BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 1]

• Published in: EPA number: 070511, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--222 pages, Map Supplement, December 3, 2007
• Format: Report
• Language: English
• Published: 03.12.2007
• Subjects: Alaska; Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance; Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance; Bay Resource Management Area; Bays; Bristol Bay; Coastal Zones; Energy Sources; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance; Geothermal Resources; Goodnews Bay; Grazing; Indian Reservations; Land Management; Leasing; Livestock; Mineral Resources Management; Motor Vehicles; Natural Gas; Oil Production; Range Management; Recreation Resources; Recreation Resources Management; Recreation Resources Surveys; Subsistence; Visual Resources; Visual Resources Management; Wild and Scenic Rivers

PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Bay Management Area of Alaska is proposed. The study area encompasses 22.6 million acres, of which 2.5 million acres are public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in the Bristol Bay and Goodnews Bay areas of southwestern Alaska. Resource uses within the management area include forestry, livestock and reindeer grazing, and minerals extraction, recreation, renewable energy developments. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to oil and gas exploration and development leasing and its impact on sustainable natural resources and subsistence activities, land tenure adjustments to consolidate discontinuous blocks of public land to ease management, determination of the means by which access is to be provided to BLM managed lands for various management purposes, designation of special management areas, and designation of rivers for consideration for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would balance resource protection with resource exploitation. Withdrawals under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) would be revoked, and the majority of unencumbered lands, and any associated lands whose selection would be relinquished or rejected, would be open to oil and gas leasing and development subject to seasonal or other restrictions and to mineral location. Approximately 3,999 acres would continue to be withdrawn under ANCSA. One area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) would be established, namely, the Carter Spit ACEC; plans would be developed and specific measures adopted to protect values in this area. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral entry. No river corridors would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Specific lands in the Goodnews Bay and Bristol Bay areas would be managed up to 0.5 mile from established winter trail or road systems at Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III. BLM lands in the full visible foreground up to one mile from the boundaries of coastal scenic units would be managed at VRM Class IV. The ACEC would be managed for VRM Class III. All BLM-managed lands within the planning area. All other BLM lands would be managed at VRM Class IV. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on all BLM lands would be limited, allowing for limitations to be placed on OHV use to protect habitat, soil and vegetation, and/or recreation resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for protection, use, and enhancement of resources. The plan would provide site-specific management guidance on 1.2 million acres of unencumbered BLM-administered land as well as any of the 1.3 million acres of state-selected or Native American-selected lands that remain under BLM jurisdiction until such lands are conveyed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploitation, particularly extraction of oil and gas, would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Exploitative uses would also place pressure on subsistence activities and reduce the extent of rangeland useful for grazing. Finally forest products exploitation and mineral extraction and the associated road construction would mar visual aesthetics in the area and generally reduce the pristine values associated with the coastal region. OHV restrictions would reduce access to and within some locales within the Bay Area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0553D, Volume 30, Number 4.