Fort Greely resource management plan/environmental impact statement : record of decision PDF
Preview Fort Greely resource management plan/environmental impact statement : record of decision
BLM LIBRARY 600+080 BLM/AKyWWB/006+1 Department of the Interior [es Management Bureau of Land Mountains District Office Steese/White Greely Fort Decision Record of g3 idssoccs Greely Fort Management Plan/ Resource Statement Impact Environmental Decision Record of preparedby Department of the Interior U.S. Land Management Bureau of White Mountains District Steese/ June, 1995 Alaska State Director, Fort Greely Record ofDecision 1 Introduction Decision RMP The Military Lands Withdrawal The Proposed as presented in Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-606) renews a Chapter 1 of the January 1994 Fort withdrawal of approximately 620,000 Greely Proposed RMP/Final EIS is acres as part of Fort Greely near Delta hereby approved. These decisions Junction, Alaska, for the use of the include those in both the military for training and testing. The "Management Common to All legislation requires the Secretary of Alternatives" and "Proposed Plan" the Interior to prepare a plan for the sections of that chapter. management of nonmilitary uses of The RMP maintains the public's these lands. The plan is to recognize current access to Fort Greely, provides the preeminence of the military's increased protection for wildlife mission, yet include provisions habitat, and protection and necessary for "proper management interpretation potential for cultural and protection of the resources and resources. It also provides greater values" of the land. opportunities for recreation and the The Bureau of Land use of forest resources, and savings in Management's Steese/White fire suppression costs. The plan Mountains District and the United accomplishes this both through States Army Alaska jointly prepared changes in policies and practices the plan. In the summer of 1987 the specified in the plan and through planning team began to collect public additional required planning efforts comment on the plan, including targeted at better wildlife, recreation, holding public meetings in Fairbanks cultural, forest, and fire management. and Delta Junction. The BLM and the Some of these activity-level plans are Army issued a Draft Resource already underway. Management Plan/Draft BLM and the Army considered A Environmental Impact Statement five alternative plans. Alternative (Draft RMP/Draft EIS) in September was to leave management of the Fort 1988 and held public meetings in Greely withdrawal as it is. Fairbanks and Delta Junction later Alternative B presented a set of that fall. After consideration of the decisions which, through eliminating public's comments and extensive nonmilitary access to the fort, would further review by higher authorities make it easier for the military to in the Army, the BLM's State Director fulfill its mission. It called for some and the U.S. Army Alaska's actions to improve cultural and Commanding General issued a wildlife habitat management, RMP Proposed /Final EIS in January provided that they did not interfere 1994. The public did not protest the with the military. Alternative C plan and Alaska's Governor emphasized habitat protection, while determined that the plan is consistent still permitting public access to the with state and local plans. withdrawal. It added some restrictions to the military's use of the land and allowed timber and firewood harvests only to the extent that they improved habitat. 2 Fort Greely Record ofDecision Alternative D was designed to to nil and there will be very little enhance public recreational impact on subsistence resources from opportunities on Fort Greely. the anticipated nonmilitary uses of Alternative E focused on economic the withdrawal. development, particularly mining, trapping, and commercial timber and Title to Beds of Navigable Waterbodies firewood harvests. Alternative B would have resulted The RMP makes no determination in the fewest environmental impacts of the navigability of waterbodies on by nonmilitary use of Fort Greely. Fort Greely. Unless otherwise We rejected this alternative because it withdrawn at the date of Statenood, protected resources at the price of the beds of navigable waterbodies denying the public use of these lands. werfe reserved and passed to the State Alternatives C, D, and E were rejected on that date. Navigability can because elements in them would ultimately only be determined by the have imposed unnecessary federal courts. If any waterbodies in hinderances to the military's use of the Fort Greely withdrawal are owned these lands. by the State, we will assure that Alternative A offered the mix of management activities occur in close ease of public access while still coordination and consultation with facilitating accomplishment of the the State. military's mission that has proven generally satisfactory. Yet, it was Water Rights rejected in favor of the Proposed Plan, which retains the virtues of Federal reserved water rights are Alternative A while providing some created when federal lands are improved resource management withdrawn from entry for federal use. practices and policies. The Proposed These water rights are for the Plan includes measures, such as minimum amount of water necessary restrictions on off-road vehicle use to satisfy both existing and foreseeable and military and development future uses of water for the primary activities, to avoid adverse purposes for which the land is environmental impacts wherever withdrawn. Under State law, the practical. federal government may claim these rights from the State. In addition, the ANILCA Section 810 Alaska Water Use Act allows public agencies to apply for reservations of In accordance with Section 810 of water for instream uses, including the Alaska National Interest Lands fisheries, recreation, and water quality Conservation Act, we evaluated the purposes. The federal government, effects of the selected plan on working cooperatively with the State, subsistence uses and needs. The will attempt to obtain water rights selected plan does not cause a through the appropriate State significant restriction to subsistence processes as the acquisition of such uses. There will be no significant rights becomes necessary, appropriate, restriction because the level of and feasible. subsistence use of Fort Greely is low Fort Greely Record ofDecision 3 Implementation and Monitoring Concurrently with this ROD, the BLM and the Army are signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) defining their respective responsibilities for carrying out the policies and programs described in the RMP. Having completed the RMP and adopted the MOU, the plan will be implemented to the extent that funding permits. In addition, and again to the extent that funding allows, we will monitor the resources and uses described in this plan to determine if impacts on the fort's natural resources exceed acceptable levels and to guide any modification or amendment to the plan in the future. For Further Information You may obtain additional information on the management of nonmilitary activities on the Fort Greely withdrawal by contacting the Steese/White Mountains District Office, 1150 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3844 or by calling the office at (907) 474-2350. RMP Copies of the Proposed /Final BLM EIS are available in the public rooms at the agency's offices at 1150 University Avenue in Fairbanks or at BLM's Alaska State Office in the Federal Building at 7th and C Street in Anchorage. You may also view these documents at the public libraries in Fairbanks, Delta Junction, and Anchorage. £
The list of books you might like
