Navigating State and Federal Regulations
Photo of the Hogatza River taken by Craig McCaa.
Navigating State and Federal Regulations
Lands and Realty
Lands Selected by the State of Alaska or ANCSA Corporations
Photo of Kanuti River taken by Craig McCaa.
Within the range of alternatives analyzed are a variety of recommendations for revoking withdrawals in the Central Yukon planning area. They range from a full revocation of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 17(d)(1) withdrawals to a partial and full revocation of the Public Land Order (PLO) 5150 withdrawal. These recommendations for the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals are consistent with the direction in ANCSA section 17(d)(1) “to classify or reclassify any lands so withdrawn and to open such lands to appropriation under the public land laws in accordance with his classifications” and the BLM priority of revoking many of these withdrawals. The review of PLO 5150 is consistent with land use planning policy to review existing withdrawals to determine if the need to reserve the land for the purpose by which it was set aside is still valid.
The planning area contains Alaska Native Corporation and State of Alaska selected lands as well as parcels that are considered top-filed by the State of Alaska per ANILCA 906(e). These selections and top-file status may change over time when they are either conveyed, relinquished, or rejected. Selected lands affect locatable mineral entry and federal subsistence.
In order to clarify the quantitative and qualitative the impacts of these changes on land status, the BLM has developed a table (Table 3-1 in the Draft RMP/EIS) to provide the reader with a sequencing of how the effects of proposed changes could affect the status of a given acre of land, as withdrawals are revoked, selections relinquished or rejected, and conveyances completed, resulting in the indicated status of locatable mineral entry and BLM-managed lands available for federal priority subsistence. The effects analysis takes these variations into consideration for any potential result of BLM-managed lands.
Photo of chum salmon taken by Craig McCaa.
Photo of a moose along Grayling Lake taken by Craig McCaa.
Photo of caribou taken by Bob Wick.
Subsistence
The planning area contains rural communities with mixed subsistence-cash economies, whose residents live a subsistence-based lifestyle. Within the borders of the planning area, the Fairbanks North Star Borough was determined to be a predominantly nonrural area, and residents do not qualify as federal subsistence users. Residents of all other areas and communities in the planning area are designated as federally qualified subsistence users.
Title VIII of ANILCA prioritized subsistence uses of Federal public lands by rural Alaskans over other consumptive uses. ANILCA Section 804, states that “Except as otherwise provided in this act and other Federal law, the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes.”
In 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the rural residency preference required by ANILCA violated the Alaska Constitution. The State of Alaska dropped the rural preference and considers all Alaskans to be subsistence users and provides no rural priority for subsistence management. The Federal government, under the requirements of Federal law, retained the management implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA and the requirement to provide for the rural preference for subsistence resources on Federal public lands.
The Federal Subsistence Board manages for this rural priority in a number of ways including longer hunting seasons, more liberal harvest limits or requiring only harvest tickets vs registration permits. The BLM’s responsibility in relation to a land use plan is to identify the effects on federal subsistence habitats and resources and to conduct and publish an evaluation of impacts to subsistence in accordance with ANILCA Section 810.
Twenty-four recognized villages in or next to the planning area qualify as rural and are included in the impact analysis. These communities have subsistence use areas that overlap the planning area or rely on resources that pass through or depend on habitat in the planning area.
The 24 communities are grouped into three regions, as follows:
North Slope—Anaktuvuk Pass and Nuiqsut
Yukon River—Alatna, Allakaket, Bettles, Coldfoot, Evansville, Stevens Village, Rampart, and Wiseman
Upper Interior— Galena, Hughes, Huslia, Kaltag, Koyukuk, Lake Minchumina, Manley Hot Springs, Minto, Nenana, Nulato, Ruby, Tanana, and Arctic Village/Venetie
To learn more about federal subsistence management, read an overview and history of subsistence management in Alaska.
Subsistence impacts can be viewed in Section 3.5.2 in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, and in Appendix Q, Subsistence Use and Resources.
ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation
Photo showing view from the Dalton Highway taken by Craig McCaa.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810(a), 16 United States Code Section 3120(a), requires that an evaluation of subsistence uses and needs be completed for any federal determination to “withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands.” As such, an evaluation of potential impacts on subsistence under ANILCA Section 810(a) was completed for the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS (see Appendix R, ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation).
The Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS does not authorize specific actions or projects, nor are specific details regarding future proposals for use of public lands in the planning area known at this time. As a result, most impacts are described qualitatively in the ANILCA Section 810 Evaluation. Future authorizations for use of public lands in the planning area would be subject to site- or activity-specific ANILCA Section 810 Evaluations, as appropriate, which would identify and address impacts on subsistence in detail.
The preliminary evaluation discussion is focused on communities within the planning area because they have the most potential to be directly and indirectly impacted by land use allocations. The cumulative analysis includes consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future authorized uses both within and around the planning area, and considers impacts on federally qualified subsistence users residing in northern Alaska.
BLM finds that Alternatives B, C1, C2, and D, and the cumulative case may significantly restrict subsistence uses. BLM will undertake the notice and hearing procedures required by ANILCA Section 810 (a)(1) and (2) in conjunction with releasing of the Draft RMP/EIS to solicit public comment from the potentially affected communities of Alatna, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Coldfoot, Evansville, and Wiseman. ANILCA Section 810 hearings will be conducted on January 28, 2021 and February 2, 2021. For additional information and to register to attend, please visit the BLM's NEPA Register website.
Public testimony from potentially affected communities will be incorporated and final determinations made in the Final ANILCA Section 810 Evaluation in accordance with ANILCA Section 810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C).
For more information on the Draft RMP/EIS or to submit comments, please visit the BLM’s NEPA Register website: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/35315/510.
For more information, contact Chel Ethun at (907) 474-2253.