Eastern Interior Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
Dates
Year
2012
Citation
2012, Eastern Interior Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement: v. 1.
Summary
PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 6.7 million acres of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Eastern Interior and Central Yukon field offices, Alaska are proposed. The lands covered by the proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) include the White Mountains National Recreation Area (NRA), Steese National Conservation Area (NCA), Fortymile area, three wild and scenic rivers, and lands in the upper Black River and greater Fairbanks area currently not included in a land use plan. While the planning area is bounded by the Elliott and Dalton Highways on the West, the Alaska Highway on the South, and has the Steese and Taylor Highways within its boundaries, the majority of the [...]
Summary
PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 6.7 million acres of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Eastern Interior and Central Yukon field offices, Alaska are proposed. The lands covered by the proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) include the White Mountains National Recreation Area (NRA), Steese National Conservation Area (NCA), Fortymile area, three wild and scenic rivers, and lands in the upper Black River and greater Fairbanks area currently not included in a land use plan. While the planning area is bounded by the Elliott and Dalton Highways on the West, the Alaska Highway on the South, and has the Steese and Taylor Highways within its boundaries, the majority of the planning area is roadless. Key issues include: minerals management, travel management, wilderness characteristics, subsistence, recreation, and wildlife. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue present management practices based on existing RMPs and other management decision documents. Under Alternative B, protection of resource values would be emphasized and 85 percent of the planning area would remain closed to mineral leasing and mineral entry, including the Steese NCA, the White Mountains NRA, the Upper Black River Subunit, and the three wild and scenic river corridors. All areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be closed to mineral entry and mineral leasing. The four existing research natural areas (RNAs) would be maintained and four new ACECs would be designated. Five eligible river segments would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Off highway vehicle (OHV) designations would be put in place in all planning subunits and some areas would be limited to existing or designated trails and some areas would be closed to summer motorized use. Alternative C is the preferred alternative and would provide a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement of resources and services. Forty-eight percent of the planning area would remain closed to mineral leasing and 38 percent to mineral entry and location, including the White Mountains NRA, eighty percent of the Steese NCA, and the three wild and scenic river corridors. Some ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location, and leasing. Similar to Alternative B, existing RNAs would be maintained, but only three ACECs would be designated. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. OHV designations would be put into place in all planning subunits, but would be somewhat less restrictive than Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize resource development and production of minerals and services would be less constrained than under alternatives B and C. Nineteen percent of the planning area would remain closed to mineral leasing and 26 percent to mineral entry and location. Existing RNAs would be maintained, three ACECs would be designated, and OHV designations would be put in place in all planning subunits. Generally, travel and trail restrictions would be less, although some areas or uses would be limited to existing trails, and some areas would be closed to summer motorized use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide a comprehensive framework to guide management of public lands and interests within the planning area. Designated ACECs and riparian conservation areas would provide additional protection to wildlife, fish, vegetation, and other natural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities would remove vegetation, accelerate erosion, and increase the potential for spread of invasive weeds. Fish and aquatic resources would be affected by activities which alter stream channels, remove or damage riparian vegetation, or result in soil erosion and sedimentation to aquatic habitat. Under the preferred alternative, less of the planning area would be managed for a primitive, semi-primitive, or backcount y recreation setting. While proliferation of user-created trails would be reduced compared to Alternative A, resource damage would still occur in some areas. A more restrictive OHV designation would somewhat reduce access to BLM-managed lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
