The BLM considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis, the removal of all existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in the Planning Area. The WFO and CYFO currently manage nine ACECs in the Planning Area under the existing plans. Additional areas were nominated for consideration as ACECs during the public and internal scoping process for this RMP and EIS. The BLM individually evaluated all existing and newly nominated areas to determine if they met the importance and relevance criteria required for ACEC designations. Based on this evaluation, consideration of planning issues, and input from the public and cooperating agencies, the BLM carried forward two of the existing ACECs in all alternatives (Brown/Howe Dinosaur Area and Spanish Point Karst). Reasons for these ACECs designation and management have not changed since their original designation, and no specific comments addressing issues with their current designation or management were found warranting an alternative considering their removal. In addition, the BLM analyzed alternatives that carried forward all of the existing ACECs (including expansions of five of these areas), nine new ACECs, and several Management or Special Management Areas (SMA) (Appendix F).
The BLM has long acknowledged that FLPMA Section 603 (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1782), which required a one-time wilderness review, has expired. FLPMA Section 201 (43 U.S.C. 1711) authorizes all current inventory of public lands. The BLM periodically monitors existing Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) in accordance with the Interim Management Policy (IMP); however, currently BLM and DOI policy does not provide for creation of new WSAs. Using existing resource information, the BLM conducted an evaluation pursuant to the inventory requirement of Section 201 of FLPMA. All public land in the Planning Area, including land the public proposed, was evaluated to determine areas that have wilderness characteristics (naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive or unconfined recreation). The BLM analyzed in detail an alternatives to manage aLWCs for the protection of wilderness characteristics. Chapter 3 of this RMP and EIS identifies LWCs.
The BLM considered pursuing withdrawals from appropriation under the mining laws for WSAs, but eliminated the alternative from detailed study. By law, an RMP cannot close an area to the operation of the Mining Laws – this can only be accomplished by withdrawal, which is a separate action BLM can recommend but must ultimately be taken at the Secretarial level. Withdrawals cannot be applied to WSAs solely for the protection of wilderness characteristics per FLPMA Section 603. FLPMA does not permit withdrawals of lands within WSAs solely for the protection of wilderness characteristics, but does allow withdrawals for the protection of other resource values. The 10 WSAs within the Planning Area contain important cultural resources and special status species habitat, which may be withdrawn on a case-by-case basis under all of the alternatives, as well as cave and karst resources and portions of the Spanish Point Karst ACEC, which are withdrawn under all of the alternatives.