BLM Finds “No Significant Impact” of Making Thompson Pass Area Lands Available for Exchange
Map showing the land that would be eligible for exchange under “Alternative 3.” Section 5 would be eligible for exchange, and Section 6 would remain public.
Image by the Department of the Interior.
By Allison Sayer
On June 2, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a draft environmental assessment of the proposed change to modify the current Resource Management Plan (RMP) to make two parcels of land near the hairpin turn in Thompson Pass eligible for exchange to private entities. The BLM stated that making this change would have no significant impact.
Going forward, there are three possible courses of action the BLM could take. The “no action” alternative would leave the land as it is. The second alternative would amend the RMP to make both parcels of land eligible for future land exchanges. The third and last would make only Section 5 (see map) eligible for exchange, and leave Section 6 under public ownership, potentially with a right-of-way for access to Section 5 from the highway. The BLM has not yet identified a “preferred alternative” of these three potential plans.
The current status of the land is that it is “state-selected” and would likely be formally conveyed to the State of Alaska in the future. The State would manage the land for recreation. If this change is made to the RMP, the land will likely be conveyed to the Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC) in a separate, future process. CAC has not shared specific plans for the area, but Board Chairman Shari Buretta has stated that the main attraction of these parcels is the connection between existing CAC land and the road system.
During last winter’s scoping period for this proposal, 143 public comments were submitted regarding the proposed change. The vast majority of the commenters were concerned about future access to the area for recreation and subsistence purposes.
The BLM acknowledged that access to that area could change as a result of this management change. However, the BLM stated, “There are an additional 12,800 acres of State lands which are comparable in accessibility and recreational opportunity located along the Richardson Highway from milepost 19-37. The potential future loss of BLM-managed public lands currently used for recreational pursuits equates to 5 to 10 percent of the acres within the immediate area; recreationalists would still have access [to] over 10,000 acres of BLM and State managed lands for recreational pursuits.”
The document later states, “While not possible to analyze at this stage, if an exchange occurs, BLM should attempt to acquire lands which provide equal access rights, opportunities to hunt and fish, and ability to enjoy land and waters managed by the DOI as the lands to be conveyed. Such review of access rights should also take into account differing modes of travel dependent upon the season.”
As reported in previous articles, the State of Alaska will not relinquish its current claim to the land parcels unless future owners provide a public easement through the area to the Lowe River. CAC Board Chairman Shari Buretta has affirmed that CAC is “committed” to maintaining public access to the Lowe River via a 17B easement through the land if the land is conveyed to CAC. This would include reasonable accommodation for the public to travel through the area if the exact geographic location of the easement was blocked or unsafe for travel for some reason.
The status of the popular Keystone Canyon Trail, which runs through the parcels, has not been specifically addressed. However, in her Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) statement, BLM Alaska Glennallen office manager Marnie Graham stated that the BLM would need to identify “eligible cultural resources on the affected lands” prior to any land exchange and resolve adverse effects to them. These resources include the trail and any associated gold rush artifacts.
A big question for many members of the public is: if the land were to be developed, what would that development look like and how would it affect the rest of the region?
The draft document states: “It is assumed that future development that could occur would be low intensity, and in line with the limited infrastructure and development in the Thompson Pass region.” On the basis of this assumption, the document’s authors stated, “The effects on visual resources would be consistent with BLM Class III VRM management objectives. Therefore, the impacts to visual resources were not analyzed in further detail in the EA.”
The document states that future development in the area could have a potential impact on soil and water, and that mineral resources that are currently closed could feasibly be developed.
The authors apply the same logic to the sections addressing all three: “Because the specific nature of any future development in the planning area is speculative, this plan amendment does not put forward management alternatives that would have a measurable effect on [said resource]; therefore, this issue was not considered in detail and has been eliminated from further analysis.”
According to the BLM environmental assessment, the small size of the parcels and the current high motorized use make them ineligible to be considered as lands with wilderness characteristics. The area is not adjacent to salmon habitat, and there are no known paleontological resources. There are no significant timber resources in the area, and so logging is unlikely to occur.
CAC has not indicated an interest in mineral resource development on the parcels being considered at this time. Josie Hickel, CAC executive vice president of land and resources, stated in an interview last winter that there is not a “significant known resource” of mining potential on those land parcels according to geologic maps.
In response to speculation regarding the future of the area if it is conveyed to CAC, Buretta has stated, “We understand and respect the opinions of the people in our region and in the Valdez and Glenallen area. It is our desire to be a good neighbor, to seek to understand the opinions of the people in the area and to take a thoughtful approach to utilization of our lands.”
The full environmental assessment and additional documentation are available on the BLM “eplanning” website (Search “Thompson Pass”). The site also has information regarding how and where to make comments, and how to participate in virtual public meetings scheduled for June 17. The public comment period opened June 2 and will close on July 2.
We will continue to cover this story in upcoming issues. Our prior coverage of this story, includes:
