Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can I get a copy of the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS?

2. How may I submit comments?

3. Which part of Alaska does this resource management plan cover?

4. Why does the planning area boundary include non-BLM lands?

5. What range of alternatives is covered in the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS?

6. What are locatable, leasable, and salable minerals?

7. What is a metaliferous mineral?

8. How is locatable mineral entry addressed in the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS?

9. How does the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS consider revoking, modifying, or proposing land withdrawals?

10. What is an ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawal?

11. Are there 17(d)(1) withdrawals in the Central Yukon Planning Area?

12. How does the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS address ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals in the planning area?

13. Have withdrawn lands in Alaska been opened in the past?

14. Who can modify or revoke a withdrawal?

15. What is Public Land Order (PLO) 5150?

16. Can the State of Alaska select and receive title to lands in the Utility Corridor?

17. How would revoking all or part of Public Land Order (PLO) 5150 impact subsistence for local communities?

18. How does the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS address top-filed lands?

19. Do any of the alternatives make more land available for allotment selection by Alaska Native veterans under the 2019 Dingell Act?

20. What considerations are in place regarding potential impacts to subsistence for local communities?

21. How are access, recreation, and infrastructure considered in the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS alternatives?

22. What’s the role of local and/or traditional knowledge?

23. Where are the maps for the project?

Public Outreach Frequently Asked Questions

24. How will the BLM engage the public during the draft public comment period?

25. How will the BLM consider comments from the public?

26. Why is the BLM moving forward with this process during a global pandemic?

27. Who are the cooperating agencies?

28. How has the BLM engaged Native American tribes throughout the planning process?

Questions from the public

29. What is the difference between No Surface Occupancy and “controlled surface use”? Some examples of controlled surface use.

Need some clarification?

BLM is interested in helping clarify your understanding of the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS. Most questions may be answered by reviewing the Frequently Asked Questions on this page. If you still require other minor clarification, please submit your question below and BLM will work to provide responses in a timely manner. Responses to your question will also be posted with their respective answer at the bottom of this station.

Copies of the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS are available for review and download at the BLM’s NEPA Register and at the BLM’s Fairbanks District Office.

Comments can be submitted:

• Online: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/35315/570

• By email: CentralYukon@blm.gov

• By fax: 907-474-2289

• By mail:

  BLM Central Yukon Field Office

  Attn: Chel Ethun

  222 University Avenue

  Fairbanks, AK 99709
  

The Central Yukon Planning Area encompasses approximately 56 million acres in central and northern Alaska. Other federal lands in the planning area include portions of the 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 BLM’s Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS considers this entire 56-million-acre area while decisions in the Central Yukon RMP would only apply to the approximately 13 million acres of it that are managed by the BLM. BLM-managed lands of note within the planning area include the Dalton Highway Utility Corridor, Central Arctic Management Area Wilderness Study Area, and numerous areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs).

The Record of Decision for the Central Yukon RMP/EIS and its associated Approved Plan would guide management of these public lands for the next 15 to 20 years for the benefit of current and future generations as part of BLM’s multiple-use mission. The planning effort will update management decisions for public land uses and resources, including subsistence, mineral exploration and development, and recreation. When complete, the revised management plan will replace the Utility Corridor RMP (1991) and the original Central Yukon RMP (1986), as well as replace portions of the Southwest Management Framework Plan (1981) and provide RMP-level decisions for unplanned lands west of Fairbanks.

Unlike other federal lands, such as a national wildlife refuge or national park, the BLM's land base consists of multiple parcels of various sizes. BLM-managed public lands may range from a 20-acre federal mining claim surrounded by hundreds of thousands of acres of state land to parcels of a million contiguous acres. To ensure all BLM-managed lands are addressed by land use plans, the BLM established planning area boundaries for the entire state. RMPs address only the BLM-managed lands within each planning area. However, the BLM considers existing plans and policies of adjacent landowners during land use planning.

The Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS includes five alternatives:

• Alternative A is the No Action Alternative.

• Alternative B emphasizes resource protection over other issues with less emphasis on resource development. Alternative B proposes 31 areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), 11 suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers and a Backcountry Conservation Area. This alternative uses a blend of management actions and area designations to meet management objectives. 

• Alternatives C1 and C2 emphasize a blend of resource protection and resource development. The two alternatives differ in the number of ACECs compared to habitat-specific management options.

  • Alternative C1 proposes eight ACEC designations while also proposing habitat-specific management for both Dall sheep and two small caribou herd habitat areas (Galena Mountains and Ray Mountains). Alternative C1 also proposes a blend of right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas as protect resources.

  • Alternative C2 proposes one ACEC (Toolik Lake Research Natural Area) and includes right-of-way avoidance areas for two small caribou herd habitat areas (Galena Mountains and Ray Mountains), pingo clusters, and the Venetie Arm; and right-of-way exclusion to the Central Arctic Management Area Wilderness Study Area.

  • Alternative C2 is the BLM’s preferred alternative.

• Alternative D emphasizes management facilitating resource development. This alternative focuses on maximizing BLM-managed public lands for development potential using current federal management guidelines without the use of specific area management actions such as habitat-specific management or ACECs. As required by regulation, this alternative does not propose right-of-way allocations outside of the Central Arctic Management Area Wilderness Study Area.

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. Examples of locatable minerals include metallic minerals (i.e., gold, silver copper, zinc, etc.) and non-metallic minerals (i.e., certain limestones, gypsum, diatomaceous earth, fluorspar, etc.).

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 lands may only occur on leases acquired by competitive leasing.

 Salable minerals, also called mineral materials, include sand, gravel, dirt, and rock. The majority of the BLM's mineral material sites in Alaska are for sand and gravel. The primary users are the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (for highways and airports) and Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System). BLM sells mineral materials to the public at fair market value, but gives them free to states, counties, or other government entities for public projects.

Metaliferous minerals are minerals that contain or would yield through standard processes metals or alloys. Examples of metaliferous minerals include gold, silver, copper, tin, and zinc. Examples of non-metaliferous minerals include fluorspar, mica, certain limestones, and gypsum, phosphates, and gemstones.

Alternatives A, B, and C1 include proposed Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) withdrawals that, if enacted, would affect lands available for locatable mineral entry (staking of claims for lode or placer mining). In addition, lands that have valid State or Native selections would not be available for new mineral entry until those selections were conveyed, relinquished, or rejected.

• Alternative A has approximately 6.8 million acres open to locatable mineral entry. Of these open lands, 4.5 million are encumbered by State or Native selections and not available for new mineral entry.

• In alternative B, approximately 10.9 million acres would be open to locatable mineral entry. Alternative C1 opens approximately 12.2 million acres to locatable mineral entry. Of these open lands in Alternatives B and C1, 7.2 million areas would be encumbered by State of Native selections.

• Alternatives C2 and D open 13.1 million acres to locatable mineral entry, of which 7.9 million acres are encumbered by State or Native selections.

The BLM must evaluate all existing land withdrawals in a land use plan to determine whether the lands still need to be withdrawn to meet the purpose of the withdrawal. The BLM can make a recommendation to revoke or modify an existing withdrawal, but only the Secretary of Interior can implement these actions. The RMP/EIS identifies BLM’s recommendations as proposals and identifies management actions if the proposal is not accepted.

The BLM may also propose new withdrawals in the land-use plan through provisions of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). These new FLPMA withdrawals require the concurrence of the Secretary of Interior, and if larger than 5,000 acres the concurrence of Congress. Much like any proposed modifications or revocations of existing withdrawals, a proposal for new FLPMA withdrawals is identified in the draft RMP as a proposed action pending acceptance by the Secretary of Interior.

This refers to Section 17(d)(1) in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. ANCSA authorized the Secretary of Interior to withdraw and reserve public lands to allow for selection by ANCSA Native Corporations, and for study and classification. This was done through a series of Public Land Orders (PLOs) issued between 1972 and 1975. The PLOs generally closed the lands to mining and mineral leasing. However, in the Central Yukon Planning Area two of the PLOs left the lands open to metaliferous mineral location.

The BLM reviews land withdrawals during land use planning to determine if the purpose for the withdrawal still exists, or whether the lands could be made available for use under public land laws. Revoking withdrawals reserved under ANCSA could make unencumbered lands (lands not selected by the State or Native corporations) available for mining and mineral leasing, subject to regulations and permit conditions for resource protection.

Yes. Parts of seven 17(d)(1) withdrawals cover lands in the Central Yukon Planning Area. These PLOs close parts of the planning area to mineral entry and location under the 1872 mining law, and to mineral leasing under the mineral leasing laws. PLOs 5180 and 5186 allow for metaliferous mineral location, meaning that mining claims may be staked for metaliferous minerals such as silver, gold, copper, and zinc.

All action alternatives propose the full revocation of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 17(d)(1) withdrawals in the planning area. These withdrawals were enacted to allow for Native Corporation land selections. The corporations’ entitlements have been met, and the lands no longer need to be reserved for this purpose. Conveyance of these entitlements is ongoing. The segregations for each of the ANSCA 17(d)(1) withdrawals differ and have been amended since 1971, including opening portions of these large Public Land Orders (PLOs) to leasing or locatable mineral entry. The effects of the proposed revocation for the lands encumbered by these PLOs is dependent on the various amendments.

Yes. Some of the ANSCA 17(d)(1) withdrawals were modified in the early 1980s, opening about 10 million acres to mineral leasing and the general mining laws. In October 2018 withdrawals were partially revoked for approximately 230,000 acres in the Goodnews Bay area. In July 2109 withdrawals were partially revoked for approximately 1.3 million acres of public lands in the Fortymile and Bering Glacier areas. These revocations followed recommendations in BLM resource management plans. More information can be found on BLM’s Revoking D-1 Withdrawals web page.

The Secretary of the Interior can modify or revoke these withdrawals. The Central Yukon RMP will make recommendations to the Secretary for withdrawal modification or revocation. The withdrawals will not be changed unless the Secretary takes action on the BLM's recommendation.

In keeping with Section 17(c) of ANCSA, Public Land Order (PLO) 5150 reserved lands in 1971 for a utility and transportation corridor to aid programs for the U.S. Government and the State of Alaska. Paragraph 2 of the PLO identifies a subset of the lands commonly referred to as the inner corridor. This area contains the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, the Dalton Highway, and other utility infrastructure. Review of PLO 5150 is consistent with land use planning policy to examine existing withdrawals to determine whether it is necessary to continue to reserve the land for the purpose for which it was originally set aside.

Alternatives B and C1 recommend a partial revocation of the PLO for the lands in what is commonly known as the outer corridor (lands bordering the inner corridor to the east and west). These lands do not have and are not expected to have transportation or other infrastructure and do not need to be reserved for this purpose.

Alternatives C2 and D recommend a full revocation of the PLO and designation of an administrative utility and transportation corridor in the inner corridor to continue managing for those purposes.

The State of Alaska could select and receive title to these lands if Public Land Order (PLO) 5150 is modified or revoked to allow for state selection. In 1958, the Alaska Statehood Act allowed the State of Alaska to select approximately 103 million acres of Federal lands for transfer to State ownership. Federal lands that were already reserved for a specific purpose were not available for the selection. The statehood act gave the State 25 years (until 1983) to complete its selections.

In 1971, PLO 5150 established a utility and transportation corridor along the general route of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and made the lands in that corridor unavailable for selection by the State of Alaska. In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) granted the State an additional 10 years (until 1993) to complete its land selections. It also gave the State the right to file "future selection applications" on lands that were not available for selection at that time in case they became available in the future. These future selection applications are called "top filings."

The State of Alaska has top-filed a large portion of the lands in the utility corridor that was reserved by PLO 5150. If PLO 5150 is modified or revoked, then the top-filed lands would become valid State of Alaska selections, and available for conveyance unless the selections are relinquished or rejected.

Except for lands within the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the planning area encompasses lands that are open to subsistence activities for rural Alaskans. Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) ensures continued access to subsistence resources on federal land.

A preliminary evaluation of the Draft CYRMP/EIS revealed potential impacts on subsistence activities. Therefore, the BLM will hold public hearings on subsistence resources and activities in conjunction with the Draft CYRMP/EIS public meetings in, or in the vicinity of, potentially affected communities.

Revoking PLO 5150, specifically, could result in local communities losing their federal priority for subsistence and ability to use both firearms and off-highway vehicles for subsistence under Federal Subsistence Board regulations. An indirect result of ANILCA 906(e), which allows the State of Alaska to top-file lands, is that those top-files would become selections once the PLO (which segregated the lands from selection) is revoked. Selected lands are considered encumbered and not public lands under the definition of ANILCA, and the federal priority for subsistence is removed.

Section 906(e) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) allows the State to “top-file” lands that are otherwise unavailable, e.g., because they are BLM-administered public lands withdrawn by a Public Land Order (PLO).

• Approximately 5,856,000 acres of BLM-managed lands within the planning area currently contain lands that have been selected by the State of Alaska or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations. 

  • Currently, the State of Alaska has top-filed 2,717,000 acres of BLM-managed public lands in the planning area, including 2,066,000 acres within PLO 5150. If these PLOs are revoked, then the State’s top-filings fall into place as a valid selection under the Alaska Statehood Act.

• There is no established timeline for conveyance or relinquishment of selections; however, the BLM believes it is likely that the State of Alaska would pursue the Priority 1 selections in the planning area for conveyance within 10 years of the Record of Decision. Therefore, the BLM has identified those parcels for impacts analysis.

Revoking ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals could result in additional land becoming available for allotment selection by Native veterans under the Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Program under the 2019 John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act.

Except for lands within the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the planning area encompasses lands that are open to subsistence activities for rural Alaskans. Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) ensures continued access to subsistence resources on federal land.

The BLM will hold public hearings on subsistence resources and activities in conjunction with the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS public meetings in, or in the vicinity of, potentially affected communities.

Access to lands, travel management areas, and recreation are important components of the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS.

• Alternatives B, C1, C2, and D identify travel management areas as having a “limited” off-highway vehicle classification, which would include interim weight limitations for cross-country travel. These alternatives also propose designating the Umiat and Ambler utility and transportation corridors to co-locate utility and transportation projects.

• Alternatives A, B, C1, and C2 continue the Special Recreation Area designations along the Dalton Highway area.

• Alternative B proposes a Backcountry Conservation Area to facilitate hunting-related recreational opportunities.

• Alternatives C2 and D replace Public Land Order 5150 with an administrative utility and transportation corridor designation to continue management as a utility corridor.

• Alternative D blends habitat management actions, recreation access, and retention of the Toolik Lake Research Natural Area with maximizing lands available for mineral entry by recommending revocation of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 17 (d) (1) withdrawals and lifting Public Land Order 5150 withdrawing the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Corridor from selection.

The BLM recognizes that those who live near BLM-managed lands and use these lands for activities such as subsistence have specialized experience and knowledge about the lands and resources. We welcome local and traditional knowledge at every stage of the planning process and will work with local communities to ensure this information is considered during development of the Central Yukon RMP.

Appendix A, Maps, in Volume II of the Draft RMP/EIS provides the maps, which can be accessed through the project NEPA Register website.

The BLM is committed to an open an inclusive NEPA process. All comments will be carefully considered in our review and decision(s) on meeting the agency’s NEPA responsibilities and other applicable laws in this process.

The public participates in the NEPA process by having the ability to provide comments on the Draft RMP/EIS. All public comments received will be considered in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.

The BLM published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register on December 11, 2020. The NOA announced that the Draft RMP/EIS was published and would be available for a 90-day public review. The public review has been extended from 90 to 180 days, moving the public comment deadline from March 11 to June 9, 2021. The BLM also notified the public of the NOA and public comment opportunities via a postcard mailing, emails, news releases, community flyers, and newspaper advertisements.

As part of the Draft RMP/EIS public comment period, the BLM hosted seven live virtual public meetings. The BLM gave a project overview presentation at the start of each meeting, followed by a question-and-answer session, and an opportunity to provide verbal comments.

Each meeting had a focus audience. Residents of these communities were given priority on attendance and providing public comment; however, the general public is welcome to attend any of the meetings. The meeting dates are as follows:

• January 26, 2021 and January 27, 2021 (Focus audience: general public)

• January 28, 2021 and February 2, 2021 (Focus audience: Coldfoot, Wiseman, Bettles, Evansville, Anaktuvuk Pass, Alatna, Allakaket)

  The virtual public meetings on January 28, 2021 and February 2, 2021 also included an Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810 Hearing

• February 3, 2021, 1:00-5:00 P.M. (Focus audience: Nulato, Koyukuk, Ruby, Galena/Louden Village)

• February 4, 2021, 1:00-5:00 P.M. (Focus audience: Tanana, Rampart, Stevens Village, Venetie/Arctic Village)

The BLM added a live virtual public meeting held on February 9, 2021 held from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The focus audience for this meeting included: Coldfoot, Wiseman, Bettles, Evansville, Anaktuvuk Pass, Alatna, Allakaket. This meeting also included an Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810 Hearing.

The BLM is committed to collecting comments from the public and interested parties. The BLM will review and consider every comment submitted and address them as appropriate. Comments received during the Draft RMP/EIS comment period will be summarized in a public comment report that will be made available to the public with the release of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. You can provide your comments by visiting BLM's NEPA Register website.

To the greatest extent possible, we are working to maintain services to the American people and to our stakeholders, consistent with guidance provided by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and state and local health authorities. As such, we have hosted virtual public meetings to provide information to the public in the safest and most efficient way possible. To achieve this objective, we exercised our technological capabilities where possible to ensure connection and service to the public and communities, and to limit exposure of the employees and public we serve.

The BLM is the lead federal agency under NEPA for the development of the RMP/EIS. The BLM requested federal, state, and local agencies and Native American tribes to participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the RMP/EIS. A cooperating agency is any federal, state, or local government agency or Native American tribe that enters into a formal agreement – a memorandum of understanding – with the lead federal agency to help in the environmental analysis.

Cooperating agencies for the project are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Allakaket Tribal Council, Ruby Tribal Council, Koyukuk Tribal Council, Tanana Tribal Council, Nulato Tribal Council, Venetie Tribal Council, and the State of Alaska.

At the onset of the planning process, the BLM sent a letter of notification and inquiry to federally recognized tribes and ANCSA village and regional corporations. The BLM offered the opportunity to participate in formal government-to-government consultation, the opportunity to receive information about the project, and the option for tribal governments to participate as cooperating agencies. The BLM has met with all tribes that have requested consultation, including the Alatna Village, Allakaket Village, Doyon Limited, Louden Village (Galena), Native Village of Nuiqsut, Native Village of Ruby, Native Village of Tanana, Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, Nulato Village, and Village of Koyukuk. The BLM will continue to include the corporations and tribes in all outreach during the planning process and will consult on a more formal basis if requested.

Below are questions received from the public via the virtual open house question and answer box above and their respective answers from BLM staff:

No surface occupancy (NSO): An area that is open for mineral leasing but does not allow the construction of surface oil and gas facilities in order to protect other resource values. The lease may potentially be developed by directionally or horizontally drilling from nearby lands that do not have NSO limitations. NSO is designated by the BLM to prevent surface disturbing activities from occurring in specific areas. The reasons may include but are not limited to wilderness areas, cultural artifacts or sensitive areas for wildlife. No surface disturbance of any kind is allowed.

Controlled surface use: A category of moderate constraint stipulations that allows some use and occupancy of public land, while protecting identified resources or values. Applicable to fluid mineral leasing and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing, such as truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes and construction of wells and pads. Controlled surface use areas are open to fluid mineral leasing, but the stipulation allows the BLM to require special operational constraints or to shift the activity more than 656 feet to protect the specified resource or value. An example is the requirement for operators to move the development out of sensitive soils areas, or if no other practicable alternative exists, a reclamation plan must demonstrate the following: (1) no other practicable alternatives exist for relocating the activity, (2) the activity would be located to reduce effects on soil and water resources, (3) site productivity would be maintained or restored, (4) surface runoff and sedimentation would be adequately controlled, (5) on- and off-site areas would be protected from accelerated erosion, (6) no areas susceptible to mass wasting would be disturbed, and (7) surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited during extended wet periods.

You have now visited all stations of the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS Virtual Open House. Thank you for your participation. If you have more detailed questions about the Draft RMP/EIS, please submit a comment here, or you may reach us by email or phone via the contact information below.

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.