Wilderness Characteristics Inventory

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Central Yukon Resource Management Plan

August 2018

Bureau of Land Management-Alaska

Central Yukon Field Office

222 University Avenue

Fairbanks, Alaska 99709

(907) 474-2200 BLM/AK/PL-18/011+6302+FO200 WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS INVENTORY ...... 1

Chapter 1: Wilderness Characteristics Inventory...... 5

SECTION 1:1 INTRODUCTION ...... 5

Section 1:1.1 Methodology ...... 5

Section 1:1.2 Signature Page ...... 10

SECTION 1:2 WILDERNESS INVENTORY FORMS ...... 11

Section 1:2.1 Fairbanks Subunit Inventory ...... 11 Section 1:2.1.1 Elliott Highway ...... 13 Section 1:2.1.2 Parks Highway ...... 16 Section 1:2.1.3 Richardson Highway ...... 19 Section 1:.2.1.4 Steese Highway ...... 22 Section 1:2.1.5 Fairbanks North Star Borough ...... 25 Section 1:2.1.6 Fairbanks North Star Borough Small Parcels ...... 27

Section 1:2.2 Central Yukon Inventory ...... 31 Section 1:2.2.1 Dalton Highway ...... 43 Section 1:2.2.2 Chapman Lake Road ...... 46 Section 1:2.2.3 Galbraith Lake Road ...... 49 Section 1:2.2.4 Indian Mountain USAF Road ...... 52 Section 1:2.2.5 Ruby-Poorman Road ...... 55 Section 1:2.2.6 Toolik Lake Road ...... 58 Section 1:2.2.7 Wiseman/Nolan Road ...... 61 Section 1:2.2.8 Bettles Winter Road ...... 64 Section 1:2.2.9 Alatna-Shungnak Winter Trail ...... 67 Section 1:2.2.10 Anvik-Kaltag Winter Trail ...... 70 Section 1:2.2.11 Beaver-Caro Winter Trail ...... 73 Section 1:2.2.12 Beaver-Horse Creek-Chandalar Lake Winter Trail ...... 76 Section 1:2.2.13 Caro-Coldfoot-West Fork Winter Trail ...... 79 Section 1:2.2.14 Caro-Fort Yukon Winter Trail ...... 82 Section 1:2.2.15 Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake Trail ...... 85 Section 1:2.2.16 Coldfoot Trail 47-Junction 49 Winter Trail 47 ...... 88 Section 1:2.2.17 Cos Jacket-Kuskokwim Mountains Winter Trail ...... 91 Section 1:2.2.18 Dunbar-Brooks Terminal Winter Trail ...... 94 Section 1:2.2.19 Ft. Gibbon-Kaltag Winter Trail ...... 97 Section 1:2.2.20 Hickel Highway Winter Trail ...... 100 Section 1:2.2.21 Hughes-Mile 70 Winter Trail ...... 103 Section 1:2.2.22 Hunter Creek-Livengood Winter Trail ...... 106 Section 1:2.2.23 Hutlinana Hot Springs Winter Trail ...... 109 Section 1:2.2.24 Illinois Creek-Moran Creek Winter Trail ...... 112 Section 1:2.2.25 Kaiyuh Hills (Galena) Winter Trail ...... 115 Section 1:2.2.26 Kiana-Selawik-Shungnak Winter Trail ...... 118 Section 1:2.2.27 Kobi-McGrath Winter Trail ...... 121 Section 1:2.2.28 Lake Minchumina-Kuskokwim River Winter Trail ...... 124 Section 1:2.2.29 Little Melozitna Hot Springs Winter Trail ...... 127 Section 1:2.2.30 Melozitna Hot Springs Winter Trail ...... 130

LWC 2 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.31 Nimiuk Point-ShungnakWinter Trail ...... 133 Section 1:2.2.32 Nulato-Dishkaket Winter Trail ...... 136 Section 1:2.2.33 Paw River Portage Winter Trail ...... 139 Section 1:2.2.34 Pipeline Access Road 117-AMS-1 ...... 142 Section 1:2.2.35 Rex-Roosevelt Winter Trail ...... 145 Section 1:2.2.36 Slate Creek Winter Trail ...... 148 Section 1:2.2.37 Smally Creek Winter Trail ...... 151 Section 1:2.2.38 Tanana-Alakaket Winter Trail ...... 154 Section 1:2.2.39 Tanana-Rampart Yukon River Winter Trail ...... 157 Section 1:2.2.40 Tramway Bar Winter Trail ...... 160 Section 1:2.2.41 Wiseman-Chandalar Winter Trail ...... 163

Unit Analysis ...... 166 Section 1:2.2.42 TAPS-Dalton Highway...... 166 Section 1:2.2.43 Southeast Dalton Highway ...... 167 Section 1:2.2.44 Myrtle Creek South ...... 169 Section 1:2.2.45 Clara Creek ...... 171 Section 1:2.2.46 Poss Mountain ...... 173 Section 1:2.2.47 Snowden Mountain ...... 175 Section 1:2.2.48 Sagavanirktok River ...... 177 Section 1:2.2.49 Northwest Dalton ...... 179 Section 1:2.2.50 Kalhabuk Mountain ...... 181 Section 1:2.2.51 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex ...... 183 Section 1:2.2.52 Rampart ...... 190 Section 1:2.2.53 Tanana East ...... 192 Section 1:2.2.54 Tanana West ...... 194 Section 1:2.2.55 Grant Creek South ...... 196 Section 1:2.2.56 Kallands ...... 198 Section 1:2.2.57 Kokrines...... 200 Section 1:2.2.58 Kokrine Foothills ...... 202 Section 1:2.2.59 Ruby West ...... 204 Section 1:2.2.60 Dulbi River ...... 206 Section 1:2.2.61 Galena South ...... 208 Section 1:2.2.62 Koyukuk ...... 210 Section 1:2.2.63 Nulato West ...... 212 Section 1:2.2.64 Nulato Hills ...... 214 Section 1:2.2.65 Kaltag ...... 216 Section 1:2.2.66 Poison Creek ...... 218 Section 1:2.2.67 Alatna ...... 220 Section 1:2.2.68 Ambler ...... 222 Section 1:2.2.69 Anaktuvuk River Strip ...... 224 Section 1:2.2.70 Anderson East ...... 226 Section 1:2.2.71 Bearpaw ...... 228 Section 1:2.2.72 Central Arctic Management Area — Wilderness Study Area ...... 230 Section 1:2.2.73 Chitanana River ...... 233 Section 1:2.2.74 Clear Air Station ...... 235 Section 1:2.2.75 Killik River ...... 236 Section 1:2.2.76 Kuparuk River East ...... 238 Section 1:2.2.77 Livengood East ...... 240 Section 1:2.2.78 Livengood West...... 242 Section 1:2.2.79 Lost River ...... 244 Section 1:2.2.80 Minto East ...... 246 Section 1:2.2.81 Nanushuk River Block River ...... 248

LWC 3 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.82 North Fork Kuskokwim ...... 250 Section 1:2.2.83 Pediment Creek ...... 254 Section 1:2.2.84 Robert Creek ...... 256 Section 1:2.2.85 South Fork Koyukuk River ...... 258 Section 1:2.2.86 Sulatna East ...... 260 Section 1:2.2.87 Toklat ...... 262 Section 1:2.2.88 Your Creek ...... 264 Section 1:2.2.89 Zane Hills ...... 266 Section 1:2.2.90 Small Scattered Parcels ...... 268 Section 1:2.2.91 Shaviovik River ...... 275 Section 1:2.2.92 Echooka River ...... 277 Section 1:2.2.93 Large Area Mining Claims...... 279

Section 1:2.3 Other BLM Managed Lands Subunit Inventory ...... 281 Section 1:2.3.1 Delta Junction-Fort Greely Area Large Parcels ...... 283 Section 1:2.3.2 Delta Junction-Fort Greely Area Small Parcels ...... 285

SECTION 1:3 ROUTE INVENTORY FORM ...... 287

ACRONYMS ...... 290

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 291

LWC 4 13 August 2018 Chapter 1: Wilderness Characteristics Inventory

Section 1:1 Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601–1 requires the BLM to identify lands that have wilderness characteristics. The Resource Management Plan should identify decisions to protect or preserve wilderness characteristics. The authority for addressing wilderness characteristics is found in the Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLMPA) Section 201, Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, and the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).

The first step in this process is to assess the lands to determine which areas have wilderness characteristics. This document outlines the methods used and the results of the inventory for the Central Yukon Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Additional lands outside the planning area that were not previously inventoried under the Eastern Interior Inventory because of boundary changes were also inventoried and are included in this document. This document is only relevant to inventory of public lands to assess their wilderness characteristics and should not be confused with management of these areas. Management of lands with wilderness characteristics will be determined in the RMP for all lands within the Central Yukon Field Office Planning Area.

Section 1:1.1 Methodology

All public lands, including State- and Native-selected lands, addressed in the Central Yukon RMP were inventoried for wilderness characteristics. The inventory evaluated wilderness characteristics as discussed in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131) and incorporated into the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). To be identified during the inventory process as having wilderness characteristics, lands must:

• Be a roadless area of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition;

• Generally appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature; and,

• Have outstanding opportunities for solitude, or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.

Within this inventory process, lands were not buffered. Areas with wilderness characteristics, in some cases, may immediately abut land whose own character precludes wilderness characteristics. For example, land immediately adjacent to a road may be classified during inventory as possessing wilderness characteristics. The fact that the sight or sound of the road may detract from the wilderness experience on adjacent lands does not, in and of itself, render those lands as not possessing wilderness characteristics.

LWC 5 13 August 2018 As long as the criteria listed above are met, the following facilities, activities and uses consistent with ANILCA do not preclude determining, during wilderness inventory, that lands meet the criteria for wilderness characteristics:

• public use cabins;

• administrative sites and visitor facilities;

• temporary facilities and equipment for hunting, fishing, and camping;

• airplane use and landings; and,

• motorboat, snowmachine, and all-terrain motor vehicle use.

The critical question to consider is not whether these facilities, activities or uses exist in the relevant tract, but whether they singularly or in combination with other factors have altered the character of the land from one that “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature” and precludes the land from having “outstanding opportunities for solitude and/or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” In general, substantial active or remnant evidence of mining or oil and gas extraction facilities, above-ground pipelines or power lines, intensive recreational developments, and similar intrusions on the land may render such lands as inappropriate for identification in the inventory stage as having wilderness characteristics.

The inventory process utilized in-house expertise to assess whether or not specific lands possess wilderness characteristics. The BLM will also rely on public comments obtained on these assessments during the public comment periods associated with the Central Yukon Draft RMP/EIS to bring forth other sources of knowledge to potentially modify the assessment.

The inventory of wilderness characteristics is documented in the form of worksheets for each inventory unit and is depicted on maps created using Geographic Information System. The maps are available in the Central Yukon Field Office, 222 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Analysis of Roads

The first step is to determine whether the area being inventoried contains roads. Section 1.3 of this document includes an example of the Route Inventory Form. Winter Trails identified in this inventory were taken from known travel routes and routes identified by the State of Alaska DNR in their RS2477 Casefile Search database. The use of route names and RST numbers are for reference only and do not constitute an agreement of the validity of the data or legitimacy of the RS2477 claim.

1. In order to insure a consistent identification of "roads" as opposed to a vehicle "way", the following definition has been adopted: "The word 'roadless' refers to the absence of roads which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road." This language is from the House of Representatives Committee Report 94-1163, page 17, dated May 15, 1976, on what became the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

LWC 6 13 August 2018 2. A route which was established or has been maintained solely by the passage of vehicles would not be considered a road, even if it is used on a relatively regular and continuous basis. Vehicle routes constructed by mechanical means but which are no longer being maintained by mechanical methods are not roads. Sole use of hands and feet to move rocks or dirt without the use of tools or machinery does not meet the definition of "mechanical means." Roads need not be "maintained" on a regular basis but rather "maintained" when road conditions warrant actions to keep it in a usable condition.

Analysis of Size, Naturalness and Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation

This inventory evaluated wilderness characteristics as discussed in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act and incorporated in FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), which states: “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which:

1. generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable;

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;

3. has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and

4. may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”

Central Yukon Field Office Process

The Central Yukon Field Office used the following process during the Central Yukon inventory for wilderness characteristics.

Size

Determine if the inventory area “...has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.” Specifically, the size criteria will be satisfied for inventory areas in the following situations and circumstances:

1. Roadless areas with over 5,000 acres of contiguous public lands. State or private lands are not included in making this acreage determination.

2. Any roadless island of the public lands of less than 5,000 acres.

LWC 7 13 August 2018 3. Roadless areas of less than 5,000 acres of contiguous public lands where any one of the following apply:

a. They are contiguous with lands which have been formally determined to have wilderness or potential wilderness values; or,

b. It is demonstrated that the area is clearly and obviously of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; or,

c. They are contiguous with an area of other federal lands administered by an agency with authority to study and preserve wilderness lands, and the combined total is 5,000 acres or more.

If none of the size criteria were met, it was determined that the unit does not possess wilderness characteristics and no further evaluation was needed. If the unit met the size criteria, the next step in the process, Naturalness, was considered.

Naturalness

If an area is determined to be roadless, next consider if the area generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature. People's work must be substantially unnoticeable and the area must retain its primeval character. It should be an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by humans and their activities.

An area may include some human impacts provided they are substantially unnoticeable in the area as a whole. Examples of human-made features that may be compatible with “naturalness” include: trails, trail signs, bridges, fire breaks, pit toilets, fisheries enhancement facilities (such as fish traps and stream barriers), fire rings, historic properties, archaeological resources, hitching posts, snow gauges, water quantity and quality measuring devices, research monitoring markers and devices, minor radio repeater sites, air quality monitoring devices, fencing, spring developments, barely visible linear disturbances, and stock ponds.

There is an important difference between an area's natural integrity and its apparent naturalness. Natural integrity refers to the presence or absence of ecosystems that are relatively unaffected by human's activities. Apparent naturalness refers to whether or not an area looks natural to the average visitor who is not familiar with the biological composition of natural ecosystems versus human-affected ecosystems in a given area. It is, however, the presence or absence of apparent naturalness (i.e., do the works of humans appear to be substantially unnoticeable to the average visitor?) that determines if an area has wilderness characteristics.

If the size criteria were met, but the naturalness criteria were not, it was determined that no further evaluation was needed and the unit does not possess wilderness characteristics. If both the size and naturalness criteria were met, the next step in the process was considered.

Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation

Once an area meets the size, roadless, and naturalness criteria, determine if the area has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. The word

LWC 8 13 August 2018 "or" in this sentence means that an area only has to possess one or the other. It does not have to possess outstanding opportunities for both elements, and the area does not need to have outstanding opportunities on every acre. There must be outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation somewhere in the area.

In most cases, the two opportunities could be expected to go hand-in-hand. The outstanding opportunity for solitude, however, may be present in an area offering only limited primitive recreation potential. Also, an area may be so attractive for recreation use that it would be difficult to maintain opportunity for solitude.

If it was determined that an area met the criteria of size, naturalness, and had either outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, it was concluded that the area (i.e., unit) possesses wilderness characteristics.

Supplemental Values

If size, naturalness and outstanding opportunities criteria are met, then supplemental values may be considered. Supplemental values are ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Supplemental values are not required to be present in order to classify an area possessing wilderness characteristics, but their presence was documented and taken into account where they are known to exist.

Process Summary

Within the Central Yukon Planning Area and the Other Lands Inventory Area, smaller units were developed, utilizing known areas of significant disturbance as boundaries (such as roads or mining activity).

The overwhelming majority of lands in the planning area do not contain "roads" as described previously. For the few existing roads, a road inventory form was completed.

Each unit was assessed to determine if it met the size criteria. If the unit did not meet the size criteria, no further assessment was done. If the size criteria were met, then the unit was assessed for naturalness. If the unit did not possess naturalness, no further assessment was done. If the unit was determined to be natural, it was assessed for solitude and primitive recreation opportunities, and any known special values were identified.

LWC 9 13 August 2018 Section 1:1.2 Signature Page

The following individuals contributed to the preparation or review of this inventory.

Name Title Office Jeanie Cole Planning and Environmental Coordinator Fairbanks District Office Tyler Cole Natural Resource Specialist Central Yukon Field Office Kelly Egger Outdoor Recreation Planner Central Yukon Field Office Mark Faugh Geographic Information Specialist Fairbanks District Office Tim Hammond Supervisor Resources Branch Central Yukon Field Office Bill Hedman Supervisor Recreation Services Branch Central Yukon Field Office Jen McMillian Wildlife Biologist Central Yukon Field Office Tim LeMarr Field Manager Central Yukon Field Office Lisa Jodwalis Park Ranger — Interpretation Central Yukon Field Office Carl Kretsinger Fisheries Biologist Central Interior Field Office Matthew Lux Land Law Examiner Alaska State Office Holli McClain Outdoor Recreation Planner Eastern Interior Field Office Robin Walthour Realty Specialist Central Yukon Field Office

This inventory was reviewed by:

Date

Tim La Marr

Central Yukon Field Manager

LWC 10 13 August 2018 Section 1:2 Wilderness Inventory Forms

Using the inventory process described in Section 1.1.1 the Central Yukon FO conducted an inventory to determine which lands in the Central Yukon Planning Area have wilderness characteristics. The inventory worksheets for each inventory unit are found in the following sections.

Section 1:2.1 Fairbanks Subunit Inventory

The Fairbanks Subunit was divided into 2 units for inventory purposes comprising 61 different parcels of land. Some of these are further broken down into smaller subunits as a result of the Route Inventory process or other factors. An inventory form was completed for each inventory unit and is included in the following pages. Similar subunits were lumped into one inventory form.

Route analysis was conducted on four major routes because of the urban nature of the area. The Route Analysis Forms for each of these are included in the following sections.

No lands within the Fairbanks Subunit were found to have wilderness characteristics. The Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units shows lands determined to possess wilderness characteristics in the Fairbanks Subunit. The table below summarizes the inventory findings for the Fairbanks Subunit. A map displaying the location of each inventory unit is available at the BLM’s Fairbanks District Office.

Table 1:1 Routes inventoried and associated with the Fairbanks Subunit

Route Name Construction/ Maintenance Relatively Conclusion Improvements Regular/ Continuous Use

Elliott Highway Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Parks Highway Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Richardson Highway Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Steese Highway Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

LWC 11 13 August 2018 Table 1:2 Fairbanks Subunit Summary of Inventory Findings

Unit Acres Meets Is Solitude or Conclusion Name/Number size Natural? Primitive Criteria? Recreation?

Fairbanks North Star 1,012,092 Yes No N/A No wilderness characteristics

Borough

Fairbanks North Star 14,001 No N/A N/A No wilderness characteristics

Borough Small Parcels

LWC 12 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.1.1 Elliott Highway

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: Fairbanks North Star Borough; Fairbanks North Star Borough Small Parcels

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Elliott Highway State Highway 2 (State of Alaska Route ID 153000)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Elliott Highway (Principal Arterial — Other/Major Collector) runs northward from the Steese Expressway in Fox to Manley Hot Springs, Alaska. The route was developed to connect the city of Manley Hot Springs with Fairbanks. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Fairbanks and Livengood Quadrangles and is State of Alaska maintained. It is approximately 24 feet wide and 30 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: State Principal Arterial- Other.

Describe: Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough the route moves traffic from Fairbanks to the Dalton Highway quickly and safely, while the remainder of the route provides public access from Fairbanks to Manley Hot Springs and Minto.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Public Road with a 100 foot Right-of- Way.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The Elliott Highway serves as a Principal Arterial-Other connector route connecting the Steese Highway and the Dalton Highway. Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the route is a two lane with speeds posted up to 55 mph.

LWC 13 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved X Bladed Graveled X Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: Construction of the Elliott Highway was completed in 1959 as a public road, providing access from Fairbanks to Manley Hot Springs and Minto. Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the route is a two Principal Arterial with speeds posted up to 55 mph.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts X Stream Bridges X Drainage X Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: The Elliott Highway, within the plan area is a paved road that is open year round and maintained. Improvements include MPs, highway signs, three bridges, and waysides.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The Elliott Highway receives annual year round maintenance by ADOT.

LWC 14 13 August 2018 2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? N/A

Explain: The Elliott Highway is a State of Alaska Highway and is maintained by ADOT in good condition with large equipment.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

Describe evidence (e.g., direct, vehicles or vehicle tracks observed, or indirect, evidence of use associated with purpose of the route such as maintenance of facility that route accesses) and other rationale for whether use has occurred and will continue to occur on a relatively regular basis (i.e., regular and continuous use relative to the purpose(s) of the route).

The Elliott Highway is open and maintained year round. At mile 0.1 (Fox) the Elliott Highway receives over 1,100 vehicles annually (ADOT Fixed Recorder Report 2012).

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: The Elliott Highway, State Route 2, provides primary access from Fairbanks to Manley Hot Springs and Minto and to connector roads which provide access to BLM managed lands within these inventory units for community access, mining, recreation and administrative activities.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: October 2014

LWC 15 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.1.2 Parks Highway

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: Fairbanks North Star Borough; Fairbanks North Star Borough Small Parcels

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Parks Highway State Highway 3 (State of Alaska Route ID 170000)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Parks Highway (Interstate) runs northward from the Glenn Highway to South Cushman in Fairbanks. The route was developed to connect the city of Anchorage with Fairbanks. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Fairbanks Quadrangle and is State of Alaska maintained. It is approximately 80 feet wide and 29 miles long from MP 326 to MP 355.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: State Public Interstate — provide high levels of mobility while linking major urban areas and providing access to homes, businesses, and other property.

Describe: The route provides public assess to the communities of Anchorage, Wasilla, Houston, Willow, Trapper Creek, Cantwell, Nenana, Ester and Fairbanks. Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough the route moves traffic from Fairbanks to Ester quickly and safely.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Public Road with a 100 foot Right-of- Way.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The Parks Highway serving as an Interstate connector route connecting the Richardson Highway and the Glenn Highway was completed in 1971. Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the Parks Highway is a two to four lane divided highway with each lane approximately 12 feet in width and speeds posted up to 60 mph.

LWC 16 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved X Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: Construction of the Parks Highway was completed in 1971 as a public road, providing access from Anchorage to Fairbanks. Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the route is a mostly divided two to four lane Interstate with speeds posted up to 60 mph.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts X Stream Bridges X Drainage X Barriers X Other X Crossings

Describe: The Parks Highway-Mitchell Expressway, within the plan area is a paved road that is open year round and maintained. Improvements include MPs, highway signs, truck lanes, one bridge, and waysides. Initial construction was completed in 1971 and the Parks Highway has been upgraded numerous times since that date.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The Parks Highway/Mitchell Expressway receives annual year round maintenance by ADOT.

LWC 17 13 August 2018 2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? N/A

Explain: The Parks Highway/Mitchell Expressway is a State of Alaska Highway and is maintained by ADOT in good condition with large equipment.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The Parks Highway/Mitchell Expressway is open and maintained year round. At mile 357 (Chena River Bridge) the Parks Highway/Mitchell Expressway receives over 16,000 vehicles annually (ADOT Fixed Recorder Report 2012).

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: The Parks Highway/Mitchell Expressway, State Route 3, provides primary access from Anchorage to Fairbanks, and to connector roads which provide access to BLM managed lands within these inventory units for community access, mining, recreation and administrative activities.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: October 2014

LWC 18 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.1.3 Richardson Highway

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: Fairbanks North Star Borough; Fairbanks North Star Borough Small Parcels

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Richardson Highway State Highway 4 (State of Alaska Route ID 190000)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Richardson Highway (Interstate) runs northward from Meals Avenue in Valdez, Alaska to Airport Way in Fairbanks. The route was developed to connect the port city of Valdez with the gold rush camp of Fairbanks. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Big Delta and Fairbanks Quadrangles and is State of Alaska maintained. It is approximately 40 feet wide and is 70 miles long from MP 295 to MP 364.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: State Public Interstate — provide high levels of mobility while linking major urban areas and providing access to homes, businesses, and other property.

Describe: The route provides public access to the communities of Valdez, Delta Junction, Fairbanks and other small communities. Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough the route provides access to Birch Lake, Harding Lake, and the communities of Salcha, Eielson Air Force Base, Moose Creek, North Pole, and Fairbanks.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Public Road with a 100 foot Right-of- Way.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The route was constructed by the Alaska Road Commission and was completed in 1905. In the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the Richardson Highway is a four lane divided highway for approximately half the length and each lane width is 12 feet.

LWC 19 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved X Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: Construction of the Richardson Highway began in the late 1800s and was completed in 1905 as a public road, providing access from Valdez to Fairbanks. Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the route is a two to four lane Interstate with speeds posted up to 60 mph.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts X Stream Bridges X Drainage X Barriers X Other X Crossings

Describe: The Richardson Highway was constructed prior to 1906 and has been rerouted and upgraded many times. There are seven bridges within the North Star Borough boundary.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The route receives annual year round maintenance by ADOT.

LWC 20 13 August 2018 2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? N/A

Explain: This route is a State of Alaska Highway and is maintained by ADOT in good condition with large equipment.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The Richardson Highway is open and maintained year round. Over 24,900 vehicles use the Richardson Highway at MP 362 annually (ADOT Fixed Recorder Report 2012).

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: The Richardson Highway, State Route 4, provides primary access from Valdez to Fairbanks, and to connector roads which provide access to BLM managed lands within these inventory units for mining, recreation and administrative activities.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: October 2014

LWC 21 13 August 2018 Section 1:.2.1.4 Steese Highway

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: Fairbanks North Star Borough; Fairbanks North Star Borough Small Parcels

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Steese Expressway/Highway State Highway 2 (State of Alaska Route ID 152000)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Steese Expressway (Principal Arterial - Other) runs northward from Airport Way in Fairbanks to Tamarack Street in Circle, Alaska. The route was developed to connect the city of Circle with the gold rush camp of Fairbanks. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Fairbanks and Livengood Quadrangles and is State of Alaska maintained. It is approximately 80 feet wide and 11 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: State Principal Arterial.

Describe: Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough the route moves traffic from Fairbanks to Fox quickly and safely, while the remainder of the route provides public access from Fairbanks to Circle and other small communities.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Public Road with a 100 foot Right-of- Way.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The Steese Expressway serves as a Principal Arterial-Other connector route connecting the Richardson Highway and the Elliott Highway. Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the route is a two to four lane with speeds posted up to 55 mph.

LWC 22 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved X Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: Construction of the Steese Highway began in the late 1800s and was completed in 1927 as a public road, providing access from Circle and Central to Fairbanks. Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the route is a two to four lane Local Road with speeds posted up to 60 mph.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts X Stream Bridges X Drainage X Barriers X Other X Crossings

Describe: The Steese Expressway, within the plan area is a paved road that is open year round and maintained. Improvements include MPs, highway signs, one bridge, and a wayside.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The Steese Expressway/Highway receives annual year round maintenance by ADOT.

LWC 23 13 August 2018 2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? N/A

Explain: The Steese Expressway/Highway is a State of Alaska Highway and is maintained by ADOT in good condition with large equipment.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The Steese Expressway/Highway is open and maintained year round. At mile 0.5 (Chena River Bridge) the Steese Expressway/Highway receives over 28,000 vehicles annually (ADOT Fixed Recorder Report 2012).

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: The Steese Expressway/Highway, State Route 2, provides primary access from Fairbanks to Fox, and to connector roads which provide access to BLM managed lands within these inventory units for community access, mining, recreation and administrative activities.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: October 2014

LWC 24 13 August 2018 Unit Analysis

Section 1:2.1.5 Fairbanks North Star Borough

Form 2. Current Conditions: Presence or Absence of Wilderness Characteristics

Area Number/Name: Fairbanks North Star Borough

BLM Inventory Area acres: 963,526 Total acres

• AKF03000-5034, US ACOE Flood Control, (13,864 acres)

• AKF02000-5014, NOAA-NESDIS Withdrawal - East, T2N,1E FM and T2N, 2E FM (6,765 acres)

• AKF02000-5032, Fort Wainwright Main Post, (13,088 acres)

• AKF02000-5033, Fort Wainwright Tanana Flats Training Area, including Impact/Control Areas (651,920 acres)

• AKF02000-5035, Fort Wainwright Yukon Training Area, including AFTAC Controlled Area and Training Impact Areas (258,067 acres)

• AKF02000-5033, Eielson Air Force Base, (19,822 acres)

1) Is the area of sufficient size? Yes

Description: This inventory unit consists of scattered parcels, all of which are greater than 5,000 acres. Primarily bordered by State of Alaska or private lands, none of these are contiguous to lands which have been formally determined to have wilderness or potential wilderness values. All of these lands have been withdrawn for special use however many of the withdrawals allow for general public use.

The Fairbanks North Star Borough covers approximately 4,711,000 acres and includes the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, and the communities of Badger, College, Eielson Air Force Base, Ester, Ester Dome, Farmers Loop, Fort Wainwright Army Post, Fox, Goldstream, Harding-Birch Lakes, Haystack, Moose Creek, Salcha, and Two Rivers. These communities are accessed by the Elliott, Parks, Richardson, and Steese highways and local roads.

LWC 25 13 August 2018 2) Does the area appear natural? No

Description: Many of the parcels within this inventory unit have been altered by man through the development of roads and trails, mining activities on federal mining claims which bisect the parcels, and buildings and other structures such as satellite arrays, power lines, communications towers, pipelines and other improvements.

3) Does the area have outstanding opportunities for solitude? Not Evaluated

4) Does the area have outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation? Not Evaluated

5) Does the area have known supplemental values (ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value)? Not Evaluated

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

Area Number/Name:

• AKF03000-5034, US ACOE Flood Control, (13,864 acres)

• AKF02000-5014, NOAA-NESDIS Withdrawal - East, T2N,1E FM and T2N, 2E FM (6,765 acres)

• AKF02000-5032, Fort Wainwright Main Post, (13,088 acres)

• AKF02000-5033, Fort Wainwright Tanana Flats Training Area, including Impact/Control Areas (651,920 acres)

• AKF02000-5035, Fort Wainwright Yukon Training Area, including AFTAC Controlled Area and Training Impact Areas (258,067 acres)

• AKF02000-5033, Eielson Air Force Base, (19,822 acres)

1. Does the area meet the size requirements? Yes

2. Does the area appear natural? No

3. Does the area offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation? Not Evaluated

4. Does the area have known supplemental values? Not Evaluated

CONCLUSION: These areas do not have wilderness characteristics.

LWC 26 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.1.6 Fairbanks North Star Borough Small Parcels

Form 2. Current Conditions: Presence or Absence of Wilderness Characteristics

Area Number/Name: Fairbanks North Star Borough Small Parcels

BLM Inventory Acreage: 2,290 Total acres

• AKF02000–1000, Fairbanks District Office, (9 acres)

• AKF02000–1001, Fairbanks Federal Building, (20 acres)

• AKF02000–5002, FAA — Chena Pump Road T1S, 2W sec. 29 FM (95 acres)

• AKF02000–5003, FAA — T1S, R1W, S18se, (less than 10 acres)

• AKF02000–5004, FAA — T1S, R1W, S18nw, (21 acres)

• AKF02000–5006, FHWA — T1S, R1W, S18e, (22 acres)

• AKF02000–5007, FHWA — T1S, R1W, S18nw, (less than 10 acres)

• AKF02000–5008, Taroka Road property, T1S, R2W, S30, FM (20 acres)

• AKF02000–5009, Isberg Road property, T2N, R1W Sec 29 FM (20 acres)

• AKF03000–5010, Ski Boot Hill Extension — Geophysical Observatory–1, T1N, R1W, S17 FM (5 acres)

• AKF03000–5011, Ski Boot Hill Extension — Geophysical Observatory–2, T1N, R1W, S17 FM (5 acres)

• AKF03000–5012, Farmers Loop — Army Permafrost Station, (120 acres)

• AKF02000–5013, Ester Dome Administrative Site, (6 acres)

• AKF02000–5029, Condemn to US ACOE #02 - T3S, R3E, S33, (20 acres)

• AKF02000–5030, Condemn to US COE #03- T4S, R4E, S19, (less than 25 acres)

• AKF02000–5040, Harding Lake West, (10 acres)

• AKF02000-5043, Birch Lake Air Force Recreation Site, (48 acres)

• AKF02000-5044, Birch Lake PLO1613 #1(11), (less than 1 acre)

• AKF02000-5045, Birch Lake PLO1613 #2(17–18), (less than 1 acre)

LWC 27 13 August 2018 • AKF02000-5046, Birch Lake PLO1613 #3(20–21), less than 1 acre)

• AKF02000-5047, Birch Lake PLO1613 #4(32), (less than 1 acre)

• AKF02000-5049, Shaw Creek Experiment Station-DOA, T7S, R8E, sec 27 and 34 FM (40 acres)

• AKF02000-5015, NOAA—NESDIS Withdrawal, (1,780 acres)

1) Is the area of sufficient size? No

Description: This inventory unit consists of scattered parcels, all of which are less than 5,000 acres. Primarily bordered by State of Alaska or private lands, none of these are contiguous to lands which have been formally determined to have wilderness or potential wilderness values. Most of these lands have been withdrawn for special use however many of the withdrawals allow for general public use. The remainder of these lands are state selected but not yet conveyed or have been returned to the United States.

2) Does the area appear natural? N/A

3) Does the area have outstanding opportunities for solitude? N/A

4) Does the area have outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation? N/A

5) Does the area have known supplemental values (ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value)? Not Evaluated

LWC 28 13 August 2018 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

Area Number/Name:

• AKF02000–1000, Fairbanks District Office, (9 acres)

• AKF02000–1001, Fairbanks Federal Building, (20 acres)

• AKF02000–5002, FAA — Chena Pump Road T1S, 2W sec. 29 FM (95 acres)

• AKF02000–5003, FAA — T1S, R1W, S18se, (less than 10 acres)

• AKF02000–5004, FAA — T1S, R1W, S18nw, (21 acres)

• AKF02000–5006, FHWA — T1S, R1W, S18e, (22 acres)

• AKF02000–5007, FHWA — T1S, R1W, S18nw, (less than 10 acres)

• AKF02000–5008, Taroka Road property, T1S, R2W, S30, FM (20 acres)

• AKF02000–5009, Isberg Road property, T2N, R1W Sec 29 FM (20 acres)

• AKF03000–5010, Ski Boot Hill Extension — Geophysical Observatory–1, T1N, R1W, S17 FM (5 acres)

• AKF03000–5011, Ski Boot Hill Extension — Geophysical Observatory–2, T1N, R1W, S17 FM (5 acres)

• AKF03000–5012, Farmers Loop — Army Permafrost Station, (120 acres)

• AKF02000–5013, Ester Dome Administrative Site, (6 acres)

• AKF02000–5029, Condemn to US ACOE #02 - T3S, R3E, S33, (20 acres)

• AKF02000–5030, Condemn to US COE #03- T4S, R4E, S19, (less than 25 acres)

• AKF02000–5040, Harding Lake West, (10 acres)

• AKF02000-5043, Birch Lake Air Force Recreation Site, (48 acres)

• AKF02000-5044, Birch Lake PLO1613 #1(11), (less than 1 acre)

• AKF02000-5045, Birch Lake PLO1613 #2(17–18), (less than 1 acre)

• AKF02000-5046, Birch Lake PLO1613 #3(20–21), less than 1 acre)

• AKF02000-5047, Birch Lake PLO1613 #4(32), (less than 1 acre)

LWC 29 13 August 2018 • AKF02000-5049, Shaw Creek Experiment Station-DOA, T7S, R8E, sec 27 and 34 FM (40 acres)

• AKF02000-5015, NOAA—NESDIS Withdrawal, (1,780 acres)

1. Does the area meet the size requirements? No

2. Does the area appear natural? N/A

3. Does the area offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation? N/A

4. Does the area have known supplemental values? N/A

CONCLUSION: This area does not have wilderness characteristics.

LWC 30 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2 Central Yukon Inventory

The planning area was divided into 17 units for inventory purposes comprising 275 different parcels of land. Some of these are further broken down into smaller subunits as a result of the Route Inventory process or other factors. An inventory form was completed for each inventory unit and is included in the following pages. Similar subunits were lumped into one inventory form.

Route analysis was conducted on 41 routes. The Dalton Highway bisects the planning area. The other routes are “cherry stem” routes or user created “ways” and did not bisect the inventory units. The Route Analysis Forms for each of these are included in the following sections.

The tables below summarize the inventory findings for the planning area. The inventory units are arranged from south to north along the east side of the Dalton Highway and from north to south along the west side of the Dalton Highway. The next group of inventories are arranged along the Yukon River as it flows to the Bering Sea. All other parcels are listed alphabetically. A map displaying the location of each inventory unit is available at the BLM’s Fairbanks District Office.

Table 1:3 Summary of Route Inventory Findings

Route Name Construction/ Maintenance Relatively Conclusion Improvements Regular/ Continuous Use

Dalton Highway Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Elliott Highway (see Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Fairbanks Subunit) Inventory Road

Parks Highway (see Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Fairbanks Subunit) inventory Route

Chapman Lake Road Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Galbraith Lake Road Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Indian Mountain USAF Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Road Inventory Road

LWC 31 13 August 2018 Route Name Construction/ Maintenance Relatively Conclusion Improvements Regular/ Continuous Use

Ruby-Poorman Road Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Toolik Lake Road Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Wiseman/Nolan Road Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Bettles Winter Road Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Alatna-Shungnak Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Anvik-Kaltag Winter Yes No Yes No the route is not a Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Beaver-Caro Winter Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Beaver-Horse Creek- Yes No Yes No the route is not a Chandalar Lake Wilderness Inventory Road

Caro-Coldfoot West No No Yes No the route is not a Fork Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Caro-Fort Yukon No No Yes No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Coldfoot-Chandalar Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Lake Trail Inventory Road

Coldfoot Winter Trail No No Yes No the route is not a 47 Wilderness Inventory Road

LWC 32 13 August 2018 Route Name Construction/ Maintenance Relatively Conclusion Improvements Regular/ Continuous Use

Cos Jacket- No No Yes No the route is not a Kuskokwim Mountains Wilderness Inventory Road Winter Trail

Dunbar-Brooks Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Terminal Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Ft. Gibbon-Kaltag Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Hickel Highway Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Hughes-Mile 70 Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Hunter Creek- Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Livengood Winter Wilderness Inventory Road Trail

Hutlinana Hot Springs No No Yes No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Illinois Creek-Moran Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Creek Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Kaiyuh Hills (Galena) No No No No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Kiana-Selawik- Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Shungnak Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Kobi-McGrath Winter Yes Yes No No the route is not a Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

LWC 33 13 August 2018 Route Name Construction/ Maintenance Relatively Conclusion Improvements Regular/ Continuous Use

Lake Mimchumina- Yes No Yes No the route is not a Kuskokwim River Wilderness Inventory Road Winter Trail

Little Melozitna Hot Yes No Yes No the route is not a Springs Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Melozitna Hot Springs Yes No Yes No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Nimiuk Point- Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Shungnak Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Nulato-Dishkaket Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Pah River Portage No No No No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Pipeline 117–AMS-1 Yes Yes Yes Route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Rex-Roosevelt Winter No No Yes No the route is not a Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Slate Creek Winter No No Yes No the route is not a Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Smally Creek Winter Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Tanana-Alakaket Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Tanana-Rampart Yes Yes Yes No the route is not a Yukon River Winter Wilderness Inventory Road Trail

LWC 34 13 August 2018 Route Name Construction/ Maintenance Relatively Conclusion Improvements Regular/ Continuous Use

Tramway Bar Winter No No Yes No the route is not a Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Wiseman-Chandalar No Yes Yes No the route is not a Winter Trail Wilderness Inventory Road

Table 1:4 Route Inventory and Inventory Unit(s)

Route Name Inventory Unit

Dalton Highway TAPS Dalton Highway, Sagwoon Airstrip

Elliott Highway (see Fairbanks Livengood East #02, Livengood West Subunit)

Parks Highway (see Fairbanks Nenana Parcel, Clear Air Station Subunit)

Chapman Lake Road TAPS-Dalton Highway, Kalhabuk Mountain #01, Chapman Creek Mining claims

Galbraith Lake Road TAPS-Dalton Highway, Northwest Dalton #01

Indian Mountain USAF Road Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #34, #35, #36

Ruby-Poorman Road Ruby West

Toolik Lake Road TAPS-Dalton Highway, Northwest Dalton #01

Wiseman/Nolan Road TAPS-Dalton Highway, Kalhabuk Mountain #01, Wiseman Area Mining Claims

Bettles Winter Road TAPS-Dalton Highway, Kalhabuk Mountain #01, Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #01

Alatna-Shungnak Winter Trail Alatna #03

Anvik-Kaltag Winter Trail Poison Creek

Beaver-Caro Winter Trail Southeast Dalton Highway #01

LWC 35 13 August 2018 Route Name Inventory Unit

Beaver-Horse Creek-Chandalar Lake Southeast Dalton Highway #01

Caro-Coldfoot West Fork Winter Trail Southeast Dalton #08, Myrtle Creek, Clara Creek, Myrtle Creek Mining Claims

Caro-Fort Yukon Winter Trail Southeast Dalton Highway #01

Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake Trail TAPS-Dalton Highway, Myrtle Creek, Clara Creek, Southeast Dalton Highway #07, #08, South Fork Koyukuk River #01, #02

Coldfoot Trail 47-Junction 49 Winter Southeast Dalton Highway #01, #02, #03, Myrtle Creek Mining Trail Claims, Clara Creek

Cos Jacket-Kuskokwim Mountains North Fork Kuskowim River #05 Winter Trail

Dunbar-Brooks Terminal Winter Trail Livengood East #01,

Ft. Gibbon-Kaltag Winter Trail Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #21, Galena East #01, #02, #03, #05, Koyukuk

Hickel Highway Winter Trail Southeast Dalton Highway #01, #02, Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #01, Bettles #02, Anaktukuk River Strip #01, #04, Nanushuk River Block, Sagwoon Airstrip

Hughes-Mile 70 Winter Trail Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #30, #35, #36, #38, USAF Indian Mountain

Hunter Creek-Livengood Winter Trail Livengood West, Rampart #06

Hutlinana Hot Springs Winter Trail Hutlinana Hot Springs

Illinois Creek-Moran Creek Winter Kallands Trail

Kaiyuh Hills (Galena) Winter Trail Galena South #02

Kiana-Selawik-Shungnak Winter Trail Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #67

Kobi-McGrath Winter Trail Bearpaw

Lake Mimchumina-Kuskokwim River North Fork Kuskokwim #02, #05 Winter Trail

Little Melozitna Hot Springs Winter Kallands Trail

Melozitna Hot Springs Winter Trail Kokrines #03, Melozitna Hot Springs

LWC 36 13 August 2018 Route Name Inventory Unit

Nimiuk Point-Shungnak Winter Trail Ambler #01

Nulato-Dishkaket Winter Trail Kaltag South

Pah River Portage Winter Trail Hogatza-Ray Mountains Kanuti Complex #30, #49

Pipeline 117–AMS-1 Sagavanirktok River

Rex-Roosevelt Winter Trail Bearpaw

Slate Creek Winter Trail TAPS-Dalton Highway, Southeast Dalton Highway #01, South Fork Mining Claims #02, Kalhakuk Mountain #01, Hogatza-Ray Mountains- Kanuti Complex #01

Smally Creek Winter Trail TAPS-Dalton Highway

Tanana-Alakaket Winter Trail Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #04, #05, #25, Alatna #04

Tanana-Rampart Yukon River Winter Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #04, #05, Tanana East Trail

Tramway Bar Winter Trail Kalhabuk Mountain #01, Chapman Creek Mining Claims

Wiseman-Chandalar Winter Trail Kalhabuk Mountain #01, West Dalton, Northwest Dalton, TAPS- Dalton Highway, Poss Mountain, Snowden Mountain, Gold Creek Linda Creek Claims

Table 1:5 Summary of Unit Inventory Findings

Unit Acres Meets Is it Solitude or Conclusion Name/Number size Natural? Primitive Criteria? Recreation?

TAPS-Dalton Highway 184,748 No Not Not Evaluated Does Not have wilderness Evaluated characteristics AKF03000-2087

Southeast Dalton 1,364,266 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness

Highway characteristics

LWC 37 13 August 2018 Unit Acres Meets Is it Solitude or Conclusion Name/Number size Natural? Primitive Criteria? Recreation?

Myrtle Creek South 8,138 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-2008

Clara Creek 21,357 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

AKF03000-2009

Poss Mountain 64,289 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

AKF03000-2010

Snowden Mountain 217,693 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

AKF03000-2011

Sagavanirktok River 132,144 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-2012

Northwest Dalton 225,016 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Kalhabuk Mountain 257,268 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Hogatza-Ray 6,167,751 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness Mountains-Kanuti River characteristics Complex

Rampart 58,499 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Tanana East 15,098 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-3006

LWC 38 13 August 2018 Unit Acres Meets Is it Solitude or Conclusion Name/Number size Natural? Primitive Criteria? Recreation?

Tanana West 34,878 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-3007

Grant Creek South 57,303 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-3008

Kallands 5,760 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-3009

Kokrines 49,343 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Kokrine Foothills 50,183 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-3014

Ruby West 6,254 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-3015

Dulbi River 809,308 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Galena South 210,475 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Koyukuk 12,800 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-3025

Nulato West 7,664 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-3026

LWC 39 13 August 2018 Unit Acres Meets Is it Solitude or Conclusion Name/Number size Natural? Primitive Criteria? Recreation?

Nulato Hills 50,999 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Kaltag 77,747 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Poison Creek 13,308 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-3033

Alatna 79,735 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Ambler 132,318 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Anaktuvuk River Strip 403,441 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Anderson East 5,760 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Bearpaw 22,862 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-4027

Central Arctic 260,329 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness

Management Area characteristics

Chitanana River 34,304 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-4045

Clear Air Station 10,807 Yes No Not Evaluated Does Not have wilderness characteristics AKF03000-4047

LWC 40 13 August 2018 Unit Acres Meets Is it Solitude or Conclusion Name/Number size Natural? Primitive Criteria? Recreation?

Killik River 7,680 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

AKR00000-3024

Kuparuk River East 15,197 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

AKR00000-3025

Livengood East 24,319 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Livengood West 44,309 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-4082

Lost River 181,704 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-4083

Minto East 7,680 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-4095

Nanushuk River Block 70,703 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness River characteristics

AKR00000-3026

North Fork Kuskokwim 2,597,021 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Pediment Creek 32,530 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Robert Creek 26,018 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

South Fork Koyukuk 28,613 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness River characteristics

LWC 41 13 August 2018 Unit Acres Meets Is it Solitude or Conclusion Name/Number size Natural? Primitive Criteria? Recreation?

Sulatna East 91,868 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF03000-4143

Toklat 22,859 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

Your Creek 45,534 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics

AKF03000-4158

Zane Hills 29,118 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKF3000-4160

Small Scattered Parcels Various No N/A N/A Does Not have wilderness characteristics 4 - 4,480

Shaviovik River 14,694 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKR0000-3031

Echooka River 43,516 Yes Yes Yes Has wilderness characteristics AKR0000-3032

Large Area Mining 25,313 Yes No N/A Does Not have wilderness Claims characteristics

LWC 42 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.1 Dalton Highway

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000-2087TAPS-Dalton Highway, AKF03000-4132 Sagwoon Airstrip

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Dalton Highway State Highway 11 (State of Alaska Route ID 150000)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Dalton Highway (Principal Arterial - Other) runs northward from the Elliott Highway to Lake Colleen Drive East in Deadhorse, Alaska. The route was constructed in 1974 to provide access to oil fields on the North Slope and assist with the construction of the oil pipeline from Fairbanks. It was not opened to the public until 1994. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Livengood, Tanana, Bettles, Wiseman, Chandalar, Philip-Smith Mountains, and Sagavanirktok Quadrangles and is State of Alaska maintained. It is approximately 24 feet wide and 418 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: State Principal Arterial- Other.

Describe: The route moves traffic from Fairbanks to Deadhorse quickly and safely, and provides public access from Fairbanks to Coldfoot and Wiseman.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Public Road with a 100 foot Right-of- Way.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The Dalton Highway serves as a Principal Arterial-Other connector route connecting the Elliott Highway with Deadhorse, Alaska. The route is a two lane with speeds posted up to 55 mph.

LWC 43 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved X Bladed Graveled X X Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: Construction of the Dalton Highway was completed in 1974 as a restricted access road and opened to the public in 1994, providing access from Fairbanks to Deadhorse and other communities. The route is a Principal Arterial with speeds posted up to 55 mph.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts X Stream Bridges X Drainage X Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: The Dalton Highway, is paved for approximately 30 percent with the remainder improved gravel. It is open year round and maintained. Improvements include MPs, highway signs, bridges, and waysides.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The Dalton Highway receives annual year round maintenance by ADOT.

LWC 44 13 August 2018 2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? N/A

Explain: The Dalton Highway is a State of Alaska Highway and is maintained by ADOT in good condition with large equipment.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The Dalton Highway is open and maintained year round. At mile 189 (North of Coldfoot) the Dalton Highway receives over 60,000 vehicles annually (ADOT AADT count of 165 for 2012).

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: The Dalton Highway, State Route 11, provides primary access from Fairbanks to Coldfoot and Deadhorse and to to BLM managed lands within the TAPS-Dalton Highway and AKF03000-4132 Sagwoon Airstrip inventory units for community access, mining, recreation and administrative activities.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: October 2014

LWC 45 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.2 Chapman Lake Road

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000-2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway, Kalhabuk Mountain Inventory Units

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Chapman Lake Road (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Chapman Lake Road is a gated road that provides access to mining claims along the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River. It begins at the Dalton Highway at MP 161, runs west by Chapman Lake to the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River. The road is approximately 15 feet wide and 3 miles long. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Wiseman Quadrangle.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: provide access to mining claims

Describe: The route provides access for miners to mining claims along the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Access to mining claims

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The road ROW was issued in 2008 to access mining claims along the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River from the Dalton Highway.

LWC 46 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed X Graveled X Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The road was developed as an all weather road for use by heavy equipment to access mining claims.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: The route is user maintained as needed to maintain access.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Describe: The route is user maintained as needed to maintain access.

1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

LWC 47 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a gated all-weather road used by permit to access mining claims.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used for access to mining claims.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Chapman Lake Road is an Inventory Road. The user maintained road is used by permit only to access BLM managed lands within the AKF03000-2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway and Kalhabuk Mountain Inventory Units. The route is approximately 15 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use byheavy equipment. This route is considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 48 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.3 Galbraith Lake Road

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: TAPS-Dalton Highway AKF03000-2087, AKF03000–2013, Northwest Dalton #1

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Galbraith Lake Road

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Galbriath Lake Road runs southward from the Dalton Highway to a material site and then extended on to the Galbraith Lake Campground. The route was constructed in the 1990’s to provide access to the Galbraith Lake Campground - a BLM facility. The route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Wiseman Quadrangle and is maintained by BLM. It is approximately 20 feet wide and 3 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: BLM Local.

Describe: The route provides access to the Galbriath Lake Campground and a material site used by the State of Alaska.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Public Road with a 50 foot Right-of- Way.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The route provides access to the Galbriath Lake Campground and a material site used by the State of Alaska. The route is a two lane gravel road with speeds posted up to 40 mph.

LWC 49 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled X X Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: Construction of the Galbraith Lake Road was completed in the 1990s as a public road, providing access to BLM facilities and a material site. The route is a two way local road with speeds posted up to 10 mph.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts X Stream Bridges Drainage X Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: The Galbraith Lake Road, is an improved gravel. It is open year round and maintained. Improvements include MPs and highway signs.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The route is maintained regularly by the State of Alaska under agreement.

LWC 50 13 August 2018 2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? Yes

Explain: The route is maintained by ADOT for road maintenance facilities and under agreement for access to BLM recreation facilities.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used seasonally by the public for access to the Galbraith Lake Campground.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Galbraith Lake Road is an Inventory Road for public access. The road is a state road and is open to the general. The route is approximately twenty feet wide. This route is located within the TAPS-Dalton Highway AKF03000-2087, AKF03000–2013 and Northwest Dalton #1 Inventory Units and is considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: February 2015

LWC 51 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.4 Indian Mountain USAF Road

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2053, Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex#35, AKF03000–2054, Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex#36 Inventory Units

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Indian Mountain USAF Road

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs between the USAF Indian Mountain Site located in portions of T8N, R24E and 25E KM and the USAF Indian Mountain Research Site located in portions of T7N R24E and 25E. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Melozitna Quadrangle and it is approximately 12 feet wide and 24 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: provide access between USAF Indian Mountain Site and USAF Indian Mountain Research Site.

Describe: The route provides year-round access between USAF Indian Mountain Site and USAF Indian Mountain Research Site.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Access road (30 feet) and powerline (15 feet) to construct, maintain, operate, repair or improve a connecting road and powerline between USAF Indian Mountain Site and USAF Indian Mountain Research Site.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The route was constructed prior to 1955 to provide access between two USAF sites.

LWC 52 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed X Graveled Cut/Fill X Other X Berms

Describe: The trail was constructed prior to 1955 for year-round access between USAF Indian Mountain Site and USAF Indian Mountain Research Site.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: Improvement to this route occurred periodically between construction and present.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: The route was maintained from construction to present.

LWC 53 13 August 2018 1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is an access road used by the USAF for access between USAF Indian Mountain Site and USAF Indian Mountain Research Site.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

Explain: The route is used year round by USAF personnel to travel between two facilities.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, this route is a Wilderness Inventory Road. The USAF maintains the road to provide access to USAF facilities within the AKF03000–2053, Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex#35 and AKF03000–2054, Hogatza-Ray Mountains- Kanuti Complex#36 Inventory Units. The route is approximately ten feet wide but is not available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by passenger vehicles.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 54 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.5 Ruby-Poorman Road

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AK03000-3015 Ruby West

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Ruby-Long-Poorman Road (Local Road - State of Alaska Route ID 59000)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs south from Ruby, over the ridge and along headwaters of Big Creek, over Boston Dome and along the Thirteenmile Creek, up and over The Hub Hill and along Long Creek into the abandoned community of Long. The route continues south along the side of Monument Rocks and along Lucky Gulch then progressing along the uplands adjacent to the Sulatna River to Sulatna Crossing. It continues along the Sulatna River until Spruce Creek where if turns off the river and continues along the uplands to the abandoned community of Poorman. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Ruby Quadrangle. It is approximately 20 feet wide and 50 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: State of Alaska Route ID 59000 - Federal Aid Route from Ruby to Poorman.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Tanana, Alaska to Bettles, Alaska.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? This route is a permanent secondary road- quiet title deed for public purposes with a 100 foot ROW.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The quiet title deed was granted to the State of Alaska as a permanent as a Class A Route #271 in 1959.

LWC 55 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The route was user created prior to 1912 with road improvements accomplished by the Alaska Road Commission as a winter sled route in 1912 and conversion to a Wagon Road to Long in 1916.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Hardened Culverts X Stream Bridges X Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: Improvements to the route include a culvert and two bridges over Monument Creek and the Sulatna River.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: The route received as-needed maintenance by Alaska DOT until 2013. After 2013 users may have completed maintenance activities such as clearing for year-round travel.

LWC 56 13 August 2018 2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? N/A

Explain: Alaska DOT discontinued maintenance activities for this route in 2013; however this is a state road.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is a state road that provides access to mining activities in the Ruby-Poorman Mining District.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, this route is an Inventory Road. The user maintained road does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000-3015 Ruby West Inventory Unit. The route is approximately twenty feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is suitable for use by passenger vehicles during the summer and snowmachines during the winter. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the AKF03000-3015 Ruby West Inventory Unit is considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: February 2016

LWC 57 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.6 Toolik Lake Road

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000-2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway, AKF03000–2013 Northwest Dalton #01

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Toolik Lake Road

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Toolik Lake Road runs west from the Dalton Highway (State of Alaska ID 150000) MP 284.3, to Toolik Lake and Toolik Lake airstrip. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Philip Smith Mountains Quadrangle. It is approximately 20 feet wide in a 100 foot ROW and 2 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: BLM Local.

Describe: The route provides public access to a Recreation and Public Purposes lease site and related facilities.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Public Road with a 50 foot Right-of- Way.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: To construct, operate, maintain and terminate a road with structures to access a Recreation and Public Purposes lease. The route is permitted under 43 CFR 2810 as public access to facilities associated with a Recreation and Public Purposes lease.

LWC 58 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed X Graveled X Cut/Fill X Other Berms

Describe: The route constructed by permit in 1994 by the State of Alaska. The route is an improved dirt road open year-round.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: No improvements to the route have been documented as part of the permit.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The route is maintained regularly by the State of Alaska (permittee).

LWC 59 13 August 2018 2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is maintained by the permittee and if the permit is not renewed, BLM would have the permittee rehabilitate the route.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used seasonally by the public for access to research facilities and the airstip (lease).

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Toolik Lake Road is an Inventory Road for public access. The road is a state road and is open to the general. The route is approximately twenty feet wide. This route is located within the AKF03000-2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway and AKF03000–2013 Northwest Dalton #01 Inventory Units and is considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: February 2015

LWC 60 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.7 Wiseman/Nolan Road

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000-2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway; AK03000–2015, Kalhabuk Mountain #01, AKF03000-4099 Wiseman Area Mining Claims

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Wiseman/Nolan Road (State of Alaska Route ID 150990, 273010)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Wiseman/Nolan Road (Local) runs southward from the Dalton Highway at MP 189 to the airport in Wiseman,, Alaska (3 miles) with a split running north to mining claims in the old townsite of Nolan (6 miles). The route was constructed in the early 1990s to provide access to the Dalton Highway and Coldfoot. The route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Wiseman Quadrangle and is State of Alaska maintained. It is approximately 24 feet wide and 9 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: State Local.

Describe: The route provides access to homes, businesses and other property in Wiseman and mining claims in Nolan.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Public Road with a 100 foot Right-of- Way.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The Wisemn/Nolan Road serves as a Local route to provide access to adjacent land. The route is a two lane gravel road with speeds posted up to 40 mph.

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

LWC 61 13 August 2018 1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled X X Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: Construction of the Wiseman/Nolan Road was completed in the 1990s as a public road, providing access to Wiseman and Nolan. The route is a two way local road with speeds posted up to 40 mph.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts X Stream Bridges Drainage X Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: The Wiseman/Nolan Road, is an improved gravel. It is open year round and maintained. Improvements include MPs and highway signs.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The Wiseman/Nolan Road receives annual year round maintenance by ADOT.

2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? N/A

Explain: The Wiseman/Nolan Road is a State of Alaska Highway and is maintained by ADOT in good condition with large equipment.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

LWC 62 13 August 2018 Describe evidence (e.g., direct, vehicles or vehicle tracks observed, or indirect, evidence of use associated with purpose of the route such as maintenance of facility that route accesses) and other rationale for whether use has occurred and will continue to occur on a relatively regular basis (i.e., regular and continuous use relative to the purpose(s) of the route).

The Wiseman/Nolan Road is open and maintained year round. The Wiseman Road receives over 27,000 vehicles annually (ADOT AADT count of 75 for 2012).

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: The Wiseman/Nolan Road provides primary access to Wiseman and mining activities in the old town of Nolan from the Dalton Highway and to BLM managed lands within this inventory unit for community access, mining, recreation and administrative activities. This route is located adjacent to the AKF03000-2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway; AK03000–2015, Kalhabuk Mountain #01, AKF03000-4099 Wiseman Area Mining Claims Inventory Units.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: October 2014

LWC 63 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.8 Bettles Winter Road

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000-2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway; AK03000–2015, Kalhabuk Mountain #01, AKF03000-2019 Hogatza-Ray Mountains- Kanuti Complex #01

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Bettles Winter Road

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Bettles Winter Trail begins at Dalton Highway MP 136 and runs northwest approximately 30 miles to the village of Evansville (aka Bettles) on the Koyukuk River. Approximately one mile from the Dalton Highway the road crosses the Jim River and then stays on a lowland route, crossing the South Fork Koyukuk River approximately halfway to Bettles. Beyond the South Fork the road enters Native-conveyed land, crosses a corner of State-conveyed land, and then stays on Native-conveyed land to Bettles. The route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Bettles.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: BLM Local.

Describe: The road provides winter vehicle access for residents of the City of Bettles (2011 population 14) to the state highway system.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? The purpose of the ROW is logistics resupply to the City of Bettles and for a private winter transportation route between the Dalton Highway and Bettles.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The 50 foot wide ROW was granted to the City of Bettles under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 on October 28, 1993 for a period of 20 years. It was renewed on January 10, 2000 until December 31, 2019. The ROW across BLM managed lands is approximately 12 miles long.

LWC 64 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed X Graveled X Cut/Fill X Other X Berms

Describe: The route was constructed by the City of Bettles in 1994 as a 24 foot wide Ice Road for winter travel only. The route is open seasonally.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: The ROW is cleared of trees and brush and some sections have been bladed. The route has been re- routined, and material has been removed to lessen grades and smooth humps.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The route is maintained regularly by the City of Bettles as outlined in the permit.

2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be

LWC 65 13 August 2018 approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? Yes

Explain: This is the only vehicle access to the City of Bettles and allows residents to drive to Fairbanks for supplies. The route is a winter only route.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used seasonally by the public for access to Bettles.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Bettles Winter Road is an Inventory Road for public access. The road is permitted under an existing ROW and is open to the population of Bettles and surrounding area. The route is approximately twenty feet wide. This route located in AKF03000-2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway; provides the boundary between the AK03000–2015, Kalhabuk Mountain #01, AKF03000-2019 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #01 Inventory Unit is considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Lisa Shon Jodwalis and modified by Holli McClain Date: March 2014 modified February 2015

LWC 66 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.9 Alatna-Shungnak Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AK03000–4002 Alatna#03

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Alatna-Shungnak Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Middle Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Alatna-Shungnak Winter Trail begins at Allakaket and runs northwest adjacent to the Alatna River to Norutak Lake, between the Akoliakruich Hills and Norutak Hills into the Upper Kobuk River Valley to Shungnak. Within the plan area, the route is approximately 35 mile long and is located on USGS 1:250,000 Bettles and Hughes Quadrangles.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #105- provide access between the Koyukuk and Kobuk rivers and Alatna

Describe: The road provides winter vehicle access for residents of the City of Bettles (2011 population 14) to the state highway system.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was a user created route prior to 1924.

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

LWC 67 13 August 2018 Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The route was constructed in 1924 with clearing and marking activities.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: Improvements were made in 1925.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The route is a user maintained trail.

Explain: The route is maintained by users and would not be maintained by the BLM.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

LWC 68 13 August 2018 The route is used in the winter by the public for access to remote lands.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes but No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Alatna-Shungnak Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AK03000–4002 Alatna#03 Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the Alatna Inventory Unit is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 69 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.10 Anvik-Kaltag Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–3033, Poison Creek Inventory Unit

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Anvik-Kaltag Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs southwest from Kaltag, Alaska to Anvik along the western bank of the Yukon River. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Nulato and Ophir Quadrangles and it is approximately 10 feet wide and approximately 30 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #255 winter mail trail

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Kaltag to Grayling and Anvik.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by the Alaska Road Commission prior to 1907

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

LWC 70 13 August 2018 Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: The route was user created prior to 1901 with route clearing by hand.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: User created trail, there may be improvements by users for winter travel.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Explain: The route is a user maintained winter trail.

Explain: The route is a winter trail used to for inter-village travel.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

LWC 71 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is used in the winter by the public for inter-village travel.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Anvik-Kaltag Winter Trail route is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000-3033 Poison Creek Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 72 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.11 Beaver-Caro Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2000, Southeast Dalton Highway #01

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Beaver-Caro Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Beaver-Caro Winter Trail begins in the north at Caro along the Chandalar River. As soon as it crosses the river, the trail splits into two sections, both paralleling the river. The two sections join back together above the mouth of Schilling Creek continuing across Schilling Creek south along the uplands to the east of Schilling Creek. The trail contiunes southeast across the Yukon Flats crossing the Hadweenzic River at Fortysix Mile Cabin and on to Beaver. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Beaver and Chandalar Quadrangles. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and 75 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #27 - provide access between Caro and the Yukon River

Describe: The route provides winter access from Caro and the Yukon River.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was user created prior to 1916 as a route between the Yukon River and Caro on the Chandalar River.

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

LWC 73 13 August 2018 1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The route was constructed and maintained periodically between 1921 and 1928.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: Construction activities occurred periodically between 1921 and 1928.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Describe: The route was maintained periodically between 1921 and 1928.

Explain: The route is a winter only route used for access to remote lands.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

Describe evidence (e.g., direct, vehicles or vehicle tracks observed, or indirect, evidence of use associated with purpose of the route such as maintenance of facility that route accesses) and

LWC 74 13 August 2018 other rationale for whether use has occurred and will continue to occur on a relatively regular basis (i.e., regular and continuous use relative to the purpose(s) of the route).

The route is used in the winter by the public.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Beaver-Caro Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2000, Southeast Dalton Highway #01 Inventory Unit. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 75 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.12 Beaver-Horse Creek-Chandalar Lake Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2000, Southeast Dalton Highway #01

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Beaver-Horse Creek-Chandalar Lake Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Utility Corridor Inventory Units BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Beaver-Horse Creek-Chandalar Lake Winter Trail begins in the north along the Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake Trail at about where the Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake Trail crosses Horse Creek, about one mile north of the North Fork of the Chandalar River. It follows the North Fork of the Chandalar River south for approximately 9 miles before crossing the uplands between the North Fork and West Fork of the Chandalar and crossing the Caro-Coldfoot West Fork Winter Trail and the into the Trail Creek drainage where it follows the creek up to the head waters, then over into the Trout Creek drainage, crossing Slate Creek, the Hadweenzic River and the Yukon Flats to Beaver. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Beaver and Chandalar Quadrangles. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and 100 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #257 - provide access between Chandalar Lake and Beaver

Describe: The route provides winter access from Chandalar Lake to remote lands.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was initiated 1910 as a route between Beaver and Chandalar Lake.

LWC 76 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The route was initiated as a trail from Beaver to Chandalar Lake.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: After initial construction in 1910 there is no indication of improvements other than by users.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Describe: The route is a user maintained trail.

LWC 77 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a winter only route used for access to remote lands.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Beaver-Horse Creek-Chandalar Lake Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2000, Southeast Dalton Highway #01 Inventory Unit. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 78 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.13 Caro-Coldfoot-West Fork Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2007 Southeast Dalton Highway #08, AKF03000–2008 Myrtle Creek, AKF03000–2009 Clara Creek, AKF03000–4097 Myrtle Creek Mining Claims

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Caro-Coldfoot-West Fork Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Caro-Coldfoot–West Fork Winter Trail begins in the west where the Coldfoot- Chandalar Lake Trail crosses Boulder Creek. From there it heads southeast across the South Fork Koyukuk River Flats, skirts West Buttons, through Boatman Pass, loops north along the West Fork of the Chandalar River to Caro. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Chandalar Quadrangle. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and 70 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #1966 - provide winter access between Caro and Coldfoot

Describe: The route provides winter vehicle access for residents of the Coldfoot (2011 population 10) to remote lands.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was user created prior to 1909 as a winter route between Caro and Coldfoot.

LWC 79 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The user created route was developed as a winter trail for winter travel only.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: The route is user created route.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Describe: The route is a user created trail.

LWC 80 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a winter only route used for access to remote lands.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Caro-Coldfoot West Fork Route Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2007 Southeast Dalton Highway #08, AKF03000–2008 Myrtle Creek, AKF03000–2009 Clara Creek, AKF03000–4097, Myrtle Creek Mining Claims Inventory Units. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in sconservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 81 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.14 Caro-Fort Yukon Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2000 Southeast Dalton Highway #01

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Caro-Fort Yukon Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Caro-Fort Yukon Winter Trail begins in the west just before where the Beaver- Caro Winter Trail crosses Schilling Creek. From there it heads east along the south side of the Chandalar River crossing over to the north side in the area of Chuttoh Bluffs and proceeding along the north side of the Chandalar River to Venetie and Fort Yukon. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Chandalar Quadrangle. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and 100 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #1644 - provide winter access between Caro and Fort Yukon

Describe: The route provides winter vehicle access for residents of the Coldfoot (2011 population 10) to remote lands.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was user created prior to 1899 as a winter route between Caro and Fort Yukon.

LWC 82 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: The user created route was developed as a winter trail for winter travel only.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: The route is a user created route.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Describe: The route is a user created trail.

LWC 83 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a winter only route used for access to remote lands.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Caro-Fort Yukon Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2000 Southeast Dalton Highway #01 Inventory Unit. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in sconservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 84 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.15 Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000-2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway, AKF03000-2008 Myrtle Creek, AKF03000-2009 Clara Creek, AKF03000-2006 Southeast Dalton Highway #07, AKF03000-2007 Southeast Dalton Highway #08, AKF03000- 4137 South Fork Koyukuk River #01, AKF03000-4138 South Fork Koyukuk River

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs east from the Dalton Highway at MP 175 along the lowlands to the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Wiseman and Chandalar Quadrangles. It is approximately 10 feet wide in a 30 foot right-of-way and 9 miles long. This route is also know as the Caro-Coldfoot Winter Trail (RST #262).

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #9 - provide access to homes, businesses and other property.

Describe: The route provides public access to mining claims in the area of Chapman Creek and the Koyukuk River.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Public Road with a 100 foot Right-of- Way.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The route was created to access mining claims along within the Middle Fork Koyukuk River drainage.

LWC 85 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled X Cut/Fill X Other Berms

Describe: The route was user created prior to 1956 with road improvements to raise the driving surface above surrounding terrain with fill materials.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts X Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: Improvements to the route include culverts to facilitate drainage.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Explain: The route is maintenance by permitted users.

2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be

LWC 86 13 August 2018 approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is maintained by users and would not be maintained by the BLM.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used year round by the public for access to inholdings. Once use of the route is no longer under permit, the route would not be maintained by BLM. The route is gated to restrict non-permitted access.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, this route is an Inventory Road for both mining and activities related to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The road is gated to restrict access – it is not open to the general public. The route is approximately ten feet wide. This route provides the boundary between the AKF03000-2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway, AKF03000-2008 Myrtle Creek, AKF03000-2009 Clara Creek, AKF03000-2006 Southeast Dalton Highway #07, AKF03000- 2007 Southeast Dalton Highway #08, AKF03000-4137 South Fork Koyukuk River #01, AKF03000-4138 South Fork Koyukuk River Inventory Units is considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: February 2015

LWC 87 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.16 Coldfoot Trail 47-Junction 49 Winter Trail 47

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000-2087 Taps-Dalton Highway, AKF03000–2000 Southeast Dalton Highway #01; AKF03000–2001 Southeast Dalton Highway #02, AKF03000–2002 Southeast Dalton Highway #03, AKF03000–2009 Clara Creek, AKF03000–4097 Myrtle Creek Mining Claims

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Coldfoot Winter Trail 47

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Coldfoot Trail 47-Junction 49 Winter Trail is a connector trail between the Hickel Highway Winter Trail and Slate Creek Winter Trail. Coldfoot Trail 47-Junction 49 Winter Trail begins in the north just east of the Dalton Highway at Coldfoot and runs eastward along Slate Creek before turning south and through Sitkum Pass and following Hungarian Creek south through the headwaters of the Jim River and the Kanuti River by traversing ridges and uplands. The southern terminus of the trail is the Hickel Highway just north of the Kanuti River. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Bettles, Chandalar, and Wiseman Quadrangles. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and 77 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #591 - provide winter access to remote lands

Describe: The route provides winter vehicle access for residents of the Coldfoot (2011 population 10) to remote lands.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was developed prior to 1902 as a winter transportation route to Coldfoot.

LWC 88 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The user created route was developed as a winter trail for winter travel only.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: The route is a user created route.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Describe: The route is a user created trail.

LWC 89 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a winter only route used for access to remote lands.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Coldfoot Trail 47-Junction 49 Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000-2087 Taps-Dalton Highway, AKF03000–2000 Southeast Dalton Highway #01; AKF03000–2001 Southeast Dalton Highway #02, AKF03000–2002 Southeast Dalton Highway #03, AKF03000–2009 Clara Creek, AKF03000–4097 Myrtle Creek Mining Claims Inventory Units. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in sconservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 90 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.17 Cos Jacket-Kuskokwim Mountains Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000-4105 North Fork Kuskokwim #05

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Cos Jacket-Kuskokwim Mountains Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs south from Cos Jacket (historic Indian village) on the Tanana River following the Cosna River where it meets up with the Lake Minchumina-Kuskokwim River Trail before heading east into the Kuskokwim Mountains. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Kantishna River Quadrangle. It is approximately 10 feet wide and 35 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #460 - provide access to resources

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Cos Jacket on the Tanana River to the Kuskokwim Mountains and the Lake Minchumina-Kuskokwim River Winter Trail.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was user constructed prior to 1899.

LWC 91 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: User created trail.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: User created trail, there may be improvements by users for winter travel.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Explain: The route is a user maintained trail.

LWC 92 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is maintained by users and would not be maintained by the BLM

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public for access to remote lands.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Cos Jacket-Kuskokwim Mountain Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road; however, the user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000-4105 North Fork Kuskokwim #05 Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: December 2014

LWC 93 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.18 Dunbar-Brooks Terminal Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–4080, Livengood East #01

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Dunbar-Brooks Terminal Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs south from Livengood on the Eillott Highway along the Tolovana River, over a saddle between into the Tatalina drainage, crosses the Chatanika River near Washington Creek then along the east side of Minto Lakes to Dunbar on the Alaska Railroad. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Livengood and Fairbanks Quadrangles and is approximately 10 feet wide and 6 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #66 -provide access from the Alaska Railroad to mine sites

Describe: The route provides winter public access from the Alaska Railroad at Dunbar to Livengood.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was user constructed prior to 1922.

LWC 94 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: Portions of a user created trail was constructed periodically between 1922 and 1926.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges X Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: User created trail was improved for water crossings and other improvements periodically between 1924 and 1931.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: The route was periodiaclly maintained between 1923 and 1931 and has been a user maintained trail since 1931.

2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be

LWC 95 13 August 2018 approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is maintained by users and would not be maintained by the BLM

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public for access to remote lands.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes but No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Dunbar-Brooks Terminal Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road; however, the user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000-4080 Livengood East #01 Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 96 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.19 Ft. Gibbon-Kaltag Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2039 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #21, AKF03000–4053 Galena East #01, AKF03000–4052 Galena East #02, AKF03000–4053 Galena East #03, AKF03000–4057 Galena East #05, AKF03000– 3025 Koyukuk

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Ft. Gibbon-Kaltag Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs westward from Tanana, Alaska, along the right bank of the Yukon River through Galena, Koyukuk, Nulato and terminates in Kaltag. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Tanana, Melozitna, Ruby, and Nulato Quadrangles. It is approximately 10 feet wide and 257 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #287— provide access to homes, businesses and other property.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Tanana to Kaltag along the north bank of the Yukon River.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by the Alaska Road Commission prior to 1907 to provide access to homes, businesses and other property.

LWC 97 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The trail was part of the Fairbanks to Nome Winter Mail Trail with clearing activities conducted prior to 1907.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges X Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: Improvements to the route were made in periodically from 1907 to 1928 by the Alaska Road Commission. Improvements included installation of route stakes and bridges to facilitate creek crossings.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: The route received periodic maintenance by the Alaska Road Commission from 1907 through 1928, but has not been maintained since then except by users.

1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be

LWC 98 13 August 2018 approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is a winter trail used to for inter-village travel during winter.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

Explain: The route is used in the winter by the public for inter-village travel.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes but No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Ft. Gibbon-Kaltag Winter Trail is not a Wilderness Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access to BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2039 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #21, AKF03000– 4053 Galena East #01, AKF03000–4052 Galena East #02, AKF03000–4053 Galena East #03, AKF03000–4057 Galena East #05, AKF03000–3025 Koyukuk Inventory Units. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: November 2015

LWC 99 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.20 Hickel Highway Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2000 Southeast Dalton Highway #01; AKF03000–2001 Southeast Dalton Highway #02; AKF03000–2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway; AKF03000–2019 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti River Complex #01; AKF03000– 4029 Bettles #02; AKF03000–4016 Anaktuvuk River Strip#01; AKF03000–4098, Nanushuk River Block

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Hickel Highway Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Hickel Highway Winter Trail begins at Livengood and runs northwest approximately 114 miles to the village of Evansville (aka Bettles) on the Koyukuk River. From Bettles it continues in a northerly direction over Ninemile Hills, along Crevice Creek then along the uplands of the John River to Anaktuvuk Pass. From Anaktuvuk Pass the winter trail continues northward along the Anaktuvuk River Valley, past Schrader Bluff to just past the Nanushuk River where it turns northeasterly till just before Square Lake where it turns towards the east across the Itkillik River, Kuparuk River Toolik River, Tuluk Creek to the Dalton Highway at MP 357. It continues east across the Sagavanirktok River, then up the Ivishak River to the Sagwon landing strip. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Beaver, Bettles, Chandler Lake, Sagavanirktok, Umiat, and Wiseman Quadrangles.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #450 - provide winter access to remote lands

Describe: The road provides winter vehicle access for residents of the City of Bettles (2010 population 12), Evansville (2010 population 15) and Anatuvuk Pass (2010 population 324) to the state highway system.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was developed prior to 1951 as a winter transportation route to the oil fields, which has since been replaced by the Steese, Elliott and Dalton highways.

LWC 100 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed X Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The route was developed as a winter trail - Ice Road for winter travel only.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: The route is user maintained by cleared of trees and brush as needed with hand tools including chainsaws.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Describe: The route is user maintained by cleared of trees and brush as needed with hand tools including chainsaws.

LWC 101 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a winter only route used for inter-village travel.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public for inter-village travel.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes but No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Hickel Highway Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2000 Southeast Dalton Highway #01; AKF03000–2001 Southeast Dalton Highway #02; AKF03000–2087 TAPS-Dalton Highway; AKF03000–2019 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti River Complex #01; AKF03000–4029 Bettles #02; AKF03000–4016 Anaktuvuk River Strip#01; AKF03000–4098, Nanushuk River Block Inventory Units. The route is approximately 15 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in sconservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Lisa Shon Jodwalis and modified by Holli McClain Date: March 2014 modified April 2016

LWC 102 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.21 Hughes-Mile 70 Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2048 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #30, AKF03000–2053 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #35, AKF03000–5054 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #36, AKF03000–2056 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #38, AKF03000–3005 USAF Indian Mountain

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Hughes-Mile 70 Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs eastward from Hughes, Alaska, a round Indian Mountain to the Indian River and continues to the Notoiono Creek within State Selected lands. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Hughes Quadrangle. It is approximately 10 feet wide and 53 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #308 – provide access to homes, businesses, and other property.

Describe: The route provides winter public access to Hughes to Indian Mountain and the Tanana- Allakaket Winter Trail.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by the Alaska Road Commission and was completed in 1929.

LWC 103 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The route was completed by the Alaska Road Commission in 1929.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: Improvements by the Alaska Road Commission took place in 1928 and 1929.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: Maintenance activities were conducted in 1928 and 1929.

LWC 104 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a winter trail used maintained by users since 1929 for access from Hughes to the Tanana-Allakaket Winter Trail during winter.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

Explain: The route is used in the winter by the public for inter village travel.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes but No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Hughes-Mile 70 Winter Trail route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access to BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2048 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #30, AKF03000– 2053 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #35, AKF03000–5054 Hogatza-Ray Mountains- Kanuti Complex #36, AKF03000–2056 Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex #38, AKF03000–3005 USAF Indian Mountain Inventory Units. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the Kokrines and, Grant Creek Inventory Units is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2017

LWC 105 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.22 Hunter Creek-Livengood Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF030–4082 Livengood West, AKF03000–3005 Rampart #06

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Hunter Creek-Livengood Winter Trail

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs southeastward from Rampart, Alaska, from the Rampart-Eureka Trail (route 7) along Hunter Creek, crossing over into Willow Creek drainage following willow creek to Troublesome Creek where it turns south towards the mouth of Gazzam Creek where it turns eastward towards the Elliott Highway. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Livengood Quadrangles. It is approximately 12 feet wide and 65 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #468 – provide access between Livengood and Rampart.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Rampart to the Elliott Highway.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by the Alaska Road Commission prior to 1907 to provide access between Livengood and Rampart.

LWC 106 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The trail was constructed by users prior to 1950 but the route was extended in 1950.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: There is no indication of improvement to this route.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: The route is user maintained.

LWC 107 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a winter trail used for access to the Elliott Highway during winter.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

Explain: The route is used in the winter by the public for access to the Elliott Highway during winter.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes but No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Hunter Creek-Livengood Winter Trail route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access to BLM managed lands within the AKF030–4082 Livengood West and AKF03000–3005 Rampart #06 Inventory Units. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: November 2015

LWC 108 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.23 Hutlinana Hot Springs Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–4061 Hutlinana Hot Springs

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Hutlinana Hot Springs Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs northeastward from Eureka, Alaska, along the uplands of Ditch Creek and Pioneer Creek to Deadwood Creek, over the divide into Hutlinana Creek and the hot springs. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Tanana and Livengood Quadrangles. It is approximately 10 feet wide and 8 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #1845 – provide access to the hot springs and surrounding state lands.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Rampart to the Elliott Highway.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was user created for access to the hot springs.

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

LWC 109 13 August 2018 Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: The trail was constructed by users prior to 1950 but the route was extended in 1950.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: There is no indication of improvement to this route.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Explain: The route is user maintained.

Explain: The route is a winter trail used for access to the hot springs during winter.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

LWC 110 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is used in the winter by the public for access to the hot springs.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Hutlinana Hot Springs Winter Trail route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access to BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–4061 Hutlinana Hot Springs Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2017

LWC 111 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.24 Illinois Creek-Moran Creek Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–3009, Kallands

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Illinois Creek-Moran Creek Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs southeastward from Kallands, on the Yukon River northward along Illinois Creek to Miner Creek and across a ridge to the head of Moran Creek. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Melozitna Quadrangle and it is approximately 12 feet wide and 24 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #99– provide access to mining claims along Moran Creek.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Kallands on the Yukon River to Moran Creek.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by the Alaska Road Commission prior to 1929 to provide access to lands north of the Yukon River.

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

LWC 112 13 August 2018 1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The trail was constructed in 1929 for access to Moran Creek by pack horses and dog sleds during the winter.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: Improvements to this route occurred in 1930 and 1954.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: The route was maintained from 1931–1954.

Explain: The route is a winter trail used to access Moran Creek from the Yukon River.

LWC 113 13 August 2018 C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

Explain: The route is used in the winter by the public for access to the Elliott Highway during winter.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes but No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Illinois Creek-Moran Creek Winter Trail route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access to BLM managed lands within the AKF03000-3009 Kallands Inventory Units. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 114 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.25 Kaiyuh Hills (Galena) Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–3023 Galena South #02

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Kaiyuh Hills (Galena) Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Central Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs roughly southwest from the Kaiyuh Slough of Yukon River south of Galena along a ridge in the Kaiyuh Hills to old mining claims along a tributary of Bishop Creek. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Nulato Quadrangle. It is approximately 10 feet wide and 13 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #245– provide access to mining claims from the Yukon River.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from the Yukon River to old mining claims.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by miners prior to 1920 to provide access to mining claims.

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

LWC 115 13 August 2018 Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: The trail was constructed by users prior to 1921.

2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: There is no indication of improvement to this route.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Explain: The route is user maintained.

Explain: The route is a winter trail used to for access mining claims from the Yukon River near Galena during winter.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) No

LWC 116 13 August 2018 Explain: The route may be used in the winter by the public for access to the Kaiyuh Mountains.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Kaiyuh Hills (Galena) Winter Trail route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road. The user maintained trail may provide access to BLM managed lands within the AKF03000-3023 Galena South #02 Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 117 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.26 Kiana-Selawik-Shungnak Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKA1000–5004, Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti River Inventory Unit

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Kiana-Selawik-Shungnak Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs roughly southeast from the Kobuk River south of Kiana along Portage Creek through the Hockley Hills, along the Oblaron Creek uplands, across Shogvik Lake to the Selawik River and then to Selawik. From Selawik, the route crosses a portion of Niglaktak Lake and continues southeast along the Selawik River to the Kugarak River. The route follows the Kugarak River, crossing Egaupak Lake to Kerchurak Creek. The route then follows Kerchurak Creek to the headwaters, crosses the flats south of Shaleruckik Mountain, across the Black River to the Kobuk River, to Shungnak. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Shungnak Quadrangle. It is approximately 10 feet wide and 13 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #115– provide access from Selawik toShungnak and area mining claims.

Describe: The route provides winter public access between Kiana, Selawik and Shungnak.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by miners prior to 1920 to provide access to mining claims.

LWC 118 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The trail was constructed by users prior to 1932. Some construction activities occurred between 1933 and 1954.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools x By Machine x

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other x Crossings

Describe: Some improvement activities occurred between 1933 and 1954.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: Some maintenance activities occurred between 1933 and 1954.

1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be

LWC 119 13 August 2018 approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is a winter trail used for access between the communities of Kiana, Selawik and Shungnak during winter.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

Explain: The route may be used in the winter by the public for access between the communities of Kiana, Selawik and Shungnak.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes but No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Kiana-Selawik-Shungnak Winter Trail route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road. The user maintained trail may provide access to BLM managed lands within the Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti River Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti River Inventory Unit is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: September 2016

LWC 120 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.27 Kobi-McGrath Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–4027, Bearpaw Inventory Unit

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Kobi-McGrath Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Middle Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs roughly southwest from the Rex-Roosevelt Winter Trail to Lake Minchumina. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Nulato Quadrangle. It is approximately 10 feet wide and approximately 15 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #345– mail trail and to provide access to villages.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from the Kobi (Parks Highway) to McGrath.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed prior to 1917 to provide for winter mail travel.

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

LWC 121 13 August 2018 Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The trail was constructed for winter mail delivery prior to 1917.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: Improvement to this route were made to allow for winter sled travel.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: The route was maintained between 1917 and 1954. Since 1954, users have maintained the route for winter travel.

Explain: The route is a winter trail used to for access to the Parks Highway from McGrath.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) No

LWC 122 13 August 2018 Explain: The route may be used in the winter by the public for access between the Parks Highway, Lake Minchumina, and McGrath.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Kobi-McGrath Winter Trial route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road. The user maintained trail may provide access to BLM managed lands within the Bearpaw Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the Bearpaw Inventory Unit is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 123 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.28 Lake Minchumina-Kuskokwim River Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: North Fork Kuskokwim

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Lake Minchumina-Kuskokwim Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs northeastward from the northern shore of Lake Minchumina, Alaska, east of Haystack Mountain, then follows the North Fork Kuskokwim River, over the divide into the Cosna River drainage to the Cos Jacket-Kuskokwim Mountain Winter Trail east of the Bitzshtini Mountains. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Kantishna River and Mt. McKinley Quadrangles. It is approximately 10 feet wide and 12 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #758 — provide access to homes, businesses, and other property

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Lake Minchumina to the Tanana River via the Cos Jacket-Kuskokwim Mountains Winter Trail.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was user constructed prior to 1899.

LWC 124 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: User created trail was brushed and marked in 1899.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: User created trail, there may be improvements by users for winter travel.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Explain: The route is a user created trail which is maintained by users.

LWC 125 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is maintained by users and would not be maintained by the BLM

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public for access to remote lands.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Lake Minchumina-Kuskokwim River Winter Trail route is not an Inventory Road; however, the user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the North Fork Kuskokwim River Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the North Fork Kuskokwim River Inventory Unit is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: December 2014

LWC 126 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.29 Little Melozitna Hot Springs Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–3009, Kallands Inventory Unit

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Little Melozitna Hot Springs Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Middle Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs northward from the Yukon River at Kallands over Blueberry Ridge, along ridges to Switchback Mountain, down into Moran Creek and into the Melozitna Hot Springs drainage to the Little Melozitna Hot Springs. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Melozitna Quadrangle. It is approximately 12 feet wide and 27 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #1844– provide access to mining claims along Moran Creek and the Little Melozitna Hot Springs.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Kallands on the Yukon River to Moran Creek and the Little Melozitna Hot Springs.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by the Alaska Road Commission prior to 1907 to provide access to mining and the Little Melozitna Hot Springs.

LWC 127 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The trail was a user created trail by 1910 for access to Moran Creek and the Little Melozitna Hot Springs during the winter.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: There is no indication of improvements to this route; it is a user maintained trail.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Explain: The route is a user maintained trail.

1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be

LWC 128 13 August 2018 approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is a winter trail used to access Moran Creek from the Yukon River.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

Explain: The route is used in the winter by the public for access to the Little Melozitna Hot Springs.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Little Melozitna Hot Springs Winter Trail route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access to BLM managed lands within the Kallands Inventory Units. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the Kallands Inventory Units is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 129 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.30 Melozitna Hot Springs Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–3012, Kokrines Inventory Unit

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Melozitna Hot Springs Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Middle Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs northward from the Yukon River at Kokrines through the Kokrine Hills across Glacier Creek to Melozitna Hot Springs. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Melozitna Quadrangle. It is approximately 12 feet wide and 10 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #1846– provide access to Melozitna Hot Springs.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Kokrines on the Yukon River to Melozitna Hot Springs.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by users prior to 1917 to provide

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

LWC 130 13 August 2018 Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The trail was a user created trail by 1917 for access to Melozitna Hot Springs during the winter.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: There is no indication of improvements to this route; it is a user maintained trail.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Explain: The route is a user maintained trail.

Explain: The route is a winter trail used to access the Melozitna Hot Springs from the Yukon River.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

LWC 131 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is used in the winter by the public for access to the Melozitna Hot Springs.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, this route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access to BLM managed lands within the Kokrines Inventory Units. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the Kokrines Inventory Units is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 132 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.31 Nimiuk Point-ShungnakWinter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–4005, Ambler #01 Inventory Unit

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Nimiuk Point-Shungnak Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Utility Corridor Inventory Units and the Middle Yukon Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Nimiuk Point-Shungnak Winter Trail begins on the east side of Hotham Inlet and runs east through Noorvik to Kiana and Ambler. From Ambler the trail runs along the uplands of the Kobuk River and crosses a small portion of Ambler #01 along Rabbit Creek approximately 3 miles from the mouth and another small portion east of Pitkik Creek. The route then continues on to Shungnak. Within the inventory area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Ambler River and Shugnak Quadrangles. It is approximately 12 feet wide and less than one mile long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #124 - provide winter access from Kotzebue to Shungnak

Describe: The route provides winter vehicle access for residents of Ambler (2010 population 12) Evansville (2010 population 15) and Anatuvuk Pass (2010 population 258) to Kotzabue.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was developed prior to 1951 as a winter transportation route to the oil fields, which has since been replaced by the Steese, Elliott and Dalton highways.

LWC 133 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The route was developed as a winter trail for winter travel only prior to 1922.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: The route is user maintained by cleared of trees and brush as needed with hand tools including chainsaws. Some shelter cabins were constructed prior to 1922.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Describe: The route is user maintained by cleared of trees and brush as needed with hand tools including chainsaws. Grading took place as early as 1922.

1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be

LWC 134 13 August 2018 approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is a winter only route used for inter-village travel.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public for inter-village travel.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Nimiuk Point-Shungnak Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–4005, Ambler #01 Inventory Unit. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in sconservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: January 2017

LWC 135 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.32 Nulato-Dishkaket Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: Kaltag South

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Nulato-Dishkaket Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs southward from Nulato, Alaska, across then appears to parallel to the Yukon River adjacent to Green Water Creek, Tlatskokat Slough across Tsurotlurna Slough and Yukon Creek, then along the West Fork Little Mud River until it meets the Dishkaket-Kaltag Winter Trail. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Nulato and Ophir Quadrangles. It is approximately 10 feet wide and 90 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #161 – a connecting route to the Yukon River from the Iditarod Trail

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Nulato to Ophir via the Kaltag- Dishkaket Winter Trail and the Iditarod Winter Trail.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was user constructed prior to 1913.

LWC 136 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: User created trail was brushed prior to 1905.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: User created trail, there may be improvements by users for winter travel made between 1905–1920.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: The route is a user created trail which was maintained for winter travel between 1905–1920. Users may do maintenance for winter inter-village travel.

1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be

LWC 137 13 August 2018 approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is maintained by users and would not be maintained by the BLM

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public for access to remote lands.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Nulato-Dishkaket Winter Trail route is not an Inventory Road; however, the user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the Kaltag South Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the Kaltag South Inventory Unit is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 138 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.33 Paw River Portage Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti Complex

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Paw River Portage Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs southward from a cabin near the confluence of the Paw and Kobuk rivers, along the uplands adjacent to the Paw, then eastward along the Paw River Flats, south of Holly Lakes, through the Totzitigi Portage (aka Kobuk Portage) to the Hogatza River. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Hughes Quadrangle. It is approximately 10 feet wide and 27 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #1913 – a connecting route between the Paw River and the Hogatza River

Describe: The route provides winter public access between the Paw and Hogatza rivers.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was user constructed prior to 1886.

LWC 139 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: User created trail was brushed prior to 1905.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: User created trail.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Explain: The route is a user created trail which was maintained for winter travel between 1886–1930. Users may do maintenance for winter inter-village travel.

1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be

LWC 140 13 August 2018 approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is maintained by users and would not be maintained by the BLM

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) No

The route may be used in the winter by the public for access between the Paw and Hogatza rivers.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Paw River Portage Winter Trail route is not an Inventory Road; however, the user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti River Complex Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti River Complex Inventory Unit is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: September 2016

LWC 141 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.34 Pipeline Access Road 117-AMS-1

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2012, Sagavanirktok River

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Pipeline Access Road 117-AMS-1 (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Utility Corridor Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Pipeline Access Road begins at the Dalton Highway at MP 290.4 and runs southeast approximately 2.5 miles to material sites. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Phillip Smith Quadrangle.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: provide access to material sites used by ADOT and for the TAPS.

Describe: The road provides access to two material sites.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW? Pipeline Access Road to access material sites.

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes

Explain: The road was developed as part of the TAPS construction with a 30 foot right of way to access material sites.

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

LWC 142 13 August 2018 1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled X Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: The route was developed during the building of the TAPS to access material sites.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: The route is user maintained.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Describe: The route is user maintained.

Explain: If the material sites at the end of the road were closed BLM would have the road reclaimed to blend with the surrounding landscape.

LWC 143 13 August 2018 C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The road is used to access material sites.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes. The route is a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Pipeline Access Road 117–AMS-1 is an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2012, Sagavanirktok River Inventory Unit. The route is approximately 15 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a gravel surface route suitable for use by heavy equipment.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 144 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.35 Rex-Roosevelt Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–4027, Bearpaw Inventory Unit

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Rex-Roosevelt Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Utility Corridor Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs west from Rex (Kobi), Alaska, by Knight’s Roadhouse and Bearpaw to Roosevelt (the highest point to navigation on the Kantishnia River). Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Fairbanks and Kantishna River Quadrangles and it is approximately 10 feet wide and 65 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #491 provide winter access between Kobi (Parks Highway) and Lake Minchumina.

Describe: The route provides winter public access between McGrath and Kobi/Rex on the Parks Highway.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was created for winter travel between the Kantishna River and Kobi/Rex.

LWC 145 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: User created trail.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: User created trail with clearing by users for winter travel.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Explain: The route is a user created trail which is maintained by users.

LWC 146 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is maintained by users and would not be maintained by the BLM.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

Explain: The route is used in the winter by the public for access between McGrath and the Parks Highway.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Rex-Roosevelt winter Trail route is not an Inventory Road; however, the user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the Bearpaw Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the Bearpaw Inventory Unit is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: March 2016

LWC 147 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.36 Slate Creek Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2000, Southeast Dalton Highway Mountain Inventory Units

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Slate Creek Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

Describe: The Slate Creek Winter Trail begins at the Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake Trail approximately two miles east of Coldfoot and proceeds south to Rosie Creek across the ridgelines. It crosses through Rosie Pass turning southwest in the headwaters region of Wilson Creek and connects with the Dalton Highway approximately MP 161. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Wiseman Quadrangle. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and 20 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #412 - provide winter access to remote lands

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was developed prior to 1951 as a winter transportation route to the oil fields, which has since been replaced by the Steese, Elliott and Dalton highways.

LWC 148 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: The route was user created as a winter trail.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: The route is user maintained.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Describe: The route is user maintained.

LWC 149 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a winter only route used for inter-village travel.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Slate Creek Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2000, Southeast Dalton Highway Inventory Unit. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in sconservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 150 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.37 Smally Creek Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000-2087, TAPS-Dalton Highway

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Smally Creek Winter Trail

Describe: The Smally Creek Winter Trail (the western portion of Slate Creek Winter Trail) begins at the Dalton Highway at MP 161, runs south west over the uplands adjacent to the John R Creek, crosses Smally Creek, and continues to Gold Bench. From Gold Bench it follows the South Fork of the Koyukuk River valley across Squaw Creek moving to the uplands until it connects with the Bettles Winter Trail at Four Corners. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Beaver, Bettles, Chandler Lake, Sagavanirktok, Umiat, and Wiseman Quadrangles.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #412 - provide winter access to remote lands

Describe: The road provides winter vehicle access for residents of the City of Bettles (2010 population 12) Evansville (2010 population 15) and Anatuvuk Pass (2010 population 324) to the state highway system.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was developed prior to 1951 as a winter transportation route to the oil fields, which has since been replaced by the Steese, Elliott and Dalton highways.

LWC 151 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed X Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The route was developed as a winter trail - Ice Road for winter travel only.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: The route is user maintained by clearing of trees and brush as needed with hand tools including chainsaws.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below) 1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Describe: The route is user maintained by cleared of trees and brush as needed with hand tools including chainsaws.

LWC 152 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a winter only route used for inter-village travel.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public for inter-village travel.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Smally Creek Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000-2087, TAPS-Dalton Highway Inventory Unit. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in sconservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 153 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.38 Tanana-Alakaket Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuiti River Complex and Alatna

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Tanana-Alakaket Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs northward from Tanana, Alaska, along Ptarmigan Creek, the south side of the Ray Mountains, across the Slokhenjikh Hills, along the east side of Lake Todatonten and continuing to Alakaket. From Alakeket, the route runs northeastward across Double Point Mountain to Bettles, Alaska. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Tanana and Bettles Quadrangles. It is approximately 10 feet wide and 170 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: State of Alaska RST #289 - mail route from Ft. Gibbon (Tanana) to Bettles.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Tanana, Alaska to Bettles, Alaska.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by the US Army in 1902.

LWC 154 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The trail was a mail route from Ft. Gibbon to Bettles with construction in 1908.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: Improvements to the route were made periodically between 1913 and 1923 by the Alaska Road Commission. Improvements included installation of trail markers (stakes).

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: The route received as-needed maintenance between 1908 and 1923. After 1923 users may have completed maintenance activities such as clearing for winter travel.

1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be

LWC 155 13 August 2018 approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is a winter trail used for inter-village travel during winter.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public for inter-village travel.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes but No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, this route is an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the Hogatza-Ray Mountains-Kanuti River Complex and Alatna Inventory Units. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the Hogatza-Ray Mountains- Kanuti River Complex and Alatna Inventory Units is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: November 2014

LWC 156 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.39 Tanana-Rampart Yukon River Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–3006, Tanana East Inventory Unit

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Tanana-Rampart Yukon River Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Fairbanks Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The route runs eastward from Tanana, Alaska, along the right bank of the Yukon River for approximately 4 miles before crossing to the south bank of the Yukon River and continuing to the mouth of Russian Creek approximately 4 miles west of Rampart. Within the plan area, the route is located in USGS 1:250,000 Tanana Quadrangle and it is approximately 10 feet wide and 4 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #620 - provide access along the Yukon River for a Telegraph Line.

Describe: The route provides winter public access from Tanana, Alaska along the north bank of the Yukon River to Rampart, Alaska along the south bank of the Yukon River.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was constructed by the US Army prior to 1902.

LWC 157 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other X Berms

Describe: The trail was part of the St. Michael to Rampart Telegraph Line.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other X Crossings

Describe: Improvements to the route were made between 1902 and 1927 by the US Army. Improvements included installation of Telegraph Stations 40 mile intervals.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools X By Machine X

Explain: The route received as-needed maintenance between 1902 and 1918 as a telegraph line but after 1918 the line was replaced by wireless. After 1918 users may have completed maintenance activities such as clearing for winter travel.

LWC 158 13 August 2018 1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is a winter trail used for inter-village travel during winter.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public for inter-village travel.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes but No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Tanana-Rampart Winter Trail route is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the Tanana East Inventory Unit. The route is approximately ten feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route located within the AKF03000–3006, Tanana East Inventory Units is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: November 2014

LWC 159 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.40 Tramway Bar Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2015, Kalhabuk Mountain Inventory Unit

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Tramway Bar Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

Describe: The Tramway Bar Winter Trail is a connector trail between the Smally Creek Winter Trail and the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River. It provides winter access to Tramway Bar just south of Chapman Island. It begins on the Smally Creek Winter Trail approximately 5 miles from the Dalton Highway and runs north along the uplands to Tramway Bar and the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Wiseman Quadrangle. The trail is 10 feet wide and approximately 3 miles long.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #38 - provide winter access to the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River

Describe: The route provides winter access for residents of the City of Coldfoot (2010 population 10) to remote lands.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was user created prior to 1899 as a winter transportation route to the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River.

LWC 160 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: The route is a user created winter trail.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: The route is user maintained for winter travel.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Describe: The route is user maintained for winter travel.

LWC 161 13 August 2018 Explain: The route is a winter only route used for inter-village travel.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter by the public to access the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Tramway Bar Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2015, Kalhabuk Mountain Inventory Unit. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in sconservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 162 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.41 Wiseman-Chandalar Winter Trail

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: AKF03000–2011, Snowden Mountain Inventory Unit

Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: Wiseman-Chandalar Winter Trail (Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to the Map of the Utility Corridor Inventory Units and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference photo log:

Describe: The Wiseman-Chandalar Winter Trail begins at the Dalton Highway at MP 197.5, runs east along Linda Creek with a north loop traversing around Linda Creek Pass then down to Emery Creek and a south loop running along Gold Creek to join the north loop at Emery Creek. From there the route continues south-eastward over the uplands, up Canyon Creek to Glacier Creek, up Glacier Creek to California Creek, along Big Lake, up King Creek to the South Fork of the Koyukuk River, through Woodland Echo Pass, down Woodland Echo Creek, along the North Fork of the Chandalar River to Chandalar Lake. The winter trail overlaps with the Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake Winter Trail near the Chandalar Lake. Within the plan area the route is located on USGS 1:250,000 Chandalar Lake and Wiseman Quadrangles.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: RST #254 - provide winter access to the central Brooks Range

Describe: The road provides winter access for residents of the City of Wiseman (2011 population 14).

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? No

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? N/A

Explain: The route was developed prior to 1951 as a winter transportation route used by prospector and miners to access the central Brooks Range.

LWC 163 13 August 2018 III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvements using mechanical means:

Yes (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below)

No X (if both A.1 and A.2 is checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) No

Roadside Paved Bladed Graveled Cut/Fill Other Berms

Describe: The route was developed as a winter trail for winter travel only.

1. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?)

Yes No X If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine

Hardened Culverts Stream Bridges Drainage Barriers Other Crossings

Describe: The route is user maintained.

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?):

Yes X (if either B1 or B2 is checked “yes” below)

No (if both B1 and B2 is checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence of Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes X No If “yes”: By Hand Tools By Machine X

Describe: The route is user maintained by cleared of trees and brush as needed with hand tools including chainsaws.

LWC 164 13 August 2018 1. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? No

Explain: The route is a winter only route used for access to the central Brooks Range.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes

The route is used in the winter to access the central Brooks Range.

IV. CONCLUSION

Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

No. The route is not a Wilderness Inventory Road

Explanation: For the purposes of this inventory, the Wiseman-Chandalar Winter Trail is not an Inventory Road. The user maintained trail does provide access across BLM managed lands within the AKF03000–2011, Snowden Mountain Inventory Unit. The route is approximately 10 feet wide and is available for public purposes. It is a natural surface route suitable for use by snowmachine. ANILCA Section 1110 (a) allows the use of snowmachine in conservation system units including wilderness study areas, and this route is not considered a Wilderness Inventory Road.

Evaluator(s): Holli McClain Date: April 2016

LWC 165 13 August 2018 Unit Analysis

Section 1:2.2.42 TAPS-Dalton Highway

Form 2. Current Conditions: Presence or Absence of Wilderness Characteristics

Area Number/Name: AKF03000-2087, TAPS-Dalton Highway

BLM Inventory Area acres: 184,748 Total Acres

1) Is the area of sufficient size? No

Description: These parcels are located along the Dalton Highway, from approximately MP 57 to 299. This unit is the strip of land between the Dalton Highway and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System inclusive of development facilities associated with the highway and pipeline and is bounded on the north and south by state lands. There are 119 access roads, 2 pump stations, 2 solid waste disposal sites and 21 material sites associated with the Trans Alaska Pipeline System within this unit. None of these lands have been formally designated as wilderness.

2) Does the area appear natural? Not Evaluated

3) Does the area have outstanding opportunities for solitude? Not Evaluated

4) Does the area have outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation? Not Evaluated

5) Does the area have known supplemental values (ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value)? Not Evaluated

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

Area Number/Name: AKF03000–2087, TAPS-Dalton Highway

1. Does the area meet the size requirements? No

2. Does the area appear natural? N/A

3. Does the area offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation? N/A

4. Does the area have known supplemental values? N/A

CONCLUSION: This area does not have wilderness characteristics.

LWC 166 13 August 2018 Section 1:2.2.43 Southeast Dalton Highway

Form 2. Current Conditions: Presence or Absence of Wilderness Characteristics

Area Number/Name: Southeast Dalton Highway

BLM Inventory Area acres: 1,364,266 Total acres

• AKF03000–2000, Southeast Dalton Highway #01, (1,046,182 acres)

• AKF03000–2001, Southeast Dalton Highway #02 ss, (8,802 acres)

• AKF03000–2002, Southeast Dalton Highway #03 ss, (156,149 acres)

• AKF03000–2003, Southeast Dalton Highway #04, (32,469 acres)

• AKF03000–2004, Southeast Dalton Highway #05 ss, (614 acres)

• AKF03000–2005, Southeast Dalton Highway #06 ss, (30,597 acres)

• AKF03000–2006, Southeast Dalton Highway #07 ss, (66,666 acres)

• AKF03000–2007, Southeast Dalton Highway #08, (22,787 acres)

1) Is the area of sufficient size? Yes

Description: This unit is located approximately along the east side of the Dalton Highway between mp 56 and 175, in an uninhabited area. This unit is bounded on the north by Slate Creek and the Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake Trail ROW and on the south by State lands. It is bounded on the east by state lands, native lands and Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. While none of these lands have been formally designated as wilderness, the refuge lands contiguous to this unit are managed to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, including but not limited to canvasbacks and other migratory birds; Dall sheep; bears; moose; wolves, wolverines and other furbearers; caribou (including participation in coordinated ecological studies and management of the Porcupine and Fortymile caribou herds); and salmon.

2) Does the area appear natural? Yes

Description: This unit is generally natural in appearance, having been primarily affected by the forces of nature, and contains minimal evidence of people’s work. There are no human settlements within this unit; however, there are mining claims, material sites, ten inholdings, communications sites and other small sites. Overall, the area retains its primeval character.

3) Does the area have outstanding opportunities for solitude? Yes

Description: The opportunity for solitude is outstanding. Coldfoot with a population of 10 (2010) is approximately three miles from the western boundary of this unit. There are no villages in the unit. This is an area with easy access from the Dalton Highway and the Coldfoot-Chandalar Lake Trail. Access in summer is primarily by road. Access in winter is by aircraft, snowmachine or

LWC 167 13 August 2018 dog team. There are few visitors. A visitor in this unit would likely have infrequent encounters with other people except around mining areas.

4) Does the area have outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation? Yes

Description: The area provides opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, hiking, dog mushing and other forms of primitive and unconfined recreation in the uplands of the Koyukuk River. The unit does not have exceptional landscape features that would make it a special destination.

5) Does the area have known supplemental values (ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value)? Yes

Description: The Jim River Area of Critical Environmental Concern has been identified with special values for fisheries, cultural and recreation.