Inc. for the BLM, Washington, DC. 81 p.

Arthur, S.M., K.R. Whitten, F.J. Mauer, and D. Cooley. 2003. Modeling the decline of the

Porcupine caribou herd, 1989-1998; the importance of survival versus recruitment.

Rangifer Special Issue 14: 123-130.

Athey, J.E., L.A. Harbo, P.S. Lasley, and L.K. Freeman. 2013, Alaska's mineral industry, 2012:

Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Special Report 68. 61 p.

Bachmann, E.N., M.J. Blessington, L.K. Freeman, R.J. Newberry, A.L. Tuzzolino, T.C. Wright,

and W. Wylie. 2013. Geochemical major-oxide, minor-oxide, trace-element, and

rare-earth-element data from rocks and stream sediments collected in 2012 in the Ray

Mountains area, Beaver, Bettles, Livengood, and Tanana quadrangles, Alaska: Alaska

Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys Raw Data File 2013-5. 4 p.

Baily, R.G. 1980. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1391. 77 p.

Ballard, W. B., K. E. Roney, D.N. Larsen, and L. A. Ayres. 1988. Demography of Noatak grizzly

bears in relation to human exploitation and mining development. Alaska Department of

Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Research Progress Report. Grants

W-22-5, W-22-6. Study 4.20. Juneau, Alaska.

Barns, Christopher. 2011. Bureau of Land Management Agency Resources, Alaska Text-based

Powerpoint Training. Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center. Online at

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=manageBLM.

Barton, L.H. 1984. A catalog of Yukon River Salmon Spawning Escapement Surveys. Technical

Data Report No. 212. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

Beechie, T. J., D.A. Sear, J.D. Olden, G.R. Pess, J.M. Buffington, H. Moir, P. Roni, and M.M.

Pollock. 2010. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience,

60(3): 209-222.

Beikman, H.M., compiler. 1980. Geologic map of Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey: Map

SG0002-1T and 2T, Scale 1:2,500,000.

Bernhardt, E. L., T.N. Hollingsworth, & F.S. Chapin III. 2011. Fire severity mediates

climate‐driven shifts in understory community composition of black spruce stands of

interior Alaska. Journal of Vegetation Science, 22(1): 32-44.

Boertje, R.D., M.A. Keech, D.D. Young, K.A. Kellie, and C.T. Seaton. 2009. Managing for

elevated yield of moose in Interior Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. 73 (3):

314-327.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 357

Briskey, J.A., and K.J. Schulz. (eds.) 2007. Proceedings for a Workshop on Deposit Modeling,

Mineral Resource Assessment, and Their Role in Sustainable Development: U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 1294, pp. 55-62.

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. Ditomaso, R.J.

Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of Invasive Alien Plants on Fire Regimes.

BioScience: 54(7) pp. 677-688.

Brost, B.M. and P. Beier. 2012. Use of land facets to design linkages for climate change.

Ecological Applications, 22:1(87–103).

Brown, Jerry and R. A. Kreig (eds.) 1983. Guidebook to Permafrost and Related Features

along the Elliott and Dalton Highways, Fox to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Alaska Division of

Geological and Geophysical Surveys, College, Alaska.

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR). 1977. The Iditarod Trail (Seward-Nome Route) and other

Alaska gold rush trails. Prepared by BOR under authority of the National Trails System

Act. September 1977.

Caikoski, J.R. 2009. Porcupine Caribou Herd - units 25A, 25B, 25D, and 26C in Caribou

management report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 2006-30 June 2008. Edited by

Harper, P. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, AK. pp. 240-258. .

Cameron, R.D., W.T. Smith, R.G. White, and B. Griffith. 2005. Central Arctic caribou and

petroleum development: distributional, nutritional, and reproductive implications. Arctic

58(1): 1-9.

Cameron, R. D. and K. R. Whitten. 1979. Seasonal movements and sexual aggregation of caribou

determined by aerial survey. Journal of Wildlife Management 43: 626-633.

Carlson, M. L., I.V. Lapina, M. Shephard, J.S. Conn, R. Densmore, P. Spencer, J. Heys, J. Riley,

and J. Nielsen. 2008. Invasiveness ranking system for non-native plants of Alaska. USDA

Forest Service, R10, R10-TP-143. 218 p.

Cantor, John. 2014. http://www.johncantor.com.au/the-winter-traverse.html.

Carson, R., M. Hanemann, and D. Steinberg. 1990. A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation

Estimate of the Value of Kenai King Salmon. Journal of Behavioral Economics, Volume

19, Number 1, pages 53-68.

Carroll, A.B., C. Parker, and T. Craig. 2003. Toolik Lake Research Natural Area: Rare Plant

Inventory. Fairbanks, Alaska.: U.S. Department of the Interior. BLM Alaska Open File

Report 90.

Carroll, G. M. 1992. Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Herd survey-inventory progress report, 1989-90.

Pages 177-186 in S.M. Abbott, editor. Annual Report of survey-inventory activities.

Caribou. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration.

Progress Report. Grant W-23-3, W-23-4. Juneau. 198 p.

Carroll, G.M. 1998. Moose survey-inventory management report. Pages 457-471 in M.V. Hicks,

ed. Report of survey –inventory activities, 1995-1997. Alaska Department of Fish and

Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Progress Report. Grants W-24-4, W-24-5.

Juneau, Alaska.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 358

Carroll, G.M. 2003. Unit 26A caribou management report. Pages 280-303 in C. Healy, editor.

Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2000-30 June 2002.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.

Carroll, G.M. 2010. Unit 26A moose management report. Pages 643-665 in P. Harper, editor.

Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2007-30 June 2009.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Chapin, F.S. III, T. Hollingsworth, D.F. Murray, L.A. Viereck, and M.D. Walker. 2006. “Floristic

Diversity and Vegetation Distribution in the Alaskan Boreal Forest” in Chapin, F.S. III,

M.W. Oswood, K. Van Cleve, L.A. Viereck, and D.L. Verbyla, eds., 2006, Alaska’s

Changing Boreal Forest, Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

Chapin, F.S. III, A.D. McGuire, R.W. Ruess, T.N. Hollingsworth, M.C. Mack, J.F. Johnstone,

E.S. Kasischke, E.S. Euskirchen, J.B. Jones, M.T. Jorgenson, K. Kielland, G.P. Kofinas,

M.R. Turetsky, J. Yarie, A.H. Lloyd, and D.L. Taylor. 2010. Resilience of Alaska’s Boreal

Forest to Climatic Change, Can. Journal of Forest Research 40: 1360-1370.

Chapin, F.S. III, M.W. Oswood, K.Van Cleve, L.A. Viereck, and D.L. Verbyla (editors).

2006. Alaska’s Changing Boreal Forest. Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN

978-0-19-515431-3.

Clark, A. McFadyen. 1970. The Athabascan-Eskimo Interface, Bulletin (Canadian

Archaeological Association) No. 2 (1970). pp. 13-23.

Clark, A. M., and D.W. Clark. 1974. Koyukon Athapaskan houses as seen through oral tradition

and through archaeology. Arctic Anthropology, 29-38.

Clark, M.T. Ott, R., A., Rabe, M., Vincent-Lang, D., and Woodby, D. 2010. The effects of a

changing climate on key habitats in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special

Publication No. 10-14, Anchorage, Alaska.

Carson, R.T., R.C. Mitchell, M. Hanemann, R.J. Koppa, S. Presser, and P.A. Ruude. 2003.

Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.

Environmental and Resource Economics 25: 257–286.

Christensen, N., and L. Christensen. 2009. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Study:

The Characteristics, Experiences, and Preferences of Refuge Visitors. Report to the

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,

Christensen Research, Missoula.

Cobb, E.H. 1975. Summary of references to mineral occurrences (other than mineral fuels and

construction materials) in northern Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

75-628, 106 p.

Cobb, E.H. 1977. Placer deposits map of central Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 77-168-B, 64 p., 1 sheet, scale 1:1,000,000..

Cobb, E.H. 1984. Lode gold and silver occurrences in Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral

Resource Map, MR-84.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 359

Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management in Alaska (CNIPM). 2007. Annual

meeting of the Alaska committee for noxious and invasive plant management. Online at:

http://www.uaf.edu/ces/cnipm/8th-annual.html.

Cortés-Burns, H., I. Lapina, S. Klein, M.L. Carlson. 2007. BLM-BAER final report- invasive

plant species monitoring and control: areas impacted by 2004 and 2005 fires in interior

Alaska. Technical report on file with Alaska Natural Heritage Program, Anchorage,

Alaska.

Craig, P. C. 1989a. An introduction to anadromous fishes in the Alaskan Arctic. Biological

Papers of the University of Alaska, 24:27-54.

Craig, P. C. 1989b. Subsistence Fisheries at Coastal Villages in the Alaskan Arctic, 1970-1986.

Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, 24:131-152.

Craig, T. 2013. Personal communication with Timothy Craig, Wildlife Biologist, Kanuti National

Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Daanen, R. P., G. Grosse, D.D. Darrow, T.D. Hamilton, and B.M. Jones. 2012. Rapid movement

of frozen debris-lobes: implications for permafrost degradation and slope instability in the

south-central Brooks Range, Alaska. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12: 1521–1537.

Dau, J. 2011. Units 21D, 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D, 22E, 23, 24, and 26A caribou management

report. Pages 187-250 in P. Harper, editor. Caribou management report of survey and

inventory activities 1 July 2008-30 June 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,

Juneau, Alaska.

Dau, J. and R.D. Cameron. 1986. Effects of a road system on caribou distribution during calving.

Rangifer 1: 95-101.

Davis, J. L. and P. Valkenburg. 1978. Western Arctic Caribou Herd studies. Alaska Department

of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Final Report. Grant W-17-8 and

W-17-9. Juneau. 95 p.

Davis, J.L., P. Valkenburg, and S.J. Harbo. 1979. Refinement of the aerial photo-direct count

extrapolation caribou census technique. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal

Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Final Report. Grant W-17-11. Juneau, Alaska.

Delaney, S. S., and R.G. Dulla. 2007. Alaska rural communities emmision inventory. Sierra

Research Inc, Report No. SR2007–02–01, Sacramento, California..

Department of Energy (DOE). 2008a. Photovoltaic Solar Resource of the United States Map.

U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, October, 20 2008.

Online at http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html.

Department of Energy (DOE). 2008b. Concentrating Solar Resource of the United States Map.

U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, October 20, 2008.

Online at http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html.

Diel, W.R., and A.C. Banet, Jr. 2004. Rocks, Ridges & Glaciers, a Geologic Tour along the

Denali Highway, Alaska. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 360

District Court for the District of Alaska, January 2007. State of Alaska v. United States of

America, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-0073 (RRB).

DuBois, S. D. 2010. Unit 20D moose. Pages 380-409 in P. Harper, editor. Moose management

report of survey and inventory activities. 1 July 2007-30 June 2009. Alaska Department

of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Duffield, J. 1997. Nonmarket Valuation and the Courts: The Case of the Exxon Valdez.

Contemporary Economic Policy 15(4), 98-110.

Duffield, J.W., C.J. Neher, D.A. Patterson, and O.S. Goldsmith. 2007. “Economics of Wild

Salmon Ecosystems: Bristol Bay, Alaska.” In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet; Dean, Liese,

comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: eighth World

Wilderness Congress symposium: September 30 - October 6, 2005; Anchorage, Alaska.

Proceedings RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Eagan, R. M. 1995. Units 20A, 20B, 20C, 20F, and 25C brown bear. Pages 192-212 in M.V.

Hicks, editor. Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game. Study 4.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Earnst, S.L. 2004. Status assessment and conservation plan for the Yellow-billed Loon ( Gavia

adamsii). U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5258, 42 p.

Eberlein, G.D., Chapman, R.M., Foster, H.L., and Gassaway, J.S. 1977, Map and table describing

known metalliferous and selected nonmetalliferous mineral deposits in central Alaska:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 77-168-D, 132 p., 1 sheet, scale 1:1,000,000.

Eide, S., and S. Miller. 1994. Brown bear. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Wildlife

Notebook Series.

Eiler, J. H., T. R. Spencer, J. J. Pella, and M. M. Masuda. 2006. Stock composition, run timing,

and movement patterns of Chinook salmon returning to the Yukon River basin in 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-AFSC-163.

Englehard, M., L. Ellanna, G. Sherrod, in collaboration with E.S. Burch, Jr. 1993. Ethnohistoric

Insights into Indigenous Contact and Land Use on the Upper Kobuk and Koyukuk Rivers,

University of Alaska Fairbanks; unpublished report with data from the “Northwest Areas

Ethnographic Project” funded by the National Park Service.

Esse, D.A. 2011. Characteristics of the Sulukna River spawning population of inconnu, Yukon

River drainage, Alaska. Master’s thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Esse, D.A., and C.F. Kretsinger. 2009. Abundance and run timing of adult salmon

in Clear Creek, Hogatza River, Alaska, 2000–2005. Program Report DIFR

BLM/AK/F03000–6500/FY09/1120/07. Unpublished. Bureau of Land Management,

Central Yukon Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Euskirchen, E. S., A. D. McGuire, F. S. Chapin, III, S. Yi, and C.C. Thompson. 2009. “Changes

in Vegetation in Northern Alaska under Scenarios of Climate Change, 2003–2100:

Implications for Climate Feedbacks,” Ecological Applications, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Jun.,

2009), pp. 1022-1043.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 361

Fair, J. 2002. Status and significance of yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii) populations in

Alaska. Wilderness Society.

Fish, J. T. 1998. Radio-telemetry studies of Arctic grayling in the Jim River (Dalton Highway)

during 1997-1998. Fishery Manuscript Report No. 98-4. ADFG, Division of Sport Fish,

Fairbanks, Alaska.

Foote, M. J. 1983. Classification, description, and dynamics of plant communities after fire in the

taiga of interior Alaska.

Gallant, A.L., E.F. Binnian, J.M. Omernik, and M.B. Shasby. 1995. Ecoregions of Alaska. U.S.

Gelogical Survey Professional Paper 1567. United States Goverment Printing Office,

Washington.

Gardner C.L. and K.B. Beckmen. 2008. Evaluating methods to control an infestation by the dog

louse in gray wolves. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife

Restoration. Research Annual Performance Report. Project 14.25. Juneau, Alaska.

Gasaway, J.S. and B.S. Abramson. 1977. Map and table showing distribution of known coal

deposits in central Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 77-168-G, 1 sheet,

scale 1:1,000,000.

Gasaway, W. C., R. D. Boertje, D.V. Grangaard, D. G. Kelleyhouse, R. O. Stephenson, and D.

G. Larsen. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities in Alaska and

Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildlife Monographs 120.

Gates, Kristin. 2014. http://milesforbreakfast.com/Brooks_Range__2013.html.

Goldfarb, R.J. and L.D. Miller. 1997. eds. Mineral deposits of Alaska: Economic Geology

Monograph 9, Stanford, 482 p.

Gronquist, R. 2008. White sweetclover control on the Dalton Highway with volunteers. 9th

Annual Alaska Noxious and Invasive Plants Management Workshop. October 21 – 23,

2008. Anchorage, Alaska.

Hassol, S. J.. 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic - Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge

University Press. New York, New York, USA, 139 p.

Headlee, P.G. 1996. Abundance and run timing of adult salmon and water quality in Clear Creek

(Hogatza River), Northwest Alaska, 1995. Water Resources Report No. 96-1. Tanana

Chiefs Conference, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska.

Headwaters Economics. 2013. Economic Profile System – Human Dimensions Toolkit. Available

online at: http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt.

Hegg, K.M., 1974. Forest Statistics for the Upper Koyukuk River, Alaska, 1971. USDA Forest

Service Resource Bulletin PNW-54. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station, Portland, Oregon.

Holder, R. R. and D. Senecal-Albrecht (compilers). 1998. Yukon River comprehensive salmon

plan for Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 362

Holen, D., S.M. Hazell, and D.S. Koster, editors. 2012. Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild

Resources by Communities in the Eastern Interior of Alaska, 2011. Alaska Department of

Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 372. Anchorage, Alaska.

Hollis A.L. 2007. Units 20F, 21B, 21C, 21D, and 24 caribou. Pages 158-173 in P. Harper, editor.

Caribou management report of survey ad inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Hollis, A. L. 2010a. Units 20F, 21B, 21C, 21D, 24A, 24B, and 25D caribou. Pages 171-186 in

P. Harper, editor. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July

2008-30 June 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Hollis, A. L. 2010b. Units 20C, 20F, and 25C moose. Pages 366-379 in P. Harper, editor. Moose

management report of survey and inventory activities. 1 July 2007-30 June 2009. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Hollis, A. L. 2011a. Units 20F, 21B, 21C, 21D, 24A, 24B, and 25D caribou. Pages 171-186 in

P. Harper, editor. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July

2008-30 June 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Hollis A.L. 2011b. Units 20A, 20B, 20C, and 20F black bear. Pages 225-239 in P. Harper, editor.

Black bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2007-30 June

2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 17.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Horne, J. S., T. Craig, K. Joly, G. W. Stout, M.R. Cebrian, and E. Garton. 2014. Population

characteristics, space use and habitat selection of two non-migratory caribou herds in

central Alaska, 1994-2009. Rangifer 34: 1-19.

Homer, C., J. Dewitz, J. Fry, M. Coan, N. Hossain, C. Larson, N. Herold, A. McKerrow, J.N.

VanDriel, and J. Wickham. 2007. Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database

for the Conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing,

Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 337-341.

Huntington, J., with Elliott. 2002. On the edge of nowhere. Epicenter Press.

Huntington, O.H., and A. Watson. 2012. Interdisciplinarity, native resilience, and how the riddles

can teach wildlife law in an era of rapid climate change, Wicazo Sa Review 27 (2): 49-73.

Huntsinger, E., D. Howell, and S. Whitney. 2012. Alaska Population Projections 2010 - 2035.

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis

Section, 121 p.

Hupp, C.R., and A. Simon. 1991. Bank accretion and the development of vegetated depositional

surface along modified alluvial channels. Geomorphology 4: 111-124.

Institute for Social and Economic Research. 2012. Kids Count Alaska 2011-2012. Available

online:http://kidscount.alaska.edu/.

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and

III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland,

104 p.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 363

IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group

I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, Goo. Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). 2009.

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press.

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,

USA, 1535 p.

Johnson, C.J., M.S. Boyce, R. Case, L.H.D. Cluff, R.J. Gau, A. Gunn, and R. Mulders. 2005.

Cumulative Effects of Human Developments on Arctic Wildlife. Wildlife Monographs

No. 160. 36 p.

Johnstone, J.F. and F.S. Chapin, III. 2006. Fire interval effects on successional trajectory in boreal

forests of northwest Canada. Ecosystems 9:268-277.

JTC (Joint Technical Committee of the Yukon River US/Canada Panel). 2012. Yukon River

salmon 2011 season summary and 2012 season outlook. Alaska Department of Fish

and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Regional Information Report 3A12-01,

Anchorage, Alaska.

Joly, K., C. Nellemann, and I. Vistnes. 2006. A reevaluation of caribou distribution near and

oilfield road on Alaska ‘s North Slope. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 870-873.

Joly, K., F.S. Chapin, and D.R. Klein. 2010. Winter habitat selection by caribou in relation to

lichen abundance, wildfires, grazing, and landscape characteristics in northwest Alaska.

Ecoscience 17 (3): 321-333.

Karl, T. R., J.M. Melillo, T.C. Peterson, and S.J. Hassol (editors). 2009. Global climate change

impacts in the United States, A State of Knowledge Report. New York, New York, USA.

Kofinas, G.P., F.S. Chapin, S. BurnSilver, J.I. Schmidt, N.L. Fresco, K. Kielland, S. Martin, A.

Springsteen, T.S. Rupp. 2010. “Resilience of Athabascan subsistence systems to interior

Alaska's changing climate,” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40(7): 1347-1359.

Kretsinger, C.F. and R. Brown. 2003. Interim Progress Report: Sulukna River (Nowitna River

drainage) Inconnu Spawning Habitat Investigation. Unpublished. Bureau of Land

Management, Central Yukon Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. 9p..

Kretsinger, C.F. and R. Brown. 2004. Interim Progress Report: Sulukna River (Nowitna River

drainage) Inconnu Spawning Habitat Investigation. Unpublished. Bureau of Land

Management, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Kretsinger, C.F., S. M. Will, D. R. Hunt, and M. I. Mahran. 1994. Hogatza ACEC Aquatic Habitat

Management Plan. BLM, Kobuk District, Alaska. May 1994.

Kretsinger, C.F. and S. M. Will. 1995. Indian River ACEC Aquatic Habitat Management Plan.

BLM, Kobuk District Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. May 1995.

Kruse, J. 2014. Invasive Alaska Forest Insects- Interior Only Edition: Established, Introduced

forest/urban insects (unpublished report).

Kunter, R., T.J. Carew, C. Rehn, M. Levy, N. Prenn. 2013. Canadian National Instrument

43–101 Technical Report on the Livengood Gold Project Feasibility Study. Prepared for

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 364

International Tower Hill Mines Ltd. by Samual Engineering, Inc. Colorado, September

4, 2013.

Lasley, S. 2011. Fortune Hunt Alaska: North to the Future for vital REEs. Petroleum News, 16

(19).

Lasley , S. 2012. Mining News: Alaska geologists unearth rare earths, North of 60 Mining

News, Vol. 17, No. 31.

Lenart, E.A. 2007. Units 26B and 26C Central Arctic caribou. Pages 284-308 in P. Harper, editor.

Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2002-30 June 2004.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska.

----------- 2011a. Units 26B and 26C caribou. Pages 315-345 in P. Harper, editor. Caribou

management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2008-30 June 2010. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska.

----------- 2011b. Units 25A, 25B, 25D, 26B, and 26C brown bear. Pages 299-322 in P. Harper,

editor. Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2008-30

June 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 4.0. Juneau, Alaska.

----------- 2011c. Units 26B and 26C muskox. Pages 63-84 in P. Harper, editor. Muskox

management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2008-30 June 2010. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Lent, P. 1998. Alaska’s indigenous muskoxen: a history. Rangifer 18: 133-144.

Lindsey, K.D. 1986. Paleontological Inventory and Assessment of Public Lands Administered by

Bureau of Land Management, State of Alaska, BLM, Contract #AK 950CT5-15.

Lipkin, R. and C. Parker. 1995. Rare Vascular Plants of the BLM Dalton Highway Utility

Corridor. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, Environment and Natural Resources Institute,

University of Alaska Anchorage and University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, 85 p.

Lloyd, A.H., A.E. Wilson, C. L. Fastie, and R. M. Landis. 2005. Population dynamics of black

and white spruce in the southern Brooks Range, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 35 (9): 2073-2081 PDF: Lloyd et al 2005.

Macdonald, S.O., and J. A. Cook. 2009. Recent mammals of Alaska. University of Alaska

Press. Fairbanks, Alaska.

Maier, J. A. K., J. M. Ver Hoef, A. D. McGuire, R. T. Bowyer, L. Saperstein, and H. A. Maier.

2005. Distribution and density of moose in relation to landscape characteristics: effects

of scale. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35. 10 p.

Marcotte, J. 1983. Contemporary Resource Use Patterns in Huslia, Alaska, 1983. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 133.

Fairbanks, Alaska.

Marcotte, J. 1990. Subsistence Harvest of Fish and Wildlife by Residents of Galena, Alaska,

1985-1986. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical

Paper No. 155. Juneau, Alaska.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 365

Marcotte, J., and T. Haynes. 1985. Contemporary Resource Use Patterns in the Upper Koyukuk

Region, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical

Paper No. 93. Fairbanks, Alaska.

McCollum, D.W., and S.M. Miller. 1994. Alaska Voters, Alaska Hunters, and Alaska Nonresident

Hunters: Their Wildlife Related Trip Characteristics and Economics. Anchorage, Alaska:

ADFG.

McNay, M. E. 1990. Units 20B and 25C moose. Pages 239-259 in S.O. Morgan, editor. Moose

management report of survey-inventory activities. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Study 1.0. Juneau, Alaska.

McNeeley, S., and M. Schultzski, (2011). “Anatomy of a Closing Window: Vulnerability to

Changing Seasonality in Interior Alaska,” Global Environmental Change 21: 464-473.

Mech, L.D. 1999. Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal

of Zoology 77: 1196-1203.

Melegari, J.L. 2012. Abundance and run timing of adult fall chum salmon in the Chandalar

River, Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2011. Alaska Fisheries Data Series

Number 2012-7. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Monz, C., J.L. Marion, & J. Reed. 2012. Informal Trail Monitoring in the Atigun Gorge Area

of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Final Management Rpt., Utah State University,

Logan, Utah..

Morlan, R.E. 2000. The Siruk Site, Alatna River, Alaska: A Koyukon Winter House, Arctic

Anthropology, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2000), pp. 43-59.

NLCD 2001, vegetation. National Landcover Database.

Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, and M.E. McClain. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, conservation, and

management of streamside communities. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington,

Massachusetts.

Nawrocki, T., J. Fulkerson, and M. Carlson. 2013. Alaska Rare Plant Field Guide. Alaska Natural

Heritage Program, University of Alaska Anchorage. 352 p.

NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Web Service. Arlington, Virginia. U.S.A. Online at:

http://services.natureserve.org .

National Invasive Species Information Center. 2008. United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Library. Nov. 2008. Online at: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/.

National Park Service, Air Resources Division (NPS ARD). 2013. Air Quality in National

Parks: Trends (2000–2009) and Conditions (2005–2009). Natural Resource Report

NPS/NRSS/ARD/NRR—2013/683. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Riparian Areas – Functions and strategies for

management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 366

Nelson, R., K. Mautner, and R. Bane. 1982. Tracks in the Wildland: A Portrayal of Koyukon

and Nunamiut Subsistence, Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park

Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Nelson, R. (1986 [1983]). Make Prayers to the Raven: A Koyukon View of the Northern Forest.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Newberry, R.J., T.C. Crafford, S.R. Newkirk, L.E. Young, S.W. Nelson, and N.A. Duke. 1997.

Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits of Alaska, in Goldfarb, R.J., and Miller, L.D., eds.,

Mineral deposits of Alaska: Economic Geology Monograph 9, pp. 120-150.

Nokleberg, W.J., T.K. Bundtzen, H.C. Berg, D.A. Brew, D. Grybeck, M.S. Robinson, T.E. Smith,

and W. Yeend. 1994. Metallogenic map of significant metalliferous lode deposits and

placer districts in Alaska, in Plafker, G. and H.C. Berg, eds., The geology of north America

- The geology of Alaska: The Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, vol.

G-1, plate 11, scale 1:2,500,000.

North, M. R., and M.R. Ryan. 1989. Characteristics of Lakes and Nest Sites Used by

Yellow-Billed Loons in Arctic Alaska (Características de los Lagos y el Lugar de

Anidamiento Utilizado por Gavia adamsii en Alaska). Journal of Field Ornithology,

296-304.

Northern Economics Inc. 2006. The Value of Alaska Moose. Report prepared for Anchorage

Soil and Water Conservation District and the Alaska Soil and Water Conservation District,

June 2006.

Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World. John Hopkins University Press.

Nowacki, G., P. Spencer, M. Fleming, T. Brock, and T. Jorgenson. 2001. Ecoregions of Alaska:

2001. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-297 (map).

Olson, D.L., J.B. Cronan, D. McKenzie, J.L. Barnes, A.E. Camp. 2011. Compiling, Synthesizing

and Analyzing Existing Boreal Forest Fire History Data in Alaska, JFSP Project

#06–3–1–26, July 14, 2011.

Orris, G.J., and J.D. Bliss. 1991. Some industrial mineral deposit models - Descriptive deposit

models: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-0011-A, 73 p.

Page, R., C. Gilbert, and S. Dolan. 1998. A guide to Cultural Landscape Reports. U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Stewardship and

partnerships, Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program. Washington,

DC. Available online at: http://www.nps.gov/cultural_landscapes/Documents/

Guide_to_Cultural_Landscapes.pdf.

Parrett, L.S. 2011. Unit 26A, Teshekpuk caribou herd. Pages 283-314 in P. Harper, editor.

Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2008-30 June 2010.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0 Juneau, Alaska.

Patton, W.W., S.E. Box, and E.J., Moll-Stalcup. 1994. Geology of west-central Alaska, in

Plafker, G., and Berg, H.C., eds., The geology of America - The geology of Alaska: The

Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, vol. G-1, p. 241-269.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 367

Person, B.T., Prichard, A.K., Carroll, G.M., Yokel, D.A., Suydam, R.S., and George, J.C. 2007.

Distribution and movements of the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd 1990–2005: prior to oil

and gas development. Arctic 60: 238–250.

Post, E., and M.C. Forchhammer. 2008. Climate change repduces reproductive success of an

Arctic herbivore through trophic mismatch. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society 363: 2369-2375.

Potyondy, J.P., and T.W. Geier. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide.

Publication No. FS-978. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Pritchard, D., F. Berg, W. Hagenbuck, R. Krapf, R. Leinard, S. Leonard, M. Manning, C. Noble,

and J. Staats. 2003. Riparian Area Management — A user guide to assessing proper

functioning condition and the supporting science for lentic areas. Tech. Ref. 1737-16.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource

Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado..

Racine, C. H., L.A. Johnson, and L.A. Viereck. 1987. Patterns of vegetation recovery after tundra

fires in northwestern Alaska, USA. Arctic and Alpine Research, 461-469.

Racine, C., R. Jandt, C. Meyers, and J. Dennis. 2004. Tundra fire and vegetation change along a

hillslope on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research,

36(1): 1-10.

Reynolds, H.V. 1992. Grizzly bear population ecology in the western Brooks Range, Alaska.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Progress Report to National Park Service, Alaska

Regional Office. Fairbanks, Alaska.

Reynolds, P.E. 2001. Reproductive patterns of female muskoxen in northeastern Alaska. Alces

37:1-8.

Reynolds, P. E., H. V. Reynolds, and R. T. Shideler. 2002. Predation and multiple kills of

muskoxen by grizzly bears. Ursus 13:79-84.

Robinson, S. 1985. Status of the Ray Mountain caribou herd. BLM-Alaska Open File Report 12.

Rupp, T. S., F.S. Chapin III, and A.M. Starfield. 2001. Modeling the influence of topographic

barriers on treeline advance at the forest-tundra ecotone in northwestern Alaska. Climatic

Change, 48(2-3), 399-416.

Rupp, T.S., M. Olson, L.G. Adams, B.W. Dale, K. Joly, J. Henkelman, W.B. Collins, and A.M.

Starfield. 2006. Simulating the influences of various fire regimes on caribou winter

habitat. Ecological Applications 16: 1730-1743.

Rupp, T.S., and A.L. Springsteen. 2009b. BLM Eastern Interior Management Area Climate

Change Report. Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning, University of Alaska Fairbanks,

Fairbanks, AK. Online at http://www.snap.uaf.edu/.

Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (SNAP). 2011. NPR-A Climate Change

Analysis: An Assessment of Climate Change Variables in the National Petroleum Reserve

in Alaska, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) document, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 368

Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (SNAP). 2013. Webpage:

http://www.snap.uaf.edu/ . A research institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Seavoy, R.J. 2011. Units 19A, 19B, 19C, 19D, 21A, and 21E caribou. Pages 116-127 in P. Harper,

editor. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2008-30 June

2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Schwartz, C. C., M. E. Hubbert, and A. W. Franzmann. 1988. Energy requirements of adult

moose for winter maintenance. Journal of Wildlife Management 52 (1): 26-33.

Silva, J.B., L. G. Adams, and R. Gal. 1985. Habitat evaluation for the Teshekpuk Lake special

area study. Bureau of Land Management. Arctic Resource Area, Fairbanks, Alaska. 183 p.

Skurka, Andrew. 2011. Description of Alaska-Yukon Expedition. Online at:

http://andrewskurka.com/adventures/alaska-yukon-expedition/.

Slaten, R. 2014.Mid-Year Economic Outlook: The Great Alaska Comeback. Alaska Business

Monthly (ABM), July 1, 2014.

Smith, L.C., Y. Sheng, G.M. McDonald, and L.D. Hinzman. 2005. Disappearing Arctic lakes.

Science Vol. 308 (3) p. 1429.

Smithwick E.A.H., M.G. Turner, M.C. Mack, F.S. Chapin III. 2005. Post-fire soil N cycling

in northern conifer forests affected by severe, stand-replacing wildfires. Ecosystems,

8:163–181.

Sorbel, B., J. Allen. 2005. Space-based burn severity mapping in Alaska's National Parks. Alaska

Park Science , 4-11.

Spellman, B.T. and T.L. Wurtz. 2010. Invasive sweetclover (Melilotus alba) impacts native

seedling recruitment along floodplains of interior Alaska. Biol. Invasions. Online at:

http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Spellman_Wurtz_2010.pdf.

Spencer, T. and J.H. Eiler. 2004. Aerial tracking surveys of sections of the Yukon River Basin.

Study Number URE-18N-04. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska.

Stegmann, A. J., P. J. Fix, and T.L. Teel. 2008. Benefits Based Management Study for the Dalton,

Taylor and Denali Highways. Project report for USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Fairbanks, Alaska: Department of Resources Management, University of Alaska

Fairbanks.

Stout, G.W. 2009. Units 21B, 21C, and 21D wolf. Pages 209-219 in P. Harper, editor. Wolf

management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2005-30 June 2008. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game. Project 14.0. Juneau, Alaska.

Szumigala, D.J. and M.B. Werdon. 2011. Rare-Earth Elements: A brief overview including uses,

worldwide resources, and known occurrences in Alaska: Alaska Division of Geological

and Geophysical Surveys Information Circular 61, 12 p.

Tape, K., M. Sturm, and C. Racine. 2006. The evidence for shrub expansion in Northern Alaska

and the Pan-Arctic. Global Change Biology 22: 686-702.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 369

Tausch, R.J. 2008. Invasive plants and climate change. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Online at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/invasive-plants.shtml.

Tidwell, A.B., R.F. Shalk, Carlson, and K. Karle. 2000. Development of Improved Techniques

to Reclaim Placer-Mined Watersheds. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Department of

Civil and Environmental Engineering. 80 p.

Troyer, K.D. 1993. Sonar enumeration of chum salmon in the South Fork Koyukuk River, 1990.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Resource Office, Alaska Fisheries Technical

Report Number 19, Fairbanks, Alaska.

University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). 2008. SNAP (Scenarios Network for Alaska & Arctic

Planning): Preliminary report to the governor’s sub-cabinet on climate change. Online:

https://www.snap.uaf.edu/projects/governors-subcabinet.

U.S. Census. 2010. Economic Profile System Data. Available online at:	 http://

headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1979, Soil Conservation Service, 1979. Alaska

Exploratory Soil Survey.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1999. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic

system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural

Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2004.

Soil Survey of the Greater Fairbanks Area, Alaska. 295 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006-2012. Forest Health Reports. U.S. Forest

Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework. A

Framework for assessing and tracking changes to watershed condition. Publication No.

FS-977. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska

2012, Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region, Publication R10–PR-32.

February 2013.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. Final Environmental Impact

Statement for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska. NMFS,

Alaska Region, April 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008a. Photovoltaic Solar Resource of the United States Map.

U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, October, 20 2008.

Online at http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html.

U.S Department of Energy (DOE). 2008b. Concentrating Solar Resource of the United States

Map. U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, October 20,

2008. Online at http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html.

April 2016	 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 370

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1980. Nonwilderness

Assessment: The Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, Final Decisions. Anchorage,

Alaska.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1983. River Management Plan

for the Unalakleet National Wild River, A component of the National Wild and Scenic

Rivers System. Anchorage District, Alaska.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1988a. Manual 6500 –

Wildlife and Fisheries Management. BLM, Washington DC.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1988b. Manual 1613 — Areas

of Critical Environmental Concern. BLM, Washington DC. September 29, 1988.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1989. Proposed Resource

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Utility Corridor

Planning Area. BLM, Arctic District Office, September 27, 1989.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1991a. Utility Corridor

Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Record of Decision. BLM,

Arctic Field Office, January 11, 1991.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1991b. Recreation Area

Management Plan – Dalton Highway. Arctic District Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Undated. Interpretive

Plan for the Dalton Highway Recreation Management Area. Arctic District Office,

Fairbanks, Alaska.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1996. Partners Against

Weeds, An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997. Environmental

Assessment AK-040–96–015, Iditarod National Historic Trail. January 28, 1997.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2004. Alaska Statewide Land

Health Standards and Guidelines. Instruction Memorandum No. AK 2004-023.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005a. Handbook H-1601-1 –

Land Use Planning Handbook. BLM, Washington DC. March 11, 2005.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005b. BLM Wildland Fire

Management Plan. September 2005.

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2007a). Vegetation Treatments

Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States, Final Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement (PEIS). Reno, NV.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008a. Dalton Visitor

Services Reports, 1989-2008.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008b. Manual 6840 –

Special Status Species Management, December 2008.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 371

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008c. Handbook H-1790-1

— National Environmental Policy Handbook. BLM, Washington DC.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. BLM Alaska Revised

Sensitive Species Lists [Memorandum]. Anchorage, Alaska.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010b. BLM-Alaska Invasive

Species Management. Anchorage, Alaska.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Manual 1626 — Travel and

Transportation Management. BLM, Washington DC.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2012a. Manual 6400 – Wild and

Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, Planning,

and Management. BLM, Washington DC. July 2012.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2012b. A Desk Guide to

Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners,

BLM, Washington DC.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2012c. Handbook H-8342-1

BLM Travel and Transportation Management. BLM, Washington DC. August 1982.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013. Dalton Management

Area Integrated Invasive Plant Strategic Plan. BLM, Central Yukon Field Office,

Fairbanks, Alaska.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013. Manual 3600 – Mineral

Material Disposal. BLM Washington DC.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015. Handbook H-3600-1

Mineral Material Disposal. BLM, Washington DC.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and Department of Energy (DOE).

2003. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Assessing the Potential for Renewable

Energy on Public Lands. February 2003.

U. S. Department of Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982. Peregrine Falcon

Recovery Plan –Alaskan Population.

U. S. Department of Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Draft

Environmental Impact Statement Propose Land Exchange, Yukon Flats National Wildlife

Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior, Region 7, Anchorage, Alaska.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Appendix H.

Wilderness Review. Fairbanks, Alaska.

U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 2004. Alaska Resource Data Files (ARDF):

available at http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov.

U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 2013. Mineral commodity summaries 2013:

U.S. Geological Survey, 198 p.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 372

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1982. Final wild and scenic river report

for the Melozitna River, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1984. Wild and scenic river study for the

Yukon River (Ramparts section), Alaska: final. Anchorage, Alaska.

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1978. Floodplain management guidelines for implementing EO

11988. In Federal Register, vol. No. 29, February 10, 1978.

Valkenburg, P. 1993. Central Arctic caribou. Pages 225-244 in S. M. Abbott, editor. Caribou

management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 1990-30 June 1992. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game. Study 3.0 Juneau, Alaska.

Van Cleve, K. and L.A. Viereck. 1981. Forest succession in relation to nutrient cycling in the

boreal forest of Alaska. Pages 185-211 in D.C. West, H.H. Shugart, and D.B. Botkin, eds.

Forest succession: concepts and application. Springer Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

VanHatten, G.K. 1997. Abundance and run timing of adult summer run chum salmon

(Oncorhynchus keta) and water quality in Clear Creek (Hogatza River), Northwest Alaska,

1997. Water Resources Report No. 97–3. Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc., Fairbanks,

Alaska.

VanHatten, G.K. 1998. Abundance and run timing of adult summer run chum salmon

(Oncorhynchus keta) and water quality in Clear Creek (Hogatza River), Northwest Alaska,

1998. Water Resources Report No. 98–1. Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc., Fairbanks,

Alaska.

VanHatten, G. K. 2005. Abundance and run timing of adult salmon in the Kateel River, Koyukuk

National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2001-2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska

Fisheries Data Series Report Number 2005-2. Fairbanks, Alaska.

Viereck, L.A. 1983. The Effects of Fire in Black Spruce Ecosystems of Alaska and Northern

Canada. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., Editors. The role of fire in northern

circumpolar ecosystems. New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.:201-220.

Viereck, L. A., and L.A. Schandelmeier. 1980. Effects of fire in Alaska and adjacent Canada: a

literature review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska

State Office.

Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, and M.J. Foote. 1993. An overview of the vegetation and soils

of the floodplain ecosystems of the Tanana River, interior Alaska. Canadian Journal

of Forest Research 23:889-898..

Villano, K. L. 2008. Wildfire burn susceptibility to non-native plant invasions in black spruce

forests of interior Alaska. Master’s Thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Villano, K.L. and C.P.H. Mulder. 2008. Invasive plant spread in burned lands of interior Alaska.

Final report for National Park Service, Alaska Region, and National Aeronautics and

Space Administration. Fairbanks, Alaska. 25 p.

Wahrhaftig, C. 1965. Physiographic divisions of Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Professional

Paper 482, 52 p., 6 sheets.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 373

Watson, A. 2013. Misunderstanding the Nature of Co-Management, Environmental Management

52 (5), 1085-1102.

Watson, A., and O.H. Huntington. 2008. They're here—I can feel them: the epistemic spaces of

Indigenous and Western Knowledges,” Social and Cultural Geography 9 (3), 257-281.

Watson, A., and O.H. Huntington. 2014. Transgressions of the Man on the Moon: Climate Change,

Indigenous Expertise, and the Posthumanist Ethics of Place and Space, GeoJournal,

published online March, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10708-014-9547-9, p

1-16.

Watson, A., and M. Stickman. Forthcoming. Koyukon Adaptations for Food Security in the Face

of the Chinook Crisis, Ecology and Society.

Wheeler, P. 1987. Salmon Fishing Patterns Along the Middle Yukon River at Kaltag, Alaska.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 156.

Juneau, Alaska..

Wilson, D. E. and Ruff, S. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals.

Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington DC.

Wiswar, D.W. 1997. Abundance and run timing of adult salmon in the South Fork Koyukuk River,

Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1996. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks

Fisheries Resource Office, Alaska Fishery Data Series Number 97-5, Fairbanks, Alaska..

Wiswar, D.W. 1998. Abundance and run timing of adult salmon in the South Fork Koyukuk River,

Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks

Fisheries Resource Office, Alaska Fishery Data Series Number 98-1, Fairbanks, Alaska..

Wurtz, T.L., R.A. Ott, and J.C. Maisch. 2006. “Timber Harvest in Interior Alaska,” in Chapin,

F.S. III, M.W. Oswood, K. Van Cleve, L.A. Viereck, and D.L. Verbyla., eds. 2006.

Alaska’s Changing Boreal Forest, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Wurtz, T.L., M.J. Macander, and B.T. Spellman. 2008. Spread of invasive plants from roads

to river systems in Alaska: a network model. Advances in threat assessment and their

application to forest and rangeland management. USDA Forest Service General Technical

Report PNW-GTR-802. pp. 699-708.

Yokel, D.A., A.K., Prichard, G. Carroll, L. Parrett, B. Person. 2009. Teshekpuk Caribou Herd

movement through narrow corridors around Teshekpuk Lake, Alaska. Alaska Park

Science 8: 64-67.

Young, D. D. 2009. Units 20A, 20B, 20C, 20F, and 25C wolf. Pages 162-173 in P. Harper, editor.

Wolf management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2005-30 June 2008.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 14.0. Juneau, Alaska..

Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA). 2009. Middle Koyukuk River of Alaska:

An Atlas of Fishing Places and Traditional Place Names, Fairbanks: Alaska.

Zasada, J. C., and R.A. Gregory. 1972. Paper birch seed production in the Tanana Valley, Alaska

(Vol. 177). Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service,

US Dept. of Agriculture.

April 2016 References Cited
Analysis of Management Situation 374

Appendix A. List of Preparers

Table A.1. List of Preparers

Name Responsibility Participation

Stewart Allen Economics Author

Robert Brumbaugh Leasable Minerals Author

Tara Callear Non-native invasive species Author

Jeanie Cole Chapter 1, Chapter 5 Author and editor

Karen Deatherage Environmental Education Author

Dave Esse Water Resources Author

Kelly Egger Recreation and Visitor Services Author

Stacey Fritz Environmental Justice and Social Systems Author

Randy Goodwin Transportation and Travel Management Author

Tim Hammond Forest and Woodland Products Author

Bill Hedman Cultural and Paleontological Author

Lisa Shon Jodwalis Wilderness Characteristics, Wild and

Scenic Rivers Author

Erin Julianus Wildlife and Subsistence Author

Bob Karlen Fish and Aquatic Species Author

Ben Kennedy Air and Water Resources Author

Carl Kretsinger Fish and Aquatic Species Author

Jen McMillan Vegetation and Special Status Species Author

Dave Parker Fish and Aquatic Species Author

Thomas St. Clair Fire Management and Ecology Reviewer

Skip Theisen Fire Management Author

Peggy Thigpen Lands and Realty Author

Darrel VandeWeg Locatable and Salable Minerals Author

Cal Westcott Visual Resources Author

Donna Wixon Wilderness Study Areas Author

Appendix A List of Preparers April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 375

Appendix B. Water Quality Standards
 

The following table lists the Alaska Department of Environmental (ADEC) water quality standards

for fresh water uses. The complete regulation and the notes referred to in the table are available on

the ADEC Web Page at: http://dec.alaska.gov/commish/regulations/pdfs/18%20AAC%2070.pdf

Water Quality Standards for Designated Uses

ADEC Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70), amended as of April 8, 2012

POLLUTANT & WATER USE CRITERIA

(1) COLOR, FOR FRESH WATER

USES (See note 8)

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

May not exceed 15 color units or the natural condition, whichever is

greater.

(A) Water Supply(ii) agriculture,

including irrigation and stock watering

Not applicable.

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

May not exceed 50 color units or the natural condition, whichever is

greater.

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

May not cause detrimental effects on established water supply treatment

levels.

(B) Water Recreation

(i) contact recreation

Same as (1)(A)(i).

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

May not interfere with or make the water unfit or unsafe for the use.

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

Color or apparent color may not reduce the depth of the compensation

point for photosynthetic activity by more than 10% from the seasonally

established norm for aquatic life. For all waters without a seasonally

established norm for aquatic life, color or apparent color may not exceed

50 color units or the natural condition, whichever is greater.

(2) FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA

(FC), FOR FRESH WATER USES

(See note 1)

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

In a 30-day period, the geometric mean may not exceed 20 FC/100 ml,

and not more than 10% of the samples may exceed 40 FC/100 ml. For

groundwater, the FC concentration must be less than 1 FC/100 ml, using

the fecal coliform Membrane Filter Technique, or less than 3 FC/100 ml,

using the fecal coliform most probable number (MPN) technique.

(A) Water Supply (ii) agriculture,

including irrigation and stock watering

The geometric mean of samples taken in a 30-day period may not exceed

200 FC/100 ml, and not more than 10% of the samples may exceed 400

FC/100 ml. For products not normally cooked and for dairy sanitation of

unpasteurized products, the criteria for drinking water supply, (2)(A)(i),

apply.

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

For products normally cooked, the geometric mean of samples taken in a

30-day period may not exceed 200 FC/100 ml, and not more than 10%

of the samples may exceed 400 FC/100 ml. For products not normally

cooked, the criteria for drinking water supply, (2)(A)(i),

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

Where worker contact is present, the geometric mean of samples taken

in a 30-day period may not exceed 200 FC/100 ml, and not more than

10% of the samples may exceed 400 FC/100 ml.

(B) Water Recreation

(i) contact recreation

In a 30-day period, the geometric mean of samples may not exceed 100

FC/100 ml, and not more than one sample, or more than 10% of the

samples if there are more than 10 samples, may exceed 200 FC/100 ml.

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

In a 30-day period, the geometric mean of samples may not exceed 200

FC/100 ml, and not more than 10% of the total samples may exceed

400 FC/100 ml.

Appendix B Water Quality Standards

April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 376

Water Quality Standards for Designated Uses

ADEC Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70), amended as of April 8, 2012

POLLUTANT & WATER USE CRITERIA

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

Not applicable.

(3) DISSOLVED GAS, FOR FRESH

WATER USES

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) must be greater than or equal to 4 mg/l (this

does not apply to lakes or reservoirs in which supplies are taken from

below the thermocline, or to groundwater).

A) Water Supply

(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and

stock watering

D.O. must be greater than 3 mg/l in surface waters.

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

D.O. must be greater than 7 mg/l in surface waters. The concentration

of total dissolved gas may not exceed 110% of saturation at any point

of sample collection.

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

May not cause detrimental effects on established water supply treatment

levels.

(B) Water Recreation

(i) contact recreation

Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) must be greater than or equal to 4 mg/l.

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

Same as (3)(B)(i).

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

D.O. must be greater than 7 mg/l in waters used by anadromous or

resident fish. In no case may D.O. be less than 5 mg/l to a depth of 20

cm in the interstitial waters of gravel used by anadromous or resident

fish for spawning (see note 2). For waters not used by anadromous or

resident fish, D.O. must be greater than or equal to 5 mg/l. In no case

may D.O. be greater than 17 mg/l. The concentration of total dissolved

gas may not exceed 110% of saturation at any point of sample collection.

(4) DISSOLVED INORGANIC

SUBSTANCES, FOR FRESH

WATER USES

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

Total dissolved solids (TDS) from all sources may not exceed 500 mg/l.

Neither chlorides nor sulfates may exceed 250 mg/l.

(A) Water Supply

(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and

stock watering

TDS may not exceed 1,000 mg/l. Sodium adsorption ratio must be less

than 2.5, sodium percentage less than 60%, and residual carbonate less

than 1.25 milliequivalents/liter (see note 6).

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

TDS may not exceed 1,000 mg/l. A concentration of TDS may not be

present in water if that concentration causes or reasonably could be

expected to cause an adverse effect to aquatic life (see note 12).

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

No amounts above natural conditions that can cause corrosion, scaling,

or process problems.

(B) Water Recreation

(i) contact recreation

Not applicable.

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

Not applicable.

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

Same as (4)(A)(iii).

(5) PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS, OILS AND GREASE, FOR

FRESH WATER USES

Appendix B Water Quality Standards

April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 377

Water Quality Standards for Designated Uses

ADEC Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70), amended as of April 8, 2012

POLLUTANT & WATER USE CRITERIA

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

May not cause a visible sheen upon the surface of the water. May not

exceed concentrations that individually or in combination impart odor or

taste as determined by organoleptic tests.

(A) Water Supply

(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and

stock watering

May not cause a visible sheen upon the surface of the

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

Total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH) in the water column may not

exceed 15 μg/l (see note 7). Total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) in the

water column may not exceed 10 μg/l (see note 7). There may be no

concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, animal fats, or vegetable oils

in shoreline or bottom sediments that cause deleterious effects to aquatic

life. Surface waters and adjoining shorelines must be virtually free from

floating oil, film, sheen, or discoloration.

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

May not make the water unfit or unsafe for the use.

(B) Water Recreation

(i) contact recreation

May not cause a film, sheen, or discoloration on the surface or floor of

the waterbody or adjoining shorelines. Surface waters must be virtually

free from floating oils.

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

Same as (5)(B)(i).

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

Same as (5)(A)(iii).

(6) pH, FOR FRESH WATER USES

(variation of pH for water naturally

outside the specified range must be

toward the range)

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

May not be less than 6.0 or greater than 8.5.

(A) Water Supply

(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and

stock watering

May not be less than 5.0 or greater than 9.0

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

May not be less than 6.5 or greater than 8.5. May not vary more than 0.5

pH unit from natural conditions.

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

May not be less than 5.0 or greater than 9.0.

(B) Water Recreation

(i) contact recreation

May not be less than 6.5 or greater than 8.5. If the natural condition pH

is outside this range, substances may not be added that cause an increase

in the buffering capacity of the water.

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

Same as (6)(A)(iv).

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

May not be less than 6.5 or greater than 8.5. May not vary more than 0.5

pH unit from natural conditions.

(7) RADIOACTIVITY, FOR FRESH

WATER USES

Appendix B Water Quality Standards

April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 378

Water Quality Standards for Designated Uses

ADEC Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70), amended as of April 8, 2012

POLLUTANT & WATER USE CRITERIA

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

May not exceed the concentrations specified in Table I of the Alaska

Water Quality Criteria Manual (see note 5) for radioactive contaminants

and may not exceed limits specified in 10 C.F.R. 20 (see note 9) and

National Bureau of Standards, Handbook 69 (see note 10).

(A) Water Supply

(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and

stock watering

Same as (7)(A)(i).

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

Same as (7)(A)(i) except that concentration factors for organisms

involved may not exceed maximum permissible limits for specific

radioisotopes and unidentified mixtures as established by 10 C.F.R. 20

(see note 9) and National Bureau of Standards, Handbook 69 (see note

10).

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

Same as (7)(A)(i).

(B) Water Recreation

(i) contact recreation

Same as (7)(A)(i).

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

Same as (7)(A)(i).

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

Same as (7)(A)(iii).

(8) RESIDUES, FOR FRESH

WATER USES: Floating solids,

debris, sludge, deposits, foam, scum,

or other residues (criteria are not

applicable to groundwater) (See note

13)

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

May not, alone or in combination with other substances, be present in

concentrations or amounts that: form objectionable deposits; constitute a

nuisance; produce objectionable odor or taste; or result in undesirable

or nuisance species.

(A) Water Supply

(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and

stock watering

Same as (8)(A)(i).

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

Same as (8)(A)(i).

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

Same as (8)(A)(i).

(B) Water Recreation

(i) contact recreation

Same as (8)(A)(i).

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

Same as (8)(A)(i).

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

Residues are not allowed in surface waters of the state, in concentrations

or amounts that have the following effects:

● may impair designated uses;

● cause nuisance or objectionable conditions; or

● result in undesirable or nuisance species.

(9) SEDIMENT, FOR FRESH

WATER USES (criteria are not

applicable to groundwater)

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

No measurable increase in concentration of settleable solids above

natural conditions, as measured by the volumetric Imhoff cone method

(see note 11).

Appendix B Water Quality Standards

April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 379

Water Quality Standards for Designated Uses

ADEC Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70), amended as of April 8, 2012

POLLUTANT & WATER USE CRITERIA

(A) Water Supply

(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and

stock watering

For sprinkler irrigation, water must be free of particles of 0.074 mm or

coarser. For irrigation or water spreading, may not exceed 200 mg/l for

an extended period of time.

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

No imposed loads that will interfere with established water supply

treatment levels.

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

Same as (9)(A)(iii).

(B) Water Recreation

(i) contact recreation

Same as (9)(A)(i).

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

May not pose hazards to incidental human contact or cause interference

with the use.

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

The percent accumulation of fine sediment in the range of 0.1 mm to 4.0

mm in the gravel bed of waters used by anadromous or resident fish

for spawning may not be increased more than 5% by weight above

natural conditions (as shown from grain size accumulation graph). In

no case may the 0.1 mm to 4.0 mm fine sediment range in those gravel

beds exceed a maximum of 30% by weight (as shown from grain size

accumulation graph) (see notes 3 and 4). In all other surface waters no

sediment loads (suspended or deposited) that can cause adverse effects on

aquatic animal or plant life, their reproduction or habitat may be present.

(10) TEMPERATURE, FOR FRESH

WATER USES

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

May not exceed 15 oC.

(A) Water Supply

(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and

stock watering

May not exceed 30 oC.

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

May not exceed 20o C at any time. The following maximum temperatures

may not be exceeded, where applicable:

● Migration routes 15 oC

● Spawning areas 13 oC

● Rearing areas 15 oC

● Egg & fry incubation 13 oC

● For all other waters, the weekly average temperature may not exceed

site-specific requirements needed to preserve normal species diversity

or to prevent appearance of nuisance organisms.

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

May not exceed 25 oC.

(B) Water Recreation

(i) contact recreation

Same as (10)(A)(ii).

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

Not applicable.

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

Same as (10)(A)(iii).

(11) TOXIC AND OTHER

DELETERIOUS ORGANIC

AND INORGANIC SUBSTANCES,

FOR FRESH WATER USES

(A) Water Supply

(i) drinking, culinary, and food

processing

The concentration of substances in water may not exceed the criteria

shown in Table I and in Table V, column A of the Alaska Water Quality

Criteria Manual (see note 5).

Appendix B Water Quality Standards

April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 380

Water Quality Standards for Designated Uses

ADEC Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70), amended as of April 8, 2012

POLLUTANT & WATER USE CRITERIA

(A) Water Supply

(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and

stock watering

The concentration of substances in water may not exceed the numeric

criteria for drinking and stockwater and irrigation water shown in the

Alaska Water Quality Criteria Manual (see note 5). Substances may

not be introduced at concentrations that cause, or can reasonably be

expected to cause, either singly or in combination, odor, taste, or other

adverse effects on the

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

Same as (11)(C).

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

Concentrations of substances that pose hazards to worker contact may

not be present.

(B) Water Recreation The concentration of substances in water may not exceed the criteria

(i) contact recreation shown in Table I of the Alaska Water Quality Criteria Manual (see note 5).

The concentration of substances in water may not exceed the numeric

criteria for drinking water shown in the Alaska Water Quality Criteria

Manual (see note 5). Substances may not be introduced at concentrations

that cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause, either singly or in

combination, odor, taste, or other adverse effects on the use

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

Concentrations of substances that pose hazards to incidental human

contact may not be present.

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

The concentration of substances in water may not exceed the numeric

criteria for aquatic life for fresh water and human health for consumption

of aquatic organisms only shown in the Alaska Water Quality Criteria

Manual (see note 5), or any chronic and acute criteria established in

this chapter, for a toxic pollutant of concern to protect sensitive and

biologically important life stages of resident species of this state. There

may be no concentrations of toxic substances in water or in shoreline or

bottom sediments, that, singly or in combination, cause, or reasonably

can be expected to cause, adverse effects on aquatic life or produce

undesirable or nuisance aquatic life, except as authorized by this chapter.

Substances may not be present in concentrations that individually or in

combination impart undesirable odor or taste to fish or other aquatic

organisms, as determined by either bioassay or organoleptic tests.

(12) TURBIDITY, FOR FRESH

WATER USES (criteria are not

applicable to groundwater)

(A) Water Supply May not exceed 5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) above natural

(i) drinking, culinary, and food conditions when the natural turbidity is 50 NTU or less, and may not

processing have more than 10% increase in turbidity when the natural turbidity is

more than 50 NTU, not to exceed a maximum increase of 25 NTU.

(A) Water Supply

(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and

stock watering

May not cause detrimental effects on indicated use.

(A) Water Supply

(iii) aquaculture

May not exceed 25 NTU above natural conditions. For Tall lake waters,

may not exceed 5 NTU above natural conditions.

(A) Water Supply

(iv) industrial

May not cause detrimental effects on established water supply treatment

levels.

(B) Water Recreation May not exceed 5 NTU above natural conditions when the natural

(i) contact recreation turbidity is 50 NTU or less, and may not have more than 10% increase in

turbidity when the natural turbidity is more than 50 NTU, not to exceed a

maximum increase of 15 NTU. May not exceed 5 NTU above natural

turbidity for all lake waters.

Appendix B Water Quality Standards

April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 381

Water Quality Standards for Designated Uses

ADEC Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70), amended as of April 8, 2012

POLLUTANT & WATER USE CRITERIA

(B) Water Recreation

(ii) secondary recreation

May not exceed 10 NTU above natural conditions when natural turbidity

is 50 NTU or less, and may not have more than 20% increase in turbidity

when the natural turbidity is greater than 50 NTU, not to exceed a

maximum increase of 15 NTU. For all lake waters, turbidity may not

exceed 5 NTU above natural turbidity.

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish,

Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and

Wildlife

Same as (12)(A)(iii).

Appendix B Water Quality Standards

April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 382

Appendix C. Maps
 

The list of maps below provides links to 11 x 17 inch PDF versions of the maps. Additionally

further down in this Appendix, smaller versions of the same maps are displayed.

These maps are for illustrative purposes only. Land status is based on a generalized land status

accurate only to the nearest square mile. Some details may be not be visible due to the scale

of the map.

Map C.1. Fairbanks Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area

Map C.2. Middle Yukon Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area

Map C.3. Utility Corridor Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area

Map C.4. Caribou Herd Ranges in the Central Yukon Planning Area

Map C.5. Dall Sheep Distribution

Map C.6. Game Management Units in the Central Yukon Planning Area

Appendix C Maps April 2016
383 Analysis of Management Situation

Figure C.1. Fairbanks Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area

Appendix

C Maps April 2016
384 Analysis of Management Situation

Figure C.2. Middle Yukon Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area

Appendix

C Maps April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 385

Figure C.3. Utility Corridor Subunit of the Central Yukon Planning Area

Appendix C Maps April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 386

Figure C.4. Caribou Herd Ranges in the Central Yukon Planning Area

Appendix C Maps April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 387

Figure C.5. Dall Sheep Distribution

Appendix C Maps April 2016
Analysis of Management Situation 388

Figure C.6. Game Management Units in the Central Yukon Planning Area

Appendix C Maps April 2016