Selection of Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would maintain the current rate of progress in protecting resource values and in resource development. It would allow for use levels to mostly continue at current levels within the same places in the planning area, with adjustments required in order to mitigate resource concerns in compliance with laws and regulations. Mining exploration and development would be limited to valid existing mining claims. Limitations on OHV use would remain the same, resulting in the continued proliferation of user-created trails and resource degradation in certain areas.

Alternative B would have the least potential to impact physical and biological resources from BLM actions. Levels of mineral exploration and development would be slightly higher than Alternative A but many areas would remain closed to protect sensitive resources. OHV use would be more restricted, reducing resource damage and user-created trails. This more restrictive OHV designation would reduce access to BLM-managed lands. Designation of ACECs and wild and scenic rivers, and management of riparian conservation areas would provide additional protection to wildlife, fish, vegetation, and other natural resources, but could also slightly restrict recreation management. Five river segments would be determined suitable for designation as wild under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, affording these areas slightly more protection. There would be greater emphasis on managing for a Primitive, Semi-Primitive, or Backcountry recreation setting.

Alternative C would allow for increased use levels while providing for site-specific protection of resources. There would be a higher potential for resource impacts than under alternatives A and B, but less than under Alternative D. Levels of mineral exploration would be slightly higher than Alternative B but many areas would remain closed to protect sensitive resources. OHV use would be less restricted than in Alternative B but more than Alternative A. Resource damage and proliferation of user-created trails would be reduced compared to Alternative A, but would still occur in some areas. This more restrictive OHV designation would somewhat reduce access to BLM-managed lands. Designated of ACECs and management as riparian conservation areas would provide additional protection to wildlife, fish, vegetation, and other natural resources but on fewer acres than in Alternative B. Less of the planning area would be managed for a Primitive, Semi-Primitive, or Backcountry recreation setting.

Alternative D would allow for the most resource development with the fewest constraints and would result in greater impacts on the physical and biological environment than would implementation of Alternative C or D. It offers the greatest potential for mineral development and could result in small economic benefits to local economies. OHV use would be less restricted than in Alternatives B and C, but slightly more limited than in Alternative A. Proliferation of user-created trails and resource degradation would continue in certain areas. Access to BLM-managed lands would be similar to Alternative A. Fewer acres would be designated as ACECs or managed as riparian conservation areas, providing slightly less protection to wildlife, fish, vegetation, and other natural resources. Less of the planning area would be managed for a Primitive, Semi-Primitive, or Backcountry recreation setting than in alternatives B and C.

Maps of ANWR