Monticello Field Office 

Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Type of Action: Draft ( ) Final (X) 

Administrative (X) Legislative ( ) 

Jurisdiction: Southern two-thirds of San Juan County with a small portion on the northern 

boundary within Grand County, Utah. 

Abstract: The Monticello Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) describes and analyzes alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and 

resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Monticello Field Office. The 

Proposed RMP is open for a 30-day review and protest period beginning the date the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in the Federal Register. 

The Proposed Plan consists of a combination of proposed decisions taken from an array of all the 

alternatives but using Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) from the Draft RMP/Draft EIS as its base. 

This combination of decisions was developed in response to internal, public and cooperating agency 

comments. It provides a balanced means to accommodate the widest range of public and agency concerns 

over resources and resource uses. It provides for continued access to and development of resources with 

stipulations and mitigation to protect natural and cultural resources. 

Alternative A (No Action) is a continuation of existing management practices defined in the 1991 San 

Juan Resource Management Plan, as amended. Alternative B minimizes human activities, offers more 

protection for wildlife and other natural resources, and favors natural systems over commodities 

development. Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) balances the protection of important environmental 

values and sensitive resources with commodities development. Alternative D emphasizes commodities 

development over the protection of natural resources. Alternative E is based on Alternative B, except it 

emphasizes protection of 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and allows for 

other activities consistent with that emphasis. 

Protest/Comment: Protests must be postmarked or received no later than 30 days after publication of the 

EPA Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The 30-day protest period (identified above) will not 

be extended. Refer to the instructions in the letter preceding this abstract for additional information on 

how to protest and comment. The close of the protest period will be announced in news releases, 

newsletters, and on the Monticello RMP website at: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/monticello/planning.html

For Further Information Contact: 

Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Field Office 

Attn: Nick Sandberg, Assistant Field Manager 

365 North Main 

Monticello, Utah 84535 

Telephone (435) 587-1505 

Email: Nick_Sandberg@blm.gov
VOLUME 1 

Table of Contents 

Abstract........................................................................................................................................... i 

List of Figures........................................................................................................................... xxix 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xxxi 

List of Maps............................................................................................................................... xlix 

List of Appendices....................................................................................................................... liii

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................ES-1

ES. 1 Introduction............................................................................................................... ES-1 

ES. 2 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................... ES-1 

ES. 2.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................ES-1 

ES. 2.2 Need ......................................................................................................................ES-2 

ES. 3 Public Involvement ................................................................................................... ES-2 

ES. 4 Proposed Plan and Draft EIS Alternatives............................................................. ES-3 

ES. 4.1 Proposed Plan........................................................................................................ES-3 

ES. 4.2 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................ES-4 

ES. 4.3 Alternative B .........................................................................................................ES-4 

ES. 4.4 Alternative C – Preferred ......................................................................................ES-4 

ES. 4.5 Alternative D .........................................................................................................ES-4 

ES. 4.6 Alternative E .........................................................................................................ES-4 

ES. 5 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. ES-7 

ES. 6 Environmental Consequences.................................................................................. ES-7 

ES. 7 Brief Summary of Changes Between the Preferred Alternative and the 

Proposed Plan................................................................................................................. ES-8 

ES. 8 Next Steps .................................................................................................................. ES-9

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, And Need..............................................................1-1 

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1.2 Need ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.2 Description of the Monticello FO Planning Area ......................................................... 1-2 

1.3 Planning Process .............................................................................................................. 1-3 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

1.3.1 Scoping and Identifying Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities for Development of the 

Draft Alternatives and Proposed Plan.................................................................................. 1-4 

1.3.1.1 Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 1-4 

1.3.1.2 Minerals and Energy Resources........................................................................... 1-5 

1.3.1.3 Non-Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics...................................................................................................... 1-6 

1.3.1.4 Recreation ............................................................................................................1-6 

1.3.1.5 Special Designations............................................................................................ 1-7 

1.3.1.6 Travel ...................................................................................................................1-7 

1.3.1.7 Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class Designations................................. 1-8 

1.3.1.8 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources......................................................................... 1-8 

1.3.1.9 Other Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities.......................................................... 1-9 

1.3.1.9.1 Issues Addressed through Administrative or Policy Action ............................... 1-10 

1.3.1.9.2 Issues eliminated from detailed analysis because they are beyond the Scope of the 

Plan .................................................................................................................................... 1-11 

1.3.2 Development of Planning Criteria ............................................................................ 1-11 

1.3.3 Collection of Inventory Data and Information.......................................................... 1-12 

1.3.4 Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS)......................................................... 1-13 

1.3.5 Preparation of the Draft Resource Management Plan (DRMP) and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) .......................................................................... 1-13 

1.3.6 Selection of the Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP)/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS).................................................................................................... 1-13

1.3.7 Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................... 1-14 

1.4 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs................................................. 1-15 

1.4.1 State of Utah Plans.................................................................................................... 1-15 

1.4.2 County Land-Use Plans ............................................................................................ 1-15 

1.4.3 Other Federal Plans................................................................................................... 1-15 

1.4.4 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) .......................................................... 1-16 

1.4.5 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Dept. of the Interior and 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture: Implementation of Section 225 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

Regarding Geothermal Leasing and Permitting................................................................. 1-16 

1.4.6 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau 

of Land Management and U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service................................. 1-17 

1.4.7 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU between the U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau 

of Land Management and National Park Service .............................................................. 1-17 

1.4.8 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Programmatic EIS (PEIS) ................................... 1-17 

1.4.9 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Western Energy Corridor .......................... 1-18 

1.4.10 Endangered Species Recovery Plans ...................................................................... 1-18 

1.4.11 Existing EISs........................................................................................................... 1-18 

1.4.12 Other BLM Plans .................................................................................................... 1-18 

1.5 Description of the Proposed Plan ................................................................................. 1-19 

1.6 Summary of Changes from Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed Plan RMP/Final EIS1-21 

iv 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

1.6.1 Summary of Changes to Decisions Between the Preferred Alternative (Draft EIS) and 

the Proposed Plan (Final EIS)............................................................................................ 1-22 

1.6.2 Clarifications............................................................................................................. 1-26 

1.6.3 Updates to Data......................................................................................................... 1-27 

1.6.4 Map Changes ............................................................................................................ 1-28 

1.6.5 Rationale for Changes and Finding of Insignificance............................................... 1-28 

1.7 Next Steps: Complete Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved Plan .................... 1-29 

Chapter 2: Proposed Plan And Draft Alternatives .....................................................2-1 

2.1 Brief Description of the Five Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS 

and the Proposed Plan ...................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.1 Brief Summary and Highlights of the Proposed Plan and Alternatives in Table 2.1 . 2-3 

2.1.1.1 Travel Management ............................................................................................. 2-3 

2.1.1.2 Recreation ............................................................................................................2-4 

2.1.1.3 Oil and Gas Leasing and Development ............................................................... 2-4 

2.1.1.4 Special Designations............................................................................................ 2-5 

2.1.1.5 Special Status Species..........................................................................................2-7 

2.1.1.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 2-7 

2.1.1.7 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.............................................. 2-8 

2.2 Summary of Impacts .....................................................................................................2-89

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis .......................................... 2-193 

2.3.1 Livestock Grazing...................................................................................................2-193

2.3.2 Travel Management ................................................................................................ 2-193 

2.3.3 Enlarge Canyonlands National Park .......................................................................2-194 

2.3.4 No Leasing Alternative ........................................................................................... 2-194 

2.3.5 Livestock Grazing Adjustments Alternative........................................................... 2-195 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment ................................................................................3-1

3.1 Project Area Overview .................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1.1 Geographic Setting...................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1.2 Climate........................................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.2 Air Quality........................................................................................................................ 3-3 

3.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 3-3 

3.2.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.................................................................... 3-4 

3.2.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration ...................................................................... 3-6 

3.2.4 Visibility in Class I Areas ........................................................................................... 3-7 

3.2.5 Atmospheric Deposition ............................................................................................. 3-8 

3.2.5.1 Wet Deposition .................................................................................................... 3-9 

3.2.5.2 Dry Deposition.....................................................................................................3-9 

3.2.5.3 Total Deposition................................................................................................... 3-9 

v 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

3.2.5.4 Lake Chemistry.................................................................................................. 3-11 

3.2.6 Status of Emissions ................................................................................................... 3-11 

3.2.7 Global Climate Change............................................................................................. 3-13 

3.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-15 

3.3.1 Overview................................................................................................................... 3-15 

3.3.2 Cultural Resource History of the Monticello PA...................................................... 3-16 

3.3.2.1 Prehistory ........................................................................................................... 3-16 

3.3.2.2 History................................................................................................................3-18 

3.3.3 Ethnographic Data .................................................................................................... 3-20 

3.3.3.1 Ute Mountain Ute and White Mesa Utes........................................................... 3-20 

3.3.3.2 Paiute Tribes ......................................................................................................3-21

3.3.3.3 The Hopi Tribe...................................................................................................3-21 

3.3.3.4 Pueblo of Zuni.................................................................................................... 3-22 

3.3.3.5 Navajo Nation ....................................................................................................3-22 

3.3.3.6 Pueblo of Jemez ................................................................................................. 3-22 

3.3.3.7 Pueblo of Zia...................................................................................................... 3-23 

3.3.3.8 Pueblo of Acoma................................................................................................ 3-23 

3.3.4 Cultural Resource Overview..................................................................................... 3-23 

3.3.5 Potential Traditional Cultural Properties .................................................................. 3-25 

3.3.5.1 Archaeological Sites .......................................................................................... 3-25 

3.3.5.2 Rock Art Sites....................................................................................................3-25 

3.3.5.3 Rock Shelters ..................................................................................................... 3-26 

3.3.5.4 Non-archaeological Site Types.......................................................................... 3-26 

3.3.5.4.1 Lakes and Springs....................................................................................... 3-26 

3.3.5.4.2 Traditional Gathering or Collection Areas ................................................. 3-26 

3.3.5.4.3 Land Features..............................................................................................3-27 

3.3.6 Designated ACECs with Cultural Resource Values ................................................. 3-27 

3.4 Fire Management........................................................................................................... 3-28 

3.4.1 Introduction and Resource Overview ....................................................................... 3-28 

3.4.2 Specific Mandates and Authority.............................................................................. 3-30 

3.4.3 Fire Management Plan .............................................................................................. 3-31 

3.4.4 Desired Wildland Fire Condition.............................................................................. 3-31 

3.4.5 Landscape Level Management ................................................................................. 3-32 

3.4.5.1 Salt Desert Shrub ...............................................................................................3-32 

3.4.5.2 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland........................................................................... 3-32 

3.4.5.3 Sagebrush........................................................................................................... 3-32 

3.4.5.4 Grassland............................................................................................................ 3-33 

3.4.5.5 Blackbrush ......................................................................................................... 3-33 

3.4.5.6 Mountain Shrub .................................................................................................3-33 

3.4.5.7 Mixed Conifer/Douglas Fir/Aspen ....................................................................3-33 

3.4.5.8 Ponderosa Pine...................................................................................................3-33 

3.4.5.9 Riparian Wetland ............................................................................................... 3-33 

3.4.6 Fire Management Priorities....................................................................................... 3-34 

vi 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

3.4.7 Fire Management Activities to Meet the DWFC...................................................... 3-34 

3.4.7.1 Suppression........................................................................................................3-35

3.4.7.2 Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit............................................................ 3-35 

3.4.7.3 Prescribed Fire and Non-fire Fuels Treatments................................................. 3-35 

3.4.7.4 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation...................................................... 3-35 

3.4.7.5 Monitoring .........................................................................................................3-36

3.4.8 Summary ................................................................................................................... 3-36 

3.5 Health and Safety........................................................................................................... 3-36 

3.5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 3-36 

3.5.2 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 3-37 

3.5.2.1 Potential Hazards ............................................................................................... 3-37 

3.5.2.2 Hazardous Materials Management .................................................................... 3-40 

3.5.3 Abandoned Mines ..................................................................................................... 3-41 

3.5.3.1 Potential Hazards ............................................................................................... 3-41 

3.5.3.2 Abandoned Mine Management/Reclamation Activities.................................... 3-42 

3.5.4 Debris Flows ............................................................................................................. 3-42 

3.6 Lands and Realty ........................................................................................................... 3-42 

3.6.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-42 

3.6.2 Lands and Realty Program........................................................................................ 3-43 

3.6.2.1 Land Tenure Adjustments.................................................................................. 3-43 

3.6.2.1.1 Sales............................................................................................................ 3-44 

3.6.2.1.2 Exchanges ................................................................................................... 3-44 

3.6.2.2 Access ................................................................................................................ 3-44 

3.6.2.3 Easements .......................................................................................................... 3-45

3.6.2.4 Leases and Permits.............................................................................................3-45 

3.6.2.5 Withdrawals/Classifications .............................................................................. 3-46 

3.6.2.6 Utility/Transportation Systems .......................................................................... 3-47 

3.6.2.6.1 Rights-of-way .............................................................................................3-47 

3.6.2.6.2 Right-of-way Corridors...............................................................................3-48 

3.6.2.6.3 Communication Site Rights-of-way ........................................................... 3-48 

3.6.2.7 Trespass.............................................................................................................. 3-48 

3.6.2.8 Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) .................................................... 3-48 

3.6.2.9 Protection Zones ................................................................................................3-49 

3.6.2.10 Alternative Energy Sources .............................................................................3-49 

3.7 Livestock Grazing.......................................................................................................... 3-50 

3.7.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 3-50 

3.7.2 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-50 

3.7.2.1 Allotment Status................................................................................................. 3-50 

3.7.2.2 Riparian Areas ................................................................................................... 3-51 

3.7.2.3 Allotment Management Category...................................................................... 3-51 

3.7.2.4 Livestock Grazing Allotments ........................................................................... 3-51 

3.7.2.5 Ecological Status................................................................................................ 3-51 

3.7.3 Current Management Practices ................................................................................. 3-52 

vii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

3.7.4 Resource Demand and Analysis Forecast................................................................. 3-53 

3.8 Minerals .......................................................................................................................... 3-54 

3.8.1 Limited Mineral Resources Not Discussed Further.................................................. 3-55 

3.8.2 Leasable Minerals ..................................................................................................... 3-57 

3.8.2.1 Oil and Gas ........................................................................................................ 3-57 

3.8.2.1.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-57 

3.8.2.1.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-64 

3.8.2.1.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-65 

3.8.2.2 Coal....................................................................................................................3-66 

3.8.2.2.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-66 

3.8.2.2.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-66 

3.8.2.2.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-66 

3.8.2.3 Potash and Salt...................................................................................................3-67 

3.8.2.3.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-67 

3.8.2.3.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-67 

3.8.2.3.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-68 

3.8.2.4 Tar Sands ...........................................................................................................3-68 

3.8.2.4.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-69 

3.8.2.4.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-69 

3.8.2.4.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-69 

3.8.3 Locatable Minerals.................................................................................................... 3-70 

3.8.3.1 Uranium-vanadium ............................................................................................ 3-70 

3.8.3.1.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-70 

3.8.3.1.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-70 

3.8.3.1.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-72 

3.8.3.2 Copper................................................................................................................ 3-73 

3.8.3.2.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-73 

3.8.3.2.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-73 

3.8.3.2.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-74 

3.8.3.3 Placer Gold......................................................................................................... 3-74 

3.8.3.3.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-74 

3.8.3.3.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-74 

3.8.3.3.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-75 

3.8.3.4 Limestone........................................................................................................... 3-75 

3.8.3.4.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-75 

3.8.3.4.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-75 

3.8.3.4.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-76 

3.8.4 Salable Minerals........................................................................................................ 3-76 

viii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

3.8.4.1 Sand and Gravel.................................................................................................3-76 

3.8.4.1.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-76 

3.8.4.1.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-77 

3.8.4.1.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-77 

3.8.4.2 Building Stone ................................................................................................... 3-77 

3.8.4.2.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-77 

3.8.4.2.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-77 

3.8.4.2.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-78 

3.8.4.3 Clay....................................................................................................................3-78 

3.8.4.3.1 Resource Overview.....................................................................................3-78 

3.8.4.3.2 Past and Present Exploration, Development, and Production .................... 3-78 

3.8.4.3.3 Occurrence and Development Potential and Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) ............................................................................... 3-78 

3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..................................................... 3-79 

3.9.1 Background and History ........................................................................................... 3-79 

3.9.2 Planning Area Profile................................................................................................ 3-79 

3.10 Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................... 3-83 

3.10.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................. 3-83 

3.10.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................... 3-85 

3.10.3 Resource Issues....................................................................................................... 3-86 

3.10.4 Sensitivity Evaluation ............................................................................................. 3-86 

3.11 Recreation..................................................................................................................... 3-87 

3.11.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................. 3-87 

3.11.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................... 3-87 

3.11.2.1 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)........................................................ 3-88 

3.11.2.2 The San Juan Resource Management Plan ...................................................... 3-88 

3.11.2.3 Off-highway Vehicle Management (OHV) ..................................................... 3-89 

3.11.2.4 Special Recreation Permits (SRPs).................................................................. 3-90 

3.11.2.4.1 Non-commercial Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) and Special 

Events .....................................................................................................3-90 

3.11.2.4.2 Commercial and Non-commercial River Permitting................................3-91 

3.11.2.4.3 Fee Demonstration, Fee Collection, and Budget for Programs ................ 3-91 

3.11.2.5 Recreation Management Areas........................................................................ 3-91 

3.11.2.5.1 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs).................................... 3-92 

3.11.2.5.2 Extensive Recreation Management Area.................................................. 3-96 

3.11.3 Trends in Outdoor Recreation Activities ................................................................ 3-97 

3.11.4 Issues and Concerns................................................................................................ 3-98 

3.11.4.1 Increased Recreation Use................................................................................. 3-98 

3.11.4.2 Resource Conflicts/Impacts ............................................................................. 3-98 

3.11.4.3 User Conflicts ..................................................................................................3-99 

3.11.4.4 Public Health and Safety.................................................................................. 3-99 

ix 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

3.11.4.5 Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs) ..................................................................... 3-100 

3.11.4.5.1 OHV Use................................................................................................. 3-100 

3.11.4.5.2 OHV Legal Issues................................................................................... 3-100 

3.12 Riparian Resources.................................................................................................... 3-100 

3.12.1 Resource Overview............................................................................................... 3-101 

3.12.2 Riparian/Wetland Studies ..................................................................................... 3-102 

3.12.3 Riparian/Wetland Restoration............................................................................... 3-108 

3.12.4 Resource Demand and Forecast............................................................................ 3-108 

3.12.4.1 Recreation ...................................................................................................... 3-109 

3.12.4.2 Grazing...........................................................................................................3-109 

3.12.4.3 Invasive Species............................................................................................. 3-109 

3.13 Socioeconomics........................................................................................................... 3-110 

3.13.1 County Overview .................................................................................................. 3-110 

3.13.2 Historical Social Context ...................................................................................... 3-111 

3.13.3 Recent Regional History....................................................................................... 3-111 

3.13.4 Current Day Social and Economic Context .......................................................... 3-112 

3.13.4.1 Social Setting .................................................................................................3-112 

3.13.4.2 Economic Setting........................................................................................... 3-114 

3.13.4.2.1 Population ............................................................................................... 3-115 

3.13.4.2.2 Unemployment........................................................................................ 3-116 

3.13.4.2.3 Per-capita Personal Income .................................................................... 3-117 

3.13.4.2.4 Poverty....................................................................................................3-118 

3.13.4.2.5 Housing................................................................................................... 3-118 

3.13.4.2.6 Employment............................................................................................ 3-119 

3.13.4.2.7 Local Economic Activity Affected by BLM Management .................... 3-122 

3.13.4.3 Tribal Interests ............................................................................................... 3-128 

3.13.5 Environmental Justice........................................................................................... 3-129 

3.13.5.1 Background and Regulatory Guidance ..........................................................3-129 

3.13.5.2 Minority and Low-income Populations ......................................................... 3-129 

3.13.5.3 Additional Environmental Justice Issues....................................................... 3-130 

3.14 Soils and Water .......................................................................................................... 3-130 

3.14.1 Resource Overview............................................................................................... 3-130 

3.14.2 Watersheds and General Topography................................................................... 3-130 

3.14.3 Geology................................................................................................................. 3-131 

3.14.4 Soils....................................................................................................................... 3-131 

3.14.4.1 Soil Data......................................................................................................... 3-132 

3.14.4.2 Soil Classification .......................................................................................... 3-132 

3.14.4.3 Sensitive Soils................................................................................................ 3-133 

3.14.4.3.1 Erodible Soils..........................................................................................3-133 

3.14.4.3.2 Saline and Sodic Soils.............................................................................3-134 

3.14.4.3.3 Reclamation-sensitive Soils.................................................................... 3-134 

3.14.4.3.4 Biological Soil Crusts .............................................................................3-134 

x 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

3.14.5 Surface Water Supply and Use ............................................................................. 3-134 

3.14.6 Municipal Watersheds .......................................................................................... 3-136 

3.14.7 Surface Water Quality........................................................................................... 3-137 

3.15 Special Designations .................................................................................................. 3-140 

3.15.1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................3-140 

3.15.1.2 Regional Overview ........................................................................................ 3-141 

3.15.1.3 Existing ACECs............................................................................................. 3-141 

3.15.1.4 Potential ACECs ............................................................................................ 3-142 

3.15.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................... 3-147 

3.15.2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................3-147 

3.15.2.2 Eligible Segments .......................................................................................... 3-148 

3.15.3 Lands Studied for Congressional Wilderness Designation under FLPMA 

Section 603....................................................................................................................... 3-150 

3.15.3.1 Background and History ................................................................................ 3-150 

3.15.3.2 Planning Area Profile.....................................................................................3-151 

3.16 Special Status Species ................................................................................................ 3-154 

3.16.1 Special Status Species Habitat .............................................................................. 3-154 

3.16.2 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................... 3-155 

3.16.3 BLM Sensitive Species ......................................................................................... 3-159 

3.16.3.1 Special Status Wildlife Species ..................................................................... 3-159 

3.16.3.2 Special Status Plant Species........................................................................... 3-162 

3.17 Travel Management................................................................................................... 3-165 

3.17.1 Overview............................................................................................................... 3-165 

3.17.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................. 3-165 

3.17.3 Issues..................................................................................................................... 3-165 

3.17.4 Vehicular Routes................................................................................................... 3-166

3.17.4.1 High Use Areas..............................................................................................3-166 

3.17.4.2 Scenic Byways and Backways....................................................................... 3-166 

3.17.4.2.1 Scenic Byways........................................................................................ 3-167 

3.17.4.2.2 Scenic Backways .................................................................................... 3-167 

3.17.4.3 San Juan River ............................................................................................... 3-168 

3.18 Vegetation................................................................................................................... 3-168 

3.18.1 Introduction and Resource Overview ................................................................... 3-168 

3.18.1.1 Pinyon-juniper................................................................................................ 3-169 

3.18.1.2 Desert Shrub................................................................................................... 3-170 

3.18.1.3 Sagebrush/ Perennial Grass............................................................................ 3-170 

3.18.1.4 Riparian and Wetland Communities..............................................................3-171 

3.18.1.5 Conifer/ Mountain Shrub ............................................................................... 3-171 

3.18.1.6 Invasive Plants and Noxious Weeds.............................................................. 3-172 

3.18.2 Seed and Plant Collection ..................................................................................... 3-174 

3.19 Visual Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-174 

xi 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

3.19.1 Resource Overview............................................................................................... 3-174 

3.19.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................. 3-175 

3.19.2.1 Current Conditions......................................................................................... 3-177 

3.19.2.2 Trends ............................................................................................................ 3-177 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries................................................................................................ 3-178 

3.20.1 Resource Overview............................................................................................... 3-178 

3.20.2 Big Game Species ................................................................................................. 3-178 

3.20.2.1 Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) ................................................................ 3-178 

3.20.2.2 Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni)............................................. 3-179 

3.20.2.3 Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana).............................................................. 3-179 

3.20.2.4 Desert Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni).......................................... 3-180 

3.20.2.5 Other Big Game Species................................................................................ 3-181 

3.20.3 Avian Species........................................................................................................ 3-181 

3.20.3.1 Raptors ........................................................................................................... 3-181 

3.20.3.2 Waterfowl ...................................................................................................... 3-182 

3.20.3.3 Upland Game Birds........................................................................................ 3-182 

3.20.3.4 Neotropical Migratory Birds.......................................................................... 3-183 

3.20.4 Fish and Amphibian Species................................................................................. 3-185 

3.20.5 Other Wildlife Habitat .......................................................................................... 3-186 

3.21 Woodlands .................................................................................................................. 3-186 

3.21.1 Resource Overview............................................................................................... 3-186 

3.21.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................. 3-187 

3.21.2.1 Allocations ..................................................................................................... 3-187 

3.21.2.2 Current Conditions......................................................................................... 3-188 

3.21.3 Resource Demand and Forecast............................................................................ 3-189 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft 

Alternatives (Part 1) .......................................................................................................4-1

4.1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.1. Analytical Assumptions and Guidelines.................................................................... 4-2 

4.1.2. Assumptions and Methodology for Mineral Development ....................................... 4-3 

4.1.3. Types of Impacts to Be Addressed—Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative..................... 4-6 

4.2. Impacts to Critical Elements .............................................................................................7

4.2.1. Impacts of Alternatives on Prime and Unique Farmlands .............................................7 

4.2.2. Impacts of Alternatives on Invasive and/or Noxious Non-native Plants.......................7 

4.2.3. Incomplete or Unavailable Information.........................................................................7 

4.3. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives................ 4-8 

4.3.1. Air Quality and Climate.......................................................................................... 4-8 

4.3.1.1. Global Climate Change....................................................................................... 4-8 

4.3.1.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................. 4-8 

xii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.1.2.1. Potential Impacts from Prescribed Fire ....................................................... 4-9 

4.3.1.2.2. Potential Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands ....................................... 4-10 

4.3.1.3. Impacts from Alternatives................................................................................. 4-10 

4.3.1.3.1. Analysis Assumptions................................................................................ 4-11 

4.3.1.3.2. Alternative A.............................................................................................. 4-15 

4.3.1.3.3. Alternative B.............................................................................................. 4-18 

4.3.1.3.4. Alternative C.............................................................................................. 4-20 

4.3.1.3.5. Alternative D.............................................................................................. 4-23 

4.3.1.3.6. Alternative E.............................................................................................. 4-25 

4.3.1.3.7. Proposed Plan ............................................................................................ 4-28 

4.3.1.4. Summary of Impacts......................................................................................... 4-30 

4.3.1.5. Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 4-33 

4.3.1.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................... 4-36 

4.3.1.7. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity................................................ 4-36 

4.3.1.8. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts............................................................... 4-36 

4.3.2. Cultural Resources................................................................................................. 4-37 

4.3.2.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives........................... 4-39 

4.3.2.2. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Action Alternatives...............4-41 

4.3.2.3. Impacts from the Proposed Plan and Alternatives............................................4-42 

4.3.2.3.1. Alternative A.............................................................................................. 4-42 

4.3.2.3.2. Alternative B.............................................................................................. 4-46 

4.3.2.3.3. Alternative C.............................................................................................. 4-50 

4.3.2.3.4. Alternative D.............................................................................................. 4-53 

4.3.2.3.5. Alternative E.............................................................................................. 4-56 

4.3.2.3.6. Proposed Plan ............................................................................................ 4-58 

4.3.2.4. Summary of Impacts......................................................................................... 4-61 

4.3.2.5. Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 4-62 

4.3.2.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................... 4-62 

4.3.2.7. Short-term Use Versus Long-term Productivity............................................... 4-63 

4.3.2.8. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts............................................................... 4-63 

4.3.3. Fire Management ................................................................................................... 4-64 

4.3.3.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives........................... 4-64 

4.3.3.1.1. Impacts of Air Quality Decisions on Fire Management ............................ 4-64 

4.3.3.1.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Fire Management .................. 4-64 

4.3.3.1.3. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Fire Management .................. 4-65 

4.3.3.2. Proposed Plan and Alternatives Impacts........................................................... 4-65 

4.3.3.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Fire Management ................. 4-65 

4.3.3.2.2. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Fire Management ................................ 4-68 

4.3.3.2.3. Impact of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Decisions on Fire Management .............................................................. 4-69 

4.3.3.2.4. Impact of Recreation Decisions on Fire Management............................... 4-70 

4.3.3.2.5. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Fire Management............. 4-71 

4.3.3.2.6. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Fire Management.................................... 4-74 

4.3.3.3. Summary of Impacts......................................................................................... 4-75 

4.3.3.4. Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 4-75 

4.3.3.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................... 4-75 

4.3.3.6. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity................................................ 4-75 

xiii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.3.7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts............................................................... 4-75 

4.3.4. Health and Safety................................................................................................... 4-76 

4.3.4.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan...........................4-76 

4.3.4.2. Impacts from Alternatives and the Proposed Plan............................................ 4-79 

4.3.4.2.1. Alternative A.............................................................................................. 4-79 

4.3.4.2.2. Alternative B.............................................................................................. 4-79 

4.3.4.2.3. Alternative C.............................................................................................. 4-79 

4.3.4.2.4. Alternative D.............................................................................................. 4-80 

4.3.4.2.5. Alternative E.............................................................................................. 4-80 

4.3.4.2.6. Proposed Plan ............................................................................................ 4-80 

4.3.4.3. Summary of Impacts......................................................................................... 4-80 

4.3.4.4. Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 4-80 

4.3.4.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................... 4-80 

4.3.4.6. Short-term Use Versus Long-term Productivity............................................... 4-81 

4.3.4.7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts............................................................... 4-81 

4.3.5. Lands and Realty ................................................................................................... 4-82 

4.3.5.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives........................... 4-82 

4.3.5.2. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Action Alternatives...............4-83 

4.3.5.3. Alternatives Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-84 

4.3.5.3.1. Alternative A.............................................................................................. 4-84 

4.3.5.3.2. Proposed Plan and Alternatives B through E............................................. 4-85 

4.3.5.4. Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 4-85 

4.3.5.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................... 4-85 

4.3.5.6. Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity ............................................ 4-86 

4.3.5.7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts............................................................... 4-86 

4.3.6. Livestock Grazing .................................................................................................. 4-87 

4.3.6.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives........................... 4-89 

4.3.6.2. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Action Alternatives...............4-92 

4.3.6.3. Proposed Plan and Alternatives Impacts........................................................... 4-93 

4.3.6.3.1. Alternative A.............................................................................................. 4-93 

4.3.6.3.2. Alternative B.............................................................................................. 4-95 

4.3.6.3.3. Alternative C.............................................................................................. 4-99 

4.3.6.3.4. Alternative D............................................................................................ 4-102 

4.3.6.3.5. Alternative E............................................................................................ 4-104 

4.3.6.3.6. The Proposed Plan ................................................................................... 4-106 

4.3.6.4. Summary of Impacts....................................................................................... 4-108 

4.3.6.5. Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................... 4-110 

4.3.6.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................ 4-110 

4.3.6.7. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity.............................................. 4-110 

4.3.6.8. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts............................................................. 4-110 

4.3.7. Minerals ................................................................................................................ 4-112 

4.3.7.1. Summary of Leasable Mineral RFD............................................................... 4-113 

4.3.7.2. Summary of Geophysical RFD....................................................................... 4-114 

4.3.7.3. Summary of Locatable Mineral RFD and Salable Mineral RFD ...................4-114 

4.3.7.4. Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................. 4-114 

xiv 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.7.4.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development......................................................................................... 4-115 

4.3.7.4.2. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development......................................................................................... 4-115 

4.3.7.4.3. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Mineral Resource Development .... 4-115 

4.3.7.4.4. Impacts of Riparian Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development......................................................................................... 4-116 

4.3.7.4.5. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Mineral Resource Development ....... 4-116 

4.3.7.4.6. Impacts of Soils and Watershed Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development......................................................................................... 4-117 

4.3.7.4.7. Impacts of Special Designations on Mineral Resource Development..... 4-117 

4.3.7.4.8. Impacts of Special Status Species on Mineral Resource Development... 4-118 

4.3.7.4.9. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development......................................................................................... 4-122 

4.3.7.4.10. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development......................................................................................... 4-123 

4.3.7.4.11. Impacts of Other Lands Managed by BLM on Mineral Resource 

Development......................................................................................... 4-123 

4.3.7.5. Alternatives Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-123 

4.3.7.5.1. Alternative A............................................................................................ 4-123 

4.3.7.5.2. Alternative B............................................................................................ 4-135 

4.3.7.5.3. Alternative C............................................................................................ 4-146 

4.3.7.5.4. Alternative D............................................................................................ 4-155 

4.3.7.5.5. Alternative E............................................................................................ 4-164 

4.3.7.5.6. Proposed Plan .......................................................................................... 4-172 

4.3.7.6. Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................... 4-181 

4.3.7.7. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................ 4-181 

4.3.7.8. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity.............................................. 4-182 

4.3.7.9. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts............................................................. 4-182 

4.3.7.10. Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-182 

xv 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

xvi 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

VOLUME 2 

CHAPTER 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft 

Alternatives (Part 2) 

4.3.8. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics........................................... 4-183 

4.3.8.1. Impacts of Cultural Resources Decisions on Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-183 

4.3.8.1.1. Alternative A............................................................................................ 4-184 

4.3.8.1.2. Alternative B............................................................................................ 4-184 

4.3.8.1.3. Alternative C............................................................................................ 4-185 

4.3.8.1.4. Alternative D............................................................................................ 4-186 

4.3.8.1.5. Alternative E............................................................................................ 4-186 

4.3.8.1.6. Proposed Plan .......................................................................................... 4-187 

4.3.8.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-188 

4.3.8.3. Impacts of Lands and Realty Management Decisions on Non- WSA 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics............................................................ 4-189 

4.3.8.3.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives ................. 4-189 

4.3.8.3.2. Alternative A............................................................................................ 4-189 

4.3.8.3.3. Alternative B............................................................................................ 4-193 

4.3.8.3.4. Alternative C............................................................................................ 4-194 

4.3.8.3.5. Alternative D............................................................................................ 4-194 

4.3.8.3.6. Alternative E............................................................................................ 4-195 

4.3.8.3.7. Proposed Plan .......................................................................................... 4-195 

4.3.8.4. Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Non- WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics.................................................................................................. 4-197 

4.3.8.5. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Non- WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics.................................................................................................. 4-197 

4.3.8.5.1. Oil and Gas .............................................................................................. 4-197 

4.3.8.5.2. Impacts Associated with Oil and Gas Leasing/Development under the 

Proposed Plan and All Alternatives...................................................... 4-200 

4.3.8.5.3. Salable Minerals ...................................................................................... 4-218 

4.3.8.5.4. Locatable Minerals .................................................................................. 4-221 

4.3.8.6. Impacts of Non- WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..................................... 4-223 

4.3.8.6.1. Alternatives A, B, C, and D..................................................................... 4-223 

4.3.8.6.2. Alternative E............................................................................................ 4-223 

4.3.8.6.3. Proposed Plan .......................................................................................... 4-224 

4.3.8.7. Impacts of Paleontological Resource Decisions on Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-225 

4.3.8.8. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics.................................................................................................. 4-226 

4.3.8.8.1. Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs)................................... 4-226 

4.3.8.8.2. Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) .............................. 4-241 

4.3.8.9. Impacts of Travel Management Decisions on Non- WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-245 

4.3.8.9.1. Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Travel Management................................. 4-245 

xvii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.8.9.2. Mechanized Recreational Travel (Mountain Bikes)................................ 4-256 

4.3.8.10. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Non- WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics.................................................................................................. 4-257 

4.3.8.11. Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Non- WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-258 

4.3.8.11.1. Alternative A.......................................................................................... 4-258 

4.3.8.11.2. Alternatives B, C, and D........................................................................ 4-258 

4.3.8.11.3. Alternative E.......................................................................................... 4-259 

4.3.8.11.4. Proposed Plan ........................................................................................ 4-259 

4.3.8.12. Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Non- WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-259 

4.3.8.12.1. Alternative A.......................................................................................... 4-260 

4.3.8.12.2. Alternative B.......................................................................................... 4-263 

4.3.8.12.3. Alternative C.......................................................................................... 4-266 

4.3.8.12.4. Alternative D.......................................................................................... 4-267 

4.3.8.12.5. Alternative E.......................................................................................... 4-268 

4.3.8.12.6. Proposed Plan ........................................................................................ 4-269 

4.3.8.13. Impact of Special Status Species Decisions on Non- WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-271 

4.3.8.14. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics.................................................................................................. 4-272 

4.3.8.15. Impacts of Visual Resource Management Decisions on Non- WSA 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics............................................................ 4-273 

4.3.8.15.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives ............... 4-273 

4.3.8.15.2. Alternative A.......................................................................................... 4-277 

4.3.8.15.3. Alternative B.......................................................................................... 4-278 

4.3.8.15.4. Alternative C.......................................................................................... 4-278 

4.3.8.15.5. Alternative D.......................................................................................... 4-278 

4.3.8.15.6. Alternative E.......................................................................................... 4-279 

4.3.8.15.7. Proposed Plan ........................................................................................ 4-279 

4.3.8.16. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Non- WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-279 

4.3.8.17. Impacts of Woodland and Forest Decisions on Non- WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-283 

4.3.8.17.1. Alternative A.......................................................................................... 4-284 

4.3.8.17.2. Alternative B.......................................................................................... 4-285 

4.3.8.17.3. Alternative C.......................................................................................... 4-285 

4.3.8.17.4. Alternative D.......................................................................................... 4-286 

4.3.8.17.5. Alternative E.......................................................................................... 4-286 

4.3.8.17.6. Proposed Plan ........................................................................................ 4-286 

4.3.8.18. Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-287 

4.3.8.18.1. Alternative A–No Action....................................................................... 4-287 

4.3.8.18.2. Alternative B.......................................................................................... 4-288 

4.3.8.18.3. Alternative C.......................................................................................... 4-288 

4.3.8.18.4. Alternative D.......................................................................................... 4-289 

4.3.8.18.5. Alternative E.......................................................................................... 4-289 

4.3.8.18.6. Proposed Plan ........................................................................................ 4-290 

4.3.8.19. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-290 

xviii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.8.20. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-291 

4.3.8.21. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity............................................ 4-292 

4.3.8.22. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-292 

4.3.9. Paleontological Resources ................................................................................... 4-294 

4.3.9.1. Types of Paleontological Resource Impacts................................................... 4-296 

4.3.9.1.1. Direct Impacts to Paleontological Resources .......................................... 4-296 

4.3.9.1.2. Indirect Impacts to Paleontological resources ......................................... 4-297 

4.3.9.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan.........................4-297 

4.3.9.3. Alternatives and Proposed Plan Impacts......................................................... 4-298 

4.3.9.3.1. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Paleontological Resources .. 4-301 

4.3.9.3.2. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Paleontological 

Resources.............................................................................................. 4-303 

4.3.9.3.3. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Paleontological Resources ................ 4-304 

4.3.9.3.4. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands With Wilderness Characteristics 

Decisions on Paleontological Resources .............................................. 4-309 

4.3.9.3.5. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Paleontological Resources............. 4-310 

4.3.9.3.6. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Paleontological 

Resources.............................................................................................. 4-311 

4.3.9.3.7. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Paleontological Resources.................... 4-313 

4.3.9.3.8. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Paleontological Resources ............ 4-315 

4.3.9.4. Summary of Impacts....................................................................................... 4-316 

4.3.9.5. Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................... 4-317 

4.3.9.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................ 4-318 

4.3.9.7. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity Impacts ................................ 4-318 

4.3.10. Recreation........................................................................................................... 4-319 

4.3.10.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan.......................4-321 

4.3.10.2. Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives and the Proposed Plan...........4-323 

4.3.10.3. Alternatives and Proposed Plan Impacts....................................................... 4-325 

4.3.10.3.1. Impacts of Cultural Decisions on Recreation ........................................ 4-325 

4.3.10.3.2. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Recreation ......................... 4-329 

4.3.10.3.3. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Recreation........................ 4-330 

4.3.10.3.4. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Recreation ....................................... 4-331 

4.3.10.3.5. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Decisions on Recreation ....................................................................... 4-333 

4.3.10.3.6. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Recreation.................................... 4-335 

4.3.10.3.7. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Recreation........................................ 4-364 

4.3.10.3.8. Impacts of Soils/Watershed Resources Decisions on Recreation.......... 4-365 

4.3.10.3.9. Impacts of Special Designation–ACEC Decisions on Recreation......... 4-366 

4.3.10.3.10. Impacts of Special Designation–Wild and Scenic Rivers Decisions 

on Recreation........................................................................................ 4-381 

4.3.10.3.11. Impacts of Special Designation–Wilderness Decisions on 

Recreation............................................................................................. 4-389 

4.3.10.3.12. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Recreation......................................... 4-389 

4.3.10.3.13. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Recreation.................................. 4-395 

4.3.10.3.14. Impacts of Visual Resources Decisions on Recreation ....................... 4-396 

4.3.10.3.15. Impacts of Wildlife Resources Decisions on Recreation..................... 4-397 

4.3.10.4. Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-398 

xix 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.10.5. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-399 

4.3.10.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-399 

4.3.10.7. Short-term Use vs. Long-term Productivity.................................................. 4-399 

4.3.10.8. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-399 

4.3.11. Riparian Resources............................................................................................ 4-400 

4.3.11.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives ...........................................................4-400 

4.3.11.1.1. Impacts of Riparian Decisions Common to the Proposed Plan and 

All Alternatives..................................................................................... 4-400 

4.3.11.1.2. Impacts of Fire Decisions Common to the Proposed Plan and All 

Alternatives........................................................................................... 4-402 

4.3.11.1.3. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions Common to the Proposed 

Plan and All Alternatives...................................................................... 4-402 

4.3.11.1.4. Impacts of Soil and Water Resources Decisions Common to the 

Proposed Plan and All Alternatives...................................................... 4-402 

4.3.11.1.5. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions Common to the Proposed Plan and 

All Alternatives..................................................................................... 4-402 

4.3.11.1.6. Impacts of Wildlife Decisions Common to the Proposed Plan and 

All Alternatives..................................................................................... 4-403 

4.3.11.1.7. Impacts of Woodland Decisions Common to the Proposed Plan and 

All Alternatives..................................................................................... 4-403 

4.3.11.2. Alternatives Impacts .....................................................................................4-403 

4.3.11.2.1. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Riparian Resources ........... 4-403 

4.3.11.2.2. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Riparian Resources.......... 4-403 

4.3.11.2.3. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics on 

Riparian Resources............................................................................... 4-405 

4.3.11.2.4. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Riparian Resources ...................... 4-405 

4.3.11.2.5. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Riparian Resources...... 4-411 

4.3.11.2.6. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Riparian Resources.... 4-413 

4.3.11.2.7. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Riparian Resources...................... 4-414 

4.3.11.2.8. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Riparian Resources ............. 4-415 

4.3.11.3. Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-417 

4.3.11.4. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-417 

4.3.11.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-417 

4.3.11.6. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity............................................ 4-417 

4.3.11.7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-418 

4.3.12. Socioeconomic Resources .................................................................................. 4-419 

4.3.12.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan.......................4-419 

4.3.12.1.1. Impacts to Environmental Justice.......................................................... 4-419 

4.3.12.1.2. Impacts to PILT Payments..................................................................... 4-421 

4.3.12.1.3. Impacts to Population ............................................................................ 4-421 

4.3.12.2. Alternatives and Proposed Plan Impacts....................................................... 4-421 

4.3.12.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Resources Decisions on Social and Economic 

Conditions............................................................................................. 4-423 

4.3.12.2.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Social and Economic 

Conditions............................................................................................. 4-425 

4.3.12.2.3. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Social and Economic 

Conditions............................................................................................. 4-427 

xx 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.12.2.4. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Social and Economic 

Conditions............................................................................................. 4-427 

4.3.12.2.5. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Social and Economic Conditions.... 4-429 

4.3.12.2.6. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Decisions on Social and Economic Conditions.................................... 4-436 

4.3.12.2.7. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Social and Economic 

Conditions............................................................................................. 4-438 

4.3.12.2.8. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Social and Economic 

Conditions............................................................................................. 4-443 

4.3.12.2.9. Effects of Travel Decisions on Social and Economic Conditions ......... 4-445 

4.3.12.2.10. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Social and Economic 

Conditions............................................................................................. 4-445 

4.3.12.2.11. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Social and Economic 

Conditions............................................................................................. 4-446 

4.3.12.3. Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-448 

4.3.12.4. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-449 

4.3.12.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-449 

4.3.12.6. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity............................................ 4-449 

4.3.12.7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-449 

4.3.13. Soils and Water Resources................................................................................ 4-450 

4.3.13.1. Assumptions.................................................................................................. 4-452 

4.3.13.2. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives.......................4-453 

4.3.13.2.1. Impacts from Soils and Water Decisions Common to the Proposed 

Plan and All Alternatives...................................................................... 4-453 

4.3.13.2.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions Common to the Proposed 

Plan and All Alternatives...................................................................... 4-454 

4.3.13.2.3. Impacts of Health and Safety Decisions Common to the Proposed 

Plan and All Alternatives...................................................................... 4-455 

4.3.13.2.4. Impacts of Recreation Decisions Common To the Proposed Plan 

and All Alternatives.............................................................................. 4-455 

4.3.13.2.5. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions Common to the 

Proposed Plan and All Alternatives...................................................... 4-455 

4.3.13.2.6. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions Common To the Proposed Plan 

and All Alternatives.............................................................................. 4-456 

4.3.13.3. Alternatives Impacts .....................................................................................4-456 

4.3.13.3.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Soils and Water ................ 4-456 

4.3.13.3.2. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Soils and Water ............... 4-458 

4.3.13.3.3. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Soils and Water ................................ 4-460 

4.3.13.3.4. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Decisions on Soils and Water............................................................... 4-467 

4.3.13.3.5. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Soils and Water............................ 4-468 

4.3.13.3.6. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Soils and Water ............................... 4-472 

4.3.13.3.7. Impacts of Soils and Water Decisions on Soils and Water.................... 4-473 

4.3.13.3.8. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Soils and Water ........... 4-474 

4.3.13.3.9. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Soils and Water ......... 4-476 

4.3.13.3.10. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Soils and Water.......................... 4-477 

4.3.13.3.11. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Soils and Water................. 4-478 

xxi 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.13.3.12. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Soils and Water......................... 4-480 

4.3.13.4. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-481 

4.3.13.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-481 

4.3.13.6. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity............................................ 4-482 

4.3.13.7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-482 

4.3.14. Special Designations........................................................................................... 4-483 

4.3.14.1. ACECs – Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives ...... 4-483 

4.3.14.2. ACECs – Alternatives Impacts ..................................................................... 4-484 

4.3.14.2.1. Alkali Ridge ACEC ............................................................................... 4-485 

4.3.14.2.2. Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC...................................................................... 4-489 

4.3.14.2.3. Butler Wash North ACEC ..................................................................... 4-490 

4.3.14.2.4. Cedar Mesa ACEC................................................................................. 4-491 

4.3.14.2.5. Dark Canyon ACEC .............................................................................. 4-494 

4.3.14.2.6. Hovenweep ACEC................................................................................. 4-496 

4.3.14.2.7. Indian Creek ACEC............................................................................... 4-498 

4.3.14.2.8. Lockhart Basin ACEC ........................................................................... 4-499 

4.3.14.2.9. Lavender Mesa ACEC ........................................................................... 4-501 

4.3.14.2.10. Shay Canyon ACEC ............................................................................ 4-502 

4.3.14.2.11. San Juan River ACEC.......................................................................... 4-504 

4.3.14.2.12. Scenic Highway ACEC ....................................................................... 4-506 

4.3.14.2.13. Valley of the Gods ACEC ................................................................... 4-507 

4.3.14.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers – Impacts Common to All Alternative and the 

Proposed Plan................................................................................................... 4-509 

4.3.14.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers – Alternatives Impacts ........................................... 4-510 

4.3.14.4.1. Alternative A.......................................................................................... 4-515 

4.3.14.4.2. Alternative B.......................................................................................... 4-516 

4.3.14.4.3. Alternative C.......................................................................................... 4-516 

4.3.14.4.4. Alternative D.......................................................................................... 4-517 

4.3.14.4.5. Alternative E.......................................................................................... 4-518 

4.3.14.4.6. Proposed Plan ........................................................................................ 4-518 

4.3.14.5. Impacts to Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) ......................4-519 

4.3.14.6. Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-519 

4.3.14.7. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-520 

4.3.14.8. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-520 

4.3.14.9. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity............................................ 4-520 

4.3.14.10. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts......................................................... 4-521 

4.3.15. Special Status Species ........................................................................................ 4-522 

4.3.15.1. Analysis Assumptions................................................................................... 4-522 

4.3.15.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan.......................4-526 

4.3.15.3. Alternatives and Proposed Plan Impacts....................................................... 4-526 

4.3.15.3.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Special Status Species...... 4-526 

4.3.15.3.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Special Status Species....... 4-529 

4.3.15.3.3. Impacts of Health and Safety Decisions on Special Status Species ...... 4-531 

4.3.15.3.4. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Special Status Species....... 4-532 

4.3.15.3.5. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Special Status Species ..... 4-534 

4.3.15.3.6. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Special Status Species ...................... 4-537 

xxii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.15.3.7. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Decisions on Special Status Species..................................................... 4-547 

4.3.15.3.8. Impacts of Paleontology Decisions on Special Status Species.............. 4-548 

4.3.15.3.9. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Special Status Species.................. 4-550 

4.3.15.3.10. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Special Status Species ................... 4-555 

4.3.15.3.11. Impacts of Soils and Watershed Decisions on Special Status 

Species.................................................................................................. 4-556 

4.3.15.3.12. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Special Status 

Species.................................................................................................. 4-558 

4.3.15.3.13. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Special Status 

Species.................................................................................................. 4-561 

4.3.15.3.14. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Special Status Species ...................... 4-566 

4.3.15.3.15. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Special Status Species ............... 4-570 

4.3.15.3.16. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Special Status Species....... 4-572 

4.3.15.3.17. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Special Status 

Species.................................................................................................. 4-577 

4.3.15.3.18. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Special Status Species............... 4-580 

4.3.15.4. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-582 

4.3.15.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-582 

4.3.15.6. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity............................................ 4-582 

4.3.15.7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-582 

4.3.16. Travel Management........................................................................................... 4-584 

4.3.16.1. Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives ............................................... 4-584 

4.3.16.2. Alternatives and Proposed Plan Impacts....................................................... 4-585 

4.3.16.2.1. Impacts of Air Quality Decisions on Travel.......................................... 4-585 

4.3.16.2.2. Impacts of Cultural Resources Decisions on Travel.............................. 4-586 

4.3.16.2.3. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Travel................................ 4-587 

4.3.16.2.4. Impacts of Land and Realty Decisions on Travel.................................. 4-587 

4.3.16.2.5. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Travel.............................................. 4-587 

4.3.16.2.6. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Decisions on Travel.............................................................................. 4-588 

4.3.16.2.7. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Travel........................................... 4-588 

4.3.16.2.8. Impacts of Riparian Management Decisions on Travel......................... 4-590 

4.3.16.2.9. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Travel........................... 4-591 

4.3.16.2.10. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Travel ...................... 4-591 

4.3.16.2.11. Impacts of Travel Management Decisions on Travel.......................... 4-591 

4.3.16.2.12. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Travel......................................... 4-597 

4.3.16.2.13. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Travel....................... 4-597 

4.3.16.2.14. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Travel........................................ 4-598 

4.3.16.3. Summary of Travel Analysis Data................................................................ 4-599 

4.3.16.4. Summary of Impacts on Travel..................................................................... 4-600 

4.3.16.5. Mitigation...................................................................................................... 4-600 

4.3.16.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-600 

4.3.16.7. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity............................................ 4-600 

4.3.16.8. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-601 

4.3.17. Vegetation Resources......................................................................................... 4-602 

4.3.17.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan.......................4-602 

xxiii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.17.2. Alternatives and Proposed Plan Impacts....................................................... 4-603 

4.3.17.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Vegetation ........................ 4-603 

4.3.17.2.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Vegetation......................... 4-606 

4.3.17.2.3. Impacts of Lands And Realty Decisions on Vegetation........................ 4-606 

4.3.17.2.4. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Vegetation ....................... 4-609 

4.3.17.2.5. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Vegetation....................................... 4-611 

4.3.17.2.6. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Decisions on Vegetation....................................................................... 4-635 

4.3.17.2.7. Impacts of Paleontological Resources Decisions on Vegetation........... 4-635 

4.3.17.2.8. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Vegetation.................................... 4-636 

4.3.17.2.9. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Vegetation ....................................... 4-641 

4.3.17.2.10. Impacts of Soils and Watershed Decisions on Vegetation .................. 4-642 

4.3.17.2.11. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Vegetation ................. 4-644 

4.3.17.2.12. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Vegetation ............... 4-655 

4.3.17.2.13. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Vegetation......................................... 4-657 

4.3.17.2.14. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Vegetation.................................. 4-664 

4.3.17.2.15. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Vegetation......................... 4-665 

4.3.17.2.16. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Vegetation................ 4-670 

4.3.17.2.17. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Vegetation................................. 4-673 

4.3.17.3. Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-674 

4.3.17.4. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-674 

4.3.17.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-674 

4.3.17.6. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity............................................ 4-675 

4.3.17.7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-675 

4.3.18. Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 4-676 

4.3.18.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan.......................4-678 

4.3.18.2. Alternatives and Proposed Plan Impacts....................................................... 4-678 

4.3.18.2.1. Alternative A.......................................................................................... 4-678 

4.3.18.2.2. Alternative B.......................................................................................... 4-678 

4.3.18.2.3. Alternative C.......................................................................................... 4-679 

4.3.18.2.4. Alternative D.......................................................................................... 4-679 

4.3.18.2.5. Alternative E.......................................................................................... 4-680 

4.3.18.2.6. Proposed Plan ........................................................................................ 4-680 

4.3.18.3. Visually Sensitive Areas...............................................................................4-680 

4.3.18.3.1. Lockhart Basin....................................................................................... 4-680 

4.3.18.3.2. Indian Creek........................................................................................... 4-683 

4.3.18.3.3. Valley of the Gods ................................................................................. 4-683 

4.3.18.4. Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-684 

4.3.18.4.1. Lockhart Basin....................................................................................... 4-684 

4.3.18.4.2. Indian Creek........................................................................................... 4-685 

4.3.18.4.3. Valley of the Gods ................................................................................. 4-685 

4.3.18.5. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-685 

4.3.18.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-685 

4.3.18.7. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity............................................ 4-686 

4.3.18.8. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-686 

4.3.19. Wildlife and Fisheries ........................................................................................ 4-687 

4.3.19.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan.......................4-687 

xxiv 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.3.19.2. Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives and the Proposed Plan...........4-696 

4.3.19.3. Alternatives and Proposed Plan Impacts....................................................... 4-697 

4.3.19.3.1. Alternative A.......................................................................................... 4-698 

4.3.19.3.2. Alternatives B and E.............................................................................. 4-700 

4.3.19.3.3. Alternative C.......................................................................................... 4-701 

4.3.19.3.4. Alternative D.......................................................................................... 4-702 

4.3.19.3.5. Proposed Plan ........................................................................................ 4-702 

4.3.19.3.6. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ...... 4-703 

4.3.19.3.7. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries....... 4-709 

4.3.19.3.8. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ....... 4-710 

4.3.19.3.9. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ..... 4-712 

4.3.19.3.10. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries................... 4-713 

4.3.19.3.11. Impacts of Non-WSAs with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Wildlife and Fisheries...................................................................... 4-726 

4.3.19.3.12. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries................ 4-727 

4.3.19.3.13. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ................... 4-731 

4.3.19.3.14. Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries....... 4-731 

4.3.19.3.15. Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Wildlife and 

Fisheries................................................................................................ 4-733 

4.3.19.3.16. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Wildlife and 

Fisheries................................................................................................ 4-736 

4.3.19.3.17. Impacts of Travel Management Decisions on Wildlife and 

Fisheries................................................................................................ 4-736 

4.3.19.3.18. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries................ 4-738 

4.3.19.3.19. Impacts of Visual Resources Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ..... 4-739 

4.3.19.3.20. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries............... 4-741 

4.3.19.3.21. Impacts of Habitat Fragmentation on Wildlife.................................... 4-742 

4.3.19.4. Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-747 

4.3.19.5. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-747 

4.3.19.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-747 

4.3.19.7. Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity ........................................ 4-747 

4.3.19.8. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-747 

4.3.20. Woodlands .......................................................................................................... 4-749 

4.3.20.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan.......................4-749 

4.3.20.2. Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives and the Proposed Plan...........4-749 

4.3.20.3. Alternatives and Proposed Plan Impacts....................................................... 4-750 

4.3.20.3.1. Alternative A.......................................................................................... 4-751 

4.3.20.3.2. Alternative B.......................................................................................... 4-755 

4.3.20.3.3. Alternative C.......................................................................................... 4-759 

4.3.20.3.4. Alternative D.......................................................................................... 4-761 

4.3.20.3.5. Alternative E.......................................................................................... 4-763 

4.3.20.3.6. Proposed Plan ........................................................................................ 4-767 

4.3.20.4. Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-770 

4.3.20.5. Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4-770 

4.3.20.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-771 

4.3.20.7. Short-term Use vs. Long-term Productivity.................................................. 4-771 

4.3.20.8. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-771 

xxv 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

4.4. Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................... 4-772 

4.4.1. Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality....................................................................... 4-773 

4.4.2. Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources........................................................... 4-774 

4.4.3. Cumulative Impacts on Fire Management............................................................. 4-775 

4.4.4. Cumulative Impacts on Health and Safety............................................................. 4-775 

4.4.5. Cumulative Impacts on Lands and Realty ............................................................. 4-775 

4.4.6. Cumulative Impacts on Livestock and Grazing..................................................... 4-776 

4.4.7. Cumulative Impacts on Minerals ........................................................................... 4-776 

4.4.8. Cumulative Impacts on Non-WSAs with Wilderness Characteristics................... 4-777 

4.4.9. Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources............................................... 4-778 

4.4.10. Cumulative Impacts on Recreation...................................................................... 4-779 

4.4.11. Cumulative Impacts on Riparian Resources ........................................................ 4-780 

4.4.12. Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics ............................................................. 4-781 

4.4.13. Cumulative Impacts on Soil and Water Resources.............................................. 4-781 

4.4.14. Cumulative Impacts on Special Designations...................................................... 4-783 

4.4.15. Cumulative Impacts on Special Status Species.................................................... 4-784 

4.4.16. Cumulative Impacts on Travel............................................................................. 4-785 

4.4.17. Cumulative Impacts on Vegetation...................................................................... 4-786 

4.4.18. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources ........................................................... 4-786 

4.4.19. Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife and Fisheries.................................................... 4-787 

4.4.20. Cumulative Impacts on Woodlands ..................................................................... 4-787 

xxvi 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

VOLUME 3 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination .................................................................5-1

5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Consultation and Coordination with Tribes, State and Local Governments, and 

Federal Agencies ............................................................................................................... 5-2 

5.2.1 Native American Consultation.................................................................................... 5-2 

5.2.2 Cooperating Agency Involvement .............................................................................. 5-4 

5.2.3 State Agency Coordination ......................................................................................... 5-5 

5.2.4 County Coordination................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.2.5 Consultation and Coordination with Other Federal Agencies .................................... 5-5 

5.2.5.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................ 5-5 

5.2.5.2 Environmental Protection Agency....................................................................... 5-6 

5.2.5.3 Other Agency Involvement/Coordination............................................................ 5-6 

5.3 Consistency with Other Plans......................................................................................... 5-6 

5.4 Public Outreach and Participation .............................................................................. 5-15 

5.4.1 Notice of Intent to Plan and Scoping ........................................................................ 5-15 

5.4.2. Mailing List.............................................................................................................. 5-16 

5.4.3 Planning Bulletins..................................................................................................... 5-16 

5.4.4 Website ..................................................................................................................... 5-17 

5.4.5 Socioeconomic Workshops....................................................................................... 5-17 

5.4.6 Notice of Availability of the Draft RMP/EIS ........................................................... 5-17 

5.4.7 Notice of Availability of the Final RMP/EIS ........................................................... 5-18 

5.4.8 Public Meetings ........................................................................................................ 5-18 

5.5 Public Comments on the Monticello Draft RMP/EIS ................................................ 5-18 

5.5.1 Process and Methodology ......................................................................................... 5-18 

5.5.2 Comment Analysis.................................................................................................... 5-19 

5.5.3 Summary of Public Comments ................................................................................. 5-25 

5.5.4 Public Comments and Responses ............................................................................. 5-25 

5.6 Record of Decision ....................................................................................................... 5-170 

5.7 Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.................................................. 5-170 

5.8 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................... 5-175 

References........................................................................................................................x-1 

Acronyms and Glossary ...............................................................................................x-23 

Index ..............................................................................................................................x-43

xxvii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Table of Contents 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xxviii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Figures 

List Of Figures 

Figure 3.1. Thirty-year precipitation and air temperature plots for Monticello, Utah 

(WRCC 2004). ....................................................................................................... 3-2 

Figure 3.2. Seasonal windroses in the Monticello PA................................................................. 3-4 

Figure 3.3. Trend in air pollution impacts on visibility observed in Canyonlands National 

Park, Utah, 1990 through 2004 (IMPROVE)......................................................... 3-8 

Figure 3.4. Mean annual precipitation pH near in Bryce and Canyonlands National Parks. 

Data source: National Atmospheric Deposition Program. ..................................... 3-9 

Figure 3.5. Total nitrogen deposition at Canyonlands National Park. Source: National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program........................................................................ 3-10 

Figure 3.6. Total sulfur deposition at Canyonlands National Park. Source: National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program........................................................................ 3-11 

Figure 3.7. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern Latitudes (24–90° N). ............... 3-15 

Figure 3.8. Acres within grazing allotments.............................................................................. 3-50 

Figure 3.9. Unemployment. ..................................................................................................... 3-117 

Figure 3.10. Job Base (by SIC code) in San Juan County, 1969–1999. ..................................3-121 

Figure 3.11. Tourist Spending San Juan County, 1992–2003. ................................................3-123 

Figure 3.12. Income from agriculture, 1970–2000.................................................................. 3-125 

Figure 3.13. Production from oil and gas wells in the Monticello FO. ................................... 3-127 

xxix 
Monticello Proposed RMP/Final EIS List of Figures 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xxx 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

List of Tables 

Table ES1. OHV Categories (Acres)...............................................................................................5 

Table ES3. Special Recreation Management Areas ........................................................................5 

Table ES4. Special Designations .....................................................................................................6 

Table ES5. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.......................................................6 

Table ES6. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations..................................................................................6 

Table ES1. OHV Categories (Acres).........................................................................................ES-5 

Table ES2. Designated Routes...................................................................................................ES-6 

Table ES3. Special Recreation Management Areas ..................................................................ES-6 

Table ES4. Special Designations ...............................................................................................ES-6 

Table ES5. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.................................................ES-7 

Table ES6. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations............................................................................ES-7 

Table 1.1. Land Ownership within the Monticello PA................................................................ 1-2 

Summary Table A. OHV Acreage and Mileage Designations by Alternative ............................ 2-3 

Summary Table B. SRMA Acreage by Alternative..................................................................... 2-4 

Summary Table A. OHV Acreage and Mileage Designations by Alternative ............................ 2-3 

Summary Table B. SRMA Acreage by Alternative..................................................................... 2-4 

Summary Table C. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations Acreage, by Alternative.......................... 2-5 

Summary Table D. Proposed Total Acreage and Number of Potential ACECs by 

Alternative.............................................................................................................. 2-5 

Summary Table E. WSRs Recommended Suitable for the Proposed Plan, Including Draft 

EIS by Alternatives ................................................................................................ 2-6 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives ....................................... 2-9 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts................................................................................................. 2-91 

Table 3.1. Temperature and Precipitation Data for 4 Locations in the Monticello PA ............... 3-2

Table 3.2. Ambient Air Quality Data for the MPA ..................................................................... 3-5

Table 3.3. Summary of Visibility Impairment Pollutants Measured in the Canyonlands 

National Park a ....................................................................................................... 3-7

Table 3.4. 2005 Emissions Inventory for Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah......................... 3-12

Table 3.5. Formative Period Chronology .................................................................................. 3-17

Table 3.6. National Register–listed Sites and Districts, National Historic Landmarks, and 

National Monuments within the Monticello PA .................................................. 3-24

Table 3.7. ACECs with Cultural Resource Values Designated by the Monticello FO ............. 3-28

xxxi 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 3.8. Sites and Districts Identified in the 1991 RMP for National Register Listing ......... 3-28

Table 3.9. Typical Hazardous Materials Used in Well Drilling and Completion Operations............ 3-38

Table 3.10. Existing Withdrawals in the Monticello PA........................................................... 3-47

Table 3.11. R&PP Authorizations for the Monticello PA ......................................................... 3-49

Table 3.12. Allotments in the Monticello PA by Management Category ................................. 3-51

Table 3.13. Percent of Acres within the Monticello FO Boundaries by Ecological Class........ 3-52

Table 3.14. Ratings for Mineral Occurrence Potential and Certainty........................................ 3-54

Table 3.15. Monticello Planning Area Oil and Gas Field Statistics as of December 31, 2003 

(Includes All Lands within the Area) ..................................................................... 3-60

Table 3.16. Summary of Status of All Wells Located within the Monticello PA, as of 

March 24, 2005 .................................................................................................... 3-64

Table 3.17. Historical Locations and Hosts of Uranium-Vanadium Deposits in the 

Monticello PA, by Mining District ...................................................................... 3-72

Table 3.18. Historical Uranium-vanadium Production in the Monticello PA ........................... 3-73

Table 3.19. Summary of Lands Evaluated for Wilderness Characteristics ............................... 3-81

Table 3.20. OHV Registrations in 1998, 2002, and 2003.......................................................... 3-91

Table 3.21. Issues Identified by Users on the San Juan River................................................... 3-94

Table 3.22. Visitor Days 2001–2005 ......................................................................................... 3-99

Table 3.23. Riparian Community Acreages, 1990 Inventory, Monticello FO ........................ 3-103

Table 3.24. Riparian Functioning Condition, Monticello PA (BLM Lands Only).................. 3-106

Table 3.25. Land Jurisdiction in San Juan County .................................................................. 3-112

Table 3.26. Communities in San Juan County......................................................................... 3-115

Table 3.27. Population by Category, 1990 and 2000............................................................... 3-118

Table 3.28. San Juan County Population by Race and Ethnicity............................................. 3-118

Table 3.29. Unemployment Rates............................................................................................ 3-119

Table 3.30. Per-capita Personal Income .................................................................................. 3-120

Table 3.31. Poverty Rates ........................................................................................................ 3-120

Table 3.32. Population by Household Type in San Juan County, 2000 .................................. 3-120

Table 3.33. Employment by Industry, Changes from 1970 to 2000—SIC Codes................... 3-122

Table 3.34. PILT Payments to San Juan County ..................................................................... 3-124

Table 3.35. Visitation to Local Attractions in 2003................................................................. 3-124

Table 3.36. Tourism-related Tax Trends in San Juan County ................................................. 3-126

Table 3.37. Base Funding for Recreation and Fee Demonstration Projects ............................ 3-126

xxxii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 3.38. San Juan County Agricultural Data ...................................................................... 3-128

Table 3.39. Subbasins within the Monticello PA .................................................................... 3-133

Table 3.40. Soil Orders and Suborders, Monticello PA .......................................................... 3-134

Table 3.41. Soil Erodibility Factors......................................................................................... 3-136

Table 3.42. Major Waterbodies within the Monticello Planning Area.................................... 3-137

Table 3.43. Annual Mean Streamflow of Selected Waterbodies............................................. 3-137

Table 3.44. Summary of BLM Public Water Reserve Lands .................................................. 3-138

Table 3.45. Waterbodies on Utah's 303(d) List of Impaired Waters ....................................... 3-140

Table 3.46. Watersheds with Potential High Salinity Contributions....................................... 3-141

Table 3.47. Monticello PA ACECs from 1991 RMP (Existing ACECs) ................................ 3-143

Table 3.48. Summary Table of Potential ACECs.................................................................... 3-144

Table 3.49. ACEC Acreage within Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), by ACEC................... 3-144

Table 3.50. Description and Relevance and Importance Summary of Potential ACECs ........ 3-145

Table 3.51. Individual Eligible Wild and Scenic River(s) Segments (see Map 54) ................ 3-150

Table 3.52. Acreage for BLM WSAs and ISAs in the Monticello PA.................................... 3-153

Table 3.53. List of Inventoried Ways by WSA ....................................................................... 3-155

Table 3.54. Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Potentially 

Occurring in the Monticello PA ......................................................................... 3-157

Table 3.55. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Monticello PA ...... 3-161

Table 3.56. Special Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Monticello PA, 

San Juan County, Utah....................................................................................... 3-164

Table 3.57. Current OHV Designation and Acreage ............................................................... 3-167

Table 3.58. BLM Acres of Land by SW ReGAP Cover Type ................................................ 3-170

Table 3.59. Invasive and Noxious Weeds of San Juan County, Utah ..................................... 3-175

Table 3.60. VRM Classes and Acreages.................................................................................. 3-178

Table 3.61. Current Population and Objectives for Mule Deer ............................................... 3-181

Table 3.62. Current Population and Objectives for Rocky Mountain Elk............................... 3-181

Table 3.63. Current Population and Objectives for Pronghorn Antelope................................ 3-182

Table 3.64 Current Population and Objective for Desert Bighorn Sheep................................ 3-183

Table 3.65. Inventory of Fisheries within Monticello PA ....................................................... 3-187

Table 4.1. Predicted Oil and Gas Drilling and Associated Surface Disturbance for Each 

Development Area within the Monticello PA (see Map 14).................................. 4-3 

Table 4.2. Predicted Amount of Geophysical Activity and Associated Surface 

Disturbance for Each Development Area within the Monticello PA..................... 4-4 

xxxiii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.3. Total Existing and Predicted Surface Disturbance from All Drilling Activities 

and Predicted Reclamation within the Monticello PA ........................................... 4-4 

Table 4.4. Summary of RFD-Predicted Wells and Surface Disturbance for Oil and Gas on 

BLM Lands ............................................................................................................ 4-5 

Table 4.5. Summary of Geophysical Disturbances on BLM Lands ............................................ 4-5 

Table 4.6. Emission Rates for Compressors .............................................................................. 4-13 

Table 4.7. Emission Rates for Glycol Dehydrators ................................................................... 4-14 

Table 4.8. Emission Rates for Flaring ....................................................................................... 4-14 

Table 4.9. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under 

Alternative A over 15 years ................................................................................. 4-16 

Table 4.10. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative A ........................................................................................................ 4-16 

Table 4.11. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Monticello 

FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under Alternative A............ 4-17 

Table 4.12. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative B over 15 years........................................................................ 4-18 

Table 4.13. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative B ........................................................................................................ 4-19 

Table 4.14. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Monticello 

FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under Alternative B ............ 4-19 

Table 4.15. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative C over 15 years........................................................................ 4-21 

Table 4.16. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative C ........................................................................................................ 4-21 

Table 4.17. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Monticello 

FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under Alternative C ............ 4-22 

Table 4.18. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative D over 15 years ....................................................................... 4-23 

Table 4.19. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Monticello PA Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative D ........................................................................................................ 4-24 

Table 4.20. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO 

Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under Alternative D .................. 4-24 

Table 4.21. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative E over 15 years........................................................................ 4-26 

xxxiv 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.22. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative E ........................................................................................................ 4-26 

Table 4.23. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO 

Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under Alternative E................... 4-27 

Table 4.24. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under the Proposed Plan over 15 years ................................................................ 4-28 

Table 4.25. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional base-year for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under the 

Proposed Plan....................................................................................................... 4-29 

Table 4.26. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Monticello 

FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under Proposed Plan........... 4-29 

Table 4.27. Comparison Among Alternatives of Emitted Pollutants Associated with Oil 

and Gas Development .......................................................................................... 4-32 

Table 4.28. Effectiveness and Costs of Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures (PM10) ................ 4-33 

Table 4.29. Efficiency of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Mitigation Measures................................... 4-34 

Table 4.30. Additional Mitigation Measures with Approximate Costs and Benefits................ 4-34 

Table 4.31. VOC Mitigation Measures...................................................................................... 4-35 

Table 4.32. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives ................................ 4-39 

Table 4.33. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative A ............................................... 4-42 

Table 4.34. Acres of High Site-Density Lands in Special Designation Areas with 

Decisions Affecting Cultural Resources, Alternative A ...................................... 4-45 

Table 4.35. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative B ............................................... 4-46 

Table 4.36. Acres of High Site-density Lands in Special Designation Areas with 

Decisions Affecting Cultural Resources, Alternative B....................................... 4-50 

Table 4.37. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative C ............................................... 4-51 

Table 4.38. Acres of High Site-Density Lands in Special Designation Areas with 

Decisions Affecting Cultural Resources, Alternative C....................................... 4-53 

Table 4.39. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative D ............................................... 4-54 

Table 4.40. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative E Where They Differ from 

Alternative B ........................................................................................................ 4-57 

Table 4.41. Impacts to Cultural Resources under the Proposed Plan ........................................ 4-59 

Table 4.42. Acres of High Site-Density Lands in Special Designation Areas with 

Decisions Affecting Cultural Resources, Proposed Plan ..................................... 4-61 

Table 4.43. Acreage of CSMA Restrictions on Fire Management and Fuels Treatment 

(acres) ................................................................................................................... 4-66 

xxxv 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.44. Acreage of Planning Area Lands Open and Closed to Surface-disturbing 

Mineral Development (% of Planning Area) ....................................................... 4-68 

Table 4.45. Recreation Restrictions Impacting Fire Management ............................................ 4-70 

Table 4.46. Acreage of ACEC Restrictions on Fire Management and Fuels Treatment 

(acres) ................................................................................................................... 4-72 

Table 4.47. Travel Restrictions Impacting Fire Management and Risk (acres) ........................ 4-74 

Table 4.48. Acreage of Avoidance, Exclusion, and Recommended for Withdrawal from 

Mineral Entry (acres) ........................................................................................... 4-84 

Table 4.49. Season-of-Use Changes, under All Action Alternatives and the Proposed Plan.... 4-88 

Table 4.50. New Allotments Created Since the 1991 RMP, Existent under All 

Alternatives and the Proposed Plan...................................................................... 4-88 

Table 4.51. Areas to Remain Unavailable for Grazing, Under the Proposed Plan and All 

Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 4-90 

Table 4.52. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under Alternative B in Addition to 

Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 .................................................. 4-96 

Table 4.53. Changes to Livestock Season of Use in Certain Allotments under Alternative 

B as Compared to Alternative A (No Action)...................................................... 4-99 

Table 4.54. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under Alternative C in Addition to 

Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 ................................................ 4-100 

Table 4.55. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under Alternative D in Addition to 

Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 ................................................ 4-102 

Table 4.56. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under Alternative E in Addition to 

Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 ................................................ 4-104 

Table 4.57. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under the Proposed Plan in Addition 

to Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 ............................................ 4-106 

Table 4.58. Acres and AUMs Lost due to Grazing Restrictions from Resource 

Management Decisions ...................................................................................... 4-108 

Table 4.59. Total Acres Available to Livestock under the Proposed Plan and Each 

Alternative as well as Percent Difference Comparisons .................................... 4-109 

Table 4.60. Total AUMs Available under Each Alternative and Comparisons Between 

Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 4-109 

Table 4.61. Annual Acres of Disturbance Due to Minerals Extraction Activities Under the 

Proposed Plan and All Alternatives ................................................................... 4-109 

Table 4.62. Baseline/RFD Acreages of Lands and Predicted Number of Wells in the 3 

RFD Areas over the next 15 Years..................................................................... 4-113 

Table 4.63. Acres of WSAs within Each RFD Area................................................................ 4-117 

Table 4.64. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral 

Resource Development under All Alternatives.................................................. 4-120 

xxxvi 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.65. Acres of BLM Lands Available for Mineral Resource Development under 

Each Alternative and the Proposed Plan ............................................................ 4-125 

Table 4.66. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands 

within RFD Areas under Alternative A–No Action, Average over 15 Years 

and Maximum per Year (MPY) ......................................................................... 4-127 

Table 4.67. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, 

under Alternative A–No Action ......................................................................... 4-129 

Table 4.68. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral 

Resource Development, if Designated under Alternative A–No Action ........... 4-131 

Table 4.69. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to 

Mineral Resource Development under Alternative A........................................ 4-133 

Table 4.70. Acreages of Each VRM Class by Alternative ...................................................... 4-135 

Table 4.71. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands 

within RFD Areas under Alternative B, Average over 15 Years and 

Maximum per Year (MPY) ................................................................................ 4-137 

Table 4.72. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, 

under Alternative B ............................................................................................ 4-140 

Table 4.73. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral 

Resource Development, if Designated under Alternative B ............................. 4-142 

Table 4.74. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to 

Mineral Resource Development under Alternative B ........................................ 4-144 

Table 4.75. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands 

within RFD Areas under Alternative C, Average 15 Years and Maximum 

per Year (MPY).................................................................................................. 4-147 

Table 4.76. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, 

under Alternative C ............................................................................................ 4-149 

Table 4.77. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral 

Resource Development, if Designated under Alternative C .............................. 4-151 

Table 4.78. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to 

Mineral Resource Development under Alternative C ........................................ 4-153 

Table 4.79. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands 

within RFD Areas under Alternative D, Average over the 15 Years and 

Maximum per Year (MPY) ................................................................................ 4-157 

Table 4.80. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, 

under Alternative D............................................................................................ 4-159 

xxxvii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.81. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral 

Resource Development, if Designated under Alternative D .............................. 4-161 

Table 4.82. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to 

Mineral Resource Development under Alternative D........................................ 4-162 

Table 4.83. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands 

within RFD Areas under Alternative E, Average over 15 Years and 

Maximum per Year (MPY) ................................................................................ 4-165 

Table 4.84. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, 

under Alternative E ............................................................................................ 4-168 

Table 4.85. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral 

Resource Development, if Designated under Alternative E .............................. 4-169 

Table 4.86. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to 

Mineral Resource Development under Alternative E ........................................ 4-171 

Table 4.87. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands 

within RFD Areas under The Proposed Plan, Average over 15 Years and 

Maximum per Year (MPY) ................................................................................ 4-173 

Table 4.88. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, 

under The Proposed Plan.................................................................................... 4-175 

Table 4.89. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral 

Resource Development, if Designated under the Proposed Plan ....................... 4-178 

Table 4.90. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to 

Mineral Resource Development under The Proposed Plan ............................... 4-180 

Table 4.91. Acres of Avoidance or Exclusion for ROWs in Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics (all acreage not under exclusion or avoidance 

remain open for ROWs) ..................................................................................... 4-191 

Table 4.92. Paradox Fold and Fault Belt Development Area and Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics ................................................................................. 4-198 

Table 4.93. Monument Upwarp Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics .................................................................................................... 4-198 

Table 4.94. Blanding Sub-basin Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics .................................................................................................... 4-199 

Table 4.95. Development Areas with RFD Projected Number of Wells/Year Over the 

Next 15 years...................................................................................................... 4-200 

Table 4.96. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations for Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics .................................................................................................... 4-201 

Table 4.97. OHV Management in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics............ 4-245 

xxxviii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.98. VRM Classes in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics by 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-274 

Table 4.99. Wood-cutting Allocations in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics .................................................................................................... 4-283 

Table 4.100. Mapped Geologic Units within the BLM Monticello PA and their PFYC 

Classes, in Approximate Descending Stratigraphic Order................................. 4-294 

Table 4.101. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative A for Each of the RFD Areas .......................................................... 4-305 

Table 4.102 Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Alternative A .............. 4-305 

Table 4.103. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative B for Each of the RFD Areas .......................................................... 4-305 

Table 4.104. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Alternative B ............. 4-306 

Table 4.105. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative C for Each of the RFD Areas .......................................................... 4-306 

Table 4.106. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Alternative C ............. 4-307 

Table 4.107. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative D for Each of the RFD Areas .......................................................... 4-307 

Table 4.108. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Alternative D ............. 4-307 

Table 4.109. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative E for Each of the RFD Areas .......................................................... 4-308 

Table 4.110. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Alternative E.............. 4-308 

Table 4.111. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

The Proposed Plan for Each of the RFD Areas.................................................. 4-309 

Table 4.112. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Proposed Plan ............ 4-309 

Table 4.113. Summary of Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Available for Mineral 

Exploration and Development within the Monticello PA.................................. 4-317 

Table 4.114. Summary of Recreation Management Decision Analysis Data for Special 

Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs).......................................................... 4-337 

Table 4.115. Summary of Recreation Management Decision Analysis Data, Special 

Recreation Permits (SRPs) ................................................................................. 4-338 

Table 4.116 SRMA Acreages, Under All Alternative and the Proposed Plan ........................ 4-339 

Table 4.117. Livestock Grazing in Riparian Areas, by Alternative......................................... 4-404 

Table 4.118. OHV Use in Riparian Areas by Alternative (Acres) .......................................... 4-407 

Table 4.119. VRM Class I and Class II Designation in Riparian Areas by Alternative 

(Acres)................................................................................................................ 4-416 

Table 4.120. Grazing Impacts by Alternative.......................................................................... 4-428 

xxxix 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.121. Summary of Well Potential and Acres Open to Leasing on BLM Land Per 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-431 

Table 4.122. Annual Estimated Royalty Revenue from Oil and Gas Development Per 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-434 

Table 4.123. Proposed Total Acreage of Potential ACECs by Alternative and Percentage 

Difference Compared to Alternative A .............................................................. 4-443 

Table 4.124. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative.................................................................. 4-445 

Table 4.125. Factors Contributing to Site Degradation and Their Inherent Risks* ................ 4-451 

Table 4.126. Livestock Grazing in Soils with Limitations ...................................................... 4-459 

Table 4.127. Acreage of Limited Soils Open and Closed to Surface-disturbing Mineral 

Leasing by Alternative ....................................................................................... 4-462 

Table 4.128. Predicted Surface Disturbance over Life of Plan From Oil and Gas Leasing 

and Geophysical Exploration ............................................................................. 4-464 

Table 4.129. OHV Use in Reclamation-Limited Soils by Alternative .................................... 4-469 

Table 4.130. ACEC Special Designations in Limited Soils, by Alternative ........................... 4-474 

Table 4.131. VRM Designation - Limited Soils by Alternative.............................................. 4-480 

Table 4.132. Acres of Soils Available for Woodland Harvesting, By Alternative.................. 4-481 

Table 4.133. ACECs by Alternative, with Percent of Each that is WSA ................................ 4-484 

Table 4.134. River Segments that Would be Determined Suitable and Total River Miles 

(RM), by Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-510 

Table 4.135. River Segments Evaluated and Recommended for Wild and Scenic River 

Designation by Alternative................................................................................. 4-511 

Table 4.136. Acreages of WSAs in the Monticello FO ........................................................... 4-519 

Table 4.137. Grouping of Special Status Species by Habitat Type......................................... 4-524 

Table 4.138. Special Status Species Habitat Unavailable for Grazing by Alternative............ 4-535 

Table 4.139. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat designated as Closed or NSO by 

Alternative and Proposed Plan ........................................................................... 4-539 

Table 4.140. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative A ...................................................................................................... 4-539 

Table 4.141. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

Alternative A ...................................................................................................... 4-540 

Table 4.142. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault Under 

Alternative A ...................................................................................................... 4-540 

Table 4.143. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 4-541 

xl 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.144. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 4-541 

Table 4.145. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault Under 

Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 4-542 

Table 4.146. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 4-542 

Table 4.147. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 4-543 

Table 4.148. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault Under 

Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 4-543 

Table 4.149. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 4-544 

Table 4.150. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 4-544 

Table 4.151. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault Under 

Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 4-544 

Table 4.152. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative E ...................................................................................................... 4-545 

Table 4.153. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

Alternative E ...................................................................................................... 4-545 

Table 4.154. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault Under 

Alternative E ...................................................................................................... 4-546 

Table 4.155. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under the 

Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-546 

Table 4.156. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under the 

Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-547 

Table 4.157. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault Under 

the Proposed Plan............................................................................................... 4-547 

Table 4.158. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat in each of the SRMAs Under 

Alternative A ...................................................................................................... 4-551 

Table 4.159. Alternatives B and E-Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat in each of 

the SRMAs ......................................................................................................... 4-552 

Table 4.160. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat in each of the SRMAs Under 

Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 4-554 

Table 4.161. Acres of Each Vegetation Type by Slope Steepness Category .......................... 4-557 

Table 4.162. Proposed ACEC Acreage under the Proposed Plan and Each Alternative......... 4-559 

Table 4.163. Miles of WSR Segment Recommended for Designation by Alternative ........... 4-559 

xli 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.164. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat by OHV Usage Status Under 

Alternative A ...................................................................................................... 4-567 

Table 4.165. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat by OHV Usage Status Under 

Alternatives B and E .......................................................................................... 4-567 

Table 4.166. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat by OHV Usage Status Under 

Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 4-568 

Table 4.167. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat by OHV Usage Status Under 

Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 4-569 

Table 4.168. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat by OHV Usage Status Under the 

Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-570 

Table 4.169. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under Alternative 

A ......................................................................................................................... 4-573 

Table 4.170. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under Alternative 

B ......................................................................................................................... 4-573 

Table 4.171. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under Alternative 

C ......................................................................................................................... 4-574 

Table 4.172. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under Alternative 

D ......................................................................................................................... 4-575 

Table 4.173. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under Alternative 

E ......................................................................................................................... 4-576 

Table 4.174. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under he 

Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-576 

Table 4.175. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat Located in Areas with Big Game 

Seasonal Restrictions.......................................................................................... 4-578 

Table 4.176. Proposed Travel Closing or Travel Limitation Periods in Wildlife Areas ......... 4-589 

Table 4.177 OHV Acreage Designations by Alternative......................................................... 4-592 

Table 4.178. B-Class and D-Class Roads in the Monticello Planning Area (Miles)............... 4-595 

Table 4.179. Travel Data Summary Table............................................................................... 4-599 

Table 4.180. Acreage of Vegetation Type by Cultural Area ................................................... 4-603 

Table 4.181. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type Unavailable for Grazing for the Proposed 

Plan and Alternatives ......................................................................................... 4-609 

Table 4.182. Alternative A–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Stipulation In the Blanding Sub-basin RFD Area.............................................. 4-612 

Table 4.183. Alternative A–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Stipulation In the Monument Upwarp RFD Area .............................................. 4-612 

Table 4.184. Alternative A–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Stipulations In the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt RFD Area............................... 4-613 

xlii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.185. Acres of Roadside Vegetation Subject to Weed Invasion .................................. 4-615 

Table 4.186. Acres of Surface Disturbance Associated with Geophysical Exploration by 

RFD Area ........................................................................................................... 4-616 

Table 4.187. Alternative B–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category in the Blanding Sub-basin RFD.......................................................... 4-617 

Table 4.188. Alternative B–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category in the Monument Upwarp RFD .......................................................... 4-617 

Table 4.189. Alternative B–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category in the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt RFD ............................................ 4-618 

Table 4.190. Percent Difference in Acres of Roadside Vegetation Subject to Weed 

Infestation........................................................................................................... 4-619 

Table 4.191. Alternative C–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category In the Blanding Sub-basin RFD.......................................................... 4-621 

Table 4.192. Alternative C–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category In the Monument Upwarp RFD.......................................................... 4-621 

Table 4.193. Alternative C–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category In the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt RFD ............................................ 4-622 

Table 4.194. Percent Difference in Acres of Roadside Vegetation Subject to Weed 

Infestation........................................................................................................... 4-623 

Table 4.195. Alternative D–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Stipulations In the Blanding Sub-basin RFD Area ............................................ 4-625 

Table 4.196. Alternative D–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category In the Monument Upwarp RFD.......................................................... 4-625 

Table 4.197. Alternative D–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category In the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt RFD ............................................ 4-626 

Table 4.198. Percent Difference in Acres of Roadside Vegetation Subject to Weed 

Infestation........................................................................................................... 4-627 

Table 4.199. Alternative E–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Stipulations In the Blanding Sub-basin RFD Area ............................................ 4-629 

Table 4.200. Alternative E–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Stipulation In the Monument Upwarp RFD Area .............................................. 4-629 

Table 4.201. Alternative E–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Stipulation In the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt RFD Area ................................ 4-630 

Table 4.202. Proposed Plan–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category In the Blanding Sub-basin RFD.......................................................... 4-632 

Table 4.203. Proposed Plan–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category In the Monument Upwarp RFD.......................................................... 4-632 

xliii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.204. Proposed Plan–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing 

Category In the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt RFD ............................................ 4-633 

Table 4.205. Percent Difference in Acres of Roadside Vegetation Subject to Weed 

Infestation........................................................................................................... 4-634 

Table 4.206. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in the Cedar Mesa and White Canyon 

SRMAs Under the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives..................................... 4-636 

Table 4.207. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in the Dark Canyon SRMA for the 

Proposed Plan and All Alternatives ................................................................... 4-637 

Table 4.208. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in the Indian Creek SRMA for the 

Proposed Plan and All Alternatives ................................................................... 4-638 

Table 4.209. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in the San Juan River SRMA for the 

Proposed Plan and each Alternative................................................................... 4-638 

Table 4.210. Acres of Each Vegetation Type by Slope Steepness Category .......................... 4-643 

Table 4.211. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Alkali Ridge by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-644 

Table 4.212. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Bridger Jack Mesa by Proposed Plan 

and Alternative ................................................................................................... 4-645 

Table 4.213. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Butler Wash North by Proposed Plan 

and Alternative ................................................................................................... 4-645 

Table 4.214. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Cedar Mesa by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-646 

Table 4.215. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Dark Canyon by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-646 

Table 4.216. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Hovenweep by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-647 

Table 4.217. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Indian Creek by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-647 

Table 4.218. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Lockhart Basin by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-648 

Table 4.219. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Lavender Mesa by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-648 

Table 4.220. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Shay Canyon by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-649 

Table 4.221. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in San Juan River by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-649 

Table 4.222. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Valley of the Gods by Proposed Plan 

and Alternative ................................................................................................... 4-650 

Table 4.223. Acreage of Closed OHV Use for All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan......... 4-659 

xliv 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.224. Acreage of Limited OHV Use for All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan ....... 4-659 

Table 4.225. Acres Open to OHV Use for All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan ............... 4-660 

Table 4.226. Percent Difference Acres Closed to OHV Use between Alternative A and 

Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 4-660 

Table 4.227. Percent Difference Acres Closed to OHV Use between Alternatives A and C.. 4-661 

Table 4.228. Percent Difference Acres Closed to OHV Use between Alternative A and 

Alternative E ...................................................................................................... 4-662 

Table 4.229. Percent Difference Acres Closed to OHV Use between Alternative A and 

the Proposed Plan............................................................................................... 4-663 

Table 4.230. Acres of Vegetation Treatment per Year by Vegetation Type for Each 

Alternative and the Proposed Plan ..................................................................... 4-664 

Table 4.231. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in VRM Class I by Alternative and the 

Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-667 

Table 4.232. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in VRM Class II by Alternative and the 

Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-667 

Table 4.233. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in VRM Class III by Alternative and the 

Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-668 

Table 4.234. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in VRM Class IV by Alternative and the 

Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-668 

Table 4.235. Alternative A–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject to 

Special Conditions.............................................................................................. 4-670 

Table 4.236. Alternatives B and E–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject 

to Special Conditions ......................................................................................... 4-671 

Table 4.237. Alternative C–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject to 

Special Conditions.............................................................................................. 4-672 

Table 4.238. Alternative D–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject to 

Special Conditions.............................................................................................. 4-672 

Table 4.239. Proposed Plan–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject to 

Special Conditions.............................................................................................. 4-673 

Table 4.240. VRM Class Designation Acreages by Alternative ............................................. 4-678 

Table 4.241. Grouping of Wildlife Species by Native Habitat Type....................................... 4-687 

Table 4.242. Percentages of Vegetation/Habitat Types that Occur in the Monticello PA ...... 4-691 

Table 4.243. Acreage Closed and Season of Closure for Mule Deer, Elk, Pronghorn, and 

Desert Bighorn Sheep By Alternative................................................................ 4-699 

Table 4.244. Total Acres Subject to Special Wildlife Conditions by Alternative and the 

Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-700 

xlv 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 4.245 Acreage of each Cultural Area by Vegetation Cover Type and Associated 

Wildlife............................................................................................................... 4-703 

Table 4.246. Estimated Surface Disturbance (in acres) for Oil and Gas Well 

Development, by Vegetation (Wildlife Habitat) Type....................................... 4-714 

Table 4.247. Estimated Surface Disturbance (in Acres) on BLM Lands Associated with 

Geophysical Exploration by Vegetation (Wildlife Habitat) Type...................... 4-715 

Table 4.248. Acreage of Each Vegetation Cover Type (and Associated Wildlife) Open 

and Closed to Surface Disturbance by Alternative and the Proposed Plan........ 4-716 

Table 4.249. Acres of Big Game Habitat (Crucial Winter, Lambing/Rutting, and Crucial 

Fawning UDWR Designated vs. BLM Managed) Open and Closed to 

Surface Disturbance by Alternative and the Proposed Plan............................... 4-718 

Table 4.250. Acreage and Percentage of Slopes by Cover Type and Associated Wildlife ..... 4-732 

Table 4.251. Proposed ACEC Acreage under the Proposed Plan and Each Alternative......... 4-733 

Table 4.252. Acreage of WSR Segment Recommended for Designation by Alternative ....... 4-733 

Table 4.253. Wildlife Habitat (acres) Open, Limited, and Closed to OHV Use by 

Vegetation Type and Alternative/Proposed Plan* ............................................. 4-736 

Table 4.254. Acres of Annual Vegetation Treatments by Vegetation Type and Alternative.. 4-739 

Table 4.255. Total Acreage in Monticello PA Designated Under Each VRM Class by 

Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-740 

Table 4.256. Acres in the Monticello PA Open to Woodland Harvesting .............................. 4-741 

Table 4.257. Percent of Mule Deer and Elk Habitat Considered Unfavorable After 

Fragmentation by Roads (Road Density < 0.16 km/km2) .................................. 4-744 

Table 4.258. Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat Fragmentation Analysis..................................... 4-745 

Table 4.259. Acres of Vegetation Habitat Types Impacted by Roads and Buffers ................. 4-746 

Table 4.260. Woodland Available for Woodland Harvesting, by Alternative ........................ 4-755 

Table 4.261. Federal Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in Utah that are Currently 

Being Managed to Protect Those Values ........................................................... 4-778 

Table 5.1. Tribal Organizations Contacted by the BLM, Utah State Director ............................ 5-3 

Table 5.2. Meetings with Tribal Organizations as Part of Scoping for the RMP........................ 5-4 

Table 5.3. Meetings with Tribal Organizations to Discuss Draft Alternatives............................ 5-4 

Table 5.4 Plan Consistency Review............................................................................................. 5-8 

Table 5.5 Consistency with State of Utah Code 63j-4-401 ....................................................... 5-11 

Table 5.6. Open House Locations and Attendance.................................................................... 5-15 

Table 5.7 Open House Locations, Dates, and Attendance......................................................... 5-18 

Table 5.8. List of Organizations and Individuals that Submitted Substantive Comments ........ 5-22 

Table 5.9.a–b. Public Comments and Responses ...................................................................... 5-27 

xlvi 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

Table 5.10.a–aa Comments Requiring a Change in the Document .......................................... 5-88 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS .......................................................... 5-171 

Table 5.12. List of Preparers.................................................................................................... 5-175 

xlvii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Tables 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xlviii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Maps 

List of Maps 

(Maps Contained In Volume 3) 

Map No. Map Name 

1. Monticello Planning Area with Land Status 

2. Cultural Special Management Areas (CSMAs) Alternatives B, C, D, E 

3. Fire Management Areas 

4. Communication Sites, Filming Locations, and Utility Corridors 

5. Recommended Withdrawals – Alternative A 

6. Recommended Withdrawals – Alternative B 

7. Recommended Withdrawals – Alternative C 

8. Recommended Withdrawals – Alternative D 

9. Recommended Withdrawals – Alternative E 

10. Recommended Withdrawals Proposed Plan 

11. Livestock Grazing Allotments 

12. Livestock Grazing Restrictions – Alternative A 

13. Livestock Grazing Restrictions – Alternatives B & E 

14. Livestock Grazing Restrictions – Alternative C 

15. Livestock Grazing Restrictions – Alternative D 

16. Livestock Grazing Restrictions Proposed Plan 

17. Potential for Oil and Gas 

18. Minerals Leasing Areas and Potential for Potash 

19. Potential for Sand and Gravel 

20. Potential for Uranium 

21. Mineral Material Disposal – Alternative A 

22. Mineral Material Disposal – Alternative B 

23. Mineral Material Disposal – Alternative C 

24. Mineral Material Disposal – Alternative D 

25. Mineral Material Disposal – Alternative E 

26. Mineral Material Disposal Proposed Plan 

27. Oil & Gas Leasing – Alternative A 

28. Oil & Gas Leasing – Alternative B 

xlix 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Maps 

29. Oil & Gas Leasing – Alternative C 

30. Oil & Gas Leasing – Alternative D 

31. Oil & Gas Leasing – Alternative E 

32. Oil & Gas Leasing – Proposed Plan 

33. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Inventoried Baseline) 

Alternative E 

34. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics – Proposed Plan 

35. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Alternative A 

36. Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) – Alternative A 

37. Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) – Alternatives B & E 

38. Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) – Alternative C 

39. Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) – Alternative D 

40. Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) – Proposed Plan 

41. Soils – Alkaline 

42. Soils – Droughty 

43. Soils – Root Depth 

44. Soils – Salinity 

45. Soils – Sodium Absorption 

46. Soils – Water Erodible 

47. Soils – Wind Erodible 

48. State of Utah List of Impaired Waters 

49. Surface Water Sub-basin Boundaries 

50. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) – Alternative A 

51. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) – Alternatives B & E 

52. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) – Alternative C 

53. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) – Proposed Plan 

54. Wild and Scenic Rivers 

55. Wild and Scenic Rivers Proposed Plan 

56. Wilderness Study Areas 

57. Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Areas 

58. OHV and Travel Plan – Alternative A 

l 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Maps 

59. OHV and Travel Plan – Alternative B 

60. OHV and Travel Plan – Alternative C 

61. OHV and Travel Plan – Alternative D 

62. OHV and Travel Plan – Alternative E 

63. Travel Plan – Proposed Plan 

64. OHV Categories – Proposed Plan 

65. Southwest Regional GAP Vegetation 

66. Visual Resource Management Classes (VRM) – Alternative A 

67. Visual Resource Management Classes (VRM) – Alternative B 

68. Visual Resource Management Classes (VRM) – Alternative C 

69. Visual Resource Management Classes (VRM) – Alternative D 

70. Visual Resource Management Classes (VRM) – Alternative E 

71. Visual Resource Management Classes (VRM) – Proposed Plan 

72. Black Bear and Gunnison Prairie Dog Habitat 

73. Mule Deer Winter Range – Alternative A 

74. Mule Deer Winter Range and Sage-grouse Crucial Year-round Habitat – 

Alternatives B and E 

75. Mule Deer Winter Range and Sage-grouse Crucial Year-round Habitat – 

Alternative C 

76. Mule Deer Winter Range and Sage-grouse Crucial Year-round Habitat – 

Alternative D 

77. Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range and Sage-grouse Crucial Year-round Habitat – 

Proposed Plan 

78. Pronghorn Fawning Areas and Bighorn Sheep Lambing and Rutting Habitat – 

Alternative A 

79. Pronghorn Fawning Areas, Elk Winter Range, and Bighorn Sheep Lambing and 

Rutting Habitat – Alternatives B and E 

80. Pronghorn Fawning, elk Winter Range, and Bighorn Sheep Lambing and rutting 

Habitat – Alternative C 

81. Pronghorn Fawning Areas, Elk Winter Range, and Bighorn sheep Lambing and 

Rutting Habitat – Alternative D 

li 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Maps 

82. Pronghorn Fawning, Elk Crucial Winter Range, and bighorn Sheep Lambing and 

Rutting Habitat – Proposed Plan 

83. Woodlands – Alternative A 

84. Woodlands – Alternative B 

85. Woodlands – Alternatives C, D, and Proposed Plan 

86. Woodlands – Alternative E 

87. Areas of Overlap Between WSAs and ACECs – Alternative A 

88. Areas of Overlap Between WSAs and ACECs – Alternatives B and E 

89. Areas of Overlap Between WSAs and ACECs – Alternative C 

90. Areas of Overlap Between WSAs and ACECs – Proposed Plan 

91. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yellow-billed Cuckoo Habitat 

92. Bald Eagle Habitat 

93. Designated Critical Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat; and Designated Critical Fish 

Habitat 

94. ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas – Proposed Plan 

95. Elk Habitat Fragmentation – Alternative A 

96. Elk Habitat Fragmentation – Alternatives B and E 

97. Elk Habitat Fragmentation – Alternative C 

98. Elk Habitat Fragmentation – Alternative D 

99. Elk Habitat Fragmentation – Proposed Plan 

100. Mule Deer Habitat Fragmentation – Alternative A 

101. Mule Deer Habitat Fragmentation – Alternatives B and E 

102. Mule Deer Habitat Fragmentation – Alternative C 

103. Mule Deer Habitat Fragmentation – Alternative D 

104. Mule Deer Habitat Fragmentation – Proposed Plan 

lii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Appendices 

List of Appendices 

(Appendices Contained In Volume 3) 

Appendix A Stipulations Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-disturbing 

Activities 

Appendix B Fire Management 

Appendix C Lands and Realty 

Appendix D Livestock Grazing Allotments 

Appendix E Recreation 

Appendix F Guidance for Pipeline Crossings 

Appendix G Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 

Appendix H Special Designations 

Appendix I Best Management Practices and Standard Operating Procedures Applicable to Oil 

and Gas Operations and Other Public Land-use Authorizations 

Appendix J Energy and Non-Energy Policy 

Appendix K Community Pit Information 

Appendix L Development and Testing Of the Cultural Resource Site Density Predictive Model 

Appendix M Best Management practices For Raptors and their Associated Habitats in 

Utah, August 2006 Appendix N Travel Plan BLM Monticello Field Office 

Appendix O Identification of Wilderness Characteristics on Non-WSA Lands Managed by 

Monticello BLM 

Appendix P Film Permits: Minimum Impact Criteria 

Appendix Q Finalized Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices for T&E 

Species in Utah from the Land Use Plan Programmatic Bas and Section 7 

Consultations—2007 

Appendix R Utah Public Lands Study – Key Social Survey Findings for Grand and San Juan 

Counties 

Appendix S Changes Between DEIS and FEIS 

Appendix T Letter from the State of Utah Regarding Air Quality Mitigation Strategies

liii 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS List of Appendices 

 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

liv 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES. 1 INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management Utah (BLM) Monticello Field Office (Monticello FO) has 

prepared this Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(Proposed RMP/Final EIS) to provide direction for managing public lands within the Monticello 

FO and to analyze the environmental effects of a range of management alternatives. A Draft 

RMP/EIS with five alternatives was presented to the public on November 2, 2007. A 90-day 

public comment period was held and the comments from the public were used to formulate the 

Proposed Plan. 

The Proposed RMP will replace the San Juan Resource Area Resource Management Plan 

(RMP), which was signed in 1991. This revised Monticello RMP covers the same area as did the 

1991 RMP, which is two-thirds of San Juan County, with a small portion located within southern 

Grand County (BLM 1991). The Monticello FO planning area (Monticello PA) comprises 

approximately 4.5 million acres of land, which includes approximately 2.5 million acres of 

mineral estate and 1.8 million acres of public land administered by the BLM. Elevations vary 

from 3,700 feet above sea level near Lake Powell to 11,360 feet in the Abajo Mountains. 

The Monticello PA is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau 

Physiographic Province. The Monticello PA encompasses Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area, the Abajo Mountains of the Manti–La Sal National Forest, Canyonlands National Park, the 

Natural Bridges and Hovenweep National Monuments, and the White Mesa Ute and Navajo 

Indian Reservations. The Monticello FO shares boundaries with lands administered by the BLM 

Moab FO, and the Dolores FO in Colorado. 

The Proposed RMP was prepared using the BLM’s planning regulations and guidance issued 

under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. An EIS is 

incorporated into this document to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing 

NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and requirements of BLM’s NEPA Handbook 1790-1. 

ES. 2 PURPOSE AND NEED

ES. 2.1 PURPOSE

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that the BLM "develop, 

maintain, and when appropriate, revise land-use plans" (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1712 

[a]). The BLM has determined it is necessary to revise the existing land-use plan (LUP) and 

prepare a new RMP for the Monticello PA based on a number of new issues that have arisen 

since preparation of the existing plan. In general, the purpose of this RMP is to provide a 

comprehensive framework for BLM's management of the public lands within the Monticello PA 

and its allocation of resources pursuant to the multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate of 

FLPMA. In addition, the purpose of this plan revision is to: 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Executive Summary 

• Reevaluate, with public involvement, existing conditions, resources, and uses, and 

reconsider the mix of resource allocations and management decisions designed to balance 

uses and the protection of resources pursuant to FLPMA and applicable law. 

• Resolve multiple-use conflicts or issues between resource values and resource uses. The 

resulting Monticello RMP will establish consolidated guidance and updated goals, 

objectives, and management actions for the public lands in the decision area. The RMP 

will be comprehensive in nature and will address issues that have been identified through 

agency, interagency, and public scoping efforts. 

• Disclose and assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the reasonably 

foreseeable future actions resulting from the management actions in each alternative 

pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), its 

implementing regulations, and other applicable laws. 

ES. 2.2 NEED

A revision to the 1991 RMP is necessary because there have been significant alterations in the 

Monticello PA; specifically new information and changed resources, circumstances, and policies 

that may be relevant to the future management of public lands and allocation of resources under 

the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate. This determination is further corroborated by a 

Special Evaluation Report, completed in 2002 by the Monticello FO, which concluded that some 

of the decisions within the 1991 RMP are in need of revision. 

There have been changes in the laws, policies, and regulations that direct the management of the 

resources on Monticello PA public lands. There has also been an increase in the amount of new 

information and resource data that need to be considered to better manage the public lands. 

Visitation to the region has grown and population demographics have changed; as have public 

awareness and use of lands within the Monticello PA. Specifically, there is a need to evaluate 

management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increases in recreation and 

visitor use, including scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in oil and 

gas development. Land-use plan decisions may be changed only through the amendment or 

revision process. 

ES. 3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement has been an integral part of BLM’s RMP effort. The scoping period for the 

Monticello RMP began on June 4, 2003, and ended on January 31, 2004. Scoping consisted of 

scheduled open houses in six communities (Green River, Monticello, Moab, Blanding, and Salt 

Lake City, Utah, and Grand Junction, Colorado) and visits to 12 locations throughout the 

planning area by BLM personnel. In addition, news releases and radio announcements were used 

to notify the public regarding the scoping period and the planning process and to invite the public 

to provide written comments. Comments obtained from the public during the scoping period 

were used to define the relevant issues that would be resolved by presenting a broad range of 

alternative management actions. 

ES-2 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Executive Summary 

The Draft RMP/EIS was released to the public on November 2, 2007, with publication of the 

notice of availability (NOA) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A 90-day public 

comment period ended on February 4, 2007. The BLM hosted five open houses during the public 

comment period to provide information on the content of the Draft RMP/EIS and on how to 

comment. Portions of all the alternatives and information based on the public comment were 

used to formulate the Proposed Plan, which is presented in this document. Chapter 5 contains 

additional information on public involvement in the RMP process. 

ES. 4 PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT EIS ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed Plan and the five alternatives that were presented in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS are 

now carried forward as part of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed Plan is most closely 

associated with Alternative C, which was the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP. The 

Proposed Plan has been adjusted based on public comment and review of the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Some of the decisions in this Proposed Plan RMP/EIS are carried forward from the existing San 

Juan RMP (BLM 1991) because there are no conflicts or other issues that would cause BLM to 

change them. These decisions are common to the Proposed Plan and all alternatives from the 

Draft RMP because a range of alternative decisions is not necessary for these resources or uses. 

Other decisions are common to the Proposed Plan and all action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, 

D and E), but are different from the No Action Alternative (A) due to a change in circumstances. 

An overview of some specific components of the Proposed Plan and each alternative from the 

Draft RMP is provided below. A full discussion of the Proposed Plan and each alternative is 

provided in Chapter 2. 

ES. 4.1 PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan consists of a combination of proposed decisions from the full range of 

alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. The Proposed Plan was crafted based on 

public comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS, coordination with the Cooperating Agencies, and 

internal review and comment. It provides for the balance of use and protection of resources while 

considering the extent of the environmental impacts to the resources and uses. The Proposed 

Plan best resolves the major issues, provides common ground among conflicting opinions, and 

provides multiple uses of public lands in a sustainable fashion. 

The Proposed Plan would protect important environmental values and sensitive resources while 

allowing for an appropriate level of development. It would provide a balance between protection 

of important natural resources and commodity production, as well as offer a full range of 

recreation opportunities, including additional opportunities for primitive recreation experiences. 

Under the Proposed Plan, 0 acres would be open to cross-country, off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

use; 393,895 acres would be closed to OHV use; and 1,388,191 acres would be limited to 

designated routes (Table ES1). Approximately 1,947 miles of Class D travel routes would be 

designated (Table ES2). Under the Proposed Plan, seven Special Recreation Management Areas 

(SRMAs) (562,824 acres) would be designated (Table ES3). 

Seven Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) (73,492 acres) would be designated in 

the Proposed Plan, and four eligible rivers segments (35.7 miles) would be recommended as 

suitable for Wild and Scenic River (WSR) designation (Table ES4). Approximately 88,871 acres 

ES-3 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Executive Summary 

of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect, preserve, and 

maintain their wilderness characteristics. Approximately 493,400 acres would be closed to oil 

and gas leasing, 66,108 acres would be managed with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) 

stipulations, and 484,217 acres would be open with standard stipulations (Table ES6). The 

remaining 594,469 acres would be managed with timing limitations or controlled surface use 

stipulations. 

ES. 4.2 ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

Alternative A would continue of existing management under the current San Juan Resource Area 

Management Plan (1991) as amended. 

ES. 4.3 ALTERNATIVE B

Alternative B would offer more protection for wildlife and other natural resources, and favor 

natural systems over commodities development. It would emphasize the protection of natural 

resources and landscapes as well as non-motorized recreation. 

ES. 4.4 ALTERNATIVE C – PREFERRED

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) would protect important environmental values and sensitive 

resources while allowing for commodities development. It would provide a balance between 

protection of important natural resources and commodity production, as well as offer a full range 

of recreation opportunities. 

ES. 4.5 ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D would emphasize commodity development over the protection of natural 

resources, and would emphasize motorized recreation. 

ES. 4.6 ALTERNATIVE E

Alternative E would the same as Alternative B except that 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands 

would be managed to preserve, protect, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. These 

lands would be managed as the following: closed to mineral leasing, closed to OHV use, 

proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry, right-of-way exclusion area, closed to disposal of 

mineral materials, closed to private and commercial woodland harvest, and managed as VRM I. 

Large areas on the west side of the Monticello FO would be difficult to access; any kind of 

surface-disturbing activities would be difficult to conduct in this area. Wilderness characteristics 

would be enhanced as would adjacent wilderness values found in WSAs. 

Tables ES1 through ES6 summarize OHV categories, designated routes, SRMAs, special 

designations, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and oil and gas leasing categories 

for the Proposed Plan. These tables compare the Proposed Plan to the Draft EIS alternatives. 

ES-4 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Executive Summary 

Table ES1. OHV Categories (Acres) 

OHV 

Designation 

Category 

Alternative 

A 

No Action 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Preferred 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Open 611,310 0 2,311 2,311 0 0

Limited – 

designated 218,780 1,359,417 1,362,142 1,780,807 812,679 1,388,191

Limited use 

– seasonal 540,260 NA 3.8 NA NA 0 

Limited – 

existing 570,390 NA NA NA NA NA

Closed 276,430 423,698 418,667 0 970,436 393,895

Table ES2. Designated Routes 

Areas 

Limited to 

Designated 

Road and 

Trails 

Alternative 

A 

No Action 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Preferred 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

B Roads 0 875 873 873 875 873

D Roads 0 1,521 1,947 2,205 1,342 1,947

1

 Routes were not formally designated in the 1991 San Juan RMP. Use of existing routes includes 890 miles of B Roads and 2,179 

miles of D Roads.

Table ES3. Special Recreation Management Areas 

SRMAs 

Alternative 

A 

No Action 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Preferred 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Number 3 5 5 5 5 7

Acres 614,490 508,861 508,517 505,023 505,517 562,824

SRMAs are established to manage intensively used recreation areas and generally do not restrict other uses. 

In Alternative B, non-motorized recreation is emphasized. 

In Alternative C (preferred), opportunities for both non-motorized and motorized recreation are provided. 

In Alternative D, motorized recreation is emphasized.

ES-5 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Executive Summary 

Table ES4. Special Designations 

Type* 

Alternative 

A 

No Action 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Preferred 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

number 10 12 7 0 12 7 ACEC 

acres 492,077 521,142 76,761 0 521,142 73,492

eligible 6 12 12 12 12 12

river 

segments 56.8 miles 92.4 miles 18.4 miles 0 miles 92.4 miles 35.7 miles WSR 

suitable 

segments 

not 

evaluated 12 3 0 12 4

number 13 WSA 

acres 391,599 

* Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), Wild and Scenic River (WSR), and Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 

Acreage may overlap (scenic Highway and Cedar Mesa) and are different than previously published values. 

**Acreage based on the Statewide Report to Congress. 

Table ES5. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Type 

Alternative 

A 

No Action 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Preferred 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

WC Number 0 0 0 0 29 5

Units Acres 0 0 0 0 582,360 88,871

Table ES6. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations 

Stipulation 

Alternative 

A 

No Action 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Preferred 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Standard 578,604 365,170 629,472 962,283 213,290 484,217

TL & CSU 659,626 876,740 719,501 421,000 545,641 940,594

NSO 161,224 125,105 39,323 14,175 53,915 66,108

Closed 385,316 416,612 395,329 386,853 974,463 493,400

Projected 

Wells/LOP 73 66 74 75 54 72

Oil and gas stipulations would apply to other surface-disturbing activities where they are not contrary to laws, regulations, or policy. 

The following stipulations would be applied to land-use authorizations: 1) standard stipulations, 2) timing limitations (TL), 3) 

controlled surface use (CSU), and 4) no surface occupancy (NSO). Areas identified as closed would not be available for oil and gas 

leasing. 

Areas identified as NSO and closed would be avoidance and exclusion areas for rights-of-way, respectively. NSO and closed areas

may be recommended for withdrawal of locatable minerals in the future if it is determined that unacceptable resource conflicts are 

occurring. 

ES-6 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Executive Summary 

ES. 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Monticello FO is known for both its scenic quality and its recreational opportunities, which 

are an important land use in the planning area. Many visitors enjoy the diverse and varied 

recreational opportunities of the planning area. Recreation is an important part of San Juan 

County's economy. Recreational opportunities include scenic driving, mountain biking, hiking, 

rafting and boating, rock climbing, OHVs, and horseback riding. The many trail-based 

recreational activities in the planning area are highly dependent upon route systems. Mineral 

exploration and development comprise another major use of public lands in the Monticello PA. 

The oldest oil field in Utah is in the Monticello PA, where oil was discovered in Mexican Hat in 

1879. In 1956, the development of the Aneth field sparked oil and gas exploration in San Juan 

County that continues to this day. Oil and gas production is currently taking place in Mexican 

Hat, Aneth, Lisbon Valley, and the Blanding Basin. There are approximately 42 active oil and/or 

gas fields in the Monticello PA 

Uranium and vanadium deposits can be found within 17 historical mining districts throughout 

the planning area. With the recent rise in oil, gas and uranium prices, there has been renewed 

interest in exploration and development of these mineral resources in the Monticello FO. Other 

mineral resources within the planning area that are likely to be developed include: placer gold, 

limestone, building stone, sand and gravel, and clay. Other land uses within the planning area 

include rights-of-way (ROWs) for roads, pipelines, power lines, and communication sites, film 

permits, and livestock grazing. 

Many important natural and cultural resources are found in the Monticello PA. Federally listed 

wildlife species inhabit the planning area including the Mexican spotted owl, Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and bonytail chub. The planning area 

also contains habitat for mule deer, elk, desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn, Gunnison Sage-grouse, 

and Gunnison’s prairie dog. 

Pre-Columbian cultural sites affiliated with Pueblo people, and sites related to Archaic and Paleo 

Indian cultures are present (12,000–5,000 B. C.). Historic Period (post-Columbian) occupation in 

the area includes one National Historic Trail (Old Spanish National Historic Trail) and one 

pioneer historic trail (Hole in the Rock). Other historic properties are related to Ute, Navajo, 

Apache sites and Anglo ranching, farming and mining locations. Over 28,000 cultural sites have 

been recorded. 

ES. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The Proposed Plan would allow for many uses to continue but would constrain certain activities 

to maintain or protect important natural resources, including some non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, and crucial wildlife habitats. This could result in some short-term 

adverse impacts to local economies and resource extraction businesses, but long-term economic 

benefits would be gained from the emphasis on a diversity of recreational activities. 

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would maintain the current rate of progress in meeting 

rangeland health standards and protecting resource values. It would allow for use to mostly 

continue at current levels in the same places in the planning area, with adjustments required in 

order to meet Standards for Rangeland Health or to mitigate resource concerns in compliance 

with existing laws and regulations. 

ES-7 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Executive Summary 

Alternative B would have the least potential to adversely impact physical and biological 

resources and would protect a variety of vegetation types and wildlife habitats. Alternative B 

would be restrictive to resource extraction. Alternative B would have the potential for adverse 

impacts to businesses that depend on public land for resource extraction. 

Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative, would allow for many uses to continue but would 

constrain certain activities in order to maintain or protect important natural resources. This could 

result in some short-term adverse impacts to local economies and resource extraction businesses, 

but long-term economic benefits could be gained from the emphasis on a diversity of recreational 

activities. 

Alternative D offers the greatest potential benefits to the local economy from resource extraction, 

although economic benefits from recreation use would not be maximized. Resource extraction 

uses would generally be least encumbered by management decisions under this alternative. 

Alternative D would result in greater impacts on the physical and biological environment than 

actions proposed under the Proposed Plan or Alternatives B, C, or E. 

 Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B, except 582,360 acres of non WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness 

characteristics. This alternative would be the most restrictive for access and resource extraction. 

Some benefit to back country recreation would be realized. 

Table 2.2 at the end of Chapter 2 summarizes potential impacts for the Proposed Plan and by 

alternatives from the Draft RMP. Detailed descriptions of impacts of the Proposed Plan and five 

draft alternatives are provided in Chapter 4, along with a discussion of the cumulative impacts, 

irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources, and unavoidable adverse impacts of the 

alternatives. 

ES. 7 BRIEF SUMMARY OF CHANGES BETWEEN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

AND THE PROPOSED PLAN 

As a result of public comment, coordination with cooperating agencies, and internal review of 

the Draft RMP/EIS, the Proposed Plan is based on the Preferred Alternative from the Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS (Alternative C). Major changes between the Preferred Alternative from the Draft 

RMP and the Proposed Plan include the following: protecting five areas for their wilderness 

characteristics; adding a segment of the San Juan River as suitable for inclusion into the National 

Wild and Scenic River System; reducing the size of the Indian Creek and San Juan River 

ACECs; expanding the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA (also referred to as the Cedar Mesa SRMA) 

to include management zones for McLoyd Canyon–Moon House and Comb Ridge cultural areas 

(previously described as cultural special management areas) and changing the Beef Basin 

cultural special management area to a SRMA; allowing for OHV use for the full length of Arch 

Canyon; making Indian Creek a limited to designated routes OHV area; and expanding the 

wildlife crucial habitat boundaries, in accordance with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

data. All of these changes fall within the range of alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/Draft 

EIS. Other changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/FEIS include 

clarifications in wording, editing, expanded analysis, and the addition of new information. The 

end of Chapter 1 has a summary of these changes. Appendix S contains a complete listing of 

changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the present document. 

ES-8 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Executive Summary 

ES. 8 NEXT STEPS

Following publication by the EPA and the BLM of an NOA of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS in 

the Federal Register and distribution of the document, there will be a 30-day protest period. In 

addition, a 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review period runs concurrently with the first half of 

the protest period. The state director will approve the Proposed RMP/Final EIS by issuing a 

public Record of Decision (ROD), which is a concise document summarizing the findings and 

decisions from the Proposed RMP. However, approval shall be withheld on any portion of a plan 

being protested until final action has been completed on such protest. Before such approval is 

given, there shall be public notice and opportunity for public comment on any significant change 

made to the Proposed Plan. Among other decisions, the proposed ACEC designations and OHV 

categories (limitations and closures) will be approved when the ROD is signed. Implementationlevel decisions analyzed through this planning process will be appealable for 30 days after the 

ROD is signed. 

ES-9 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Executive Summary 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

ES-10 
4-1 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND 

DRAFT ALTERNATIVES

4.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter analyzes the environmental consequences of the management decisions proposed 

under the five alternatives and the Proposed Plan described in Chapter 2. These decisions were 

developed as alternative ways of managing and allocating resources and uses of the public lands 

within the Monticello Planning Area (PA) to balance these uses under the multiple-use, 

sustained-yield mandate of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) planning decisions about resource use and management in the 

Monticello Planning Area (PA) will be based on this analysis. Note that there are two sections on 

management decisions common to the alternatives. One section discusses management decisions 

shared by all of the alternatives (A, the No-Action Alternative, the Action Alternatives, and the 

Proposed Plan); the other section describes decisions shared by only the Action Alternatives (B 

through E and the Proposed Plan). 

Alternative A (No Action) continues the existing management practices defined in the San Juan 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). Alternative B would minimize human activities within the 

Monticello PA. Alternative C would protect important environmental values and sensitive 

resources while allowing the development of oil and gas resources, recreational facilities, and 

other human uses. Alternative D would emphasize resource development and human 

consumption of resources. Alternative E would minimize human activities and manage more 

acreage for a natural state, primitive recreation, and solitude. The Proposed Plan would protect 

important environmental values and sensitive resources while allowing commodities 

development. This Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (PRMP/FEIS) provides a landscape-scale, "big picture" analysis because in most cases 

the exact locations of projected development and other changes are not known at this time. 

Impacts for each specific resource or use presented in Chapter 3 are discussed under each 

alternative. Impacts are defined as modifications to the existing environment brought about by 

implementing an alternative. They can be beneficial or adverse, result from the decisions directly 

or indirectly, and be long-term, short-term, temporary, or cumulative. 

BLM staff used existing data, current methodologies, professional judgments, and projected 

actions and levels of use to compile the analysis, which takes into account the mitigation 

measures and stipulations described in Chapter 2 and Appendices A, F, I, and M. If impacts are 

not discussed, the analysis has indicated that none would occur, or their magnitude would be 

negligible. 

When impacts of a decision are the same under more than one alternative, they are disclosed 

under the first applicable alternative discussed, and then referenced under other pertinent 

alternatives.

Chapter 4 discusses and analyzes the environmental consequences of program decisions on each 

listed resource or use. Resources and uses are presented in alphabetical order. The environmental 

consequences of the decisions imposed by other programs on that resource are also delineated for 

each of the five alternatives and the Proposed Plan. For half of the resources, the analysis 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-2 

identifies the impacts of each of the other program decisions on that resource value or use, by 

alternative. For example, the impacts of recreation decisions on vegetation are listed under each 

of the five alternatives: 

 Vegetation 

 Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Vegetation 

 Alternative A 

 Alternative B 

 Alternative C 

 Alternative D 

 Alternative E 

Resources and uses organized this way include fire management, non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, paleontological resources, recreation, riparian resources, 

socioeconomic conditions, soils and water resources, special designations, special status species, 

travel management, vegetation, and wildlife and fisheries. 

For resources and uses largely unaffected by other program decisions, the impacts are grouped 

under each of the five alternatives. This format made the disclosure of environmental 

consequences on these resources easier to understand. For example, the impacts of other program 

decisions on lands and realty under Alternative A appear all together: 

Lands and Realty 

 Impacts of Alternative A 

 Impacts of Alternative B 

 Impacts of Alternative C 

 Impacts of Alternative D 

Impacts of Alternative E 

Resources and uses organized this way include air quality, cultural resources, health and safety, 

lands and realty, livestock grazing, minerals, visual resources, and woodlands. 

4.1.1. ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND GUIDELINES

Following are the general assumptions used to assess all alternatives. Assumptions specific to an 

individual resource value, use, or program (e.g., wildlife habitat, recreation, or fire management) 

appear at the beginning of the analysis for that section. 

• All resource decisions recognize valid existing rights. 

• The entire planning area is allocated one of the following leasing stipulations for oil and gas 

development: 

o Open subject to standard lease terms; 

o Timing limitations and controlled surface use; 

o No surface occupancy; or 

o Closed. 

• BLM would have the funding and work force to implement the selected alternative. 

• Additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis would be required to 

determine the impacts from site-specific actions (activity plans) and could identify additional 

mitigating measures. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-3 

• All lands identified for disposal are free of encumbrances and can be disposed of. This 

includes cultural-resource clearances. 

• Demand for recreational activities (both dispersed and concentrated), energy production, 

vegetative resources, and wildlife use (nonconsumptive and consumptive) will increase over 

time. 

• Short-term impacts are those that would last for fewer than 5 years. 

• Long-term impacts are those that would last for 5 years or more. 

• State highways and county B class roads through the Monticello PA will remain open and 

accessible. 

• All decisions, projects, activities, and mitigation for the alternatives would be completed as 

described in Chapter 2 and Appendix A (Surface Stipulations Applicable to Oil and Gas 

Leasing and Other Surface-disturbing Activities). 

• Acreages were calculated using GIS technology, so there may be slight variations in total 

acres between disciplines. These variations are negligible and will not affect analysis. 

• WSA acreages in the following sections vary from those identified in the Statewide Report to 

Congress. GIS calculations were used only for analysis purposes. 

• The decisions of the RMP apply only to public lands managed by the BLM. They do not 

apply to in-held or adjacent private, state, or other lands. 

• Reasonable access across BLM lands to state lands must be provided under all alternatives. 

• The required consultations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are in 

progress and will be completed prior to signature of the ROD. 

4.1.2. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR MINERAL DEVELOPMENT

The BLM prepared a mineral potential report (MPR) for the Monticello PA in July 2005. The 

report outlined the potential for occurrence and reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) of all 

mineral resources for the Monticello PA for the next 15 to 20 years. The potential for future oil 

and gas activity and the associated surface disturbance are presented in Table 4.1, and the 

predicted geophysical activity and its consequences are outlined in Table 4.2. This activity 

includes potential mineral development and geophysical activities on state, private, United States 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), tribal, BLM, and National Park Service (NPS) 

lands within the Monticello PA. Table 4.3 shows the existing and predicted cumulative surface 

disturbance for all of these lands. 

Table 4.1. Predicted Oil and Gas Drilling and Associated Surface Disturbance for Each 

Development Area within the Monticello PA (see Map 17) 

Development Area 

Number of Wells 

Projected to Be 

Drilled 

Estimated Future Surface Disturbance 

from Drilling Wells (acres) 

Paradox fold and fault belt (per year) 1–6 9.6–57.6 

Blanding sub-basin (per year) 3–13 28.8–124.8 

Monument upwarp (per year) 1–2 9.6–19.2 

Total per year for next 15 years 5–21 48.0–201.6 

Average per year for next 15 years 13 124.8 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-4 

Table 4.1. Predicted Oil and Gas Drilling and Associated Surface Disturbance for Each 

Development Area within the Monticello PA (see Map 17) 

Development Area 

Number of Wells 

Projected to Be 

Drilled 

Estimated Future Surface Disturbance 

from Drilling Wells (acres) 

Total for next 15 years 195 1,872.0 

Source: BLM 2005b. 

Table 4.2. Predicted Amount of Geophysical Activity and Associated Surface Disturbance 

for Each Development Area within the Monticello PA 

Development Area 

Projected Linear Miles 

of Geophysical 

Surveys 

Estimated Future Surface 

Disturbance from Geophysical 

Surveys (acres) 

Paradox fold and fault belt (per year) 24–53 43.6–96.4 

Blanding sub-basin (per year) 18–40 32.7–72.7 

Monument upwarp (per year) 9–20 16.4–36.4 

Total per year for next 15 years 51–113 92.7–205.5 

Average per year for next 15 years 82 149.1 

Total for next 15 years 1,230 2,236.4 

Source: BLM 2005b. 

Table 4.3. Total Existing and Predicted Surface Disturbance from All Drilling Activities 

and Predicted Reclamation within the Monticello PA 

 Number of Wells Total Surface Disturbance

Total existing surface disturbance 1,615 15,504 

Active wells 1,135 10,896 

Abandoned wells 480 4,608 

Future surface disturbance for the next 15 years 195 1,872 

Gross surface disturbance for the next 15 years 1,810 17,376 

Total predicted reclamation in the next 15 years 527 5,059 

Reclamation of future dry wells 27 259 

Reclamation of existing abandoned wells 480 4,608 

Reclamation of future abandoned wells 20 192 

Total net surface disturbance for the next 15 years 12,317 

Source: BLM 2005b. 

Predicted surface disturbance for oil and gas development by alternative on BLM lands was 

calculated by multiplying the percentage of BLM lands open for development under each of the 

alternatives by the total number of wells predicted for all lands. For oil and gas, the resultant 

number of wells was multiplied by surface-disturbance assumptions per well to arrive at the total 

disturbance (Table 4.4). Geophysical disturbances were calculated in the same manner (Table 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-5 

4.5). It should be noted that the total number of wells cited in the RFD report do not represent 

upper limits on the number of wells that could be drilled in the Monticello PA during the next 15 

years. The RFD is not intended to and does not place a cap on the total number of wells that may 

be drilled in the Monticello PA under this plan. The RFD well totals represent the BLM's best 

estimate of future reasonably foreseeable development to allow the BLM to assess the impacts of 

this development and inform the decision maker about anticipated consequences of the 

alternative management decisions. The total number of wells permitted would be determined 

through site-specific NEPA analysis of development projects. 

Table 4.4. Summary of RFD-Predicted Wells and Surface Disturbance for Oil and Gas on 

BLM Lands

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Blanding Su-basin 

Avg. number of 

wells/LOP 41 38 41 41

38 40 

Avg. surface 

disturbance/yr. 26 24 26 26

24 26 

Avg. surface 

disturbance/LOP 394 363 395 395

364 387 

Monument Upwarp 

Number of 

wells/LOP 7 8 9 9

7 7 

Avg. surface 

disturbance/yr. 5 5 5 6

5 5 

Avg. surface 

disturbance/LOP 69 79 82 86

71 72 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 

Number of 

wells/LOP 25 20 24 25

18 24 

Avg. surface 

disturbance/yr. 16 13 16 16

11 16 

Avg. surface 

disturbance/LOP 236 194 233 240

170 233 

1 These numbers are based on several calculations that have been prorated and subsequently rounded, so there may be slight 

discrepancies in the summary numbers. For example, under Alternatives C and D, nine wells are predicted, but the resulting 

surface disturbance numbers are slightly different. This is a result of the base well numbers being rounded. You could assume 

under Alternative C that the well number was closer to 9, whereas under Alternative D the well number was closer to 10. Detailed 

information on the calculations is available in the Monticello FO.

Table 4.5. Summary of Geophysical Disturbances on BLM Lands

 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Blanding Sub-basin 

Avg. miles/yr. 10 9 10 10 9 10

Avg. miles/LOP 205 188 205 205 188 201

Avg. acres/yr. 18 16 18 18 16 17

Avg. acres/LOP 271 249 271 271 250 266
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-6 

Table 4.5. Summary of Geophysical Disturbances on BLM Lands

 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Monument Upwarp 

Avg. miles/yr. 5 5665 5

Avg. miles/LOP 83 95 99 103 85 86

Avg. acres/yr. 8 9 10 10 8 8

Avg. acres/LOP 120 137 143 149 123 125

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 

Avg. miles/yr. 18 15 17 18 14 17

Avg. miles/LOP 271 224 269 277 211 269

Avg. acres/yr. 33 28 33 34 26 33

Avg. acres/LOP 495 408 489 504 388 489

All RFD Areas 

Total miles/yr. 37 34 38 39 32 32

Total acres/yr. 59 53 61 62 50 59

Total miles/LOP 559 507 572 585 484 556

Total acres/LOP 886 794 903 924 761 879

4.1.3. TYPES OF IMPACTS TO BE ADDRESSED—DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE

Direct impacts result from an alternative affecting a specific resource and generally occur at the 

same time and place. Indirect impacts can result from one resource affecting another (e.g., soil 

erosion and sedimentation affecting water quality) or can happen later in time or farther away 

(e.g., disturbed soil moving downslope into a stream and affecting water quality), but they are 

still reasonably foreseeable. Long-term impacts persist for years (longer than 5 years, for this 

PRMP/FEIS). Short-term impacts cause temporary or ephemeral changes to the environment that 

end once the activity stops (those that persist for less than 5 years, for this document), such as 

air-polluting emissions caused by earthmoving equipment during construction. Short-term 

impacts result in changes to the environment that are stabilized or mitigated rapidly, such as 

surface disturbance that is revegetated immediately after earthmoving is completed. Impacts can 

vary from a slightly discernible change to a full modification or elimination of the environmental 

condition. Cumulative impacts can also result from past, present, and reasonable foreseeable 

future actions by federal, state, and local governments; private individuals, and operators in or 

near the Monticello PA. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.2 Impacts to Critical Elements 

7 

4.2. IMPACTS TO CRITICAL ELEMENTS

The following critical elements are not impacted by the decisions proposed in the alternatives, or 

are adequately mitigated to prevent significant impacts, and will not be discussed further in this 

analysis. The other critical elements are addressed in further detail in the analysis of the 

PRMP/FEIS. 

4.2.1. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES ON PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS

All alternatives in this PRMP/FEIS coincide with the intent of the Secretary of Agriculture's 

Memorandum 1827 for prime land. The Monticello PA does not include any prime farmland, nor 

do any of the alternatives impact any prime farmland soils (NRCS 1993). 

4.2.2. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES ON INVASIVE AND/OR NOXIOUS NON-NATIVE 

PLANTS

Vegetation and surface-disturbing changes would result from all the alternatives in this 

PRMP/FEIS. These disturbances all increase the risk of propagation of exotic, invasive or 

noxious nonnative plants. However, effective implementation of management decisions common 

to all of the alternatives would prevent the risk from becoming greater than at present and help 

reduce risk in the future. 

4.2.3. INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION

This study was done using the best available information, data that are believed sufficient to 

make a programmatic analysis of the impacts of multidisciplinary decisions on management 

direction for the entire PA. This information includes, but is not limited to, landscape-level data, 

such as geophysical analysis program (GAP) vegetation data, Soil Survey Geographic database 

(SSURGO) soils data, and FO information on wildlife habitat boundaries. Additional sitespecific data (including cultural-resource and threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) 

surveys) will be required to complete NEPA analysis necessary before actions can be 

implemented.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-8 

4.3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL 

ALTERNATIVES

4.3.1. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE

This section presents an emission inventory of air pollutants associated with the Proposed Plan. 

The projected emissions are compared to base year emissions (2005) for Grand and San Juan 

County to provide context for the emission estimates. No quantitative assessment of potential 

impacts to concentrations, visibility, or atmospheric deposition are included in this analysis. 

Existing conditions concerning air quality are described in Chapter 3. 

The Monticello PA is located in an area designated as attainment for all pollutants (EPA 2003a). 

The alternatives discussed below have been evaluated to estimate emissions associated with each 

alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.1.1. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The assessment of climate changing pollutant emissions and climate change is in its formative 

phase; therefore, it is not yet possible to know with confidence the net impact to climate. 

However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) recently concluded that 

"warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and "most of the observed increase in globally 

average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in 

anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gas concentrations." 

The lack of scientific tools designed to predict climate change on regional or local scales limits 

the ability to quantify potential future impacts. Currently BLM does not have an established 

mechanism to accurately predict the effect of resource management-level decisions from this 

planning effort on global climate change. However, potential impacts to air quality due to 

climate change are likely to be varied. For example, if global climate change results in a warmer 

and drier climate, increased particulate matter impacts could occur due to increased wind blown 

dust from drier and less stable soils. Cool season plant species' spatial ranges are predicted to 

move north and to higher elevations, and extinction of endemic threatened/endangered plants 

may be accelerated. Due to loss of habitat, or due to competition from other species whose 

ranges may shift northward, the population of some animal species may be reduced. Less snow 

at lower elevations would be likely to impact the timing and quantity of snowmelt, which, in 

turn, could impact aquatic species. In the future, as tools for predicting climate changes in a 

management area improve and/or changes in climate affect resources and necessitate changes in 

how resources are managed, BLM may be able to re-evaluate decisions made as part of this 

planning process and adjust management accordingly. 

4.3.1.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Certain management decisions for air quality resources apply to all alternatives. Management 

common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan relate to the application of standard state and 

federal policy and regulations. These policies and regulations call for appropriate management of 

air quality within the Monticello PA. This includes application of the Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), provided by the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), as needed to meet 

air quality standards. Compliance with Utah Air Conservation (UAC) regulation R307–205 

requires appropriate dust-abatement measures for construction, demolition, clearing, or 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-9 

excavation of land areas larger than one-quarter acre (UAC R307-205, August 1, 2006); and 

management of emissions must also prevent deterioration to air quality in PSD Class I Areas 

(UAC R307-405, August 1, 2006). These policies, standards, and guidelines are likely to have 

long term, beneficial impacts on PA air quality by ensuring the continued protection of human 

health and maintaining scenic quality. 

Potential emissions common to all alternatives include particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), 

carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs; e.g. N-hexane, benzene, toluene, 

formaldehyde, ethylbenzene, and xylenes). Actual pollutant loads produced are dependant on the 

number and type of pollutant sources, source location, duration of loading, local topographical 

and meteorological conditions and other site-specific factors. 

4.3.1.2.1. POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM PRESCRIBED FIRE

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, approximately 15,000 acres of pinyon-juniper 

woodland vegetation would be subject to prescribed fire, and approximately 27,000 acres would 

receive non-fire treatments (42,000 acres total) over the next 10-year period. The preferred 

schedule of these treatments would be 5,000 to 10,000 acres per year across the PA, depending 

on budgetary and time constraints. 

There are several pollutants of concern are specific to prescribed burning, chiefly particulate 

matter and carbon dioxide (CO2). Particulate matter produced in prescribed burns is 

predominantly PM2.5 (70% of the smoke from burns falls into this category). The generation of 

increased particulate matter is especially noticeable in high-intensity, catastrophic wildland fire. 

Fire also produces carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas that is potentially related to incremental global 

climate change. Biomass burning contributes to the release of greenhouse gases (such as CO2) 

and eliminates a carbon sink. The detrimental air quality impacts from wildfire would likely be 

greater than those from prescribed fire and exert a larger adverse impact on air quality in the 

Monticello PA. Direct impacts of prescribed fire fall into two general categories: short-term and 

long-term. Short-term air quality impacts projected from prescribed burns include a general 

increase in particulate matter (primarily PM2.5), CO2 and ozone precursor emissions (NOx and 

VOCs) in burn areas and those locations immediately downwind. Emissions are a function of 

size, burn time, fuel type, fuel organization (i.e., slash piles, broadcast, wind-rows), fuel 

moisture, wind speed, atmospheric stability, etc. 

 The type and amount of air pollutants released from burning wildland vegetation vary according 

to the type of fuel, moisture content, temperature of the fire, and amount of smoldering after the 

fire. Since prescribed burning occurs irregularly, it is generally possible to restrict burning in 

potential non-attainment areas on "bad air quality days" to avoid violating air quality standards. 

Long-term, direct air quality impacts projected from prescribed burns include a general increase 

in airborne particulate matter from the burn site as a result of ash dispersion and transport. BLM 

obtains a burn permit from UDAQ prior to initiating a prescribed burn. This increase would 

occur only until revegetation occurs and growth matures. 

Indirect impacts on air quality from prescribed burns (short-term and long-term) include an 

increase in airborne particulate matter from the burn site as a result of wind-based erosion of 

devegetated areas. Vegetation management, an active part of fire management, would mitigate 

this potential impact. Fuel-reduction treatments, authorized by the LUP Amendment, could 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-10 

potentially decrease the number and intensity of wildland fires with a concurrent potential 

“decrease” in the amount of particulate matter. A greater long-term effect of prescribed burning 

would be a reduction in particulate matter, CO2, and ozone precursor emissions specific to 

wildfire in unmanaged areas. Ozone (a product of biomass combustion formed through the 

interaction of ozone precursors, volatile organic carbon compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen 

oxides) is a precursor to greenhouse gases and a major constituent of photochemical smog. 

Although generally ozone produced by prescribed fire is quickly diluted and dispersed into the 

air, it may contribute to the greenhouse effect. Since ozone is a criteria pollutant, its production 

may be regulated by a state implementation plan (SIP), or burns may be banned under ozone 

alerts. 

BLM fire-management policy coincides with the UDAQ permitting process and, as such, would 

be timed in conjunction with meteorological conditions to minimize smoke. BLM would 

implement specific policy, rules and procedures to minimize the air quality impacts to regional 

haze for fire events. For example, BLM would comply with the current Smoke Management Plan 

(SMP) and Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) between BLM, USFS, and UDAQ. Compliance 

with UAC regulation R307-204 and implementation of surface stabilization would mitigate 

potential air quality impacts. 

4.3.1.2.2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM ABANDONED MINE LANDS

Abandoned mine sites, one aspect of health and safety management decisions general to all 

alternatives have the potential for direct, short-term, adverse impacts on air quality. Potential 

impacts are specific to the remediation of abandoned mine sites determined to pose a risk to 

human health and safety. Remediation techniques generally include collapsing or sealing open 

shafts and adits and/or capping or removing tailings or other hazardous materials. Land 

disturbance associated with these practices and operating heavy equipment during remediation 

could result in increases in short-term emissions of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), SO2, 

NOx, hydrocarbons, and combustion by-products. Actual pollutant loads produced are dependent 

on the number and type of emission sources on-site, relative area of disturbance, source location, 

duration of work, local topographical and meteorological conditions, and other site-specific 

factors. 

4.3.1.3. IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES

The implementation of cultural resource management decisions to inventory, protect, preserve 

the resource, and to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; 

paleontological decisions to protect, evaluate, support scientific research, and allow recreational 

collection of fossils, special status animal species management decisions to protect listed species; 

and visual resource management decisions to protect scenic quality would have negligible 

impacts on air quality because these management activities would likely produce low levels of 

emissions. Therefore, the management of these resources will not be discussed further in this 

section. 

The implementation of livestock grazing, riparian, soil and watershed, travel, vegetation and TES 

vegetation, wildlife, and woodlands management decisions that limit or reduce surface and 

vegetation disturbance and grazing intensity and time; management for greater vegetation 

retention and generation; and improve/upgrade existing road surfaces would likely produce low 

levels of emissions. Proposed management decisions, including travel management, generally 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-11 

include lower overall surface/soil disturbance. This is because managing livestock grazing 

allotments to ensure proper functioning conditions and forage utilization levels, protecting 

riparian vegetation and soils, protecting sensitive soils and water resources, improving vegetation 

communities through treatments, protecting wildlife species and their habitat, and managing 

woodlands for sustainable harvesting would not likely affect air quality. Potentially beneficial 

impacts from these management decisions would likely include reduced PM10 and other windborne particulate matter from erosion of exposed soils as vegetation and soil cohesion improve 

over time. Short-term benefits to air quality would most likely not be measurable in the PA. 

Long-term impacts are likely to produce negligible to minor beneficial impacts on long-term air 

quality, primarily as a result of limiting vehicular travel during critical periods. As the impacts of 

these management decisions are likely to be beneficial, minor, and unmeasurable within sitespecific areas, they will not be discussed further in this section. 

Land and realty management decisions, other than those related to compressor stations, are 

projected to have no significant effect on air quality except as they affect other management 

decisions. It should be noted that while some compressor stations are authorized by rights-ofway, most are associated with oil and gas leases. The projections and modeling assumptions and 

impacts from these facilities are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.7, Minerals. 

Recreation and mineral-extraction management decisions are expected to have the greatest effect 

on air quality. The potential effects of management decisions on these resources are discussed in 

detail below. 

4.3.1.3.1. ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS

Mineral development potential in the Monticello PA was identified as low for the majority of 

commodities assessed: coal, potash and salt, tar sands, copper, and gold. A moderate to high 

extraction potential was identified for uranium/vanadium, depending on the mining area, and a 

high extraction potential exists for limestone, building stone, and clay. The extraction potential 

for sand and gravel was rated as moderate to high depending on the relative distance from an 

established road. 

As mineral development is a permitted process, and a variety of multi-level regulatory processes 

(discussed in the introduction of this section) exist to ensure that pollutant levels do not increase 

above identified thresholds and/or air quality criteria, it is assumed that mineral development 

operations would be carried out in compliance with existing policies and regulations at both the 

state and federal level. It is further assumed that roads, pipelines, excavations, and other mineral 

development-related disturbances in areas with soils susceptible to wind erosion would be 

appropriately surfaced (covering of piles where appropriate, graveling or surfactants applied to 

roads, etc.) to reduce fugitive dust generated by traffic and related activities. Such treatments 

would be applied as appropriate on local and resource access roads that represent a dust problem. 

Lower speed limits, enforced by the appropriate authority, would also limit dust in project and 

adjacent areas. 

state and federal preconstruction/excavation permit processes are required to consider cumulative 

impacts of proposed and surrounding future sources to ensure that proposed sources within the 

project area would not contribute to exceedances of the national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). Development potential for mineral resources in the Monticello PA is discussed in 

greater detail in Section 4.3.7, Minerals. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-12 

Several areas with high to moderate fluid-hydrocarbon-extraction potential (oil and gas wells) 

are identified in Section 4.3.7, Minerals. Existing wells are relatively common in the Monticello 

PA. The total number of wells (oil and gas) within the PA (which includes lands other than those 

managed by the BLM) is 1,615. If approved, future drilling is projected to occur at a rate of 5 to 

21 wells per year over the next 15 years. 

BLM identified primary emission sources for oil and gas development as gas-fired compressors 

(about 1 compressor for 16 wells or a minimum of 2 per RFD area), glycol dehydrators 

(estimated at 1 per producing well), flaring (assumed to occur in 60% of the producing wells, 

with flared gas assumed to be 'sweet'), fugitive dust (from roadways and pads, with construction 

assumed to represent the critical period). Primary emission components were identified as CO, 

NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, CO2, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs). 

To assess the potential for air quality effects from oil and gas extraction, BLM assumed that 

assumed the average surface disturbance per existing well would be similar for future well sites. 

An average disturbance area of 9.6 acres per well was estimated using existing roads and 

pipelines associated with similar locations where oil and gas extraction has occurred. This figure, 

multiplied by the total number of wells for the Proposed Plan, was used to calculate a potential 

area of disturbance of 15,504 acres, based on the predicted RFD scenario for oil and gas (BLM 

2005d). This acreage is divided into 5.5 acres of road developed per well and 4.1 acres of well 

pad disturbance. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the number of wells drilled in any of the RFD areas (Blanding 

sub-basin, Monument upwarp, and Paradox fold and fault belt) was assumed to be proportional 

to the acreage of land open for mineral development under that alternative, as described in 

Section 4.3.7 Minerals. In addition, BLM assumed that 50% of the wells drilled would be dry 

holes. The assumed maximum well pads constructed per year were also derived from the 

analysis of oil and gas development described in Section 4.3.7. Future oil and gas development 

over the next 15 years is projected to be 7 to 8 wells per year. This assumption projects a total 

number (over 15 years) of total 54–75 wells and approximately 518–720 additional acres of 

disturbance. While special stipulations (timing limitations and controlled surface use) may 

impose minor restrictions, surface-disturbing activities could still occur and therefore, these 

special stipulations would not result in a reduction in the number of wells 

Predicted number of wells and associated acreages on BLM lands within the RFD areas (Paradox 

Fold and Fault Belt, Blanding Sub-basin, and Monument Upwarp), were used as the basis of 

analysis for air quality impacts specific to future oil and gas development within the MPA. 

Impacts on air quality were assessed as annual estimated emissions at peak oil and gas 

production during the next fifteen years. ) 

.Dispersion modeling was not conducted for this analysis, because the locations of oil and gas 

wells can not be determined at the programmatic planning level. AP-42, Fifth Edition 

methodology was employed to calculate total emissions from the following sources: 

compressors, glycol dehydrators, flaring, fugitive dust associated with well pad construction and 

vehicle travel to and from wells (EPA 2005). 

For each development scenario, the number of expected compressors was based on expected 

number of total producing wells and the expected gas production potential of each well. The 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-13 

number of compressors necessary for each alternative was calculated from an assessment of the 

average number compressors (0.063 per producing well) required for potential oil and gas 

development in the Vernal FO, located to the north of the PA (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). To 

accommodate the expansive distances between wells and the separate RFD areas, a minimum of 

two compressors per RFD area was assumed. The analysis also assumed there would be one 

glycol dehydrator per gas well, with a well spacing of 40 acres. 

Generalized projected emissions from compressors include CO, NOx, CO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, 

VOCs, Total Organic Compounds (TOC), and a variety of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). 

Emission rates were calculated using AP-42, Fifth Edition factors for 4-stroke lean-burn engines 

(EPA 2003e, EPA 2006). Conversion between AP-42 factors (pounds per million metric British 

thermal units [lb/MMBtu] fuel input) and emission rates used in the analysis (grams/second) 

were based on the following assumptions derived from the Vernal FO Air Quality Model Report 

(Trinity and Nicholls 2006). Required compression was calculated based on the assumption that 

1,100 hp of compression is required to move 10 million feet 3/day of gas from a field pressure of 

250 pounds per square inch (PSI) to a sales line pressure of 800 PSI. The compressors are 

assumed to have a turbine efficiency of 34%. NOx emission rates for compressors were 

calculated based on a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) limit of 0.7 grams per 

horsepower hour (g/hp-h). Emission rates calculated for each pollutant are assumed to be emitted 

evenly throughout the year and are displayed in Table 4.6. 

Table 4.6. Emission Rates for Compressors 

Pollutant Emission Rate (g/sec) Emissions (tons per year/unit) 

Criteria Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases 

CO 0.58 20.08 

NOx 0.19 6.74 

CO2 114.1 3,965.28 

PM10 0.0103 0.36 

PM2.5 0.0103 0.36 

SO2 0.00061 0.02 

VOC 0.12 4.25 

TOC 1.52 52.99 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Acetaldehyde 0.0087 0.30 

Acrolein 0.0053 0.19 

Benzene 0.00046 0.016 

Ethylbenzene 0.00004 0.0014 

Formaldehyde 0.055 1.90 

Naphthalene 0.000077 0.0027 

Toluene 0.00042 0.015 

Xylenes 0.00019 0.0066 

Other HAPs 0.0048 0.17 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-14 

An average emission rate of 1.45x10-7 g/sec hydrogen sulfide (H2S) was assumed for all glycol 

dehydrators (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). All H2S was assumed to convert to SO2 (ATSDR 1999) 

for the purposes of this assessment. Other emission estimates for glycol dehydrators are 

summarized in Table 4.7 and were derived from assumptions relating to glycol dehydrators in 

the Vernal FO (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Table 4.7. Emission Rates for Glycol Dehydrators 

Pollutant Emission Rate (g/sec) Emissions (tons per 

year/unit) 

SO2 0.000000145 0.000005041 

Benzene 0.0368 1.28 

Ethylbenzene 0.0067 0.23 

H2S 0.000000145 0.00000504 

Toluene 0.058 2.01 

Xylenes 0.109 3.80 

Flaring was assumed to be required in 60% or less of the producing wells. Flared gas was 

assumed to be "sweet" and contain no sulfur. Flaring emissions applicable to this analysis were 

assumed to be primarily NOx and CO. Flaring emissions and relative percentage of wells flared 

were calculated using the generalized flaring emissions identified for the Vernal FO RMP 

(Trinity and Nicholls 2006) and are summarized in Table 4.8. 

Table 4.8. Emission Rates for Flaring 

Pollutant Emission Rate (g/sec) Emissions (tons per 

year/unit) 

CO 0.053 1.8 

NOx 0.0098 0.34 

PM10 0.00089 0.031 

PM2.5 0.00089 0.031 

Fugitive dust emissions were estimated using AP-42, Fifth Edition Section 13.2.2 for 

construction traffic on roads and Section 13.2.3 for heavy construction operations of well pads 

and new roads. Section 13.2.3 estimates total suspended particulate matter which are converted 

to PM10 by applying a conversion factor of 0.26 (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). Conversion from 

PM10 to PM2.5 is similarly achieved through a conversion factor of 0.15. 

Construction activity was assumed to occur for 10 days for each well pad developed, both 

producing and dry. BLM assumed that the control efficiency (PM10 and PM2.5) for watering was 

25% on construction sites including the well pad and on new resource roads. BLM assumed that 

watering of all exposed disturbance areas at the well pad site itself would occur as appropriate 

during the construction period. BLM assumed that 10% of the roads would be watered. The 

control efficient for graveling roads was assumed to be 75%; 40% of new roads were assumed to 

be graveled. It was therefore assumed that 50% of new roads would receive no treatment to 

reduce fugitive dust. All of these assumptions were taken from the Vernal FO Air Quality Model 

Report and fugitive dust calculations (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). A total of 12 construction 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-15 

vehicles operating on-site at any one time were assumed with a total of 346 round trips (the 

majority of which are pick-up trucks for site visits). The average round trip distance was 

assumed to be 10 miles. Vehicle weights range from 8,000 lbs for a diesel pick-up truck to 

85,000 lbs for diesel low-boy equipment haulers, cementer trucks, and completion rigs. BLM 

assumed that all mobile vehicles would be working at any one time on-site. This scenario is 

assumed to be representative of periods of intense activity and, therefore, serves as a 

conservative estimate of critical conditions. 

Soils in the MPA have been characterized as having low to moderate wind-erodibility. Soil 

moisture content of 5% and soil silt content of 5% were assumed. 

In addition to construction-specific actions, some additional post-construction particulate matter 

(dust) emissions are projected to occur on a short-term basis due to loss of vegetation within the 

construction and staging areas. Given appropriate soil stabilization and revegetation measures, 

these emissions are likely to be minimal to negligible. 

The contribution to potential air quality impacts from other [non-oil and gas] mineral 

development was considered nominal and oil and gas related activities were assumed to be the 

largest component of mineral related activity within the MPA. Therefore, only oil and gas related 

emissions were directly considered in assessing emissions. 

4.3.1.3.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.1.3.2.1. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Air Quality Under Alternative A 

The minerals management decisions under Alternative A would maintain existing levels of use 

without additional constraints. Four primary BLM leasing categories for oil and gas have been 

identified within this assessment: 

• Standard lease terms (Standard) 

• Special Conditions, or Timing Limitations and/or Controlled Surface Use (Limited) 

• No surface occupancy (NSO) 

• Closed (lands designated as closed are not available for oil and gas development activities 

and therefore were not included in this analysis) 

Based on the proportion of BLM lands open for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 73 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the next fifteen years (Table 4.9) under 

Alternative A, and that 38 of these would produce oil or gas. Of the producing wells, 24 are 

estimated to require flaring (60%). The maximum number of well pads constructed per year is 

assumed to be 8 (See Section 4.3.7). Alternative A would require an estimated 5 compressors 

and 38 glycol dehydrators. Surface disturbance associated with these wells is estimated to 

involve approximately 701 acres over the next fifteen years. Oil and gas development is 

anticipated to occur in all RFD areas but is projected to be least likely to occur in the Monument 

Upwarp RFD area, while the Blanding Sub-basin area is projected to experience the greatest 

amount of development. Additional information on disturbance specific to salable resources, 

other leasable resources, and geophysical exploration is available in Section 4.3.7.4.5 Impacts of 

Mineral Decisions on Mineral Resource Development. Calculated numbers of wells for each 

RFD area in Alternative A are also listed in Table 4.9. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-16 

Table 4.9. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under 

Alternative A over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted Oil 

and Gas 

Wells1 

Predicted 

Producing Oil 

and Gas 

Wells 

Producing Oil 

and Gas 

Wells 

Estimated to 

Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2 

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2

Paradox Fold and Fault 

Belt 

25 13 8 1 13

Blanding Sub-basin 41 21 13 2 21

Monument Upwarp 7 4 3 2 4

Total 73 38 24 5 38

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only, and are specific to a time period of 15 years. 

1 The number of oil and natural gas wells was calculated as a cumulative total, not independently. For the purpose of analyzing 

impacts of minerals decisions on the total number of oil and natural gas wells, BLM lands designated as No Surface Occupancy 

(NSO) were not considered open for development. 

2 Necessary compressors were calculated at 0.063 per producing well (minimum of 2 per RFD area). Necessary glycol dehydrators 

were calculated at 1 per producing well (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Total emissions (tons/year) of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from compressors, glycol 

dehydrators, flaring, and fugitive dust associated with construction activities for Alternative A 

are summarized in Table 4.10. The base-year emission inventory for Grand and San Juan 

Counties are also displayed for comparison purposes. Particulate matter emission increases are 

expected to be 1.3% for PM10 and PM2.5 over base-year data respectively. A 0.5% increase in 

CO, a 1.5% increase in NOx, and a 0.8% increase in Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) over 

base-year emissions is also expected. VOCs and NOx are precursors to ozone formation. No 

base-year TOC data are available for comparison. 

Table 4.10. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative A 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions under 

Alternative A 

(tons/year) 

Grand 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County Baseyear1

 (t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent change 

from Regional 

Base-year 

CO 145 18,107 9,042 27,149 0.5% 

NOx 42 1,611 1,152 2,764 1.5% 

CO2 19,826 No data No data No data No data 

PM10 31 851 1,529 2,380 1.3% 

PM2.5 7 200 332 532 1.3% 

SOx 0.1 27 67 94 0.1% 

VOC 299 36,803 1,533 38,337 0.8% 

TOC 543 No data No data No data No data 

1 2005 Emission inventory obtained from Utah Division of Air Quality. URL: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05_State_List.htm 2 Regional base-year assumed to be total emissions in Grand and San Juan County. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-17 

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are summarized in Table 4.11 for Alternative A. 

Base-year HAPs data from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality for Grand and San Juan 

Counties do not include emissions from existing oil and gas development and therefore were 

found not be appropriate for comparison. The largest potential emissions of HAPs are for 

benzene (49 t/year), toluene (77 t/year), and xylenes (144 t/year). All of the HAPs listed below 

with the exception of H2S and naphthalene (one of the other HAPs) are also considered VOCs 

and are included as such in the criteria pollutant discussion above. 

Table 4.11. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development 

under Alternative A 

Pollutant 

Emissions from 

Compressors (t/year)

Emissions from 

Glycol Dehydrators 

(t/year) 

Total Emissions 

(t/year) 

Benzene 0.1 48.6 48.7 

Ethylbenzene 0.01 8.9 8.9 

Formaldehyde 9.5 - 9.5 

H2S No data 0.0002 0.0 

Toluene 0.1 76.4 76.5 

Xylenes 0.0 144.3 144.3 

Other HAPs 0.8 No data 3.3 

4.3.1.3.2.2. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Air Quality Under Alternative A 

Recreation management decisions under Alternative A would maintain existing levels of 

motorized vehicle use, without additional constraints. Potential affects on air quality would be 

primarily associated with combustion by-products from automobiles, OHVs, and other 

hydrocarbon-combustion based transport, and surface disturbance from off-trail and off-road 

activities. Potential air quality constituents of concern related to recreational use include 

particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), hydrocarbons, and combustion by-products. 

Because the locations of all future recreation sites within the Monticello PA are not presently 

known, quantification of potential air quality impact is not appropriate. Since the Monticello PA 

is currently in attainment, continued recreational use at the current level is not likely to result in 

long-term, project-wide exceedances of ambient air quality standards. However, heavy 

recreational use may contribute to short term exceedances of air quality standards. 

Recreation management decisions that limit or reduce surface and vegetation disturbance and 

OHV and other off-trail access, and improve existing road and trail surfaces are likely to have 

negligible impacts on air quality in the short term, and negligible to incrementally beneficial 

impacts on long-term air quality. This is because short-term benefits to air quality would most 

likely not be measurable in the Monticello PA, and because long-term benefits would include 

site-specific reductions in wind-borne particulate matter due to less erosion of exposed soils as 

vegetation and soil cohesion improve over time. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-18 

4.3.1.3.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B is expected to have a slightly lower overall impact on air quality in the Monticello 

PA than Alternative A because the emphasis of management decisions on conservation of 

resources under this alternative would limit surface disturbances and other impacts to air quality. 

4.3.1.3.3.1. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Air Quality Under Alternative B 

Based on the proportion of BLM lands open for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 66 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the next fifteen years (Table 4.12) under 

Alternative B, a decrease of approximately 10% from Alternative A. It is assumed that 33 wells 

would produce oil or gas. Of the producing wells, 21 are estimated to require flaring (64%). The 

maximum number of well pads constructed per year is assumed to be 7 (See Section 4.3.7). 

Alternative B would require an estimated 5 compressors and 33 glycol dehydrators. Surface 

disturbance associated with these wells is estimated to involve approximately 634 acres over the 

next fifteen years. Oil and gas development is anticipated to occur in all RFD areas but is 

projected to be least likely to occur in the Monument Upwarp RFD area, while the Blanding 

Sub-basin area is projected to experience the greatest amount of development, similar to 

Alternative A. Additional information on disturbance specific to salable resources, other leasable 

resources, and geophysical exploration is available in Section 4.3.7.4.5 Impacts of Mineral 

Decisions on Mineral Resource Development. Calculated numbers of wells for each RFD area in 

Alternative A are also listed in Table 4.12. 

Table 4.12. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative B over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted Oil 

and Gas 

Wells1 

Predicted 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Estimated to 

Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2 

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2 

Paradox Fold and Fault 

Belt 

 20 10 6 1 10

Blanding Sub-basin 38 19 12 2 19

Monument Upwarp 8 4 3 2 4

Total 66 33 21 5 33

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only, and are specific to a time period of 15 years. 

1 The number of oil and natural gas wells was calculated as a cumulative total, not independently. For the purpose of analyzing 

impacts of minerals decisions on the total number of oil and natural gas wells, BLM lands designated as No Surface Occupancy 

(NSO) were not considered open for development. 

2 Necessary compressors were calculated at 0.063 per producing well (minimum of 2 per RFD area). Necessary glycol 

dehydrators were calculated at 1 per producing well (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Total emissions (tons/year) of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from compressors, glycol 

dehydrators, flaring, and fugitive dust associated with construction activities for Alternative B 

are summarized in Table 4.13. The base-year emission inventory for Grand and San Juan 

Counties are also displayed for comparison purposes. Particulate matter emissions increases are 

expected to be 1% for PM10 and PM2.5 over base-year data. A 1% increase in CO, NOx, and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-19 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) over base-year emissions is also expected. VOCs and NOx 

are precursors to ozone formation. No base-year TOC data are available for comparison. 

Table 4.13. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative B 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions under 

Alternative B 

(t/year) 

Grand 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County Baseyear1

 (t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent change 

from Regional 

Base-year 

CO 139 18,107 9,042 27,149 1%

NOx 41 1,611 1,152 2,764 1%

CO2 19,826 No data No data No data No data

PM10 28 851 1,529 2,380 1%

PM2.5 6 200 332 532 1%

SOx 0.1 27 67 94 0%

VOC 263 36,803 1,533 38,337 1%

TOC 507 No data No data No data No data

1 2005 Emission inventory obtained from Utah Division of Air Quality. URL: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05_State_List.htm

2 Regional base-year assumed to be total emissions in Grand and San Juan County. 

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are summarized in Table 4.14 for Alternative B. 

Base-year HAPs data from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality for Grand and San Juan 

Counties do not include emissions from existing oil and gas development and therefore were 

found not be appropriate for comparison. The largest potential emissions of HAPs are for 

benzene (42 t/year), toluene (66 t/year), and xylenes (125 t/year). All of the HAPs listed below 

with the exception of H2S and naphthalene (one of the other HAPs) are also considered VOCs 

and are included as such in the criteria pollutant discussion above. 

Table 4.14. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development 

under Alternative B 

Pollutant 

Emissions from 

Compressors (t/year)

Emissions from 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

(t/year) 

Total Emissions 

(t/year) 

Benzene 0.1 42.2 42 

Ethylbenzene 0.01 7.7 7.7 

Formaldehyde 9.5 - 9.5 

H2S - 0.0 0.0 

Toluene 0.1 66.3 66 

Xylenes 0.0 125.3 125 

Other HAPs 0.8 - 3.3 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-20 

4.3.1.3.3.2. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Air Quality Under Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, recreation-management decisions would place more restrictions on 

motorized OHV use, when compared to Alternative A. 

Recreation management decisions under this alternative that limit or reduce surface and 

vegetation disturbance and OHV and other off-trail access, and improve existing road and trail 

surfaces are likely to produce negligible impacts on short-term air quality and negligible to 

minor, beneficial impacts on long-term air quality. This is because the beneficial outcomes 

include site-specific reduced PM10 and other wind-borne particulate matter due to less erosion of 

exposed soils (and less production of fugitive dust) as vegetation and soil cohesion improve over 

time, and because the short-term air quality impacts would most likely not be measurable in the 

Monticello PA. Thus, the adverse impacts of recreation on air quality under Alternative B are 

would be similar to or less than those described for Alternative A. 

4.3.1.3.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.3.1.3.4.1. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Air Quality Under Alternative C 

Based on the proportion of BLM lands open for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 74 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the next fifteen years under Alternative 

C (Table 4.15), a decrease of approximately 1% from Alternative A. It is assumed that 38 wells 

would produce oil or gas. Of the producing wells, 24 are estimated to require flaring (65%). The 

maximum number of well pads constructed per year is assumed to be 8 (See Section 4.3.7). 

Alternative C would require an estimated 5 compressors and 38 glycol dehydrators. Surface 

disturbance associated with these wells is estimated to involve approximately 710 acres over the 

next fifteen years (an increase of approximately 1% from Alternative A). Oil and gas 

development is anticipated to occur in all RFD areas but is projected to be least likely to occur in 

the Monument Upwarp RFD area, while the Blanding Sub-basin area is projected to experience 

the greatest amount of development, similar to Alternative A. Additional information on 

disturbance specific to salable resources, other leasable resources, and geophysical exploration is 

available in Section 4.3.7.4.5, Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Mineral Resource Development. 

Calculated numbers of wells for each RFD area under Alternative C are also listed in Table 4.15. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-21 

Table 4.15. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative C over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted Oil 

and Gas 

Wells1 

Predicted 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Estimated to 

Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2 

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 24 12 8 1 12 

Blanding Sub-basin 41 21 13 2 21 

Monument Upwarp 9 5 3 2 5 

Total 74 38 24 5 38 

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only, and are specific to a time period of 15 years. 

1 The number of oil and natural gas wells was calculated as a cumulative total, not independently. For the purpose of analyzing impacts of 

minerals decisions on the total number of oil and natural gas wells, BLM lands designated as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) were not 

considered open for development. 

2 Necessary compressors were calculated at 0.063 per producing well (minimum of 2 per RFD area). Necessary glycol dehydrators were 

calculated at 1 per producing well (Trinity and Nicholls 2006).

Total emissions (tons/year) of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from compressors, glycol 

dehydrators, flaring, and fugitive dust associated with construction activities for Alternative C 

are summarized in Table 4.16. The base-year emission inventory for Grand and San Juan 

Counties are also displayed for comparison purposes. Particulate emissions increases are 

expected to be 1% for PM10 and PM2.5 over base-year data respectively. A 1% increase in CO, a 

2% increase in NOx, and a 1% increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) over base-year 

emissions are also expected. VOCs and NOx are precursors to ozone formation. No base-year 

TOC data are available for comparison. 

Table 4.16. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative C 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions under 

Alternative C 

(t/year) 

Grand 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County Baseyear1

 (t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent change 

from Regional 

Base-year 

CO 145 18,107 9,042 27,149 1%

NOx 42 1,611 1,152 2,764 2%

CO2 19,826 No data No data No data No data

PM10 31 851 1,529 2,380 1%

PM2.5 7 200 332 532 1%

SOx 0.1 27 67 94 0%

VOC 299 36,803 1,533 38,337 1%

TOC 543 No data No data No data No data

1 2005 Emission inventory obtained from Utah Division of Air Quality. URL: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05_State_List.htm 2

Regional base-year assumed to be total emissions in Grand and San Juan County. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-22 

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are summarized in Table 4.17 for Alternative C. 

Base-year HAPs data from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality for Grand and San Juan 

Counties do not include emissions from existing oil and gas development and therefore were 

found not be appropriate for comparison. The largest potential emissions of HAPs are for 

benzene (47 t/year), toluene (74 t/year), and xylenes (141 t/year). All of the HAPs listed below 

with the exception of H2S and naphthalene (one of the other HAPs) are also considered VOCs 

and are included as such in the criteria pollutant discussion above. 

Table 4.17. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development 

under Alternative C 

Pollutant 

Emissions from 

Compressors (t/year)

Emissions from 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

(t/year) 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Benzene 0.1 48.60 49 

Ethylbenzene 0.0 8.85 8.9 

Formaldehyde 9.5 - 9.5 

H2S - 0.000 0.0 

Toluene 0.1 76.40 76 

Xylenes 0.0 144.31 144 

Other HAPs 0.8 - 3.3 

4.3.1.3.4.2. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Air Quality Under Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, recreation management decisions would place additional restrictions on 

motorized vehicle use as compared to Alternative A, specifically for lands with non-WSA 

wilderness characteristics. 

Recreation management decisions under this alternative that limit or reduce surface and 

vegetation disturbance and OHV and other off-trail access, and improve existing road and trail 

surfaces are likely to produce negligible impacts on short-term air quality and negligible to minor 

beneficial impacts on long-term air quality. These beneficial outcomes include site-specific 

reduced PM10 and other wind-borne particulates due to less erosion of exposed soils as 

vegetation and soil cohesion improve over time. Short-term benefits to air quality would most 

likely not be measurable in the overall PA. 

The adverse impacts of recreation on air quality under Alternative C would be similar to or less 

than those described for Alternative A. 

4.3.1.3.5. ALTERNATIVE D 

4.3.1.3.5.1. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Air Quality Under Alternative D 

Based on the proportion of BLM lands open for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 75 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the next fifteen years (Table 4.18), an 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-23 

increase of approximately 1.03 times Alternative A. It is assumed that 39 wells would produce 

oil or gas. Of the producing wells, 24 are estimated to require flaring (62%). The maximum 

number of well pads constructed per year is assumed to be 8 (See Section 4.3.7). Alternative D 

would require an estimated 5 compressors and 39 glycol dehydrators. Surface disturbance 

associated with these wells is estimated to involve approximately 720 acres over the next fifteen 

years (an increase of approximately 3% from Alternative A). Oil and gas development is 

anticipated to occur in all RFD areas but is projected to be least likely to occur in the Monument 

Upwarp RFD area, while the Blanding Sub-basin area is projected to experience the greatest 

amount of development, similar to Alternative A. Additional information on disturbance specific 

to salable resources, other leasable resources, and geophysical exploration is available in Section 

4.3.7.4.5, Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Mineral Resource Development. Calculated numbers 

of wells for each RFD area in Alternative D are also listed in Table 4.18. 

Table 4.18. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative D over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted Oil 

and Gas 

Wells1 

Predicted 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Estimated to 

Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2 

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 25 13 8 1 13

Blanding Sub-basin 41 21 13 2 21

Monument Upwarp 9 5 3 2 5

Total 75 39 24 5 39

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only, and are specific a time period of 15 years. 

1 The number of oil and natural gas wells was calculated as a cumulative total, not independently. For the purpose of analyzing 

impacts of minerals decisions on the total number of oil and natural gas wells, BLM lands designated as No Surface Occupancy 

(NSO) were not considered open for development. 

2 Necessary compressors were calculated at 0.063 per producing well (minimum of 2 per RFD area). Necessary glycol 

dehydrators were calculated at 1 per producing well (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Total emissions (tons/year) of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from compressors, glycol 

dehydrators, flaring, and fugitive dust associated with construction activities for Alternative D 

are summarized in Table 4.19. The base-year emission inventory for Grand and San Juan 

Counties are also displayed for comparison purposes. Particulate emissions increases are 

expected to be 1% for PM10 and PM2.5 over base-year data. A 1% increase in CO, a 2% increase 

in NOx, and a 1% increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) over base-year emissions are 

also expected. VOCs and NOx are precursors to ozone formation. No base-year TOC data are 

available for comparison. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-24 

Table 4.19. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Monticello PA Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative D 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions under 

Alternative D 

(t/year) 

Grand 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County Baseyear1

 (t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent change 

from Regional 

Base-year 

CO 145 18,107 9,042 27,149 1%

NOx 42 1,611 1,152 2,764 2%

CO2 19,826 No data No data No data No data

PM10 31 851 1,529 2,380 1%

PM2.5 7 200 332 532 1%

SOx 0.1 27 67 94 0%

VOC 307 36,803 1,533 38,337 1%

TOC 550 No data No data No data No data

1 2005 Emission inventory obtained from Utah Division of Air Quality. URL: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05_State_List.htm

2 Regional base-year assumed to be total emissions in Grand and San Juan County. 

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are summarized in Table 4.20 for Alternative D. 

Base-year HAPs data from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality for Grand and San Juan 

Counties do not include emissions from existing oil and gas development and therefore were 

found not be appropriate for comparison. The largest potential emissions of HAPs are for 

benzene (50 t/year), toluene (78 t/year), and xylenes (148 t/year). All of the HAPs listed below 

with the exception of H2S and naphthalene (one of the other HAPs) are also considered volatile 

organic compounds and are included as such in the criteria pollutant discussion above. 

Table 4.20. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for 

the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative D 

Pollutant 

Emissions from 

Compressors (t/year)

Emissions from 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

(t/year) 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Benzene 0.1 49.9 50 

Ethylbenzene 0.01 9.1 9.1 

Formaldehyde 9.5 - 9.5 

H2S - 0.000 0.000 

Toluene 0.1 78.4 78 

Xylenes 0.0 148.1 148 

Other HAPs 0.8 - 3.3 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-25 

4.3.1.3.5.2. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Air Quality Under Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, recreation management decisions would place minor additional restrictions 

on motorized vehicle use as compared to Alternative A. 

Recreation management decisions under this alternative that limit or reduce surface and 

vegetation disturbance and OHV and other off-trail access, and improve existing road and trail 

surfaces are likely to produce negligible impacts on short-term air quality and negligible to minor 

beneficial impacts on long-term air quality. These beneficial outcomes include site-specific 

reduced PM10 and other wind-borne particulates due to less erosion of exposed soils as 

vegetation and soil cohesion improve over time. Short-term benefits to air quality would most 

likely not be measurable in the overall PA. 

The adverse impacts of recreation on air quality under Alternative D are expected to be similar to 

those described for Alternative A. 

4.3.1.3.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E is projected to have a lower overall impact on air quality in the Monticello PA than 

Alternative A because less surface disturbances and emissions would be allowed under this 

alternative than under Alternative A. 

4.3.1.3.6.1. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Air Quality Under Alternative E 

Based on the proportion of BLM lands open for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 54 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the next 15 years (Table 4.21), a 

decrease of approximately 26% from Alternative A. It is assumed that 28 wells would produce 

oil or gas. Of the producing wells, 18 are estimated to require flaring (64%). The maximum 

number of well pads constructed per year is assumed to be 7 (See Section 4.3.7). Alternative D 

would require an estimated 5 compressors and 28 glycol dehydrators. Surface disturbance 

associated with these wells is estimated to involve approximately 518 acres over the next 15 

years (a decrease of approximately 26% from Alternative A). Oil and gas development is 

anticipated to occur in all RFD areas but is projected to be least likely to occur in the Monument 

Upwarp RFD area, while the Blanding Sub-basin area is projected to experience the greatest 

amount of development, similar to Alternative A. Additional information on disturbance specific 

to salable resources, other leasable resources, and geophysical exploration is available in Section 

4.3.7.4.5, Impacts of Mineral Resource Development Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development. Calculated numbers of wells for each RFD area in Alternative E are also listed in 

Table 4.21. 

Table 4.21. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative E over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted Oil 

and Gas 

Wells1 

Predicted 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Estimated to 

Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2 

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 15 8 5 1 8
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-26 

Table 4.21. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative E over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted Oil 

and Gas 

Wells1 

Predicted 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Estimated to 

Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2 

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2 

Blanding Sub-basin 36 18 11 2 18

Monument Upwarp 3 2 2 2 2

Total 54 28 18 5 28

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only, and are specific to A time period of 15 years. 

1 The number of oil and natural gas wells was calculated as a cumulative total, not independently. For the purpose of analyzing 

impacts of minerals decisions on the total number of oil and natural gas wells, BLM lands designated as No Surface Occupancy 

(NSO) were not considered open for development. 

2 Necessary compressors were calculated at 0.063 per producing well (minimum of 2 per RFD area). Necessary glycol 

dehydrators were calculated at 1 per producing well (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Total emissions (tons/year) of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from compressors, glycol 

dehydrators, flaring, and fugitive dust associated with construction activities for Alternative E 

are summarized in Table 4.22. The base-year emission inventory for Grand and San Juan 

Counties are also displayed for comparison purposes. Particulate emissions increases are 

expected to be 1% for PM10 and PM2.5 over base-year data. A 0% increase in CO and a 1% 

increase in NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) over base-year emissions are also 

expected. VOCs and NOx are precursors to ozone formation. No base-year TOC data are 

available for comparison. 

Table 4.22. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative E 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions under 

Alternative E 

(t/year) 

Grand 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County Baseyear1

 (t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent change 

from Regional 

Base-year 

CO 134 18,107 9,042 27,149 0%

NOx 40 1,611 1,152 2,764 1%

CO2 19,826 No data No data No data No data

PM10 27 851 1,529 2,380 1%

PM2.5 6 200 332 532 1%

SOx 0.1 27 67 94 0%

VOC 226 36,803 1,533 38,337 1%

TOC 470 No data No data No data No data

1 2005 Emission inventory obtained from Utah Division of Air Quality. URL: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05_State_List.htm

2 Regional base-year assumed to be total emissions in Grand and San Juan County. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-27 

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are summarized in Table 4.23 for Alternative E. 

Base-year HAPs data from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality for Grand and San Juan 

Counties do not include emissions from existing oil and gas development and therefore were 

found not be appropriate for comparison. The largest potential emissions of HAPs are for 

benzene (36 t/year), toluene (56 t/year), and xylenes (106 t/year). All of the HAPs listed below 

with the exception of H2S and naphthalene (included in the other HAPs category) are also 

considered volatile organic compounds and are included as such in the criteria pollutant 

discussion above. 

Table 4.23. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for 

the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative E 

Pollutant Emissions from 

Compressors (t/year)

Emissions from 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

(t/year) 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Benzene 0.1 35.8 36 

Ethylbenzene 0.01 6.5 6.5 

Formaldehyde 9.5 - 9.5 

H2S - 0.000 0.000 

Toluene 0.1 56.3 56 

Xylenes 0.0 106.3 106 

Other HAPs 0.8 - 3.3 

4.3.1.3.6.2. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Air Quality Under Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, recreation management decisions would place additional restrictions on 

motorized vehicle use as compared to Alternative A, specifically for lands with non-WSA 

wilderness characteristics. 

Recreation management decisions under this alternative that limit or reduce surface and 

vegetation disturbance and OHV and other off-trail access, and improve existing road and trail 

surfaces are likely to produce negligible impacts on short-term air quality, and negligible to 

minor, beneficial impacts on long-term air quality. These beneficial outcomes would likely 

include site-specific reduced PM10 and other wind-borne particulates due to reduced erosion of 

exposed soils as vegetation and soil cohesion improve over time. Short-term benefits to air 

quality would most likely not be measurable in the overall project area. 

The adverse impacts of recreation on air quality under Alternative E would be similar to or less 

than those described for Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-28 

4.3.1.3.7. PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.1.3.7.1. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Air Quality Under the Proposed Plan 

Based on the proportion of BLM lands open for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 72 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the next 15 years under the Proposed 

Plan (Table 4.24), a decrease of approximately 1% from Alternative A. It is assumed that 37 

wells would produce oil or gas. Of the producing wells, 24 are estimated to require flaring 

(65%). The maximum number of well pads constructed per year is assumed to be 8 (See Section 

4.3.7). The Proposed Plan would require an estimated 5 compressors and 37 glycol dehydrators. 

Surface disturbance associated with these wells is estimated to involve approximately 691 acres 

over the next 15 years (a decrease of approximately 1% from Alternative A). Oil and gas 

development is anticipated to occur in all RFD areas but is projected to be least likely to occur in 

the Monument Upwarp RFD area, while the Blanding Sub-basin area is projected to experience 

the greatest amount of development, similar to Alternative A. Additional information on 

disturbance specific to salable resources, other leasable resources, and geophysical exploration is 

available in Section 4.3.7.4.5, Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Mineral Resource Development. 

Calculated numbers of wells for each RFD area under the Proposed Plan are also listed in Table 

4.24. 

Table 4.24. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under the Proposed Plan over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted 

Oil and Gas 

Wells1

Predicted 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Producing 

Oil and 

Gas Wells 

Estimated 

to Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 24 12 8 1 12 

Blanding Sub-basin 41 21 13 2 21 

Monument Upwarp 7 4 3 2 4

Total 72 37 24 5 37 

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only, and are specific to A time period of 15 years. 

1 The number of oil and natural gas wells was calculated as a cumulative total, not independently. For the purpose of analyzing 

impacts of minerals decisions on the total number of oil and natural gas wells, BLM lands designated as No Surface Occupancy 

(NSO) were not considered open for development. 

2 Necessary compressors were calculated at 0.063 per producing well (minimum of 2 per RFD area). Necessary glycol 

dehydrators were calculated at 1 per producing well (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Total emissions (tons/year) of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from compressors, glycol 

dehydrators, flaring, and fugitive dust associated with construction activities for the Proposed 

Plan are summarized in Table 4.25. The base-year emission inventory for Grand and San Juan 

Counties are also displayed for comparison purposes. Particulate matter emissions increases are 

expected to be 1% for PM10 and PM2.5 over base-year data respectively. A 1% increase in CO, a 

2% increase in NOx, and a 1% increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) over base-year 

emissions are also expected. VOCs and NOx are precursors to ozone formation. No base-year 

TOC data are available for comparison. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-29 

Table 4.25. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional base-year for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under the 

Proposed Plan 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions under 

Alternative C 

(t/year) 

Grand 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County Baseyear1

 (t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent change 

from Regional 

Base-year 

CO 145 18,107 9,042 27,149 1%

NOx 42 1,611 1,152 2,764 2%

CO2 19,826 No data No data No data No data

PM10 31 851 1,529 2,380 1%

PM2.5 7 200 332 532 1%

SOx 0.1 27 67 94 0%

VOC 292 36,803 1,533 38,337 1%

TOC 536 No data No data No data No data

1 2005 Emission inventory obtained from Utah Division of Air Quality. URL: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05_State_List.htm

2 Regional base-year assumed to be total emissions in Grand and San Juan County. 

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are summarized in Table 4.26 for Alternative C. 

Base-year HAPs data from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality for Grand and San Juan 

Counties do not include emissions from existing oil and gas development and therefore were 

found not be appropriate for comparison. The largest potential emissions of HAPs are for 

benzene (47 t/year), toluene (74 t/year), and xylenes (141 t/year). All of the HAPs listed below 

with the exception of H2S and naphthalene (one of the other HAPs) are also considered VOCs 

and are included as such in the criteria pollutant discussion above. 

Table 4.26. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for 

the Monticello FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development 

under Proposed Plan 

Pollutant 

Emissions from 

Compressors (t/year)

Emissions from 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

(t/year) 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Benzene 0.1 47.32 47 

Ethylbenzene 0.0 8.62 8.6 

Formaldehyde 9.5 - 9.5 

H2S - 0.000 0.0 

Toluene 0.1 74.39 74 

Xylenes 0.0 140.51 141 

Other HAPs 0.8 - 3.3 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-30 

4.3.1.3.7.2. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Air Quality Under Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, recreation management decisions would place additional restrictions 

on motorized vehicle use as compared to Alternative A, specifically for lands with non-WSA 

wilderness characteristics. 

Recreation management decisions under this alternative that limit or reduce surface and 

vegetation disturbance and OHV and other off-trail access, and improve existing road and trail 

surfaces are likely to produce negligible impacts on short-term air quality and negligible to minor 

beneficial impacts on long-term air quality. These beneficial outcomes are likely to include sitespecific reduced PM10 and other wind-borne particulates due to less erosion of exposed soils as 

vegetation and soil cohesion improve over time. Short-term benefits to air quality would most 

likely not be measurable in the overall PA. 

The adverse impacts of recreation on air quality under the Proposed Plan would be similar to or 

less than those described for Alternative A. 

4.3.1.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Recreation and mineral management (oil and gas development) decisions would emit pollutants 

during operation (i.e., vehicle emissions, well operations, compressor engines, etc.), along with 

fugitive dust from public vehicle use, OHVs, construction and mineral development activities. 

Impacts to air quality from prescribed fire management decisions would likely be related to 

particulate matter (primarily PM2.5) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Impacts would likely be short 

term and would result in long-term benefits for other resources. 

With respect to oil and gas development alternatives, all of the alternatives would lead to 

additional emissions and impacts to air quality. Although potential impacts were not assessed 

quantitatively, the analysis provides for comparison to base-year emissions and a relative 

comparison among alternatives. The Proposed Plan would result in a 1% increase of PM10 and 

PM2.5 emissions over base-year data respectively. Increases in NOx and VOCs over base-year, 

the precursors for ozone formation, would be 2% and 1% respectively. This slight increase in 

emissions could affect ozone concentrations in Canyonlands National Park which are already 

close to the new 8-hr standard of 0.075 ppm (see Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2). Of all of the 

alternatives analyzed, Alternative E is the most protective of air quality with total emissions 

ranging from 5 to 26% less than Alternative A for individual pollutants. The differences in air 

emissions between Alternative A and the Proposed Plan are very small (Table 4.27).
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-31 

Table 4.27. Comparison Among Alternatives of Emitted Pollutants Associated with Oil and Gas Developm

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Compare to 

Alt A 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Compare 

to Alt A 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Compare 

to Alt A 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Compare 

to Alt A 

Criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases CO 145 139.2 -4% 145 0% 145 0.0% 134 -7.7% NOx 42 40.9 -2% 42 0% 42 0.0% 40 -4.9% CO2 19,826 19,826.4 0% 19,826 0% 19,826 0.0% 19,826 0.0% PM10 31 27.6 -12% 31 0% 31 0.0% 27 -12.1% PM2.5 7 6.1 -9% 7 0% 7 0.0% 6 -10.6% SOx 0.1 0.1 0% 0.1 0% 0.1 0.0% 0 0.0% VOC 299 262.8 -12% 299 0% 307 2.4% 226 -24.4% TOC 543 506.5 -7% 543 0% 550 1.3% 470 -13.5% Hazardous Air Pollutants Benzene 49 42 -13% 49 0% 50 2.6% 36 -26.3% Ethylbenzene 9 8 -13% 9 0% 9 2.6% 7 -26.3% Formaldehyde 10 10 0% 10 0% 10 0.0% 10 0.0% H2S 0.0 0.0 -13% 0.0 0% 0.0 2.6% 0 -26.3% Toluene 76 66 -13% 76 0% 78 2.6% 56 -26.3% Xylenes 144 125 -13% 144 0% 148 2.6% 106 -26.3% Other HAPS 3.3 3.3 0% 3.3 0% 3.3 0.0% 3 0.0% Total Hazardous Air Pollutants 294 257 -12% 294 0% 301 2.5% 220 -24.9% 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-32 

4.3.1.5. MITIGATION MEASURES

Required mitigation measures are outlined in state and federal policies and regulations that 

govern the air quality permit process and include application of the BACT; compliance with 

appropriate dust-abatement measures for construction, demolition, clearing, or excavation of 

land; management of emissions to prevent deterioration to air quality in PSD Class I Areas; and 

restrictions imposed by regulatory agencies and management authorities on equipment and 

vehicle air emissions. 

Additional mitigation measures may include additional surface stabilization, lower vehicle speed 

limits, and reclamation to improve surface vegetation. BLM would consider mitigation for 

potential direct project impacts in an EIS for a proposed project. BLM would not prescribe a 

particular mitigation measure. BLM may consider requiring the proponent to demonstrate the 

potential project impacts are not greater than an applicable level-of-concern. 

Mitigation may be applied to fugitive dust and NOx impacts. Fugitive dust refers to any 

particulate matter that is not deliberately emitted by a well-defined source. Fugitive dust sources 

typically include windblown dust from un-vegetated lands, construction, and unpaved roads. 

Table 4.28 shows several fugitive dust mitigation options available. 

Table 4.28. Effectiveness and Costs of Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures (PM10) 

Dust Sources 

Disturbed 

Areas Unpaved Roads1

Effectiveness 

Level 

proportional to 

percentage of 

land cover 

0–50% 

reduction in 

uncontrolled 

dust emissions 

33%–100% 

control 

efficiency 

80% for 15 

mph3

65% for 20 

mph3

25% for 30 

mph3

30% 

reduction 

90% 

reduction 

Estimated Cost Unknown $4,000/mile 

$2,000 to 

$4,000/mile 

per year 

Unknown $9,000/mile 

$11,000 to 

$60,000/mil

e 

NOx emissions are associated with combustion. Table 4.29 shows several potential mitigation 

measures that could reduce impacts from NOx emissions. The appropriate level of control will be 

determined by the State of Utah during the construction permit process. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-33 

Table 4.29. Efficiency of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Mitigation Measures 

NOx Emissions Sources 

Field 

Compressors 

Sales 

Compressors 

Temporary 

Diesel 

Generators1 

Heavy 

Equipment 

Mitigation 

Options/Efficiency 

Implement BACT 

Typically results 

in a NOx 

emission rate of 

about 1 g/bhp-hr 

Implement BACT 

Typically results in 

a NOx emission 

rate of about 1 

g/bhp-hr 

Register with 

state; UDEQ 

regulate as 

appropriate 

Voluntary use of 

diesel engines 

In addition, Table 4.30 shows additional mitigation measures to be considered in the planning 

area impact assessment. These are general mitigation opportunities that should be considered and 

applied as appropriate. BLM has no authority to require application of these measures, although 

industry is encouraged to implement these measures on its own before they are required by the 

State of Utah. Advances in technology are likely to offer new mitigation options during the time 

covered by the RMP. Under NEPA, the planners of individual projects in the planning area must 

consider mitigation. The State of Utah, as the permitting authority, will review permit 

applications and require specific emission control devices and measures as appropriate. All costs 

shown in this table are approximate. 

Table 4.30. Additional Mitigation Measures with Approximate Costs and Benefits 

Type of 

Mitigation Approximate Cost Environmental Cost 

Potential 

Limitations 

Environmental 

Benefit 

Selective 

Catalytic 

Reduction for 

Compressor 

Emissions 

$4,000 to $27,000 

per NOx ton-year. 

Possible NH3 

releases. 

May be cost 

prohibitive for 

oil and gas 

applications. 

NOx emission rate 

reduced to 0.1 g/hphr; 

decreased visibility 

impact. 

“Green 

Completions” and 

Flowback Units 

Capital cost ranges 

from $1,000 to 

$10,000. 

Operating cost is 

$1,000/year. 

Payback 1–3 

years. 

Moving equipment 

to and from well 

completions. 

Fugitive dust from 

trucks. 

Saves 100,000 cubic 

feet of gas per well 

per year. 

Reduces flaring 

emissions by 70%–

90% at completion. 

Electrical 

Compressors 

Capital cost is 40% 

of gas turbine cost. 

Operating costs 

depend on location 

of transmission 

lines. 

Displaced air 

emissions from 

compressor unit to 

electric power 

plant. 

Moving air emissions 

away from sensitive 

PSD Class I areas. 

Fugitive Dust 

Road Treatment 

$2,400–$50,000 

per mile. 

Possible 

vegetation effects. 

20%–100% dust 

control. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-34 

Table 4.30. Additional Mitigation Measures with Approximate Costs and Benefits 

Type of 

Mitigation Approximate Cost Environmental Cost 

Potential 

Limitations 

Environmental 

Benefit 

Fugitive Dust 

Administrative 

Control 

$13,000 per well 

for remote 

telemetry. A few 

added work hours 

per year traveling 

at enforced speed 

limits. 

Minor/unknown. Difficult to 

enforce. 

Reduced VMTs with 

related emission 

reductions. Slower 

speeds give 20%–

50% reductions in 

dust emissions. 

Larger Diameter 

Sales Pipeline 

Capital costs 

increase with larger 

pipes. Operating 

costs decrease 

with larger pipes. 

Larger trench for 

burying line. 

Slightly more 

surface 

disturbance. 

Probably 

applicable 

only for large 

producing 

operations. 

Possibly resulting in 

lower compressor 

emissions. 

Microhole Drilling 

Cost of technology 

transfer; then 

potentially less 

than conventional 

drilling. 

Additional impacts 

if duplicate drilling 

is necessary. 

Lighter equipment 

on roads, smaller 

drilling sites, reduced 

gaseous emissions 

during drilling. 

Condensate 

Pipelines 

Cost of pipe and 

installation minus 

cost of eliminated 

storage tank and 

trucking. 

Trench for burying 

line. 

The cost may 

outweigh 

benefit. 

Eliminate emissions 

from storage 

vessels; eliminate 

miles traveled by 

vacuum trucks. 

Wind Farm 

Electric 

Generation 

4 to 5 cents/kW-hr. 

Capital costs are 

large. 

Visual impacts, 

impacts on raptors, 

maintenance. 

Large capital 

costs required 

Reduced power 

plant emissions. 

(VOC, NOx, SO2, 

CO, CO2) 

Phased oil and 

gas Development 

Short-term loss of 

state and federal 

royalties 

Emissions 

averaged over a 

longer period. 

Peak emissions and 

impacts are reduced. 

The relationship between VOC and nitrogen oxides to form ozone is complex. At this time it is 

unclear how ozone concentrations would change with VOC and NOx mitigation. However, Table 

4.31 outlines potential VOC mitigation measures. 

Table 4.31. VOC Mitigation Measures 

Type of 

Mitigation 

Approximate 

Cost 

Environmental 

Cost 

Potential 

Limitations 

Environmental 

Benefit 

Condenser on 

Glycol Dehydrator 

$1,000 to $10,000 Unknown 95% VOC and 

HAP reduction. 

Activated Carbon 

Filter on 

Condensate 

Storage Tank 

$1,000 and up Energy required to 

recycle filter. 

50%–80% VOC 

reduction. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-35 

Table 4.31. VOC Mitigation Measures 

Type of 

Mitigation 

Approximate 

Cost 

Environmental 

Cost 

Potential 

Limitations 

Environmental 

Benefit 

Stage I Vapor 

Controls for 

Condensate 

Transfer for Truck 

Loading 

$1,000–$3,000 Potential fire risk 

with improper 

operation. 

90% VOC 

emission reduction 

during transfer. 

4.3.1.6. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Prescribed fire would result in degradation of air quality because smoke from an increase in 

wind-borne particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) resulting from loss of vegetative cover unless 

revegetation treatments are consistently implemented and evaluated for success with current 

monitoring techniques. 

4.3.1.7. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Prescribed fire may result in short-term and, to a lesser degree, long-term degradation of air 

quality because of an increase in wind-borne particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) due to loss of 

vegetation. Such degradation is not expected to be substantial if revegetation measures are 

adequately monitored and supported for regrowth. 

4.3.1.8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There are irretrievable impacts to air quality that would occur over the next 15 years. A number 

of activities contribute to the degradation of air quality, including smoke from prescribed 

burning, dust from motor vehicle travel on dirt roads, and industrial emissions to the atmosphere 

from motor vehicles and energy production. While these activities individually may not cause a 

significant quantity or duration of impacts, they would occur continuously over the next 15 years 

at some interval or frequency, and contribute some level of emissions to the air. Since the 

impacts would be continuous, impacts to air quality would be irretrievable over the next 15 

years. However, because the impacts would cease if the activities ended, they would not be 

irreversible. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-36 

4.3.2. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impacts to the cultural resources of the Monticello PA would primarily result from surface and 

subsurface disturbance such as development projects, recreational use/OHV travel, and fire 

management. Impacts might, however, also result from specific cultural-resource management 

decisions and non-surface visual and noise disturbances. These latter impacts would be felt 

primarily at sites or locations deemed sacred or traditionally important by Native American 

tribes and used by these groups in ways that might be disrupted by visual obstructions and/or 

noise levels. 

Because the majority of cultural resources identified in the Monticello PA consist of 

archaeological sites, the primary resource impacts-related concern would be disturbance of the 

artifacts, features, and architecture of sites in ways that reduce their integrity and the potential to 

recover data and alter their association with traditional values. Archaeological data consist of 

both objects (in the broad sense of artifacts, architecture, features, etc.) and the spatial (horizontal 

and vertical) relationships among them. Our ability to interpret and understand the past is based 

on recovering not only its material culture in the form of artifacts, buildings, and the built 

environment but also on the spatial relationships among different aspects of that culture. 

Therefore, surface and subsurface disturbances that not only destroy material culture, but also the 

spatial relationships that are key to understanding and interpreting it, can have the greatest 

adverse impact on cultural resources. Impacts include elimination or reduction of the data, 

including the setting and physical integrity of sacred or other sites, National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP)-listed or -eligible sites, landscapes, and cultural-landscape areas; disruption or 

reduction of the religious values of sites and areas; and damage to traditional use areas or 

resource sites. In general, impacts on cultural resources from surface disturbance are long-term 

(i.e., permanent): once an archaeological site has been damaged or disturbed, the impact 

typically cannot be reversed. Short-term visual or noise impacts, however, can often be mitigated 

or accommodated. 

Potential impacts to cultural resources from the proposed management decisions are difficult to 

quantify as the revised PRMP/FEIS management decisions do not stipulate specific areas where 

surface-disturbing activities are likely to occur, nor have the exact locations of all cultural 

resources been identified in the PA. However, it is possible to estimate impacts based on the 

proposed general locations of activities and the relationships of these areas of activity to zones 

where cultural resources are more or less likely to be found. 

Impacts on cultural resources may be direct, indirect, negligible, or nonexistent, depending on 

the resource-management decision. Specifically, PRMP/FEIS decisions for air quality, health 

and safety (e.g., maintaining public safety around abandoned mine land sites (AMLs) and 

reducing the risks of hazardous materials spills), and soils and watersheds would have negligible 

or very minor direct or indirect impact on cultural resources within the Monticello PA. 

Protection of air quality, protecting sensitive soils, and safeguarding streams, creeks, and other 

waterways would not affect management decisions to inventory and protect cultural resources. 

Therefore, they will not be considered further in this analysis. All other resource decisions that 

could potentially impact cultural resources either beneficially or adversely are discussed in detail 

below. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-37 

Analyzing impacts to cultural resources involves developing methods for assessing the impacts 

of nonspecific and/or program management decisions on areas where the precise number, type, 

and location of cultural resources are either poorly known or unknown. As described in Chapter 

3, no more than approximately 10% of the Monticello PA has been systematically inventoried 

for cultural resources, and surveying the entire area would not be feasible within the parameters 

of an RMP (i.e., at the programmatic level of analysis and resource management). Therefore, it is 

not possible to determine, at the planning stage, if site-specific management decisions would 

affect cultural resources because many areas are lacking data on the location, type, and number 

of the cultural resources that lie within them. 

Importantly, a management prescription common to the Proposed Plan and all five of the 

alternatives is that efforts to identify and assess cultural resources will be conducted as part of 

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) prior to any sitespecific actions. However, to conduct any kind of impact analysis, it is necessary to estimate the 

densities of sites that may be affected by management decisions under this DEIS. Including a site 

or sites in management decisions does not imply that they would necessarily be affected in any 

particular way. Management activities could have beneficial, adverse, or negligible impacts to 

cultural resource sites, and, by using the Section 106 process, adverse impacts can nearly always 

be avoided or mitigated. The goal of this analysis is to assess the relative impact of management 

decisions on cultural resources in a consistent and replicable manner. 

The BLM developed a model of cultural-resource site density at a landscape level as a means of 

estimating the effect of management decisions on the resource. This model built upon techniques 

used by other researchers in the region to estimate site densities (e.g., Tipps et al. 1988). The 

goal of the model is to be able to estimate whether large or moderate numbers of sites are 

probable within a given area of the landscape. The model is not designed to predict specific site 

locations, nor does it intend to determine that certain portions of the landscape may or may not 

be used in any particular way. It is a mechanism for assessing relative site densities. The model 

supplements, but does not replace, what Monticello FO resource specialists, who make land-use 

decisions based on site-specific information, already know. 

While this site-density prediction model is not perfect, it is sufficiently accurate to be used as a 

tool for analyzing potential impacts of management decisions on cultural resource sites. It has 

between a 70% and 80% success rate in defining 160-acre quadrants with 1, 2, or more cultural 

resource sites. The model is used in the analysis of impacts in this PRMP/FEIS as a way to gauge 

whether a proposed management decision under the Proposed Plan or a particular alternative 

would involve more acres of high or medium site-density land than another. The model cannot 

predict numbers of sites affected by decisions, nor should it be considered a replacement for 

cultural inventory. As noted, Section 106 of the NHPA requires that all specific actions with the 

potential to involve cultural resources must be supported by efforts, such as an inventory, to 

document cultural resources. 

To assess the impacts of proposed management actions, it is important to ask how likely they are 

to produce surface-disturbing activities within high, medium, or low site-density zones. It is 

assumed that the potential for disturbance would be proportional to the total acres of land in each 

site-density category within the area likely to be disturbed. For example, assume that a proposed 

management area contains 100 acres, 20 acres (20%) of which the site-density model has 

classified with high site- density and 80 acres (80%) of which it has classified with medium or 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-38 

low site-density. Assume also that a particular management decision is expected to disturb 50 

acres within that 100-acre area. It follows logically that 10 acres (20%) of that disturbance would 

affect the high site-density area, and 40 acres (80%) would affect the medium or low site-density 

area. Again, while not precise, this method results in a quantifiable assessment of probable 

relative effects of proposed management decisions. 

4.3.2.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Certain management decisions for various resource programs would apply to the Proposed Plan 

and all of the proposed alternatives. These decisions have the potential to impact cultural 

resources in a variety of ways. For example, the Proposed Plan and all alternatives stipulate that 

standard BLM policy and Sections 106, 110, and 111 of the NHPA should govern cultural 

resources. These policies and regulations call for both proactive and reactive management of 

cultural resources within the Monticello PA. Proactive actions include nominating worthy 

cultural sites for the NRHP, surveying areas for cultural resources in the absence of specific 

project-related activities, establishing cultural-resource interpretation programs, and prohibiting 

the use of ropes and other climbing aids to access cultural sites. Reactive actions include 

conducting or requiring site-identification surveys in response to applications for land 

development, use, or transfer; identifying measures to eliminate, reduce, or compensate for 

impacts to cultural sites resulting from management decisions; and limiting or eliminating access 

to cultural sites that are either being damaged by visitation or pose a threat to visitors. All of 

these proactive and reactive measures are designed to recognize the scientific and experimental, 

traditional, educational/public, and conservation values of cultural resources within the PA. 

Table 4.32 summarizes the anticipated impacts to cultural resources under the Proposed Plan and 

all of the alternatives. 

Table 4.32. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Resource 

Program 

Impact on Cultural Resources 

Cultural 

Resources 

Program measures provide for avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for impacts to 

cultural resources, and supporting public enjoyment of the majority of the resources 

within the PA. These measures would result in long-term beneficial impacts to these 

cultural resources. The beneficial impacts would result from 1) continuing to implement 

policies and to follow regulations that are designed to identify important resources and 

either minimize or reduce impacts to them, 2) educating the public about protecting and 

valuing cultural resources, 3) restricting or prohibiting land uses that are known to cause 

direct and indirect, adverse impacts to specific cultural resources, and 4) expanding the 

FO staff's knowledge about the location and nature of cultural resources within their 

management responsibility. 

Fire 

Management 

A total of 12,760 acres would undergo prescribed fire. Approximately 10,185 acres lie in 

high cultural-resource site-density areas and 2,575 acres in medium site-density areas. 

An additional 26,412 acres would receive non-fire treatments, with approximately 20,796 

acres described as high site-density and 5,616 acres as medium site-density areas. 

BLM fire-management policy requires surveys to identify cultural resources prior to any 

type of treatment for fuel reduction. Consequently, the actual risk to cultural resources 

within the Monticello PA from fire-management decisions would be minor because sites 

would be identified and the potential impacts would be mitigated. 

Health and 

Safety 

The AML program, whereby abandoned mine sites that pose a risk to human health and 

safety are remediated, would cause minor, direct, long-term, adverse impacts to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-39 

Table 4.32. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Resource 

Program 

Impact on Cultural Resources 

historical structures and features associated with the mine sites because of actions 

required to remediate the sites. However, the AML program would be conducted in 

compliance with the NHPA so that avoidance or mitigation measures would be 

implemented as appropriate, thereby minimizing the adverse impacts. Hazardous waste 

clean-up in the event of spills could also result in impacts to cultural resources that may 

be present in the area of the spill. Since the occurrence of spills is low, particularly largescale spills, the actual risk to cultural resources is also low. However, in emergency 

situations where clean-up must take place immediately due to imminent risk to human 

health and safety, cultural resources may be impacted without prior documentation or 

development of avoidance and/or minimization measures. 

Lands and 

Realty 

Decisions under the Lands and Realty program, including land transfers, avoidances 

and exclusions, disposals, easements, issuances of rights-of-way, etc. can impact 

cultural resources depending on the use of the involved lands after the program. In all 

cases of disposals or transfers, the BLM requires an assessment of environmental 

impacts and adherence with the Section 106 process, thereby providing for the 

protection of cultural resources on involved lands. Because the impacts of program 

decisions on cultural resources for such decisions as issuances of rights-of-ways and 

easements and designation of avoidance and exclusion areas depends on the uses of 

the lands, the potential impacts are assessed based upon the future use. Please, see 

the impacts analysis for minerals development, non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, etc. for more information about impacts from actions authorized under 

the Lands and Realty program. 

Livestock 

Grazing 

Maintaining the five side canyons of the Comb Wash allotment as unavailable to grazing 

would have long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources by protecting 16,599 

acres of known high site-density lands from potential livestock trampling and rubbing. 

These include Mule Canyon below Highway 95, Arch Canyon, Fish Canyon, Owl 

Canyon, and Road Canyon. 

Minerals – 

Other than oil 

and gas or 

geophysical 

work 

An estimated 851 acres of land within the Monticello PA could be subjected to surface 

disturbance over the next 15 years in association with the development of uranium and 

vanadium, placer gold, limestone, sand and gravel, building stone, and clay. Surface 

disturbance could occur in areas where cultural resources are present; however, predisturbance field surveys to identify such resources and design avoidance or mitigation 

measures would minimize or eliminate the potential for actual effects on cultural sites 

and materials. 

Paleontology Minor, adverse and beneficial impacts could occur from paleontological decisions. 

Beneficial impacts from predevelopment paleontological surveys could identify cultural 

resources and thereby allow site avoidance. Adverse impacts could result from scientific 

collection and excavation of vertebrate fossils that may be within cultural resource sites. 

Minor impacts may occur as a result of recreational fossil collection: casual collectors 

may not distinguish between paleontological materials and cultural resources or may not 

recognize the difference between paleontological and cultural artifacts, thereby causing 

unintentional impacts to cultural sites. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-40 

Table 4.32. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Resource 

Program 

Impact on Cultural Resources 

Recreation Recreational use of lands within the PA can have adverse impacts on cultural resources 

from inadvertent damage, looting, and vandalism associated with camping, mountain 

biking, backpacking, etc. Potential recreation decision impacts on cultural resources are 

largely unquantifiable since the exact locations of recreational activity relative to 

individual cultural sites and high site density areas are not known. Further, there is no 

way to specifically assess the potential impacts on cultural resources from differences in 

permitted group sizes or numbers of day or overnight use permits between alternatives 

other than to say that, generally speaking, smaller group sizes would presumably have a 

somewhat lesser impact on cultural resources since fewer people would be visiting a 

site at any one time and less trampling would occur. However, over the long-term, there 

is likely to be little difference between alternatives based upon group size or permit 

restrictions. 

More measurable impacts occur from recreational use associated with OHV activity. An 

analysis of potential impacts from OHV use is presented by alternative in the impacts 

tables under Travel. Proactive management of recreational activity through designation 

of specific recreation locations and issuance of permits, closing of climbing routes 

affecting cultural sites, and excluding camping in the Indian Creek riparian corridor 

would all have generally beneficial impacts on cultural resources by reducing the overall 

number of conflicts between recreation activities and cultural resources. 

Special 

Designations 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, WSAs would be managed under the IMP 

to protect wilderness values. The IMP stipulates that very low levels of surface 

disturbances would be allowed in order to maintain wilderness suitability for potential 

designation by Congress. The impacts would be beneficial and long term on cultural 

resources because surface disturbance-related impacts to cultural resources would be 

minimized. 

Special status 

Species / 

Wildlife 

Management decisions under these resource programs would have a direct beneficial 

impact on cultural resources because of spatial buffers around wildlife areas that would 

prevent ground-disturbing activities around cultural sites within the buffer. 

Vegetation Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, vegetation treatments would have 

negligible direct impacts on cultural resources because all areas proposed for 

treatments would have site-specific cultural inventories performed prior to treatment, 

and known cultural resources would be avoided. Exposure could create indirect adverse 

impacts, however, to avoided cultural sites in treatment areas because these sites 

would be noticeable to the public: treatment-avoidance of sites would make them 

obviously visible as areas that contrast with the surrounding treated areas, with potential 

disturbance through collection of artifacts. 

4.3.2.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Cultural resource management decisions common to the Proposed Plan and all action alternatives 

(B through E) would have long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources. These 

management decisions would include developing cultural resource management plans (CRMPs) 

or to inventory and protect cultural resources in specific management areas. In additions to 

protecting cultural resources, these plans would designate worthy sites to include in the NRHP, 

as appropriate, thereby raising awareness of the importance of the sites, removing access to 

specific sites at risk or otherwise restricting access, and proactively reducing fire hazards around 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-41 

sensitive sites. These actions would reduce impacts to cultural resource sites through early 

identification, assessment, and implementation of protective measures. 

4.3.2.3. IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES

Proposed management decisions for many resource programs within the Monticello PA vary by 

the Proposed Plan and alternatives. The potential impacts of these varying decisions are 

discussed in the following sections by the Proposed Plan and alternatives. 

4.3.2.3.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

Impacts to cultural resources from various BLM resource program decisions under Alternative 

A, excluding special designations, are summarized in Table 4.33. Because special designations 

incorporate an array of individualized management decisions, discussion of their impact on 

cultural resources follows the Table 4.33 summary. 

Table 4.33. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative A 

Resource Impact on Cultural Resources 

Under Alternative A, the cultural resources on 37,433 acres of high site-density land in 

the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis area (GGSE)/Grand Gulch National Historic District 

(GGNHD) would be designated for special management. The plans for the 

GGSE/GGNHD provide protection for cultural resources that supplements that afforded 

by Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural resources would be regularly monitored for impacts 

related to permissible uses, and measures to minimize or mitigate any impacts would be 

implemented when necessary. Restrictions on surface disturbances would reduce the 

risks of adverse impacts to cultural resources. These actions would also reduce the 

adverse impacts to sites, locations, and landscape features that are important to Native 

American tribes. 

The Old Spanish National Historic Trail would be afforded special consideration, 

including beneficial development of a management plan designed to protect the resource 

values that have made it nationally important. 

Cultural 

Resources 

Under Alternative A, no allocation or group-size limits; restrictions on camping, OHV use, 

pets or dogs, or grazing; fire bans, fees, or other recreational limitations would be placed 

upon the Comb Ridge CSMA, the Butler Wash area east of Comb Ridge, the Tank Bench 

CSMA, the Beef Basin CSMA, or Monticello PA lands outside of these areas. No special 

considerations would be given to the proactive conservation, interpretation, investigation, 

or traditional allocation of cultural resources, except on an occasional case-by-case 

determination. Cultural resources in these areas would be avoided or impacts to them 

mitigated only through development or land uses that require permits or approval from 

the Monticello FO. There would be no restrictions on visits to the McLoyd Canyon-Moon 

House site, although visitors are presently causing deterioration to portions of it (personal 

communication with Nancy Shearin, Monticello FO, May 7, 2003). Cultural resources not 

associated with areas of development or permitted use would continue to be subject to 

direct and indirect, adverse impacts from recreational activity, including OHV travel, 

group and individual camping, and hiking and touring in sites. Impacts of this nature are 

presently not quantifiable because records of them are not kept, and many incidents are 

unknown to the BLM owing to the remote and undocumented locations of many cultural 

resources within the Monticello PA. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-42 

Table 4.33. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative A 

Resource Impact on Cultural Resources 

Livestock 

Grazing 

Allotments within the Monticello PA, with the exception of the five side canyons of Comb 

Wash and other areas designated unavailable for grazing, would be open to grazing, 

though site-specific closure or restrictions could be enacted if undue damage to cultural 

resources from livestock grazing occurred. Open allotments include 888,111 acres, in 

high site-density and 748,942 acres in medium site-density areas. This represents 90% 

of all estimated high site-density and 94% of all estimated medium site-density lands in 

the Monticello PA. Making grazing unavailable in certain high site-density areas such as 

Comb Ridge would have a long-term, beneficial impact on their cultural resources. 

Potential trampling of archaeological sites and brushing and rubbing against structures 

and rock-art panels by livestock would be eliminated in these areas, though impacts from 

hoofed wildlife would continue. Alternative A grazing decisions would be expected to 

pose slightly greater adverse risks to cultural resources than the Proposed Plan and 

Alternatives B and C because Alternative A leaves more acres open to grazing. 

Alternative A would pose roughly comparable risk to cultural resources as Alternative D. 

However, under any alternative, the BLM may modify livestock grazing in specific areas 

when undue adverse impacts to cultural resource sites occur, which would reduce longterm adverse impacts. 

Minerals, Oil, 

and Gas 

Approximately 417 acres of land in high site-density and 313 acres in medium sitedensity areas would be subject to physical disturbance of varying degrees during the next 

15 years as a result of predicted RFD oil and gas development. This amounts to 

approximately 0.06% of the total acres of high site-density and 0.05% of medium sitedensity lands available for mineral development under Alternative A. The BLM's standard 

procedures require inventory of areas proposed for mineral development before it can 

occur. These inspections allow cultural resource sites to be identified and minimization, 

avoidance, or mitigation measures to be implemented. The Monticello PA contains 

several locations and landscape features that have been deemed culturally and/or 

spiritually important to Native American tribes with cultural patrimony in the area. Most of 

these areas, including Montezuma Canyon, the San Juan River, Comb Ridge, Mancos 

Jim Mesa, Spanish Mossback Mesa, and Allen Canyon, would be managed under a 

combination of NSO, controlled surface use (CSU), and standard leasing stipulations. 

Applying NSO and CSU leasing stipulations and restrictions would reduce the 

opportunities for surface-disturbing and other landscape-altering activities that would 

otherwise decrease the cultural, traditional, and/or spiritual values of these resources. 

Minerals, 

Geophysical 

Direct, adverse impacts to known cultural resources and sites from geophysical activities 

under this alternative are likely to be negligible to minor because resources and sites 

would be avoided or mitigated. Surface disturbance throughout the Monticello PA from 

geophysical activities under this alternative is estimated to be 886 acres during the next 

fifteen years. Assuming that the potential for such disturbance to occur in high and 

medium site-density areas is equal to the ratio of these lands available for geophysical 

work within the PA, then surface disturbance from geophysical work would be expected 

on approximately 479 acres (0.05%) of high site-density and 407 acres (0.05%) of 

medium site-density lands. 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be 

protected or managed to preserve their wilderness values. Surface disturbances, impacts 

to cultural resources, and the mitigation applied to reduce impacts would be the same as 

analyzed and discussed under each resource for Alternative A. 

Riparian 

Resources 

Riparian resource-management decisions under Alternative A would be expected to have 

a negligible to minor, beneficial impact on cultural resources because they would restrict 

surface-disturbing activities in riparian zones and floodplains. Such management actions 

would affect approximately 14,383 acres of high site-density and 6,314 acres of medium 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-43 

Table 4.33. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative A 

Resource Impact on Cultural Resources 

site-density lands within the PA. This represents approximately 1.5% of all estimated high 

site-density and 0.8% of all estimated medium site-density lands within the PA. 

Limitations on surface-disturbing activities and other landscape alterations within riparian 

areas would provide some beneficial protection to waterways that possess culturally 

important features for Native American tribes. 

Special status 

Species 

The impacts would be the same as those described above under Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 4.3.2.1). 

Travel Travel management decisions under Alternative A would close 142,008 acres to OHV 

use in high site-density areas. This represents 14% of all estimated high site-density 

lands in the PA and would have long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources by 

minimizing OHV-related surface disturbances. Travel on an additional 422,805 acres 

(43%) in high site-density areas would be limited to designated roads and trails, with the 

same expected impact because no new OHV surface disturbance would be allowed. 

Because 423,619 acres (43%) in high site-density areas would be open to cross-country 

OHV use without restrictions, OHV travel in these areas would result in long-term, 

adverse impacts to cultural resources. 

Visual 

Resources 

Approximately 395,797 acres of high site-density and 330,313 acres of medium sitedensity lands within the Monticello PA would be designated as VRM Class I or II. This 

represents 40% of all high site-density and 41% of all medium site-density lands in the 

PA. Management of these lands, especially those managed under VRM Class I 

objectives, would limit ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to impact 

cultural resources, which would have long-term, beneficial impacts on the resource. 

Woodlands Woodland harvesting zones would not be established, and all woodland areas within the 

PA, outside of WSAs, developed recreation areas, selected ACECs, and select culturalresource management areas would be available for use. Within the PA, approximately 

857,000 acres of land possess pinyon-juniper woodlands suitable for harvesting. Of 

those lands, approximately 464,446 acres are located in high site-density and 392,559 

acres in medium site-density areas. This represents approximately 47% of all estimated 

high site-density and 49% of all estimated medium site-density lands in the PA. Permits 

to harvest and gather woodland products would be processed on a case-by-case basis. 

Collection of woodland products, except dead wood for camp fires, would be prohibited in 

all WSAs, as well as in several known high site-density areas, including the side canyons 

of Comb Wash (Arch Canyon, Fish Canyon, Owl Canyon, Road Canyon, and Mule 

Canyon south of Highway 95). Collection of woodland products would also be prohibited 

on known cultural resource sites. Further, woodland product gathering under a permit 

would require gathering identification and subsequent avoidance of cultural resources. 

Pinyon and juniper comprise the primary woodland targets for harvesting within the PA, 

and these vegetation environments are linked to relatively high densities of cultural 

resource sites. The restrictions placed on gathering and harvesting woodland products 

and the limited amount of ground disturbance associated with actual gathering within the 

Monticello PA under Alternative A would result in a low potential for direct, adverse 

impacts to cultural resources. However, the potential for indirect impacts would be 

relatively high because of OHV travel-related surface disturbances to harvest and collect 

woodland products, and the potential looting and vandalism resulting from use of the 

harvesting areas. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-44 

Special-designations management decisions under Alternative A would have both direct and 

indirect, long-term impacts on cultural resources within the Monticello PA. WSAs account for 

386,027 acres on land within the PA and overlap with other special designation lands (e.g., Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern [ACECs]) to a great extent (see Map 87). A total of 230,969 

acres in WSAs are lands classified with high site density, and 153,926 acres are classified as 

having medium site density (totaling 391,599 acres). The WSA acreage is the same under the 

Proposed Plan and all of the alternatives because WSA designation is not part of the 

PRMP/FEIS. WSAs are managed under the Interim Management Policy (IMP), which imposes 

restrictions on ground-disturbing activities that may impair the wilderness suitability of that 

WSA. Actions generally considered to meet this non-impairment standard are those that are 

short-term, do not create surface disturbances or do not allow the construction of permanent 

facilities. When completed, surface disturbances may not degrade the area to such an extent that 

they substantially constrain Congress's decision to designate the area as wilderness. Because of 

these restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, the impacts to cultural resources within WSAs 

would be long-term, indirect, and beneficial. 

In addition to WSAs, special designation areas include ACECs and wild and scenic rivers 

(WSRs). The following discussion addresses these other special designation areas. High culturalresource site-density areas pose the greatest concern for potential adverse impacts in special 

designation areas, so this discussion focuses on them. Special designation areas (excluding 

WSAs) under Alternative A encompass approximately 121,769 acres with high site-density. This 

represents approximately 12% of all estimated high site-density lands within the Monticello PA. 

Within these special designation areas, management decisions include a range of prescriptions 

that would benefit cultural resources by affording them direct and indirect protection from 

potentially adverse impacts. These decisions include implementing NSO stipulations for mineral 

development on approximately 2,539 acres, managing approximately 2,272 acres under VRM 

Class I objectives (with limitations on surface disturbances), eliminating OHV use on 

approximately 2,904 acres, and prohibiting mineral disposal and geophysical work on 3,171 

acres of high site-density lands. Table 4.34 lists the special designation areas where these 

decisions apply and the acreage of high site-density lands they contain. If a special designation 

area is not listed in the table, either the decisions do not apply to it, or no estimated acres of high 

site-density lands occur within it. The restrictions noted in the table reduce the potential impacts 

to cultural resource sites from surface disturbance. These sites include ones identified by Native 

American tribes as culturally, traditionally, or spiritually important that may be located either in 

or adjacent to special designation areas. 

Table 4.34. Acres of High Site-Density Lands in Special Designation Areas with Decisions 

Affecting Cultural Resources, Alternative A

Special 

Designation 

(All ACECs) 

NSO for 

Mineral 

Development 

Closed to 

Mineral 

Development

Closed to 

Mineral 

Disposal 

Closed to 

Geophysical 

Work 

Designated as 

VRM Class I 

Closed to 

OHV Use 

Alkali Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bridger Jack 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Cedar Mesa 17,493 37 37 37 16,832 240 

Dark Canyon 0 49 49 49 204 75 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-45 

Table 4.34. Acres of High Site-Density Lands in Special Designation Areas with Decisions 

Affecting Cultural Resources, Alternative A

Special 

Designation 

(All ACECs) 

NSO for 

Mineral 

Development 

Closed to 

Mineral 

Development

Closed to 

Mineral 

Disposal 

Closed to 

Geophysical 

Work 

Designated as 

VRM Class I 

Closed to 

OHV Use 

Hovenweep 880 0 880 0 0 0 

Indian Creek 3,443 0 3,443 0 3,907 3,443 

Lavender 

Mesa 

586 0 586 0 0 586 

Scenic 

Highway 

Corridor 

19,840 1 0 0 20,736 7 

Shay Canyon 0 0 0 0 42 0 

Total 42,242 87 4,995 86 41,721 4,352 

Within many special designation areas, surface-disturbing activities would still be allowed, but 

for the most part, regulations would limit the amount of actual disturbance (e.g., CSU 

stipulations for mineral development and requirements for non-mechanized vegetation 

treatments). Many of these areas would also be managed under VRM Class II objectives, which, 

while less restrictive than VRM Class I, would still provide a high level of protection to cultural 

resources by limiting surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Table 4.35 summarizes impacts to cultural resources from various BLM resource program 

decisions under Alternative B, excluding special designations. Because special designations 

incorporate an array of individualized management actions, discussion of their impact on cultural 

resources follows the Table 4.35 summary. 

Table 4.35. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative B 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

The impacts to cultural resources would be the same as under Alternative A, except that 

98,348 acres of land in high-density site areas would receive special management 

consideration (restrictions on surface disturbance and OHV use) to protect important 

cultural resource values. Cultural resource special management would increase the 

beneficial impacts. 

Cultural 

Resources 

Segments of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail would be designated for types of 

travel that would not damage or alter their historic condition. Additionally, special 

recreation permits would be authorized only for heritage tours and reenactments on the 

trail. Limiting damaging travel and trail use would have a direct, long-term, beneficial 

impact on the trail because intact segments would be better preserved. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-46 

Table 4.35. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative B 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Imposing private and commercial size limits for recreational and land-use groups and 

implementing a permit system would have long-term beneficial impacts on cultural 

resources in restricted areas because reducing the number of people in or near cultural 

resource sites at any given time would minimize deterioration and degradation. The 

smaller the group-size on a given site at a given time, the lower the probable adverse 

recreational impact to a site. Specific group-size and visitation limits for the Moon House 

ruin would be more stringent than restrictions for other sites. These limitations would 

directly and beneficially impact the site in the long-term. 

Livestock 

Grazing 

Approximately 137,440 acres of land would be maintained as unavailable for grazing, 

and additional areas would also be unavailable for grazing in at least 11 known high 

site-density areas. Alternative B would also restrict livestock activities to trailing in at 

least 4 other high site-density locations. Beyond these unavailable or restricted areas, 

grazing would be permitted on 1,627,623 acres of land within the Monticello PA. These 

lands are located in both high (882,676 acres) and medium (744,947 acres) site-density 

areas. This represents 90% of all estimated high site-density and 93% of all estimated 

medium site-density lands in the PA. Cultural resource sites in these areas would be 

exposed to potentially adverse trampling by livestock. Alternative B would leave 

approximately the same total number of acres open to grazing as the Proposed Plan 

and Alternatives A and C; however, Alternative B has approximately 5,435 fewer acres 

in high site-density areas than does Alternative A. Alternative B leaves the same 

number of acres in high site-density areas open to grazing as the Proposed Plan and 

Alternative C, and approximately 9,200 fewer total acres than Alternative D. 

Consequently, Alternative B would presumably have a slightly lower, potentially adverse 

grazing impact on cultural resources than Alternatives A and D and roughly the same as 

the Proposed Plan and Alternative C. 

The impacts to cultural resources would be the same as under Alternative A, except that 

approximately 338 acres of land in high site-density and 298 acres in medium sitedensity areas would be subject to varying degrees of disturbance during the next fifteen 

years, based on the RFD predicted development of oil and gas resources. This would 

be approximately 0.04% of the total acres of high site-density and 0.04% of medium 

site-density lands available for mineral development under Alternative B. The exact 

number of sites involved in development cannot be predicted at this time; however, 

impacts to specific sites are not expected to be any greater than under Alternative A 

because Alternative B specifies the same level of identification of sites and avoidance, 

minimization, or mitigation of impacts. Alternative B decisions could have slightly less 

impacts on cultural landscapes in developed areas than Alternative A because the total 

number of acres subject to disturbance under Alternative B would be somewhat lower 

than Alternative A. The Monticello PA contains several locations and landscape features 

that have been deemed culturally and/or spiritually important to Native American tribes. 

Most of these areas, including Montezuma Canyon, the San Juan River, Comb Ridge, 

Minerals, Oil, 

and Gas 

Mancos Jim Mesa, Spanish Mossback Mesa, and Allen Canyon, would be managed 

under a combination of NSO, CSU, and standard leasing stipulations. Applying NSO 

and CSU stipulations would reduce the opportunities for surface-disturbing activities and 

other landscape-altering activities that could decrease the cultural, traditional, and/or 

spiritual values of these resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-47 

Table 4.35. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative B 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Minerals, 

Geophysical 

The impacts to cultural resources would be the same as under Alternative A, except that 

surface disturbance would be reduced to approximately 427 acres of high site-density 

and 367 acres of medium site-density lands. This represents 0.04% of all estimated 

high site-density and 0.05% of all estimated medium site-density lands within the PA. 

Alternative B would produce surface disturbance in approximately 92 fewer acres (52 in 

high site-density and 40 in medium site-density areas) than Alternative A. 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be 

protected or managed to preserve their wilderness values. Surface disturbances, 

impacts to cultural resources, and the mitigation applied to reduce impacts would be the 

same as analyzed and discussed under each resource for Alternative B. 

Riparian 

Resources 

The same impacts are predicted as under Alternative A, except Alternative B would 

implement additional restrictions that would indirectly protect cultural resources within 

certain riparian areas. These restrictions apply to OHV use and livestock grazing (see 

Chapter 2 Alternatives, Riparian). The additional restrictions on the use and disturbance 

of riparian and floodplain resources under Alternative B are expected to produce slightly 

greater beneficial impacts to cultural resources in these restricted zones by further 

reducing opportunities for surface-disturbing activities. 

Special Status 

Species 

Limited long-term, indirect, beneficial impacts to cultural resources are likely from 

restrictions on surface disturbance in areas of special-species habitat. The benefit 

would be slightly greater than under Alternative A because the wildlife protection spatial 

buffers would be larger. 

Travel Because of 238,879 acres in high site-density areas would be closed to OHV use under 

Alternative B, there would be similar beneficial impacts, but to a greater degree, than 

those discussed under Alternative A. This acreage represents 24% of all estimated high 

site-density lands within the PA. When compared to Alternative A, travel in an additional 

325,669 acres (76%) in high site-density areas would be limited to designated roads 

and trails with the same long-term beneficial impacts to cultural resources. No areas 

within the Monticello PA would be open to cross-country OHV use, with greater longterm, beneficial impacts than Alternative A because 1) 423,619 acres (43%) in high sitedensity areas (open under Alternative A) would be protected from travel-related surface 

disturbances, and 2) Alternative B would identify approximately twice as many acres for 

limited use (designated route restrictions) as Alternative A, which would result in longterm beneficial impacts on cultural resources. 

Visual 

Resources 

Approximately 431,797 acres of high site-density and 315,022 acres of medium sitedensity lands within the Monticello PA would be managed under VRM Class I or Class II 

objectives. This represents 44% of all high site- density and 40% of all medium sitedensity lands in the PA. The impacts from Alternative B on cultural resources would be 

similar to, but greater in degree, than those under Alternative A because more area 

would be protected under VRM Class I and Class II designations. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-48 

Table 4.35. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative B 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Woodlands Although 307,179 acres of high site-density and 197,212 acres of medium site-density 

areas would be open for woodland harvesting, there would be limited restrictions on 

OHV travel into these areas. These areas represent 31% of all estimated high sitedensity and 25% of all estimated medium site-density lands in the PA. Culturalresources inventories would be required before woodlands could be harvested on lands 

within the North Comb (Comb Ridge) area north of Highway 95 and the Montezuma 

watershed. The Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA, outside of the WSA, would be closed to 

harvesting. Gathering woodland products for private use would have a low potential for 

long-term, adverse impacts on cultural resources within open areas, except in instances 

where OHV travel to gather these products is permitted. Commercial woodland 

harvesting would have greater impact than private use because it would occur on a 

larger scale. Potential adverse impacts to cultural resources from woodlands 

management decisions under Alternative B would likely be slightly lower than those 

anticipated for Alternative A because Alternative B imposes greater travel restrictions, 

and imposes requirements for cultural-resource surveys, and would close at least one 

high site density area (Cedar Mesa) to harvesting. 

Special-designations management decisions under Alternative B would have both direct and 

indirect long-term impacts on cultural resources within the Monticello PA. As noted with 

Alternative A, WSAs account for 391,599 acres on land within the PA and overlap with other 

special designation lands (e.g., ACECs) to a great extent (see Map 88). A total of 230,969 acres 

in WSAs are lands classified with high cultural resource site-density, and 153,926 acres are 

classified with medium site-density. The Proposed Plan and all alternatives would include the 

same acreage for WSAs. WSAs are managed under the IMP, which imposes restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities. These restrictions, the same as those described for Alternative A, 

would have long-term, indirect, beneficial impacts on cultural resources within these areas by 

reducing opportunities for disturbance. 

The following discussion addresses special designation areas other than WSAs. Within these 

other special designation areas, the Proposed Plan and different alternatives propose an array of 

management actions that vary widely in the level of surface disturbance they allow or prohibit. 

Since high cultural-resource site-density areas pose the greatest concern for potential adverse 

impacts in special designation areas, this discussion focuses on them. Special designation areas 

that would be managed under Alternative B include approximately 151,992 acres with high sitedensity. This represents approximately 15% of all estimated high site-density lands within the 

PA. Within these special designation areas, management decisions would include a range of 

prescriptions that would benefit cultural resources by affording them direct and indirection 

protection from adverse impacts. These prescriptions would include implementing NSO leasing 

stipulations for mineral development on approximately 44,185 acres, closing areas to mineral 

development on 17,833 acres, managing approximately 61,736 acres under VRM Class I 

objectives (with limitations on surface disturbance), eliminating OHV use on approximately 

2,904 acres, and prohibiting mineral disposal and geophysical work on 85,141 acres of high sitedensity lands. Table 4.36 lists the special designation areas where these decisions apply and the 

acreage of high site-density lands they contain. If a special designation area is not listed in the 

table, either the decisions do not apply to it, or no estimated acres of high site-density lands 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-49 

occur within it. The restrictions noted in the table reduce the risk of impact on cultural resource 

sites by surface-disturbing activities. 

Table 4.36. Acres of High Site-density Lands in Special Designation Areas with Decisions 

Affecting Cultural Resources, Alternative B 

Special 

Designations 

(All ACECs) 

NSO for 

Mineral 

Development 

Closed to 

Mineral 

Development

Closed to 

Mineral 

Disposal 

Closed to 

Geophysical 

Work 

VRM Class I 

Designation 

Closed to 

OHV Use

Alkali Ridge1 1991 0 0 0 0 0 

Bridger Jack 0 0 0 0 0 3 

Cedar Mesa 4,632 5 5 5 13 0 

Dark Canyon 0 204 204 204 204 0 

Hovenweep 880 0 880 0 0 0 

Indian Creek 3,907 0 3,907 0 3,908 3,908 

Lavender Mesa 632 0 632 0 0 632 

Lockhart Basin 34,059 927 34,059 0 34,986 0 

San Juan River 1,738 497 1,738 0 710 567 

Valley of the Gods 0 17,833 17,833 0 17,833 0 

Total 47,839 88 59,258 209 57,646 5,110 

1Includes the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (2,146 acres) 

Within many special designation areas, surface-disturbing activities would still be allowed, but 

for the most part, management decisions would limit the amount of actual disturbance (e.g., CSU 

leasing stipulations for mineral development, and requirements for non-mechanized vegetation 

treatments). Many of these areas would also be managed under VRM Class II objectives, which, 

while less restrictive than VRM Class I, would still provide a measure of protection to cultural 

resources by limiting surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Table 4.37 summarizes impacts to cultural resources from various BLM resource program 

decisions under Alternative C, excluding special designations. Because special designations 

incorporate an array of individualized management decisions, discussion of their impact on 

cultural resources follows the Table 4.37 summary. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-50 

Table 4.37. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative C 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Cultural 

Resources 

As discussed under Alternative B, 98,348 acres of land in high-density site areas would 

be subject to special management consideration to protect important cultural resource 

values. Cultural-resource program decisions and impacts under Alternative C would be 

the same as discussed under Alternative B. 

The potential impacts related to the management of the Old Spanish National Historic 

Trail would be identical to those described for Alternative B. 

Impacts due to recreational use of cultural resources would be the same as for 

Alternative B, except that there would be a negligible increase in adverse impacts 

because of larger commercial group sizes allowed in high site-density areas. 

Livestock 

Grazing 

Potential adverse and beneficial impacts to cultural resources under Alternative C would 

be the same as those described for Alternative B because the two alternatives would 

manage approximately the same areas open, unavailable, or restricted to livestock 

grazing. 

Minerals, Oil, 

And Gas 

Approximately 381 acres of land in high site-density and 329 acres in medium sitedensity areas would be subject to varying amounts of physical disturbance during the 

next fifteen years. These equates to approximately 0.05% of the total acres of high sitedensity and 0.05% of medium site-density lands available for mineral development 

under Alternative C. Alternative C could have a slightly greater impact on cultural 

landscapes than Alternative B because the total number of acres subject to disturbance 

would be somewhat higher, but less than Alternative A. 

Minerals, 

Geophysical 

Impacts would be the same but slightly greater in intensity than those described under 

Alternative A because surface disturbance is estimated to be 903 acres during the next 

fifteen years. Approximately 489 acres of high site-density and 414 acres of medium 

site-density lands would be involved. This represents 0.05% of all estimated high sitedensity and 0.05% of all estimated medium-site density lands within the PA. Alternative 

C would produce surface disturbance in approximately 17 more acres (10 in high sitedensity and 7 in medium site-density areas) than Alternative A. 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be 

protected or managed to preserve their wilderness values. Surface disturbances, 

impacts to cultural resources, and the mitigation applied to reduce impacts would be the 

same as analyzed and discussed under each resource for Alternative C. 

Riparian 

Resources 

The impacts are identical to those discussed for Alternative B. 

Special Status 

Species 

Limited, long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources would be expected in areas 

where spatial buffers against surface disturbance around habitats are created. 

Alternative C is expected to have greater long-term beneficial impact on cultural 

resources than Alternatives A and B because of the larger buffer areas. 

Travel The impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A, except the 

long-term beneficial impacts would increase because of closed areas (234,890 acres 

[24%] in high site-density areas) and designated routes (an additional 750,153 acres 

[76%] in high site-density areas). The long-term adverse impacts within designated 

open OHV areas would be reduced to 2,311 acres (0.2% of the Monticello PA). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-51 

Table 4.37. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative C 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Visual 

Resources 

Approximately 324,539 acres of high site-density and 242,876 acres of medium sitedensity lands within the Monticello PA would be managed for VRM Class I or II 

conditions. This represents 33% of all high site-density and 30% of all medium sitedensity lands in the PA. The beneficial impacts of Alternative C on cultural resources 

would be similar but less than with Alternative A because fewer acres would be 

protected under VRM Class I and Class II designations. 

Woodlands Under Alternative C, 367,319 acres of high cultural-resource site-density and 229,492 

acres of medium site-density areas would be available for woodcutting. This represents 

37% of all estimated high site-density and 29% of all estimated medium site-density 

lands within the PA. Off-road travel to gather woodland products would be permitted 

across a portion of the open areas. Cultural-resource inventories would be required 

before woodland products could be harvested on lands within the North Comb (Comb 

Ridge) area north of Highway 95, Cedar Mesa (outside of the WSA), and the 

Montezuma watershed Potential impacts to cultural resources from woodlands 

management decisions under Alternative C would probably be lower than those 

anticipated for Alternative A because Alternative C imposes greater travel restrictions 

and requirements for cultural-resource inventories. 

Special-designations management decisions under Alternative C would have both direct and 

indirect long-term impacts on cultural resources within the Monticello PA. As noted under 

Alternative A, WSAs account for 391,599 acres of land within the PA and overlap with other 

special designations (e.g., ACECs) to a great extent (see Map 90). WSAs are managed under the 

IMP, which implements stringent restrictions on surface-disturbing activities (see the discussion 

for special designations in Section 4.3.14). A total of 230,969 acres in WSAs are lands classified 

with high cultural-resource site density. Another 153,926 acres are classified with medium site 

density. The same acres and management prescriptions would apply to WSAs across the 

Proposed Plan and all alternatives. Consequently, the potential impacts on cultural resources in 

WSAs within special designation areas under Alternative C would be identical to those described 

previously for Alternatives A and B. 

Special designation areas that would be managed under Alternative C include approximately 

57,267 acres of lands with high cultural-resource site density. This represents approximately 6% 

of all estimated high site-density lands within the PA. Within these special designation areas, 

management actions include a range of prescriptions that would benefit cultural resources by 

affording them direct and indirect protection from adverse impacts. These decisions include 

implementing NSO leasing stipulations for mineral development on approximately 5,290 acres, 

closing areas to mineral development on 17,833 acres, managing approximately 22,841 acres 

under VRM Class I objectives (with strict limitations on surface disturbance), eliminating OHV 

travel on approximately 632 acres, and prohibiting mineral disposal on 23,123 acres of high sitedensity lands. Table 4.38 lists the special designation areas where these decisions apply and the 

acreage of high site-density lands they contain. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-52 

Table 4.38. Acres of High Site-Density Lands in Special Designation Areas with Decisions 

Affecting Cultural Resources, Alternative C 

Special 

Designation 

(All ACECs) 

NSO for 

Mineral 

Development 

Closed to 

Mineral 

Development

Closed to 

Mineral 

Disposal 

Closed to 

Geophysical 

Work 

VRM Class I 

Designation 

Closed to 

OHV Use 

Alkali Ridge1 1,991 0 1,991 0 0 0

Hovenweep 880 0 880 0 0 0

Indian Creek 3,904 0 0 0 3,904 0

Lavender Mesa 632 0 632 0 0 632

San Juan River 1,738 497 1,738 0 710 567

Valley of the Gods 17,833 0 17,833 0 17,825 <1

Total 26,978 497 23,074 0 22,439 1,199

1Includes the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (2,146 acres)

If a special designation area is not listed in the table, either the decisions do not apply to it, or no 

estimated acres of high site-density lands occur within it. The restrictions noted in the table 

reduce opportunities for surface-disturbing activities to impact cultural resource sites. 

Alternative C provides for approximately twice as many acres covered by NSO leasing 

stipulations in high site-density special designation areas as Alternative A but 8 times fewer 

acres than Alternative B. Alternative C would close more acres to mineral development in nonWSA special designation areas than Alternative A and the same number of acres as Alternative 

B. Alternative C would manage approximately 10 times more high site-density lands under VRM 

Class I objectives than would Alternative A but approximately 3 times less than Alternative B. 

Alternative C would close approximately 5 times fewer acres of land in high site-density areas to 

OHV travel than Alternatives A and B. Alternative C would close approximately 7 times more 

land in high site-density areas to mineral disposal and geophysical work than Alternative A but 

approximately 3 times less than Alternative B. In all cases, Alternative C would provide greater 

benefits to cultural resources in special designation areas than would Alternative D, which 

implements no special designation regulations. 

Surface-disturbing activities would still be allowed, but in general, regulations would limit the 

level of actual disturbance (e.g., CSU stipulations for mineral development and requirements for 

non-mechanized vegetation treatments). Many of these areas would also be managed under 

VRM Class II objectives, which, while less restrictive than VRM Class I objectives, would still 

provide protection to cultural resources by limiting surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

Cultural resource management decisions under Alternative D would produce all of the impacts 

discussed in Section 4.3.2.1, Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives. 

However, as is the case with the Proposed Plan and all other alternatives, Alternative D proposes 

additional decisions that would also affect cultural resources within the PA. Table 4.39 

summarizes the impacts to cultural resources from resource management decisions under 

Alternative D, excluding special designations. Because special designations incorporate an array 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-53 

of individualized management actions, discussion of their impact on cultural resources follows 

the Table 4.39 summary. 

Table 4.39. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative D 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Cultural 

Resources 

Special management consideration would be given to 38,995 acres of land in highdensity site areas to protect important cultural resource values. Alternative D would 

designate similar, but slightly greater, acreage in high-density site areas for specific 

management consideration than Alternative A but only approximately one-third the 

acreage of the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and C. The Comb Ridge/Butler Wash, 

the Tank Bench, and Beef Basin areas would not be managed as CSMAs. Because 

fewer acres of high site-density areas are designated for special management of 

cultural resources, the opportunities for long-term benefits would be reduced, and the 

risk that cultural resource sites in these areas could be impacted would increase. This 

would pose the same potential risks to cultural resources as Alternative A. The McLoyd 

Canyon-Moon House would be managed under Alternative D, for the most part, the 

same way as under the Proposed Plan and Alternative C, which are also very similar to 

Alternative B. Consequently, potential impacts to cultural resources under Alternative D 

are similar to those described for the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and C. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial because 

restrictions would be applied under this alternative to protect the site that would not be 

applied under Alternative A. 

The impact to historic trails would be the same as that of the Proposed Plan and 

Alternative C. 

Potential recreation impacts on cultural resources under Alternative D would be similar 

to those discussed with the Proposed Plan and Alternative C because similar limits are 

imposed on commercial group size in high site-density areas; however, Alternative D 

would allow four additional persons per private group. This larger group size would 

slightly increase the risk of potential impacts to cultural sites. The larger number of 

visitors per day to McLoyd Canyon-Moon House under Alternative D would intensify the 

potential impacts on the ruin and surrounding sites because of the "wear and tear" that 

comes with more foot traffic. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more 

beneficial for the site for reasons discussed previously. 

Livestock 

Grazing 

The 137,440 acres currently unavailable to grazing would be maintained, and additional 

acreage would be unavailable to grazing in at least 9 known high site-density areas. 

Outside of these areas, grazing would be permitted on 1,636,844 acres of land within 

the PA. These lands are located in both high (887,971 acres) and medium (748,873 

acres) site-density areas. Cultural resource sites in these areas would be exposed to 

potential trampling by livestock as described under Alternative B. Alternative D would 

manage approximately 9,200 acres more than any other alternative as available to 

grazing. Approximately 140 less grazing acres would be located in high site-density 

areas under Alternative D than under Alternative A, but Alternative D would make 

approximately 5,295 more acres in high site-density areas available to grazing than 

would the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and C. Consequently, Alternative D would 

likely have greater potential adverse impacts on cultural resources than either the 

Proposed Plan or Alternatives B and C and roughly the same impacts as Alternative A. 

Alternative D would probably also have lower potential beneficial impacts to cultural 

resources than the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and C, where fewer known high 

site-density areas would be unavailable for grazing. Potential beneficial impacts under 

Alternative D would be comparable to those under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-54 

Table 4.39. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative D 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Minerals, Oil, 

and Gas 

Approximately 391 acres of land in high site-density and 330 acres in medium sitedensity areas would be impacted by varying levels of disturbance from mineral 

development during the next fifteen years. This surface area would be approximately 

0.05% of the total acres of high site-density and 0.05% of medium site-density lands 

available for mineral development under Alternative D. However, impacts to specific 

sites are not expected to be any greater under this alternative because the same level 

of identification of sites and avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of impacts prior to 

surface disturbance would be required. Alternative D could have a slightly greater 

impact on cultural landscapes in developed areas than Alternative B because the total 

number of acres subject to disturbance would be higher. Additionally, potential impacts 

to cultural landscapes under Alternative D would be greater than those anticipated for 

Alternative B, but slightly less than Alternative A because fewer acres would be 

potentially impacted. 

Minerals, 

Geophysical 

Temporary surface disturbance that is reclaimed within 10 years would be prescribed 

under Alternative D. All geophysical work would be subject to the BLM standard policy 

of resource identification and avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of adverse 

impacts. For this reason, impacts to cultural resources from geophysical activities under 

this alternative are expected to be minimal. Approximately 924 acres can potentially be 

disturbed during the next fifteen years. This consists of approximately 501 acres of high 

site-density and 423 acres of medium site-density lands and represents 0.05% of all 

estimated high site-density and 0.05% of all estimated medium site-density lands within 

the PA. Alternative D would produce surface disturbance in approximately 38 more 

acres (22 in high site-density and 16 in medium site-density areas) than Alternative A. It 

would also produce surface disturbance in 130 more acres (74 in high site-density and 

56 in medium site-density areas) than Alternative B and 21 more acres (12 in high sitedensity and 9 in medium site-density areas) than the Proposed Plan and Alternative C. 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be 

protected or managed to preserve their wilderness values. Surface disturbances, 

impacts to cultural resources, and the mitigation applied to reduce impacts would be the 

same as analyzed and discussed under each resource for Alternative D. 

Riparian 

Resources 

Impact to riparian resources under Alternative D would be the same as Alternative A. 

Special Status 

Species 

Limited, long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources would result in areas where 

spatial buffers are created. Alternative D would likely have a greater long-term 

beneficial impact on cultural resources than Alternative A, which designates no buffers, 

but less than the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and C, which have larger buffers. 

Travel Travel would be limited to designated routes, and more acres would be placed in this 

category under Alternative D than under any other alternative. However, fewer acres 

would be closed to OHV use under Alternative D than under the Proposed Plan and any 

other alternative. Alternative D would specify fewer acres open to unrestricted OHV use 

than Alternative A, more acres open than Alternative B, and the same number of acres 

open as the Proposed Plan and Alternative C. Alternative D would have slightly greater 

long-term beneficial impacts on cultural resources because travel would be restricted on 

more acreage to designated routes (985,043 acres in high site-density areas) than with 

Alternative A. There would also be fewer long-term adverse impacts to cultural 

resources than under Alternative A because the total acreage available for open OHV 

use (2,311 acres) would be less. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-55 

Table 4.39. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative D 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Visual 

Resources 

Approximately 237,057 acres of high site-density and 162,201 acres of medium sitedensity lands within the Monticello PA would be managed under VRM Class I or Class 

II objectives. This represents 24% of all high site-density and 20% of all medium sitedensity lands in the PA. Management of these lands, especially under VRM Class I 

conditions, would limit ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to impact 

cultural resources. The potentially adverse impacts of Alternative D decisions on 

cultural resources would be similar to, but less than, Alternative A because a smaller 

area would be protected under VRM Class I and Class II designations. 

Woodlands The impacts to cultural resources would be the same as under the Proposed Plan and 

Alternative C, except that fewer restrictions would be placed on OHV travel to gather 

and transport harvested wood. Consequently, potential adverse impacts under 

Alternative D would likely be less than with Alternative A, which would have fewer travel 

restrictions. 

Special-designations management decisions under Alternative D would have both direct and 

indirect long-term impacts on cultural resources within the Monticello PA. Under Alternative D, 

no ACECs would be designated nor would any Wild and Scenic River (WSR) segments be 

recommended as eligible for WSR status; however, existing WSAs would continue to be 

managed under the IMP, with stringent restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. As the same 

acres and management prescriptions would apply to WSAs across the Proposed Plan and all 

alternatives, the potential impacts on cultural resources within WSAs under Alternative D would 

be identical to those described previously for Alternatives A, B, and C. However, Alternative D 

would implement no other types of special designations with their associated limitations on 

surface-disturbing activities. Therefore, the beneficial impacts to cultural resources in special 

designation areas under Alternative D would be less than those anticipated for the Proposed Plan 

or any other proposed alternative. 

4.3.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Potential impacts to cultural resources under Alternative E would be identical to those described 

for Alternative B, except that this alternative would propose management decisions that would 

provide greater protection for cultural resources. Under Alternative E, 582,357 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to mineral leasing and disposal of 

mineral materials, managed under VRM Class I objectives, retained in federal ownership, and 

closed to firewood gathering, woodland harvesting and OHV use. These areas would also be 

excluded from rights-of-way (ROWs) permitting. It would also be recommended that these lands 

be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. These actions would reduce the potential for direct 

and indirect adverse impacts on cultural resources by eliminating surface-disturbing activities 

and motorized access into more remote, generally unmonitored areas that may contain such 

resources. Table 4.40 summarizes the impacts of Alternative E's resource-program decisions that 

differ from Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-56 

Table 4.40. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative E Where They Differ from 

Alternative B

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Minerals, Oil, and 

Gas 

Approximately 327 acres of land in high site-density and 192 acres in medium sitedensity areas would be impacted by varying degrees of disturbance over the next 

fifteen years. This amounts to approximately 0.03% of the total acres of high sitedensity and 0.02% of medium site-density lands available for mineral development 

under Alternative E. The precise number of sites involved in development cannot 

be predicted; however, impacts to specific sites are not expected to be any greater 

than under Alternative A because the same level of identification of sites and 

avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of impacts would be required. Alternative E 

could have slightly less impact on cultural landscapes in developed areas than 

Alternatives A and B because the total number of acres subject to disturbance is 

somewhat lower. Potential impacts to cultural landscapes under Alternative E 

would also be slightly less than those anticipated for the Proposed Plan and 

Alternatives C and D. The Monticello PA contains several locations and landscape 

features that have been deemed culturally and/or spiritually important to Native 

American tribes with cultural patrimony in the area. Most of these known areas, 

including Montezuma Canyon, the San Juan River, Comb Ridge, Mancos Jim 

Mesa, Spanish Mossback Mesa, and Allen Canyon, would be managed under a 

combination of NSO, CSU, and standard leasing stipulations. Applying NSO and 

CSU stipulations would reduce opportunities for surface-disturbing and other 

landscape-altering activities that could decrease the cultural, traditional, and/or 

spiritual values of these resources. 

Non-WSA lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

More restrictive, beneficial, management (e.g., no surface-disturbing activities, 

VRM Class I designation, no OHV use or ROW permitting) would be prescribed for 

cultural resources within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics; this is 

particularly notable for lands in the CRCSMA and BBCSMA. Non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics in these CSMAs would include Comb Ridge (13,760 

acres), Fish and Owl Creek Canyons (3,580 acres), Road Canyon (530 acres), the 

San Juan River (640 acres), Dark Canyon (13,280 acres), and Butler Wash (1,180 

acres). 

Travel Approximately 474,291 acres in high site-density areas would be closed to OHV 

use. This encompasses 48% of all estimated high site-density lands within the PA. 

Travel in an additional 513,062 acres (52%) in high site-density areas would be 

limited to designated routes. No areas within the Monticello PA would be open to 

unrestricted, cross-country OHV use. Alternative E would close more acres to OHV 

use than the Proposed Plan and any other alternative, and approximately 179 

miles of OHV routes would be closed in lands with non-WSA wilderness 

characteristics. Approximately one-third more areas would be restricted to limited 

use (through designated route restrictions) under Alternative E than under 

Alternative A. Alternative E would designate fewer acres for limited OHV use 

(through designated route restrictions) than would the Proposed Plan and 

Alternatives B, C, and D, though it would close more acres to OHV use than the 

Proposed Plan and Alternatives C and D. These travel decisions would have 

potential long-term beneficial impacts to cultural resource sites in high-density 

areas throughout the Monticello PA, and the beneficial impacts would likely be 

greater under Alternative E than the Proposed Plan or any other alternative 

because fewer sites away from designated routes could be impacted by direct and 

indirect OHV use. Long-term adverse impacts under Alternative E would be 

expected to be approximately the same as under Alternative B, which has similar 

acreage distributed among categories of closed and limited OHV use. Alternative E 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-57 

Table 4.40. Impacts to Cultural Resources under Alternative E Where They Differ from 

Alternative B

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

would produce fewer long-term adverse impacts than Alternatives A and D, which 

close substantially fewer acres to OHV use. 

Visual Resources Approximately 565,528 acres of high site-density and 544,314 acres of medium 

site-density lands within the Monticello PA would be managed under VRM Class I 

or Class II objectives. This represents 57% of all high site-density and 68% of all 

medium site-density lands in the PA. Managing these lands, especially for VRM 

Class I objectives, would limit ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to 

impact cultural resources. Therefore, cultural resources located on these lands 

would experience a long-term benefit. Alternative E would manage the most acres 

of land among the Proposed Plan and alternatives under VRM Class I or Class II 

designations, and would have more beneficial impacts on cultural resources than 

Alternative A because greater restrictions would be placed on surface disturbances 

within the PA. 

Woodlands Alternative E would open 241,712 acres of high site-density and 129,498 acres of 

medium site-density areas for woodland harvesting, with limited restrictions on 

OHV travel. This would encompass 24% of all estimated high site-density and 16% 

of all estimated medium site-density lands in the PA. Alternative E would likely 

have a lower potential for adverse impacts than the Proposed Plan and 

Alternatives B, C, and D because they would allow woodland harvesting on more 

land; non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be open to private 

or commercial woodland harvest. It should be noted, however, that the Proposed 

Plan and Alternatives C and D place greater restrictions on off-road travel to 

transport woodland products than does Alternative E. These travel restrictions 

would lower the potential risk of impacts to cultural resource sites. 

4.3.2.3.6. PROPOSED PLAN

Table 4.41 summarizes impacts to cultural resources from various BLM resource program 

decisions under the Proposed Plan, excluding special designations. Because special designations 

incorporate an array of individualized management decisions, discussion of their impact on 

cultural resources follows the Table 4.41 summary. 

Table 4.41. Impacts to Cultural Resources under the Proposed Plan 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Cultural 

Resources 

As discussed under Alternative B, approximately 98,348 acres of land in high-density 

site areas would be subject to special management consideration to protect important 

cultural resource values. Cultural-resource program decisions and impacts under the 

Proposed Plan would be the same as discussed under Alternative B. 

The potential impacts related to the management of the Old Spanish National Historic 

Trail would be identical to those described for Alternative B, except that additional 

protective consideration would be given to individual landmarks along the trail. 

Impacts due to recreational use of cultural resources would be the same as for 

Alternative B, except that there would be a negligible increase in adverse impacts 

because of larger commercial group sizes allowed in high site-density areas. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-58 

Table 4.41. Impacts to Cultural Resources under the Proposed Plan 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Livestock 

Grazing 

Potential adverse and beneficial impacts to cultural resources under the Proposed Plan 

would be the same as those described for Alternative B because the two alternatives 

would manage approximately the same areas open, unavailable, or restricted to 

livestock grazing. 

Minerals, Oil, 

And Gas 

Approximately 393 acres of land in high site-density and 299 acres in medium sitedensity areas would be subject to varying amounts of physical disturbance over the next 

20 years. These acreages equate to approximately 0.05% of the total acres of high sitedensity and 0.05% of medium site-density lands available for mineral development 

under the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan could have a slightly greater impact on 

cultural landscapes than Alternative B because the total number of acres subject to 

disturbance would be somewhat higher, but less than Alternative A. 

Minerals, 

Geophysical 

Impacts would be the same but slightly greater in intensity than those described under 

Alternative A because surface disturbance is estimated to be 903 acres over the next 

20 years. Approximately 513 acres of high site-density and 390 acres of medium sitedensity lands would be involved. This represents 0.05% of all estimated high sitedensity and 0.05% of all estimated medium-site density lands within the PA. The 

Proposed Plan would produce surface disturbance in approximately 17 more acres (34 

more in high site-density but 17 less in medium site-density areas) than Alternative A. 

Non-WSA 

lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

More restrictive, beneficial, management (e.g., no surface-disturbing activities, VRM 

Class II designation, OHV use limited to designated trails, or ROW avoidance areas) 

would be prescribed for five areas of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Of 

the 88,871 acres where wilderness characteristics are being managed approximately 

12,808 acres of high site-density lands. 

Riparian 

Resources 

The impacts are identical to those discussed for Alternative B. 

Special status 

Species 

Limited, long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources would be expected in areas 

where spatial buffers against surface disturbance around habitats are created. The 

Proposed Plan is expected to have similar long-term beneficial impact on cultural 

resources than Alternatives B and C because of the similar buffer areas and restrictions 

within them. 

Travel The impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A, except the 

long-term beneficial impacts would increase because of closed areas (234,604 acres 

[24%] in high site-density areas) and designated routes (an additional 752,651 acres 

[76%] in high site-density areas). The long-term adverse impacts within designated 

open OHV areas would be reduced to zero acres. 

Visual 

Resources 

Approximately 351,283 acres of high site-density and 299,745 acres of medium sitedensity lands within the Monticello PA would be managed for VRM Class I or II 

conditions. This represents 36% of all high site-density and 38% of all medium sitedensity lands in the PA. The beneficial impacts of the Proposed Plan on cultural 

resources would be similar but less than with Alternative A because fewer acres would 

be protected under VRM Class I and Class II designations. 

Woodlands Under the Proposed Plan, 507,753 acres of high cultural-resource site-density and 

333,708 acres of medium site-density areas would be available for woodcutting. This 

represents 51% of all estimated high site-density and 42% of all estimated medium sitedensity lands within the PA. Off-road travel to gather woodland products would be 

permitted across a portion of the open areas. Cultural-resource inventories would be 

required before woodland products could be harvested on lands within the North Comb 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-59 

Table 4.41. Impacts to Cultural Resources under the Proposed Plan 

Resource 

Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

(Comb Ridge) area north of Highway 95, Cedar Mesa (outside of the WSA), and the 

Montezuma watershed. Potential impacts to cultural resources from woodlands 

management decisions under the Proposed Plan would probably be lower than those 

anticipated for Alternative A because the Proposed Plan imposes greater travel 

restrictions and requirements for cultural-resource inventories. 

Special-designations management decisions under the Proposed Plan would have both direct and 

indirect long-term impacts on cultural resources within the Monticello PA. As noted under 

Alternative A, WSAs account for 386,027 acres of land within the PA and overlap with other 

special designations (e.g., ACECs) to a great extent (see Map 90). WSAs are managed under the 

IMP, which implements stringent restrictions on surface-disturbing activities (see the discussion 

for special designations in Section 4.3.14. A total of 230,969 acres in WSAs are lands classified 

with high cultural resource site density. Another 153,926 acres are classified with medium site 

density. The same acres and management prescriptions would apply to WSAs across all the 

Proposed Plan and all alternatives. Consequently, the potential impacts on cultural resources in 

WSAs within special designation areas under the Proposed Plan would be identical to those 

described previously for Alternatives A and B. 

Six of the seven ACECs that would be managed under the Proposed Plan include approximately 

61,077 acres of lands with high cultural resource site density. This represents approximately 6% 

of all estimated high site-density lands within the PA. Within these special designation areas, 

management actions include a range of prescriptions that would benefit cultural resources by 

affording them direct and indirect protection from adverse impacts. These decisions include 

implementing NSO leasing stipulations for mineral development on approximately 8,698 acres, 

closing areas to mineral development on 18,234 acres, managing approximately 22,345 acres 

under VRM Class I objectives (with strict limitations on surface disturbance), eliminating OHV 

travel on approximately 1,200 acres, and prohibiting mineral disposal on 23,123 acres of high 

site-density lands. Table 4.42 lists the special designation areas where these decisions apply and 

the acreage of high site-density lands they contain. 

Table 4.42. Acres of High Site-Density Lands in Special Designation Areas with Decisions 

Affecting Cultural Resources, Proposed Plan 

Special 

Designation 

(All ACECs) 

NSO for 

Mineral 

Development 

Closed to 

Mineral 

Development

Closed to 

Mineral 

Disposal 

Closed to 

Geophysical 

Work 

VRM Class I 

Designation 

Closed to 

OHV Use 

Alkali Ridge1 1,991 0 1,991 0 0 0

Hovenweep 880 0 880 0 0 0

Indian Creek 3,904 0 3,904 0 3,904 0

Lavender Mesa 632 0 632 0 0 632 

San Juan River 2,139 0 2,139 0 615 567 

Valley of the Gods <1 17,833 17,833 0 17,825 <1 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-60 

Table 4.42. Acres of High Site-Density Lands in Special Designation Areas with Decisions 

Affecting Cultural Resources, Proposed Plan 

Special 

Designation 

(All ACECs) 

NSO for 

Mineral 

Development 

Closed to 

Mineral 

Development

Closed to 

Mineral 

Disposal 

Closed to 

Geophysical 

Work 

VRM Class I 

Designation 

Closed to 

OHV Use 

Total 9,546 17,833 27,379 0 22,344 1,199 

1Includes the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (2,146 acres)

If a special designation area (ACEC or Wild and Scenic River) is not listed in the table, either the 

decisions do not apply to it, or no estimated acres of high site-density lands occur within it. The 

restrictions noted in the table reduce opportunities for surface-disturbing activities to impact 

cultural resource sites. 

The Proposed Plan provides for approximately twice as many acres covered by NSO leasing 

stipulations in high site-density special designation areas as Alternative A but approximately 8 

times fewer acres than Alternative B. The Proposed Plan would manage approximately 10 times 

as many high site-density lands under VRM Class I objectives than would Alternative A but 

approximately 3 times less than Alternative B. The Proposed Plan would close approximately 5 

times fewer acres of land in high site-density areas to OHV travel than Alternatives A and B. The 

Proposed Plan would close approximately 7 times more land in high site-density areas to mineral 

disposal and geophysical work than Alternative A but approximately 3 times less than 

Alternative B. In all cases, The Proposed Plan would provide greater benefits to cultural 

resources in special designation areas than would Alternative D, which implements no special 

designation regulations. 

Surface-disturbing activities would still be allowed, but in general, regulations would limit the 

level of actual disturbance (e.g., CSU stipulations for mineral development and requirements for 

non-mechanized vegetation treatments). Many of these areas would also be managed under 

VRM Class II objectives, which, while less restrictive than VRM Class II objectives, would still 

provide protection to cultural resources by limiting surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.2.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

In general, impacts to cultural resources would be long-term, with short-term impacts typically 

being indirect and temporary, such as visual or auditory intrusions on traditional cultural sites or 

sacred properties. As the majority of management decisions proposed under the PRMP/FEIS 

would be for the long term, impacts to cultural resources from program decisions are considered 

to be long-term. 

The Proposed Plan and all alternatives considered in this EIS have the potential to impact 

cultural resources within the Monticello PA. The risk of or potential for impact varies depending 

on the type of management decisions that the Proposed Plan or any given alternative would 

implement. The Proposed Plan and all alternatives would comply with applicable laws, such as 

the NHPA, and internal BLM policy. These laws and policies require the BLM to consider 

cultural resources when implementing management decisions; consider ways to avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate adverse impacts to important cultural resources; and consult with interested parties, 

including federally recognized Native American tribes. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-61 

In general, Alternative E provides the most potential beneficial impact to cultural resources 

within the Monticello PA among the Proposed Plan and all alternatives. This is because 

Alternative E would enact greater restrictions than the Proposed Plan or any other alternative on 

surface-disturbing activities such as mineral development, recreational use, and OHV travel and 

would include more special designation areas and non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics with their proposed management restrictions on surface disturbance and OHV 

travel and managing areas under VRM Class I and II objectives. These management decisions 

would reduce the opportunities for adverse impacts to cultural resources. Alternatives B and E 

would focus on proactive management of cultural resources by developing integrated 

cultural/recreational management plans. Based upon these same decisions, the Proposed Plan and 

Alternative C would provide the next greatest benefit to cultural resources, followed by 

Alternative A. Alternative D would provide the least amount of benefit to cultural resources in 

the Monticello PA among the Proposed Plan and all the alternatives. 

4.3.2.5. MITIGATION MEASURES

All decisions and actions described under the Proposed Plan and all the alternatives for the 

Monticello PA RMP must also comply with cultural resource laws, such as Section 106 of the 

NHPA, as well as internal agency guidelines. These laws and guidelines require consideration of 

alternatives to eliminate, reduce, and/or mitigate adverse impacts to cultural resources. Although 

the preferred treatment of important cultural resources within an area is complete avoidance, this 

is not always possible. Consequently, mitigation of impacts is an important alternative. While 

avoidance helps to preserve the physical archaeological record within an area, mitigation could 

result in the gradual elimination of the physical archaeological record and its conversion into a 

paper or archival record. Because mitigation of adverse impacts to a cultural resource must be 

specific to that resource—designating the values that render it eligible for the NRHP or 

important to a particular culture group, such as a Native American tribe—as well as to the nature 

of the impact, appropriate mitigation cannot be defined at this programmatic level of analysis. 

Should specific adverse impacts to individual cultural resources be identified during the sitespecific NEPA and project-specific Section 106 processes, the BLM would develop and 

implement a mitigation plan in consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) Native American tribes, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other 

interested parties, as appropriate. 

4.3.2.6. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Because the location and nature of all cultural resources in the area under consideration are 

unknown, it is not possible to determine if there would be unavoidable adverse impacts to 

cultural resources and/or what they might be at this time. There is some potential for unavoidable 

adverse impacts with nearly any proposed management decision. However, following applicable 

law and policy would provide opportunities for prevention and/or mitigation of many of these 

impacts. 

4.3.2.7. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Because the location and nature of all cultural resources in the area under consideration are 

unknown, it is not possible to determine if there would be changes in short-term uses or longterm productivity of these resources. However, it should be noted that adherence to applicable 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-62 

law and policy would prevent any loss in the long-term productivity of this resource due to 

previously described short-term use. 

4.3.2.8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Because the location and nature of all cultural resources in the area under consideration are 

unknown, it is not possible to determine if there would be irreversible and/or irretrievable 

impacts to cultural resources and/or what they might be. Most of the proposed management 

decisions include the potential for impact. However, following applicable law and policy would 

prevent and/or mitigate many potential impacts. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-63 

4.3.3. FIRE MANAGEMENT

Impacts to the fire management program within the Monticello PA would result from both fire 

and non-fire management decisions. The impacts would vary by alternative, depending on 

specific program prescriptions that could either directly or indirectly reduce or contribute to fuels 

loading or increase or decrease the risks of wildland fire. 

4.3.3.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.3.3.1.1. IMPACTS OF AIR QUALITY DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, prescribed burns would be consistent with the Utah 

Division of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) permitting process and timed in conjunction with 

meteorological conditions so as to minimize smoke impacts. In addition, the BLM would comply 

with the current Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) between BLM, USFS, 

and UDAQ. The MOU, in accordance with UAC regulation R301-204, requires reporting size, 

date of burn, fuel type, and estimated air emissions from each prescribed burn. Additional 

restrictions on prescribed burns and Wildland Fire Use (WFU) treatments during certain 

conditions or near Visual Resource Management, Class I areas would also apply. All of these 

restrictions could impact the size and/or timing of fire management activities such as managed 

wildland fire and prescribed burns. However, these limitations would not substantially reduce the 

effectiveness of long-term fire management. 

4.3.3.1.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

The management decisions common to the Proposed Plan and all alternatives that impact fire 

management would consist of 1) establishing fire management priorities; 2) establishing fire 

suppression objectives; 3) using wildland fire for improving natural resources or accomplishing 

specific resource objectives; 4) reducing fuel loading; 5) preventing and mitigating wildland fire 

within the Monticello PA, and applying emergency stabilization and rehabilitation treatments to 

areas to protect human property and/or important natural and cultural resources. 

The impacts of these decisions would directly and beneficially impact human safety and in the 

short-term and long-term by making the protection of human health, safety, and property (in 

wildland urban interfaces [WUIs] and at-risk communities) the highest priority of fire 

management, fire suppression, fire use for resource benefit, emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation, and wildland fire prevention. Common fire management decisions would have 

long-term, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts on ecosystem health and watersheds by setting 

a high priority on the use of wildland fire (through prescribed burning), fire suppression, and 

emergency stabilization and rehabilitation to protect, maintain, and enhance native vegetation 

communities, to protect watersheds from soil erosion, and to protect land and aquatic habitat of 

listed and non-listed species. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, 5,000 to 10,000 acres of the Monticello PA would 

be treated annually across the planning area, depending on budgetary and time constraints. The 

majority of these treatments would likely be concentrated in the pinyon-juniper vegetation type, 

including historical sagebrush/grassland that has been encroached upon by pinyon-juniper (BLM 

2005k). Approximately 92% of this vegetation type is in fire regime/condition class (FRCC) 3, 

which indicates that it suffers high departure (>66% variation) from historical fire return interval 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-64 

and/or vegetation condition/fuel loading. The main reasons the majority of the pinyon-juniper in 

the planning area falls within this FRCC are 1) loss of native understory of pinyon-juniper 

stands; 2) cheatgrass invasion of disturbed pinyon-juniper stands; and 3) fuel loading in 

uncharacteristically thick pinyon-juniper stands (BLM 2005k). The Moab Fire District Fire 

Management Plan has a long-term goal to treat up to approximately 41,000 acres of pinyonjuniper vegetation in the Monticello PA with prescribed fire (14,600 acres) and non-fire 

treatments (26,400 acres) over the next 10-year period. These treatments would take place in five 

Fire Management Units (FMUs) throughout the planning area. These treatment acreages are only 

approximate long-term goals, but are the best available estimates for the purposes of analysis. 

Fuels treatments for the Monticello PA would have additional long-term, beneficial impacts on 

vegetation communities by improving historic fire regimes to encourage native vegetation 

establishment and to control non-native, invasive species that could otherwise displace native 

vegetation. The fire management decisions common to the Proposed Plan and all alternatives 

would directly protect known, sensitive, and valuable cultural resources and cultural landscapes 

by setting priorities to prevent damage to these irreplaceable resources from wildland fire. 

If the Moab Fire District is able to successfully implement fuels treatments over a maximum 

number of desired acres in a given year, a general transition toward improved FRCC and DWFC 

in the Monticello FO could eventually be realized. Landscape-level fuel treatments require a 

long-term commitment of resources to implement, monitor, and maintain; implementation can 

depend on a myriad of factors such as climate, funding, threats or infestation from invasive 

species, and other variables; and, acreage goals can be altered or transformed by unexpected 

factors such as catastrophic wildland fire, drought, or changes in habitat for T&E species. In 

consideration of these many aspects, improved FRCC and DWFC as well as other management 

goals and objectives may take generations for actual accomplishments to be realized. 

4.3.3.1.3. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, minimum impact criteria for filming would limit 

the use of pyrotechnics and explosives, as well the numbers of people and vehicles in sensitive 

areas. This would provide a slight decrease in the risk of inadvertent fire starts from human 

causes. 

4.3.3.2. PROPOSED PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

Impacts to fire condition may be indirect, negligible, or non-existent, depending on the resource 

management decision. Specifically, resource program decisions for health and safety, livestock 

grazing, paleontology, soils and water resources, special status species, are expected to have little 

or no direct or indirect impact on fire condition within the Monticello PA. Decisions for these 

resources do not preclude surface-disturbing activities. As such, they will not be considered 

further in this analysis. All other Proposed Plan and alternative decisions with the potential to 

impact cultural resources either beneficially or adversely are discussed below. 

4.3.3.2.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

The majority of cultural resource decisions affecting fire management are associated with 

restrictions in cultural emphasis zones within SRMAs. Restrictions on vegetation treatments and 

woodland harvest can lead to fuel loading, particularly in pinyon-juniper and conifer vegetation 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-65 

types, thereby resulting in increased risk of large catastrophic fires. Table 4.43 below 

summarizes these proposed restrictions under the Proposed Plan and each alternative. 

Table 4.43. Acreage of CSMA Restrictions on Fire Management and Fuels Treatment 

(acres) 

Restriction Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Proposed 

Plan 

No Surface-disturbing 

Vegetation Treatments (in 

pinyon-juniper) 

26,902 46,042 0 0 46,042 0

No Woodland Harvest 

(in pinyon-juniper and conifer 

veg types) 

26,915 79,163 45,703 44,139 79,163 0

 

4.3.3.2.1.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, Grand Gulch National Historic District, consisting of 37,433 acres, would 

be subject to conditional fire suppression with motorized suppression methods used only if 

necessary to protect life or property. The Comb Ridge, McLoyd Canyon-Moon House Tank 

Bench , and Beef Basin CSMAs , are not identified as CSMAs in the current management plan 

and would be available for fuels treatment and fuels management activities as outlined in the 

Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (BLM 2005k). To reduce hazards and to restore 

ecosystems, authorized fuels management actions include wildland fire use, prescribed burns, 

and mechanical, manual, chemical, biological, and seeding treatments. Fuels treatments are 

focused on the desired wildland fire condition (DWFC) of restoring historic fire regimes to 

ecosystems when feasible, so that future wildland fire use actions can be more easily 

implemented. It should be noted that the Moab Fire District's revised FMP would confine 

virtually all (approximately 99.5%) of the proposed fire management-related vegetation 

treatments to the pinyon-juniper vegetation type (BLM 2005k). Accordingly, this alternative 

would contribute to returning approximately 36,344 acres of pinyon-juniper in these CSMAs to 

DWFC, but would prevent the opportunity for fire management-associated vegetation treatments 

on approximately 26,902 acres of pinyon-juniper (see Table 4.43). Woodland harvest (private 

and commercial) would not be allowed on 26,915 acres of pinyon-juniper and conifer vegetation 

types, which could lead to fuel loading, thereby resulting in increased risk of large catastrophic 

fires, unless other treatments were used. 

4.3.3.2.1.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the Comb Ridge (30,752 acres) and the Tank Bench (2,646 acres) CSMAs 

are available for non-surface-disturbing vegetation treatments, and the Beef Basin CSMA 

(20,302 acres) is available for any type of vegetation treatment. The Grand Gulch National 

Historic District (37,388 acres) is excluded from vegetation treatments, except non-motorized 

weed control with no surface disturbance, and the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA (1,607 

acres) has no restrictions impacting decisions on fire management. Accordingly, a full array of 

fuels treatments would be available to contribute to returning 17,204 acres of pinyon-juniper to 

DWFC. This represents far less acreage available for all fire management options than 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-66 

Alternative A. Additionally it would restrict surface-disturbing fire management treatments on 

approximately 46,042 acres of pinyon-juniper, although a total of 19,140 acres of that pinyonjuniper acreage would be available for non-surface-disturbing fire management. This would 

provide some assistance in moving these vegetation types towards DWFC; however, it would not 

be as effective as the management actions under Alternative A, which allow both surface and 

non-surface-disturbing treatments in these areas. Woodland harvest (private and commercial) 

would not be allowed on 79,163 acres, although in some cases, collection of dead wood for 

campsites would be allowed. This represents almost a threefold increase over the harvesting 

restrictions under Alternative A (see Table 4.43). Accordingly, the long-term impacts of 

wildland fires would be higher under this alternative than under Alternative A. 

4.3.3.2.1.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the Beef Basin (20,302 acres) and the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House 

(1,607 acres) CSMAs would be managed the same as under Alternative B. The Tank Bench 

CSMA (2,646 acres) would also be managed the same as under Alternative B except vegetation 

treatments and surface-disturbing land treatments consistent with PRMP/FEIS management 

objectives would be allowed. .Under Alternative C, the Comb Ridge CSMA (30,752 acres) 

would be available for vegetation treatments and surface-disturbing land treatments that are 

consistent with management plan objectives. In the Grand Gulch National Historic District 

(37,388 acres), non-motorized vegetation treatments, including aerial seeding, hand reseeding, 

planting seedlings, and control of invasive non-native species are allowed as long as they do not 

impact cultural resources and are consistent with the IMP. This would represent the same types 

and amounts of vegetation for all fire management options as described under Alternative A, 

plus an additional 26,902 acres of pinyon-juniper to be available for treatment with the nonmotorized treatments described above. Based on the allowable treatment (approximately 60% 

more of the area available for treatment than under Alternative A), this alternative would likely 

allow more opportunities than Alternative A to move these vegetation types to DWFC, with 

subsequent reductions in long-term fire impacts. 

Woodland harvest (private and commercial) would not be allowed on 45,703 acres, although in 

some cases, collection of dead wood for campsites would be allowed. This is approximately 

160% more restriction than under Alternative A, which could lead to fuel loading, unless other 

treatments were used (see Table 4.43). 

4.3.3.2.1.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the Tank Bench would not be managed as a CSMA; it would be managed 

the same as adjacent areas with no restrictions on fire management. Comb Ridge and Beef Basin 

would not be managed as CSMAs, but otherwise they would be managed the same as under 

Alternative C. The McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA (1,607 acres) and the Grand Gulch 

National Historic District (37,388 acres) would be managed the same as under Alternative C. 

Woodland harvest (private and commercial) would not be allowed on 44,139 acres, although in 

some cases, collection of dead wood for campsites would be allowed (see Table 4.43). 

This alternative would have virtually identical impacts on DWFC and long-term fire impacts as 

Alternative C. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-67 

4.3.3.2.1.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of cultural resources decisions on fire management would be 

same as under Alternative B. 

4.3.3.2.1.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, all CSMAs will be managed as SRMAs or as recreation management 

zones within designated SRMAs and the Grand Gulch National Historic District would be 

managed as a recreation management zone within the Cedar Mesa SRMA. Impacts of recreation 

decisions on fire management are discussed in Section 4.3.3.2.4. 

4.3.3.2.2. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Minerals decisions impacting fire management are largely associated with potential increased 

risk of human-caused fires because of mineral development. These impacts are best compared by 

showing relative difference in acreage of lands open for surface-disturbing minerals development 

for the Proposed Plan and each alternative (Table 4.44). 

Table 4.44. Acreage of Planning Area Lands Open and Closed to Surface-disturbing 

Mineral Development (% of Planning Area) 

Development Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Leasable 

Open 

(Standard or 

Special 

Stipulations) 

1,238,230 

(69%) 

1,241,910 

(70%)

1,348,973 

(76%)

1,383,283 

(78%)

758,931 

(42%) 

1,224,811

(69%)

Closed 

(NSO/ Closed) 

546,540 

(31%) 

541,717 

(30%)

434,652 

(24%)

401,028 

(22%)

1,028,378 

(58%) 

559,508

(31%)

Locatable 

Open 1,652,743 

(93%) 

1,533,413 

(86%)

1,663,211 

(93%)

1,738,992 

(97%)

951,053 

(53%) 

1,734,458

(97%)

 

Withdrawn 132,380 

(7%) 

251,710 

(14%)

121,912 

(7%)

46,131 

(3%)

834,070 

(47%) 

50,665

(3%)

Salable 

Open/Open 

Special 

Conditions 

1,405,340 

(79%) 

1,241,904 

(70%)

1,348,968 

(76%)

1,383,277 

(78%)

758,931 

(43%) 

1,348,968 

(76%)

In general, Alternative E has the least amount of land available for surface-disturbing mineral 

extraction, followed by the Proposed Plan and Alternatives A, B, C, and D respectively. 

However, the Proposed Plan and the alternatives are very similar in the amount of area they 

make available for mineral development. Additionally, it should be noted that the actual amount 

of development predicted over the next 15 years is relatively low; therefore, mineral 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-68 

development activities would likely have a relatively low impact on fire management and fire 

risk in comparison to other human activities such as recreational visitation. 

Minerals management decisions under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives would potentially 

impact fire management through the creation of additional WUI areas, which could increase the 

likelihood for fire suppression to protect minerals infrastructure and improvements in the event 

of wildland fire. However, the potential for wildland fire in minerals development areas would 

be low because of fire-related mitigation applied during minerals development; thus, the impacts 

would be negligible. 

4.3.3.2.3. IMPACT OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

FIRE MANAGEMENT

4.3.3.2.3.1. Alternatives A, B, C and D 

Under Alternatives A, B, C and D, lands with wilderness characteristics would be not managed 

to maintain these characteristics and fuels treatment response activities not would need to be 

compatible with the goals and objectives of protecting non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics 

4.3.3.2.3.2. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, a total of 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed to maintain their these characteristics. These areas would be closed to OHV 

use, which would reduce the risk of human-caused fire starts and virtually eliminate the risk of 

fire starts from motorized vehicles. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would also 

be closed to mineral leasing and disposals and would prohibit new road construction or ROWs, 

which would also reduce the risk of human-caused fire starts associated with these activities and 

associated workers. However, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would also be 

closed to woodland harvest, which would potentially increase fuel loading unless other 

vegetation treatments were used in its place. Fire and fuels treatment response activities would 

need to be compatible with the goals and objectives of protecting non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and would use light on the land techniques. This could restrict the 

method and equipment type used and fire operations within these lands. Compared to 

Alternatives A, B, C and D, Alternative E would reduce the risk of human-caused fire starts, but 

could potentially increase fuel loading in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.3.2.3.3. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, a total of 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed to 

maintain their wilderness characteristics. These areas would be limited to designated routes and 

trails, which would reduce the risk of human-caused fire starts and lower eliminate the risk of 

fire starts from motorized vehicles. Grand Gulch, Mancos Mesa, and Nokai Dome West and 

Nokai Dome East would be closed to leasing and be exclusion areas for ROWs; Dark Canyon 

would be NSO and an avoidance area for ROWs. These actions would reduce the risk of humancaused fire starts associated with these activities and associated workers. Although campfire 

wood collection would be permitted, lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to 

commercial and personal woodland harvest, which would potentially increase fuel loading unless 

other vegetation treatments were used in its place. Fire and fuels treatment response activities 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-69 

would need to be compatible with the goals and objectives of protecting non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and would use light on the land techniques. This could restrict the 

method, equipment type, and fire operations within the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Compared to Alternatives A, B, C, and D, the Proposed Plan would reduce the 

risk of human-caused fire starts, but to a lesser degree than under Alternative E, but could 

potentially increase fuel loading in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.3.2.4. IMPACT OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Recreation decisions impacting fire management include development of recreation areas, which 

could limit wildland fire use; restrictions on woodland harvest, which could increase fuel loading 

and thus fire risk; campfires and dispersed camping, which could increase risk of human-caused 

wildland fire starts; and issuance of special recreation permits, which could provide additional 

opportunities to educate visitors on wildfire prevention. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, new sites/facilities would be developed in response 

to user demands, amenity value and critical resource protection needs. Developing and 

maintaining campgrounds, trails, routes, and other recreation infrastructure would increase the 

number of WUI areas, which would require increased fire suppression and would reduce the 

number of acres available for wildland fire use. Additionally developed recreation areas would 

be unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products, including on-site 

collection of dead wood for campfires. This could increase fuel loading unless other vegetation 

treatments were used to reduce fuel loading. 

There would be indirect, potentially adverse impacts on fire management from the increased 

risks of human-caused wildland fire from increased recreational and campfire use and 

restrictions on woodland harvesting. Table 2.45 provides a summary of fuels removal restrictions 

and SRP limits. Dispersed camping and campfire restrictions are outlined by SRMA in Table 

2.1, Summary of Alternatives. 

In general, Alternative A has the fewest restrictions on campfires and dispersed camping, and as 

shown in Table 2.45, provides fewer opportunities for fire prevention education via SRPs, 

actions which could reduce risk of wildland fire starts. However, Alternative A also places no 

restrictions on commercial and private collection of woodland products, which would help to 

reduce fuel loading in SRMAs (Table 4.45). 

Table 4.45. Recreation Restrictions Impacting Fire Management 

 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Proposed 

Plan 

No 

Woodland 

Harvest* 

(acres) 

0 495,830 120,091 120,091 495,830 159,086

SRP 

motorized 

vehicles 

OHVs limits 

0 15 

motorized 

vehicles/

OHVs 

25 

motorized 

vehicles/

OHVs 

0 15 

motorized 

vehicles/ 

OHVs 

25 

motorized 

vehicles/

OHVs

 *Acreage overlaps with woodland harvest restrictions in Table 4.43. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-70 

Of the action alternatives, Alternatives C and D generally has the fewest dispersed camping and 

campfire restrictions and SRP educational opportunities, but slightly more woodland collection 

restrictions, which could increase fuel loading and fire risk as compared Alternative A. 

Alternatives B and E provide the most restrictions concerning dispersed camping and campfires, 

and provide more opportunities for educational through issuance of SRPs; however, more 

restriction on woodland gathering could increase fuel risk unless other vegetation treatments 

were used to reduce fuel loading. The Proposed Plan has more restrictions on woodland 

gathering than Alternatives A, C and D, but fewer than Alternatives B and E. The Proposed Plan 

also offers more opportunities for education through issuance of SRPs than Alternatives A and 

D. 

Other recreation decisions impacting fire management include designation of the ERMA. Within 

the ERMA, there are no campfire restrictions. Management decisions for managing the ERMA 

are not specified under Alternative A. Alternative A therefore have the highest risk of humancaused wildland fire starts due to campfires/dispersed camping, followed by Alternative D, 

which would allow dispersed camping within 300 feet of designated routes. Alternatives B and E 

would have the lowest risk, allowing dispersed camping only in previously disturbed areas. 

Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would allow dispersed camping within 150 feet of 

designated routes. 

4.3.3.2.5. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Special designations affect fire management, and consequently DWFC and long-term fire risk, 

by restricting vegetation treatments or restricting woodland harvest. Restricting vegetation 

treatments prevents managers from decreasing fuel loading and moving fire return interval and 

vegetation composition to levels closer to historic conditions. Restricting woodland harvest 

reduces the amount of fuels removed from an area, and thus increases fuel loading in the conifer 

and pinyon-juniper vegetation types where harvest most commonly occurs. Woodland harvest 

acts as a de facto vegetation treatment; therefore, its prohibition increases the risk of large or 

catastrophic fires if other treatments are not utilized in its place. Special designations vary across 

the Proposed Plan and alternatives based on size of area and type of restriction. This analysis will 

determine the acres of these types of restrictions due to special designations and the impacts of 

those acres on fire management goals and long-term fire risk. It should be noted that some of the 

proposed special designated areas include prohibitions on OHV use. The overall impacts of OHV 

restrictions are discussed in Section 4.3.10.4.17, Travel Decisions on Recreation. 

Special designations in the Monticello PA include ACECs, WSRs, and WSAs. Proposed 

management prescriptions for WSRs have negligible impact on fire management as they do not 

restrict vegetation management or woodland harvest more than other management decisions. 

Additionally, fewer than 10 acres of fire management treatments are planned within riparian 

vegetation types in the Monticello PA under the Moab FMP; therefore, proposed WSRs are 

unlikely to affect or be affected by potential fire management actions. Accordingly, WSR 

impacts on fire management are not analyzed further. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, a total of 386,027 acres are WSAs. These acreages 

would be closed to woodland harvest and surface-disturbing vegetation treatments. Accordingly, 

this acreage (approximately 22% of the planning area) would have limited means to proactively 

reduce fuel loading or to move vegetation types to DWFC. However, over the long-term, some 

vegetation treatments may be allowed if they are non-impairing. These would include reseeding 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-71 

with native species after a fire or pruning. However, stand conversion activities such as 

mechanical removal of pinyon-juniper encroachment or Douglas fir encroachment on aspen 

would not be permitted (H-8550-1 - Interim Management Policy For Lands Under Wilderness 

Review). Fire suppression would be permitted with the understanding that it be conducted with a 

minimum amount of mechanical and/or motorized resources. 

ACECs have various management decisions by alternative for vegetation treatments. Overall, 

designation of potential ACECs and the subsequent restrictions on these areas would have the 

greatest impact on fire management activities in the planning area. All ACECs are considered 

under Alternatives B and E, no ACECs are considered under Alternative D. See Section 4.3.14, 

Special Designations, for a list of proposed ACECs by alternative. Table 4.46 below summarizes 

the restrictions of fire and fuels treatments and woodland harvest in ACECs in the planning area. 

Table 4.46. Acreage of ACEC Restrictions on Fire Management and Fuels Treatment 

(acres) 

Restriction Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

No Surface-disturbing 

Vegetation Treatments1

(in pinyon-juniper and 

conifer/mountain shrub) 

7,099 59,079 608 0 59,079 768 

No Woodland Harvest2

(in pinyon-juniper and 

conifer/mountain) 

114,461 353,858 49,998 47,285 353,858 107,507 

1

Acreage overlaps with woodland harvest restrictions in Table 4.43 and includes areas not managed as ACECs but with woodland 

harvest restrictions. 

2

 All or portions of Bridger Jack Mesa, Butler Wash North, Cedar Mesa, Dark Canyon, Indian Creek, and Lockhart Basin potential 

ACECs are also contained within WSAs. WSAs are managed under the IMP and would prohibit surface-disturbing vegetation 

treatments under all Alternatives. Acreage not closed to surface-disturbing treatments under potential ACEC designation is not 

included in this table. 

4.3.3.2.5.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, a total of 492,077 acres of land would be designated as ACECs. These 

ACECs are shown in Table 4.133. Restrictions on vegetation treatments and woodland harvest 

within these ACECs could impact fire management. Under this alternative, a total of 7,099 acres 

of pinyon-juniper and conifer/mountain shrub land within these ACECs would not allow surfacedisturbing vegetation treatments. This represents approximately 0.4% of the public lands in the 

Monticello FO that would have limited means to decrease fuel loading or to move vegetation 

types to DWFC. Additionally, a total of 137,275 acres of existing pinyon-juniper and 

conifer/mountain shrub (approximately 8% of the FO) would be restricted from either private or 

commercial woodland harvest. Although woodland harvest is not specifically targeted as a fire 

management activity, it does provide opportunities to thin dead wood from pinyon-juniper and 

conifer vegetation types. Thus, woodland harvest acts as a de facto vegetation treatment, and its 

prohibition increases the risk of large or catastrophic fires if other treatments are not utilized in 

its place. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-72 

4.3.3.2.5.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B would carry forward the existing ACECs from Alternative A; however, some of 

them would be of different size or have different restrictions. A total of 521,142 acres of lands 

would be designated as ACECs under this alternative. Of these lands, a total of 59,079 acres of 

pinyon-juniper and conifer/mountain shrub (3.0% of the planning area) would be restricted from 

surface-disturbing vegetation treatments. This would provide significantly less opportunities to 

decrease fuel loading and move vegetation towards DWFC as compared to Alternative A. This 

alternative would also prohibit private or commercial woodland harvest on 353,858 acres of 

pinyon-juniper and conifer/mountain shrub vegetation in ACEC lands (approximately 20% of the 

planning area). This would result in much more acreage of these vegetation types likely to 

experience fuel loading or that would require active vegetation treatments to reduce fuel loading 

than under Alternative A. 

Access to designated campsites was correlated with reduced human-caused fire ignitions in the 

Moab Fire District from 1999 to the present time in spite of increased levels of visitation (BLM 

2005k). Under this alternative, a total 306,861 acres would include restrictions on dispersed 

camping, which would continue to slightly lower the risk of human-caused fire ignitions in the 

Cedar Mesa and Shay Canyon ACECs. 

4.3.3.2.5.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C would have seven designated ACECs. A total of 76,761 acres of lands would be 

designed as ACECs under this alternative. A total of 768 acres would be restricted from surfacedisturbing vegetation treatments (approximately 0.03% of the planning area). This would result 

in substantially more opportunities to decrease fuel loading and move vegetation towards DWFC 

as compared to both Alternative B and Alternative A. This alternative would also prohibit private 

or commercial woodland harvest on 49,998 acres (approximately 3% of the planning area) of 

pinyon-juniper and conifer/mountain shrub vegetation in existing or proposed ACEC lands. This 

would result in over twice the acreage where pinyon-juniper and conifer vegetation would be 

open for fuel reduction resulting from woodland harvest as compared to Alternative A and 

approximately seven times more total acres than Alternative B. Overall, Special Designation 

decisions under Alternative C would provide more opportunities for fire management than 

Alternative A or B. Accordingly, Alternative C would likely result in less long-term fire risk to 

these areas than these alternatives. 

Under this alternative, a total of 119 acres would include restrictions on dispersed camping, 

which would continue to slightly lower the risk of human-caused fire ignitions in the Shay 

Canyon ACEC. 

4.3.3.2.5.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D would designate no ACECs and would not restrict surface-disturbing vegetation 

treatments. However, it would impose woodland harvest restrictions on ACEC areas proposed 

under the Proposed Plan and other alternatives. This alternative would prohibit private or 

commercial woodland harvest on 47,285 acres of ACEC lands. This would result in over twice 

the total acres where pinyon-juniper and conifer/mountain brush vegetation types would be open 

for fuel reduction resulting from woodland harvest as compared to Alternative A. Overall, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-73 

Special Designation decisions under Alternative D would provide the most opportunities for fire 

management as compared to Alternatives A, B, C, E and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.3.2.5.5. Alternative E 

Alternative E would have the same impacts as those under Alternative B as management 

prescriptions regarding surface-disturbing vegetation treatments, woodland harvest and dispersed 

camping are the same. 

4.3.3.2.5.6. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would designate seven ACECs with at total of 73,492 acres. In general, the 

Proposed Plan would have the similar impacts as those under Alternative C, as management 

prescriptions regarding surface-disturbing vegetation treatments and dispersed camping are the 

same. The Relevant and Important values of those ACECs that would not be designated would 

continue to be protected by other resource management decisions that may include restrictions 

on surface-disturbing vegetation treatments. The Proposed Plan would prohibit private or 

commercial woodland harvest on a total of 107,507 acres of where pinyon-juniper and 

conifer/mountain brush vegetation types. This would likely result in less long-term fire risk to 

these areas than Alternatives A, B, and E, but more than Alternative C and Alternative D. 

4.3.3.2.6. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Travel management decisions impacting fire management include restrictions on OHV use. 

Motorized use creates a limited risk of human-caused fire. This risk includes heat and sparks 

from motors and exhaust systems. This risk is increased substantially if travel occurs off of 

designated routes. The cross-country motorized travel category poses the greatest risk of 

inadvertent wildland fire starts, followed by travel on designated routes. Cross country travel is 

much more likely to bring the heat and sparks from exhaust systems in direct contact with 

vegetation than travel on designated routes, which are typically devoid of vegetation. Closing 

areas to motorized travel largely eliminates the risk of inadvertent fire starts from motorized 

vehicles. (Table 4.47) . 

Table 4.47. Travel Restrictions Impacting Fire Management and Risk (acres) 

Alternative 

A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Proposed Plan 

OHV Use Categories 

Open to CrossCountry Travel 

611,310 0 2,311 2,311 0 0 

Limited to 

Existing/Design

ated Routes 

1,329,430 1,359,417 1,362,142 1,780,807 812,679 1,388,191 

 Closed 276,430 423,698 418,667 0 970,435 393,895 

 *Acreage overlaps with woodland harvest restrictions in Table 4.43. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-74 

The Proposed Plan and all of the action alternatives would lessen the impact of human-caused 

fires more than Alternative A due to the reduction of motorized cross-country travel under those 

alternatives. 

4.3.3.3. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 contains a summary of impacts of management decisions on fire 

management. 

4.3.3.4. MITIGATION MEASURES

Management common to the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, described in Chapter 2, would 

serve to mitigate potential significant adverse impacts to fire management and fire risk. These 

include fire management treatments and prioritization, and fire suppression activities that would 

be designed to prevent impacts to people, property, and key ecosystem components. 

4.3.3.5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

The prohibition of fuels reduction and vegetation treatments in various areas throughout the field 

office may have unavoidable impacts by increasing the long-term risk of large and/or 

catastrophic fires. These areas include cultural management zones within SRMAs, SRMAs and 

ACECs, as described in Chapter 2 and Sections 4.3.3.2.1, 4.3.3.2.4, and 4.3.3.2.5, respectively. If 

such fires occur, this would have an avoidable adverse impact on the resources, time and money 

needed to suppress such fires, as well as the potential subsequent loss of property and natural 

resource values. 

4.3.3.6. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The unavoidable impacts described above would potentially impact the long-term efficiency of 

fire management in the planning area. However, if non-surface-disturbing vegetation treatments 

and fire suppression are effectively implemented, they would not result in a long-term loss of key 

ecosystem components or the long-term productivity of natural resources in the planning area. 

There would be no irreversible impacts from fire management. 

4.3.3.7. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There would be no irreversible or irretrievable impacts to fire management (i.e., fuels treatments, 

fire suppression, emergency stabilization, prevention and mitigation). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.4 Health and Safety 

4-75 

4.3.4. HEALTH AND SAFETY

The sources, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials are subject to the federal and state 

laws discussed in Chapter 3 in Section 3.5, Health and Safety. These laws and regulations are 

designed to safeguard human health and safety and to protect the natural environment, and thus, 

minimize the short-term and long-term risks associated with the use, storage, and disposal of 

hazardous materials. Currently, the Monticello PA implements the Compliance Assessment—

Safety, Health, and Environment (CASHE) and Environmental Management Systems (EMS) 

programs to manage hazardous materials. 

Management decisions regarding the following resources and uses would have negligible 

impacts on the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and so are not further analyzed 

in this section: 

• Air Quality 

• Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

• Fire Management 

• Lands and Realty 

• Livestock Grazing 

• Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

• Recreation and Travel 

• Vegetation, including Woodlands, Riparian, Soils, and Water 

• Wildlife and Special status Species 

• Special Designations 

• Visual Resources 

The above resources would have negligible impacts because maintaining air pollutant 

concentrations below air quality standard threshold levels; protecting cultural resources and 

fossils; reducing fuel loads and treating vegetation to reduce the risks of wildland fire; acquiring, 

exchanging, and/or selling federal lands, and permitting ROWs; and protecting the wilderness 

values within lands with non-WSA wilderness characteristics would not affect the handling, 

storage, or disposal of hazardous materials nor affect the remediation of hazardous materials site. 

Likewise, managing recreational resources and recreational opportunities within SRMAs and the 

ERMA; maintaining travel access throughout the Monticello PA; providing opportunities for 

woodland harvesting; protecting riparian areas, sensitive soils and watersheds; protecting 

wildlife and federally listed species; managing WSAs, WSRs, and ACECs to protect sensitive 

and valued resources; and protecting scenic quality would also not affect the ability of the 

Monticello FO to control or dispose of hazardous materials, or affect FO cleanup of hazardous 

materials spills, and hazardous waste sites. 

4.3.4.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, BLM management practices for dealing with 

hazardous substances would protect environmental resources because the authorized uses of 

materials that could potentially affect human health and safety would comply with federal and 

state requirements to reduce or eliminate any potential impacts. State, local agency, and BLM 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.4 Health and Safety 

4-76 

procedures would address accidental spills and releases as well as unauthorized uses. These 

procedures would minimize the risks of public exposure to and environmental impacts from 

hazardous materials. 

The Monticello PA RFD predictions for oil and gas development indicate that the average 

number of wells drilled within the life of the RMP would range from 54 wells (less than 4 wells 

per year) under Alternative E to 75 wells (5 wells per year) under Alternative D. The surface 

disturbance resulting from constructing a well pad, road, and associated pipelines is estimated to 

be approximately 9.6 acres. Thus, the total projected surface disturbance for oil and gas drilling 

would range from 516 acres under Alternative E to 720 acres under Alternative D. Given the 

small number of predicted wells that would be drilled within the next fifteen years, the health 

and safety risks due to hazardous materials under all alternatives would be negligible. However, 

any mineral exploration and development activities would increase the risks in the PA, and 

impacts from spills or releases would be adverse and long-term. The following are oil- and gasrelated development activities that would pose risks from hazardous materials under all the 

alternatives. 

Pipelines 

Installing pipelines and support services for them (e.g., compressor stations) would be necessary 

for oil and gas development. The hazardous materials associated with pipelines include diesel 

fuel leaks or spills from compressor stations, and benzene and hexane leaks from natural gas 

condensation. Leaks or ruptures in the pipelines could also pose safety and environmental risks. 

The operators installing and operating oil and gas pipelines would be responsible for 

understanding and complying with the applicable laws and regulations governing hazardous 

materials. The Monticello FO would be responsible for inspecting and monitoring these 

operations to ensure operator compliance, which would reduce the risks of pipeline-related leaks 

and spills. 

Power Lines

It may be necessary to install power lines for oil and gas development. The operators that install 

and maintain these power lines would be responsible for understanding and complying with the 

applicable laws and regulations to prevent the release of hazardous materials related to power 

lines and transformers (e.g., PCB leaks from electrical transformers). 

Transportation

Mineral-development activities would increase the risks associated with transporting hazardous 

materials. Transportation (e.g., trucking) companies would be responsible for understanding and 

abiding by all applicable transportation laws and regulations, which would reduce the risks of 

spills or releases. 

Gas Flow-Line Leakage or Ruptures

The potential would exist for natural gas flow-line leakage or ruptures during extraction and 

processing (see Section 3.5.2.1, Health and Safety). The U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) data indicate that an average of one rupture annually should be expected for every 5,000 

miles of pipeline, with more than 50% of ruptures resulting from heavy equipment striking the 

pipeline. Such ruptures could potentially cause a fire or explosion if a spark or open flame 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.4 Health and Safety 

4-77 

ignited the escaping natural gas. Compliance with the applicable DOT regulations discussed in 

Section 3.5.2.1 would reduce these risks. 

Well Fires and Explosions

Even though these risks are low, oil and gas companies typically have a procedure within their 

emergency contingency plan to call a service company specializing in controlling and 

extinguishing well fires in the unlikely event of one. 

Human-Caused Fires

Well-pad fires and explosions are a potential health and safety hazard, but implementing the 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDOGM) measures for surface fires would reduce the 

risks of human-caused wildland fires resulting from unsafe well practices. Well sites would be 

kept free of vegetation and trash to minimize fire fuel in the vicinity, thus reducing the risks to 

operators from this potential hazard. 

Geologic Hazards

The potential risks associated with oil and gas development include geologic hazards. These 

hazards include hydrogen sulfide releases and abnormally high gas pressures that could result in 

fires and explosions. Following is a description of these risks and the standard measures required 

to minimize them. 

• Hydrogen Sulfide—hydrogen sulfide releases (a byproduct of drilling, extraction, and 

processing) would be monitored by special detectors located near drill holes. If hydrogen 

sulfide gas was detected, then the well operator could implement a hydrogen sulfide 

emergency contingency plan. 

• Abnormal High Pressure—High pressures could be encountered when drilling. Blowout 

prevention equipment would be used to control any abnormally high pressures safely. 

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2 established the minimum equipment necessary to drill 

safely under high-pressure conditions, and all wells on federal mineral leases would be 

required to comply with this order. Wells drilled on private and state leases would be subject 

to similar requirements from the UDOGM. Pressure equipment would be site-specifically 

prescribed during the application for permit to drill (APD) permitting process, and operators 

would be required to maintain the equipment. The Monticello FO and the UDOGM would 

conduct inspections during drilling to verify compliance with these requirements, which 

would reduce the health and safety risks from this geologic hazard. 

Abandoned Mine Land (AML)

In conformance with the BLM's long-term strategies and national policies, the Monticello FO 

recognizes the need to identify and address physical safety and environmental hazards at all 

AML sites on public lands. To accomplish this long-term goal, criteria from the national policies 

would be established under all alternatives to assist in determining priorities for site mitigation 

and reclamation (see Table 2.1 Summary Table of Alternatives-Health and Safety, for AML 

program priorities). Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, Health and Safety management 

decisions would prioritize all known AML sites for remediation and closure. The prioritized sites 

would be remediated, based on the need to protect public health and safety and watersheds, and 

on funds contributed by other agencies collaborating in site remediation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.4 Health and Safety 

4-78 

Addressing the physical safety concerns and environmental hazards of AML sites would likely 

have long-term beneficial impacts on health and safety by reducing the risks to the public and 

improving the quality of natural resources. Remediation of sites would likely improve water and 

soil quality, therefore improving vegetation and wildlife habitat in the areas adversely impacted 

by mining operations. With several agencies working collaboratively to address the safety and 

environmental impacts, remediation would likely have a beneficial impact on BLM management 

decisions because the reclaimed lands would be considered in future planning for other resource 

uses, including consideration as potential recreation areas. 

4.3.4.2. IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Due to the small number of new oil and gas wells predicted within the LOP, and the small 

difference in predicted drilled wells among the proposed alternatives (54 to 75 wells), the 

impacts across the range of alternatives would not be broad. The greater the acreage open to oil 

and gas development, the more oil and gas infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, power lines, 

transportation routes) would be necessary; therefore, it was assumed that the alternative with 

more predicted development would have a slightly higher risk from hazardous materials than the 

alternative with less. For example, the potential health and safety risks and adverse impacts 

would be slightly higher with Alternative C than Alternative D because more acres would be 

open to development and thus would likely require more oil and gas infrastructure. The types of 

hazardous materials possibly resulting from oil and gas development include sodium hydroxide, 

diesel fuel, methanol, hydrochloric acid, acetic acid, zinc and copper compounds, and propane 

(see Section 3.5.2.1, Health and Safety, for a list of typical hazardous materials and their uses in 

oil and gas development). 

4.3.4.2.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, approximately 1,238,230 acres (69% of the PA) would be open to oil and 

gas exploration and development with standard and special (timing and CSU) lease stipulations. 

Oil and gas development under this alternative would potentially create health and safety risks 

from the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials used in 

minerals exploration and development. 

4.3.4.2.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, approximately 1,241,910 acres of BLM-administered lands would be open 

for oil and gas development with standard and special lease stipulations (70% of the PA). This 

represents a 1% increase in the total amount of acres available for leasing compared to 

Alternative A and would present a negligible increase in the potential use, generation, storage, 

transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. 

4.3.4.2.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, approximately 1,348,973 acres of BLM-administered lands would be open 

for oil and gas development with standard and special lease stipulations (76% of the PA), a 7% 

increase in the total area available when compared to Alternative A. Thus, Alternative C would 

minimally increase the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous 

materials, with a minimal increase in the potential health and safety risks of these substances 

when compared to Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.4 Health and Safety 

4-79 

4.3.4.2.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, approximately 1,383,283 acres of BLM-administered lands would be open 

for oil and gas development with standard and special lease stipulations (78% of the PA), a 9% 

increase in the total amount of acres available under Alternative A. Alternative D would 

minimally increase the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous 

materials, with a minimal increase in the potential health and safety risks of these substances 

when compared to Alternative A. 

4.3.4.2.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 758,931 acres of BLM-administered lands would be open 

for oil and gas development with standard and special lease stipulations (43% of the PA). This 

represents a 26% decrease in the total amount of acres available under Alternative A. Thus, 

Alternative E would moderately decrease the potential risks to human health and safety from oil 

and gas-related use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. 

4.3.4.2.6. PROPOSED PLAN

Under Alternative C, approximately 1,224,807 acres of BLM-administered lands would be open 

for oil and gas development with standard and special lease stipulations (69% of the PA), the 

same amount of total area available when compared to Alternative A. The impacts would be 

similar to Alternative A because of the relative sizes of the areas. 

4.3.4.3. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Mineral management decisions would increase the risk of impacts due to hazardous materials. 

Due to the small amount of predicted wells during the next fifteen years, however, the difference 

in impacts among Alternatives A, B, C, D and the Proposed Plan would be negligible. 

Alternative E would moderately reduce risks to health and safety because the area available for 

mineral leasing under standard and special leasing regulations would be substantially less. 

4.3.4.4. MITIGATION MEASURES

Using signs to identify the location of underground pipelines would help reduce the potential for 

pipeline ruptures by heavy equipment. No additional mitigation would be required to reduce 

impacts from hazardous materials because it is assumed that users and producers would comply 

with existing federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to the use, generation, storage, 

transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials. Compliance with existing regulations would 

reduce the health and safety risks to a minor or low level. 

4.3.4.5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

The risks from hazardous materials would increase during mineral exploration and development, 

causing potentially unavoidable adverse impacts including the possible release of hydrogen 

sulfide (a byproduct of drilling, extracting, and processing), abnormally high pressure during 

drilling, seismic activity, gas flow-line leakage or rupture, well fires, and explosions. Risks and 

impacts would increase due to the disruption of mineral operations if these events occurred and 

the subsequent release of hazardous materials into the environment. It should be noted that the 

natural release of hydrogen sulfide is not covered under the Comprehensive Environmental 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.4 Health and Safety 

4-80 

Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), but it could be a potential hazard 

according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). All gases resulting 

from oil and gas exploration and production streams are CERCLA exempt (EPA 2002). 

4.3.4.6. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short-term mineral development or other resource use in the PA would not result in impacts to 

long-term productivity or ability to control and manage hazardous materials. 

4.3.4.7. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There are no irreversible or irretrievable impacts to the control or management of hazardous 

materials stemming from any of the alternatives. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.5 Lands and Realty 

4-81 

4.3.5. LANDS AND REALTY

Lands and Realty is a resource use rather than an environmental component. Consequently 

impacts to lands and realty are determined by the emphasis of other resource programs. The 

discussion of the effects on lands and realty in each alternative will be limited to the effects on 

permitted or authorized uses and land tenure adjustments (LTAs). 

Impacts to the lands and realty program stem from those resource decisions that limit or hinder 

permitting rights-of-way (ROWs) or other land-use authorizations, or affect the BLM's ability to 

acquire and dispose of land or make other LTAs. Restrictions to protect wildlife, vegetation, 

recreation, riparian areas, soils/watersheds, visual resources, special status species, and cultural 

resources programs can collectively impact the lands and realty program by limiting surfacedisturbing activities and allowable land-use authorizations. As such, potential impacts from these 

program decisions will be analyzed in this chapter. 

ROWs are issued for the placement of roads, power lines, pipelines, communications sites, and 

wind and solar energy sites on public lands. Within the Monticello PA, such decisions primarily 

result from minerals (access routes, pipelines, etc), special designations (WSAs are exclusion 

areas for ROWs), wilderness characteristics (could be exclusion areas for ROWs), and lands and 

realty itself (corridors for energy and access, filming authorizations). 

The specific program management decisions regarding the following resources and resource uses 

would have no discernible impacts (short-term and/or long-term, as well as direct and/or indirect) 

on lands and realty regardless of the alternative chosen: air quality; fire management; hazardous 

materials management; livestock grazing; paleontological resources; and woodlands. Given the 

negligible impact of these resource program decisions on lands and realty, they will not be 

analyzed further in this chapter. 

4.3.5.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Right-of-way (ROW) avoidance and exclusion areas would be consistent with the stipulations 

identified in Appendix A for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. NSO 

areas are avoidance areas for ROWs; no ROW would be granted in NSO areas unless there are 

no feasible alternatives. Closed areas would be exclusion areas for ROWs; no ROW would be 

granted in these areas. 

The impacts of these exclusion/avoidance areas include restricting the placement of ROWs and 

facilities, limiting future access, delaying or increasing the cost of energy supplies, and creating 

communications dead zones or delaying the availability of communications services. Limitations 

on the placement of ROWs could also result in ROWs being located in less desirable or less 

economically feasible locations. All of these would add to the costs of constructing and time to 

process ROWs. 

Lands and realty program decisions would manage actions proposed for public lands in 

accordance with standard BLM land policies as related to Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

leases and other LTAs. ROWs and LTAs would continue to be granted under all of the 

management alternatives. The granting of ROWs would accommodate the desired placement of 

facilities, enhance access to facilities and all lands within the Monticello PA, and promote 

efficient energy supply/transmission and communications. Granting ROWs would also help to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.5 Lands and Realty 

4-82 

minimize the cost of energy and communications developments for the reasons discussed above, 

and promote trails and recreational use from the additional opportunities created along ROW 

access routes. 

LTAs (disposals, access, easements, transportation and utility corridors, withdrawals, 

acquisitions) would help to facilitate access within the Monticello PA and adjoining properties, 

improve the BLM's management ability, reduce conflicts with adjoining landowners and 

surrounding communities, and accommodate surrounding communities' needs. The Monticello 

FO would work cooperatively with the State of Utah and with private landowners to identify 

opportunities for LTAs using the criteria established for disposal and acquisition of lands. LTAs 

would facilitate BLM efforts to meet management goals and objectives, as set forth in this 

PRMP/FEIS. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, filming permits would be issued within the 

Monticello PA on a case-by-case basis. The application of minimum-impact filming criteria 

(Appendix P) would streamline the permit application process by providing stipulations for 

mitigating filming impacts, and encourage the filming industry to use previously approved 

locations that meet the minimal impact criteria. 

Impacts common to the Proposed Plan and all alternatives would occur due to VRM class 

designation decisions, cultural resource management decisions, and special status species 

management decisions. All ROW grants would comply with restrictions for cultural resources 

and special status species and the presence of protected resources. The impact could increase the 

cost and time required for processing of applications, and could delay or alter the route of 

proposed ROWs. 

4.3.5.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Several lands and realty decisions would have impacts common to the Proposed Plan and all of 

the action alternatives, (all alternatives other than Alternative A–No Action). 

A West Wide Energy Corridor (WWEC) EIS for Utility Corridors in 11 Western states, 

including Utah, is being developed by the Washington Office of the BLM in accordance with the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under the Proposed Plan and all action alternatives, these corridors 

and all existing utility corridors would be available for utility and other types of ROWs, which 

could help to minimize the cost of energy and communications developments and encourage 

development of energy resources. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all action alternatives, wind and solar energy development would 

be permissible within the Monticello PA. Authorizations for wind and energy uses would 

incorporate the best management practices contained in the Final Wind Energy Programmatic 

EIS (BLM 2005f: 2-10 to 2-24) and would be stipulated in ROW grants. Implementation of these 

measures would provide for the use of Monticello PA lands for alternative energy and 

communications uses, but utilizing BMPs could add to the cost to site and construct facilities. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all action alternatives, a total of 6,581 acres of land has been 

identified for disposal (see Appendix C). These lands meet the BLM requirements for disposal 

and are consistent with the LTA policies of the agency. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.5 Lands and Realty 

4-83 

4.3.5.3. ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

A summary of the acreages for avoidance, exclusion, withdrawal, and restrictions are listed in 

Table 4.48, and the impacts are discussed below. Generally, the impacts to lands and realty under 

each alternative are similar, but vary in the sizes of the affected areas within the Monticello PA. 

Table 4.48. Acreage of Avoidance, Exclusion, and Recommended for Withdrawal from 

Mineral Entry (acres) 

Restriction Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Lands Excluded from new 

ROWs 

120,800 416,612 395,329 386,853 974,463 416,115

Avoidance Areas for ROWs 253,790 125,105 39,323 14,175 53,915 133,293

Lands Available for ROWs 

with Standard Terms and 

Conditions 

578,604 365,170 629,472 962,283 213,290 484,217

Lands Available for ROWs 

with CSU/CST/TL 

659,626 876,739 719,501 421,000 545,641 740,594

Lands Recommended for 

Withdrawal from Mineral 

Entry** 

132,380 251,710 121,912 46,131 834,070 50,665

Lands Available for Disposal 5,911* 6,581 6,581 6,581 6,581 6,581

*Published acreage from 1991 RMP (BLM 1991a). 

** See Maps 5–9 

4.3.5.3.1. ALTERNATIVE A

A total of 120,800 acres would be exclusion areas for new ROWs. An additional 253,790 acres 

are avoidance areas for new ROWs. Exclusion and avoidance areas impact lands and realty by 

restricting the placement of ROWs and facilities, limiting future access, delaying or increasing 

the cost of energy supplies, and creating communications dead zones or delaying the availability 

of communications services. Limitations on the placement of ROWs could also result in ROWs 

being located in less desirable or less economically feasible locations and would add to the costs 

and time to process ROWs. As the number of acres of land that are exclusion areas increase, the 

likelihood for adverse impacts would increase because of the increasing limitations on ROW 

placement. Alternative A has the smallest amount of exclusion areas (though not the smallest 

avoidance areas), and results in the fewest limitations on the placement of future ROWs. 

Other resource management decisions could also affect or limit the placement of ROWs and 

facilities on BLM lands due to minerals-related timing or controlled surface use leasing 

limitations on surface-disturbing activities. The size and duration of impacted areas, and 

limitations on surface-disturbing activities would also likely occur because of riparian, soils and 

watershed, visual resources, special status species, and wildlife management decisions. 

Limitations on surface-disturbing activities from these resource management decisions would 

preclude or hinder the placement of new ROWs, with potential increases in ROW construction 

costs, by limiting access to some areas of the Monticello PA or delaying the completion of 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.5 Lands and Realty 

4-84 

ROWs (in the case of seasonal limitations). Alternative A proposes to manage 659,626 acres 

with timing and controlled surface use leasing stipulations and 578,604 acres with standard 

stipulations. 

Minerals and energy development decisions would impact the BLM's workload (and time spent) 

processing ROW grants (primarily roads and pipelines). A total of 73 wells are projected to be 

developed under Alternative A. Under Alternative A, approximately 132,380 acres (or 7% of the 

PA) would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry (Map 5). This decision would 

potentially provide fewer opportunities for mineral resource development on this acreage and 

less production and supply of mineral resources; however, Alternative A proposes the least 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, and thus would have the least impact on the 

construction of future ROWs. 

4.3.5.3.2. PROPOSED PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES B THROUGH E 

The specific acreage affected under these alternatives is shown above in Table 4.48. Alternative 

E and the Proposed Plan have the greatest acreages of proposed exclusion/avoidance areas, 

followed by Alternatives B, C and D. Alternative A proposes the least amount of exclusion and 

avoidance areas, and thus would have less impact on the construction of future ROWs as 

compared to the Proposed Plan and all the action alternatives. 

Minerals-related timing or controlled surface use leasing limitations on surface-disturbing 

activities would be greatest under Alternatives B and C and the Proposed Plan, which would 

have limitations on 9% (Alternative B), 12% (Proposed Plan) and 33% (Alternative B) more 

acreages as compared to Alternative A. Alternative D and E would have 36% and 17% less acres 

timing or controlled surface use leasing limitations as compared to Alternative A. 

The ROW development associated with well development under Alternative A is similar to that 

projected for the Proposed Plan and Alternatives C and D, with 72, 74 and 75 wells, respectively. 

However, the ROW development associated with the 73 wells in Alternative A is 11% greater 

than the development associated with the 66 wells predicted under Alternative B, and 35% 

greater than the development associated with the 54 wells predicted under Alternative E. 

Under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan, approximately 60% fewer lands would be 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry than under Alternative A. This decision would 

potentially provide more opportunities for mineral resource development on this acreage and less 

production and supply of mineral resources as compared to Alternative A. Alternative C would 

recommend approximately 8% fewer lands, resulting in opportunities similar to Alternative A. 

Alternative B and E proposed 41% more acres be recommended for withdrawal. This decision 

would potentially provide fewer opportunities for mineral resource development as compared to 

Alternative A. 

4.3.5.4. MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation measures are proposed under any of the alternatives. 

4.3.5.5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

There would be no unavoidable adverse impacts. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.5 Lands and Realty 

4-85 

4.3.5.6. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

There would be no loss of long-term productivity from short-term uses. 

4.3.5.7. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

The Proposed Plan and all alternatives permit LTAs that may result in the permanent loss of 

lands from public ownership if they enter state or private land ownership. 

There are no irreversible or irretrievable impacts to Lands or Realty for the Proposed Plan or any 

alternative.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-86 

4.3.6. LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Impacts on livestock grazing activities are generally the result of activities that affect forage 

levels (and are quantified as animal unit months [AUMs]). Management decisions that are likely 

to have the greatest beneficial impacts on livestock grazing would include vegetation treatments 

and fire treatments that could increase vegetation productivity and forage (AUMs) available for 

livestock in the long-term from improvements in vegetation communities. Management 

decisions that allow and activities that produce surface disturbance and reduce vegetation 

productivity (e.g., minerals exploration and development, right of way (ROW) construction, 

recreational area development, cross-country motorized off-highway vehicle [OHV] travel) or 

resource decisions and activities that limit surface disturbances (e.g., special designation areas, 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, soil and water resources, and visual resources) 

would also impact livestock grazing by affecting forage levels. The analyses of these impacts on 

livestock grazing are based on the follow assumptions: 

• Livestock grazing occurs throughout the Monticello PA, and the acreages used in this 

analysis represent the grazing allotments on BLM-administered lands. 

• Livestock grazing is and would continue to be managed in accordance with the Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah (see 

Appendix D). If a grazing allotment fails to meet rangeland standards, and where it is 

determined that livestock grazing management practices would be a substantial factor in this 

failure, grazing practices would be modified so that progress could be made toward achieving 

the standard(s). Such modifications could include a change in stocking rate, the kind of 

livestock, the season of use and/or length of season, or a combination of these. Livestock 

grazing management modifications could also include making allotments or portions of 

allotments temporarily unavailable to livestock grazing in order to repair or rehabilitate areas 

not meeting rangeland health standards. These repair and/or rehabilitation modifications 

could result in a short-term or long-term loss of livestock grazing acreages and AUMs 

available for livestock grazing. 

• Changes to livestock grazing preferences found necessary through adaptive management and 

monitoring and inventories acceptable to the BLM Authorized Officer would be made on an 

allotment-specific determination during the implementation phase of the RMP. The only 

changes in grazing preference considered in this analysis would be the management decisions 

whereby grazing allotments or portions of allotments would be proposed as unavailable for 

livestock grazing as part of the alternative. 

• Data collected from rangeland monitoring studies would be used to assist the BLM Field 

Manager in determining to what extent changes to livestock grazing would be needed to 

maintain or restore rangeland health, meet resource objectives, and assure that livestock use 

levels are sustainable. When required, temporary suspension of livestock use would be 

implemented to restore an area so that it could continue to sustainably support livestock 

grazing and other uses. 

• Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, specified allotments would undergo season-ofuse changes to facilitate grazing management while maintaining rangeland health standards. 

Changes in season-of-use do not necessarily affect available acreage or forage in AUMs. The 

season-of-use changes, common to all action alternatives as well as the Proposed Plan, are 

shown in Table 4.49 below. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-87 

Table 4.49. Season-of-Use Changes, under All Action Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Allotment 1991 RMP 

Season-of-Use 

2006 RMP Proposed 

Season-of-Use Season-of-Use Change 

Church Rock 12/1 to 3/31 12/1 to 5/31 Increased spring use 61 days 

Indian Rock 11/15 to 3/31 11/15 to 4/15 Increased spring use 15 days 

Owens Dugout 11/25 to 3/31 11/25 to 4/30 Increased spring use 30 days 

Laws 9/1 to 3/31 4/16 to 11/15 Decreased fall and winter use 136 days, 

increased spring and summer use 138 

days 

Bear Trap 7/15 to 11/30 09/01 to 12/02 Decreased summer and fall use 139 

days, increased winter use 103 days 

Monument Canyon 12/5 to 5/31 12/1 to 5/31 Increased winter use 5 days 

New allotments have been established since the approval of the 1991 RMP. These allotments 

were split from existing allotments so there was no change in acres available for grazing or 

AUMs. The new areas and their seasons-of-use are shown in Table 4.50. 

Table 4.50. New Allotments Created Since the 1991 RMP, Existent under All Alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan 

Allotment 2006 RMP Proposed 

Season-of-Use AUMs Acreage 

South Vega 1/6 to 2/28 6 455

Upper Mail Station 11/14 to 2/28 106 1821

Big Westwater 10/15 to 12/15, or 

4/1 to 5/31 

50 480

While changes in these seasons-of-use are proposed in this PRMP/FEIS, they may be modified at 

a later date along with the seasons-of-use on other allotments as part of general allotment 

administration at the activity-based decision level. Compliance with existing laws and 

regulations and appropriate analysis would be conducted prior to any season-of-use change, and 

an amendment to the forthcoming revised RMP would not be required. 

There are 74 grazing allotments in the Monticello PA. These grazing allotments encompass 

approximately 1,761,351 acres of BLM-administered land, and approximately 78,796 AUMs 

(active preference) of forage are administered by the Monticello FO. The main quantitative units 

for comparison between alternatives as well as the Proposed Plan are acres and AUMs available 

(gained or lost) to livestock grazing use. Length of grazing season will also used when 

comparing grazing impacts between alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

In order to calculate a loss or gain in AUMs for any area unavailable or available to livestock 

grazing under this PRMP/FEIS, the acreage of the area is divided by the area of the grazing 

allotment(s) within which it occurs. This percentage is used to calculate the number of AUMs of 

forage likely to occur within the area of consideration. The exception to this method would be 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-88 

for situations in which an entire allotment or part of an allotment allocated to a permittee 

separately from the other permittee(s) in the remainder of the allotment is to be unavailable to 

grazing. In this case, the entire grazing preference of the permittee is affected and that figure is 

used. It is assumed that the calculated number of AUMs in an allotment as shown in the 

Monticello FO Analysis of Management Situation (AMS) (BLM 2005c) correctly represents the 

amount of forage available. 

4.3.6.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Management decisions common to the Proposed Plan and all alternatives that would affect the 

livestock grazing resource by directly decreasing or increasing acres and AUMs available to 

livestock, are as follows: 

Under the Fire Management Plan (FMP), wildland fires could be allowed to burn unless they 

threaten Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas, threatened, endangered, or special status 

species, high priority sub-basins or watersheds, cultural resources and/or cultural landscapes, or 

sensitive ecosystems. If wildland fire occurs on rangeland, it may result in a short-term loss of 

acres and AUMs available to livestock because of 1) vegetation loss, and 2) because of the BLM 

grazing guidelines that require burned areas that are re-seeded to be rested from livestock use for 

at least two growing seasons after a fire. Burned areas that are not re-seeded require a minimum 

rest period of one growing season (BLM 1997, and BLM 1999a). These rest periods from 

livestock grazing may need to be adjusted on a site-specific basis to ensure the establishment of 

sufficient vegetation post fire to promote soil stability and long-term plant productivity and 

sustainability. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, livestock grazing decisions currently do and would 

continue to make designated areas unavailable for grazing, including (see Table 4.51): Bridger 

Jack Mesa, the Grand Gulch area of Cedar Mesa, Dark Canyon (partially unavailable), Lavender 

Mesa, five identified mesa tops (in the White Canyon area), Pearson Canyon, Rogers Exclusion, 

and developed recreation sites. Note that Lavender Mesa, 5 identified mesa tops, and Bridger 

Jack Mesa are physically inaccessible to livestock, so the impacts to livestock grazing would be 

negligible. Unavailability of the Grand Gulch and Dark Canyon would have long-term, adverse 

impacts on livestock grazing because these areas and their potential AUMs are currently 

unavailable for livestock grazing and would continue to be unavailable. 

For all alternatives as well as for the Proposed Plan, health and safety decisions to reduce the 

risks of hazardous materials spills and improve public safety around abandoned mine land 

(AML) sites would have negligible impacts on livestock grazing in the short term because 

livestock grazing acreages and AUMs would not change. In the long term, the reclamation of 

AML sites could potentially expand livestock grazing acreage and increase AUMs. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-89 

Table 4.51. Areas to Remain Unavailable for Grazing, Under the Proposed Plan and All 

Alternatives 

Areas Unavailable for 

Grazing Allotment(s) 

BLM Acres 

Remaining 

Unavailable for 

Grazing1

Justification 

Bridger Jack Mesa Indian Creek 6,260 Difficult access to 

livestock, no water, sparse 

vegetation, protect relict 

vegetation. 

Dark Canyon areas 

(includes 962 acres in 

Fable Valley that is limited 

to trailing/emergency use) 

Indian Creek, White 

Canyon 

38,050 Protect scenic quality and 

wildlife habitat, and 

maintain primitive 

recreational opportunities. 

Five mesa tops Lake Canyon, White 

Canyon 

33,576 No water, sparse 

vegetation, protect wildlife 

habitat. 

Grand Gulch Lake Canyon, Slickhorn 15,658 Protect cultural resources 

and maintain primitive 

recreation opportunities. 

Lavender Mesa Indian Creek 649 Inaccessible to livestock, 

no water, sparse 

vegetation, protect relict 

vegetation. 

Pearson Canyon Hiking 

Trail 

Little Boulder 1,118 Maintain recreational 

opportunities. 

Comb Wash (Arch, Fish & 

Owl, Mule, Road) 

 16,599 Protect cultural resources 

and maintain primitive 

recreational opportunities. 

Developed Recreation 

Sites 

 467 Protect recreational 

values. 

Wildlife Habitat (East 

Canyon) 

 8,204 Allocated to wildlife 

habitat. 

Wildlife Habitat (Peter’s 

Canyon) 

 7,516 Allocated to wildlife 

habitat. 

Total Unavailable Acres 128,098 

1

 Acreages for particular areas may vary slightly due to the differences in shapefiles for GIS calculations.

Proposed land disposals (6,581 acres), exchanges, and sales under lands and realty for all of the 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan could potentially reduce acres and AUMs available for 

livestock grazing in the long-term. Land acquisitions would potentially increase livestock 

grazing acreages and AUMs. Construction of energy or communication sites, or ROWs could 

result in a short-term loss of acres and AUMs during construction and a permanent loss if the 

structure or ROW prohibits grazing indefinitely in the area. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-90 

Surface-disturbing activities due to minerals exploration and development would result in both 

short-term losses of AUMs and total acres accessible for livestock grazing during exploration 

drilling and geophysical exploration, until the disturbed areas are reclaimed. There would be 

long-term losses of AUMs and livestock grazing acreage from surface disturbances if wells were 

drilled and developed for production of oil and gas (this would include losses of AUMs and 

acreage from related infrastructure and pipelines construction) for the production life of the well, 

and from the extraction of locatable and salable minerals. The potential long-term loss of 

livestock grazing acreage from oil and gas development is predicted to range from 721 acres 

maximum (Alternative D) to 519 acres minimum (Alternative E). Disturbance from any type of 

construction could indirectly and adversely affect livestock by increasing the numbers of exotic, 

invasive and/or noxious weed species, many of which are toxic to livestock (Young et al. 1999) 

or unpalatable and could result in a loss of grazable acres or AUMs. The noise, dust, and human 

presence associated with certain construction activities (e.g., minerals access road construction, 

well drilling, and pipeline construction/maintenance) could decrease the acreages or AUMs in 

the short-term. 

Grazing would be unavailable on existing developed recreation sites (presently encompassing 

approximately 467 acres) or future developed recreation sites, with permanent losses of livestock 

grazing acreage and AUMs within the new site developments. 

Since improper livestock grazing can have adverse impacts on riparian ecosystems (Armour et 

al. 1991), it may be necessary to modify grazing practices when it is determined that a riparian 

area is identified as "Functioning at Risk" (see Table 3.24) and livestock have been determined 

to be a causal factor in this condition. Restrictions could be imposed under all alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan (in compliance with BLM Riparian Policy) within the 28,997 acres of riparian 

areas, causing a short-term loss of acres and AUMs available to livestock through seasonal 

restrictions, forage utilization limits, or making affected riparian areas unavailable for livestock 

grazing. 

Generally, highly dispersed livestock grazing has minor impact on soils, but modified 

management practices may be necessary where soils are found to be sensitive to disturbances by 

livestock. This could result in a decrease in acres and AUMs available to livestock. 

Existing vegetation treatments would be maintained through retreatment of sites, and new 

treatments would be implemented as needed to meet management objectives. Vegetation 

treatments would reduce livestock grazing acreages and AUMs in the short-term, but could 

increase the AUMs available in the long term for livestock from potentially increased vegetation 

productivity after the site has been rehabilitated. 

In general, where livestock grazing could potentially impact the habitats of special status species 

and species that are listed, or proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), changes would be made to grazing management practices to protect species 

and their habitat. This could decrease AUMs and acreages available to livestock and/or increase 

management requirements under the terms and conditions of the permit. 

Any area available for grazing because of other resource management activities that had 

previously been unavailable could increase the number of acres and AUMs available to livestock 

if conditions allow. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-91 

If an allotment occurs in bighorn sheep habitat, it would not be possible to change the animal 

permitted in that allotment from cattle to sheep. Domestic sheep can transmit diseases such as 

pneumonia to native bighorn sheep, which is thought to have caused high numbers of bighorn 

sheep fatalities (Foreyt and Jessup 1982, Jessup 1985). Forage and water competition by 

livestock also creates stress to bighorn sheep, and all such interactions would be avoided (Desert 

Bighorn Council 1990). 

A portion of the Comb Wash Allotment (those areas closed by court order and encompassing 

approximately 16,599 acres and 337 AUMs within Mule Canyon below U-95, and Arch, Fish, 

Owl, and Road Canyons) would be unavailable to livestock grazing under all alternatives as well 

as under the Proposed Plan. This would result in a long-term, adverse impact from loss of forage 

for livestock grazing. The impact would be minor because the unavailable acreages total less 

than 0.01% of the available livestock acreage within the Monticello PA. 

Special designation decisions for all alternatives and the Proposed Plan would make acreages 

within Bridger Jack Mesa (6,260 acres), Dark Canyon areas (38,050 acres), and Lavender Mesa 

(649 acres) unavailable for livestock grazing in order to protect scenic quality, natural values, 

and relict vegetation. The impacts to livestock grazing would be negligible within Bridger Jack 

and Lavender Mesas because, as mentioned above, these areas are physically inaccessible nearly 

so in the case of Bridger Jack Mesa to livestock. Managing portions of Dark Canyon as 

unavailable to livestock grazing would have minor, adverse impacts due to limits on livestockrelated water development construction and maintenance, and limits on livestock grazing fencing 

installation, because much of the area lies within a WSA. 

Wildlife and fisheries decisions under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan would manage the 

five mesa tops as unavailable to livestock grazing in order to protect bighorn sheep habitat. This 

would have negligible impacts on livestock grazing because available forage is sparse, and no 

water is available. 

For all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, a total of 1,633,253 acres and 78,459 AUMs would be 

unavailable to livestock grazing within the Monticello Field Office. 

4.3.6.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan, cultural resources decisions in special 

designation areas would prescribe special conditions to protect at-risk resources from possible 

damage due to livestock grazing. This could result in fewer acres or AUMs available in the longterm for livestock if it is determined that site closures are necessary in order to protect cultural 

resources. The impacts would be minor because livestock grazing limitations and/or 

unavailability would be site-specific within the approximately 62,567 acres encompassing the 

Comb Ridge Recreation Management Zone, Beef Basin SRMA, Tank Bench SRMA, and 

McLoyd Canyon-Moon House Recreation Management Zone. 

Recreation decisions for all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan would potentially restrict 

livestock grazing, with a potential loss of acres and AUMs, if it is determined that livestock pose 

a risk of damaging cultural/recreation resources (e.g., petroglyph or pictograph panels, and 

interpretive sites). 

Recreation-related travel decisions under the Proposed Plan and all of the action alternatives 

would limit motorized OHV use by reducing the current level of open, cross-country use from 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-92 

611,310 acres to 0 acres open under Alternatives B and E, 2,311 acres under Alternative C and 

D, and 0 acres under the Proposed Plan. This would have 1) long-term, direct, beneficial impacts 

on livestock grazing from reduced noise and human-activity-related disturbances to livestock, 

and 2) indirect, beneficial impacts on livestock grazing from potential improvements in forage 

productivity through reduced surface disturbance impacts to vegetation. 

4.3.6.3. PROPOSED PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, there would be negligible impacts to livestock 

grazing from decisions on air quality, paleontology, non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, WSAs and WSRs, visual resources, and woodlands, so these resources will not 

be discussed and analyzed further. The impacts would be negligible because meeting National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

program air quality standards, allowing scientific study and recreational collection of fossils, 

protecting wilderness values within WSAs and non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

maintaining ORVs along eligible WSR segments, protecting scenic quality, and maintaining 

sustainable woodland resources for harvesting would not change the size of grazing allotments, 

improve or degrade forage productivity or utilization levels, or change AUMs for livestock 

grazing. 

4.3.6.3.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.6.3.1.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative A 

Under this alternative, cultural resource management decisions for the Comb Ridge, Beef Basin, 

and Tank Bench areas would not restrict or impact current livestock grazing activities. Within 

the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area, livestock grazing would be available except for 

approximately 15,659 acres in Grand Gulch and its tributaries. However, as discussed above 

under Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives, the Grand Gulch Special 

Emphasis Area is and would remain closed to grazing, with minor impacts to grazing from the 

relatively small area unavailable for grazing, in order to protect cultural resources. 

4.3.6.3.1.2. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative A 

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and 

All Alternatives. Actions under this alternative would require the closure of 128,098 acres of 

land from livestock grazing, which would remove 337 AUMs of forage from access. 

Approximately 1,633,253 acres and 78,459 AUMs would remain accessible to livestock for 

grazing under this alternative. 

4.3.6.3.1.3. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative A 

The predicted RFD surface disturbance due to oil and gas development that would occur under 

this alternative would be approximately 699 total acres, which would have minor, long-term 

impacts on livestock grazing from loss of acreages and AUMs through surface disturbances, and 

wellpad and access road construction. The impacts would be negligible to minor because the size 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-93 

of the affected area would be relatively small (0.04% of available livestock grazing acreage 

within the PA). 

4.3.6.3.1.4. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative A 

As discussed under Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives, Pearson Canyon 

and all developed recreation sites would be unavailable to livestock grazing. The impacts of 

these management decisions would have negligible to minor impacts on livestock grazing as 

Pearson Canyon (1,118 acres) and existing recreational facilities (totaling approximately 467 

acres) comprise a relatively small area (approximately 0.08% of the total area available for 

livestock grazing within the Monticello PA). Under this alternative, livestock grazing would be 

allowed within the San Juan SRMA and the Cedar Mesa C-SRMA, with beneficial impacts to 

livestock from maintained grazing acreages and AUMs. 

4.3.6.3.1.5. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative A 

There are no specific management decisions under this alternative that would impact riparian 

resources. However, as discussed under Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All 

Alternatives, there would be potentially short term and long-term impacts to livestock grazing 

from acres made unavailable to livestock to protect Functioning At Risk riparian resources. 

4.3.6.3.1.6. Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative A 

As discussed under Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives, livestock 

grazing would be unavailable in the Bridger Jack ACEC (6,260 acres), canyon bottoms of Dark 

Canyon ACEC (38,050 acres), and Lavender Mesa ACEC (649 acres), with impacts to livestock 

grazing as discussed in that subsection. The impacts from management of WSAs and WSRs 

would be minor because, while no areas are unavailable to livestock grazing, limits on surface 

disturbances could limit improvements in livestock-water structures, and fencing. 

4.3.6.3.1.7. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, there are no special status species decisions that restrict or make livestock 

grazing acreages unavailable. Thus, the impacts to livestock grazing from special status species 

decisions would be negligible. 

4.3.6.3.1.8. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under Alternative A 

The continuation of current travel decisions would have long-term impacts on livestock grazing 

from motorized OHV use on 611,310 acres designated as open to cross-country use. The adverse 

impacts would result from 1) engine noise-related, and human activity and presence-related 

disturbances to livestock, and 2) surface disturbances to forage productivity. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-94 

4.3.6.3.1.9. Impact of Vegetation Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, existing vegetation treatments would be maintained and new treatments 

applied on 232,130 acres that could adversely impact livestock grazing in the short term and/or 

long term, depending on the type of treatment (BLM 1991b): mechanical treatments could 

remove shrub and woodland shelter need by livestock for cover, prescribed burning could 

potentially create conditions for the establishment or spread of toxic, invasive plant species that 

lack forage value. However, maintaining existing vegetation treatment areas and applying new 

treatments would also have long-term, beneficial indirect impacts on livestock from potentially 

improved forage conditions. Protection of relict vegetation within the Lavender Mesa and 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACECs would have negligible impacts on livestock grazing, as discussed 

above under Special Designation, because the mesas are and would remain inaccessible to 

livestock. 

4.3.6.3.1.10. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative A 

There are no specific management decisions that would impact livestock grazing, except for the 

five mesa tops discussed above under Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All 

Alternatives.

4.3.6.3.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.3.6.3.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative B 

Cedar Mesa (including Comb Ridge Management Zone [MZ], Grand Gulch National Historic 

District [NHD], and the McLoyd Canyon Moon House MZ), Tank Bench, and Beef Basin 

Special Recreational Management Areas (SRMAs) would be open to grazing under this 

alternative, but with stipulations to restrict livestock access if cultural resources become 

impacted. Compared to Alternative A, the impacts would be the same (negligible) because these 

areas would remain available for livestock grazing. 

4.3.6.3.2.2. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative B 

The following areas (shown in Table 4.52 below) would be unavailable for grazing (with a 

reduction in available AUMs) under this alternative, in addition to those listed for the Proposed 

Plan and all alternatives in Table 4.51 above. Compared to Alternative A, the reduction in 

acreages and AUMs would have long-term, adverse impacts on livestock grazing because 

grazing opportunities would be lost for the foreseeable future. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-95 

Table 4.52. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under Alternative B in 

Addition to Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 

Area Unavailable 

for Livestock 

Grazing 

Allotment(s) 

BLM Acres 

Remaining 

Unavailable for 

Grazing1

Forage 

Lost 

(AUMs) 

Justification 

Dodge Canyon Dodge Canyon 1,598 110 Sparse livestock forage, 

protect wildlife habitat. 

Horsehead 

Canyon 

Montezuma 

Canyon 

571 38 Lack of livestock water, 

protect wildlife and riparian 

habitat. 

Portions of Butler 

Wash Canyons 

Perkins Brothers, 

Tank Bench/ 

Brushy Basin, 

White Mesa 

208 20 Protect cultural resources. 

Slickhorn Canyon Perkins Brothers 2,600 210 Maintain primitive 

recreational opportunities, 

confined canyon has limited 

forage availability, protect 

cultural resources. 

Rone Bailey Mesa Upper Mail Station 1,162 68 Limited accessibility, lack of 

livestock water, sparse 

livestock forage. 

Mule Canyon 

(including North 

and South Forks 

north of U-95) 

Comb Wash, 

Texas-Muley 

1,328 157 Maintain primitive 

recreation opportunities, 

protect cultural resources. 

Rogers Rogers 40 No active 

preference 

allotted 

Sparse livestock forage, 

small isolated parcel difficult 

to manage. 

Subtotal 7507 

Limited to 

Livestock Trailing 

Only 

Lake Canyon, 

Harts Draw, Indian 

Creek 

5,555 Confined canyons have 

limited forage availability, 

balance potential conflicts 

with other resources or 

uses (wildlife habitat, 

primitive recreation, 

vegetation, cultural, etc), 

maintain riparian habitat. 

Total 13,062 603 

1Acreages are for BLM-administered land only. Acres for particular areas may vary slightly due to differences in 

shapefiles used in GIS acre calculations.

These restrictions would allow a total of 1,620,191 acres and 77,856 AUMs available for 

livestock grazing under this alternative. This would be a 0.8% reduction in livestock grazing 

acres (and 0.8% fewer AUMs) when compared to Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-96 

4.3.6.3.2.3. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, it is predicted that 636 acres of land would be disturbed due to oil and gas 

development. This is 63 fewer acres than Alternative A, and compared to Alternative A this 

alternative would have fewer adverse impacts on livestock grazing from the potential reduction 

in AUMs due to minerals exploration and development. 

4.3.6.3.2.4. Impacts of Recreation Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative B 

Grazing would be allowed within special recreation management areas (SRMAs), with a timing 

restriction in the riparian areas within the San Juan River SRMA (affecting the Perkins Brothers, 

East League, and McCracken Wash Allotments) that confines the grazing season to the period of 

October 1 through May 31. There would be no change in the season of use as the current seasons 

of use fall within the prescribed period. Under this alternative, although grazing would be 

allowed in the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA, at-risk cultural resources would be protected against 

possible damage due to grazing. Thus, grazing areas could potentially become unavailable, 

resulting in a loss of acres and AUMs, if it is determined that livestock pose a risk of damaging 

cultural resources. As discussed above, this management prescription would be the same 

discussed under impacts common to all action alternatives, with negligible impacts on livestock 

grazing activities and opportunities because of the likelihood that a relatively small area would 

become unavailable to livestock grazing. The impacts of recreation-related OHV travel decisions 

would be the same as discussed under Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Compared to 

Alternative A, recreation management decisions under Alternative B would have the same 

impacts. 

4.3.6.3.2.5. Impacts of Riparian Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative B 

This alternative would restrict grazing access in the following riparian areas, and would allow 

trailing only: Moki Canyon, Lake Canyon, Harts Canyon, and Indian Creek from Kelley Ranch 

vicinity to Forest Service. These decisions would restrict livestock grazing and have long-term, 

adverse, but minor, impacts on opportunities for livestock grazing in these riparian areas. 

Compared to Alternative A, the riparian decisions under Alternative B would have the same 

impacts because the degree of impacts to livestock grazing would be the same. 

4.3.6.3.2.6. Impacts of Special Designation Management Decisions on Livestock 

Grazing Under Alternative B 

The proposed Shay Canyon ACEC is the only special designation area that would change its 

status from open to limited to livestock trailing only under this alternative. The ACEC would be 

reduced in size, its acreage decreasing from 1,770 acres under Alternative A to 119 acres under 

Alternative B. So, there would be a loss of grazing acreage under this alternative. Compared to 

Alternative A, special designation decisions under this alternative would have the same 

(negligible) impacts on livestock grazing because the affected area is relatively small. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-97 

4.3.6.3.2.7. Impacts of Special Status Species Management Decisions on 

Livestock Grazing Under Alternative B 

Livestock grazing would be prohibited between March 20 and May 15 on allotments within 

sage-grouse habitat. In year-round habitat, grazing would be limited as necessary to maintain 

and/or improve habitat in areas within six miles of active sage-grouse strutting ground. 

Allotments subject to these restrictions are Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage-grouse and Dry 

Farm. The impacts on grazing would be negligible, as the prohibitions would not make livestock 

grazing unavailable on the affected allotments, but temporally restricted to protect species 

habitat. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have the same impacts. 

4.3.6.3.2.8. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under Alternative B 

Travel decisions to reduce acreages of open motorized OHV travel from 611,310 acres to no 

acres would have long term, beneficial impacts on livestock by reducing noise and human 

presence disturbances and surface disturbances to livestock forage. Compared to Alternative A, 

this alternative would be more beneficial to livestock grazing because potential impacts to 

livestock from motorized OHV travel would be substantially less. 

4.3.6.3.2.9. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative B 

Under this alternative, vegetation treatment on 1,000 acres of existing land treatments would 

continue and new treatments on 6,600 acres per year would be implemented. Over 20 years, this 

would result in approximately 152,000 acres of vegetation treatments throughout the Monticello 

PA. Compared to Alternative A, this would be a reduction of approximately 72,530 acres of 

vegetation treatments or 33% less than the total 232,130 acres of treatments under Alternative A. 

The treated areas would be unavailable for grazing in the short-term, as discussed above under 

management common to all alternatives, but likely improvements to the rangeland conditions 

would likely result in greater AUMs available or more acres open to grazing if an area is 

rehabilitated to the point of meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have less indirect, beneficial impacts on livestock grazing 

because fewer acres would be treated to improve vegetation communities and AUMs. 

It is important to note that not all of these treated areas would lead to an increase in acres or 

AUMs available to livestock. At this programmatic level of analysis, no specific areas for these 

vegetation treatments have been established, and it is not possible to determine whether there 

would be an increase or decrease in AUMs or acreage without data on treatment site locations or 

rehabilitation goals. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-98 

4.3.6.3.2.10. Impacts of Wildlife Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative B 

Spring grazing (April 15 to June 15) would be eliminated on grazing allotments or pastures of 

the allotments that occur within pronghorn habitat. These allotments, as shown in Table 4.53, 

are: Hart Draw (partial), Mail Station, Upper Mail Station, Dry Valley/Deer Neck, Lone Cedar, 

and Tank Draw (see Appendix D). 

Table 4.53. Changes to Livestock Season of Use in Certain Allotments under Alternative B 

as Compared to Alternative A (No Action) 

Total BLM Acres 

in Allotment or 

Part of Allotment

Alternative 

A Season of 

Use 

Alternative B 

Proposed 

Season of Use

Change In 

Number of Days 

of Access 

Percent 

Change in 

Season of Use

Mail Station 6,499 11/01 to 4/30 11/01 to 4/15 - 15 - 6% 

Upper Mail Station 1,821 11/14 to 2/28 11/14 to 2/28 0 0% 

Dry Valley/Deer Neck 4,172 12/01 to 4/30 12/01 to 4/15 - 15 - 7% 

Lone Cedar 18,426 12/01 to 4/30 12/01 to 4/15 - 15 - 7% 

Tank Draw 9,454 12/01 to 4/30 12/01 to 4/15 - 15 - 7% 

Hart Draw (partial) 69,470 10/16 to 6/15 10/16 to 4/15 - 61 - 25% 

Since these are seasonal restrictions, there would be no change in acreage or AUMs available for 

livestock, so the impacts on livestock grazing would be negligible. The impacts of this 

alternative, when compared to Alternative A would be the same. 

4.3.6.3.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Management of cultural, Special Designation (ACEC), recreation, and riparian resources 

decisions would also the same as discussed under Alternative B, with the same impacts to 

livestock grazing. 

4.3.6.3.3.1. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative C 

Table 4.54 lists the areas that would be unavailable to grazing under this alternative, in addition 

to those listed under Alternative A in Table 4.51. 

The same areas would be available for grazing under Alternative C as in Alternative B, with the 

exception of Mule Canyon which would be unavailable for grazing below U-95. These 

restrictions would allow a total of 1,621,515 acres and 78,013 AUMs to be available for 

livestock grazing under this alternative. This is 0.7% fewer acres and 0.6% fewer AUMs than 

Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-99 

Table 4.54. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under Alternative C in 

Addition to Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 

Area Unavailable 

for Livestock 

Grazing 

Allotment(s) 

BLM Acres 

Remaining 

Unavailable for 

Grazing1

Forage 

Lost 

(AUMs) 

Justification 

Dodge Canyon Dodge Canyon 1,598 110 Sparse livestock forage, 

protect wildlife habitat. 

Horsehead 

Canyon 

Montezuma 

Canyon 

571 38 Lack of livestock water, 

protect wildlife and riparian 

habitat. 

Portions of Butler 

Wash Canyons 

Perkins Brothers, 

Tank Bench/ 

Brushy Basin, 

White Mesa 

208 20 Protect cultural resources. 

Slickhorn Canyon Perkins Brothers 2,600 210 Maintain primitive 

recreational opportunities, 

confined canyon has limited 

forage availability, protect 

cultural resources. 

Rone Bailey Mesa Upper Mail Station 1,162 68 Limited accessibility, lack of 

livestock water, sparse 

livestock forage. 

Rogers Rogers 40 No active 

preference 

allotted 

Sparse livestock forage, 

small isolated parcel difficult 

to manage. 

Subtotal 6179 

Limited to 

Livestock Trailing 

only 

Lake Canyon, 

Harts Draw, Indian 

Creek 

5,555 Confined canyons have 

limited forage availability, 

balance potential conflicts 

with other resources or 

uses (wildlife habitat, 

primitive recreation, 

vegetation, cultural, etc), 

maintain riparian habitat. 

Total 11,734 446

1Acreages are for BLM-administered land only. Acres for particular areas may vary slightly due to differences in 

shapefiles used in GIS acre calculations.

4.3.6.3.3.2. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative C 

Approximately 710 acres are predicted to have minerals-related surface disturbance under this 

alternative. This is 11 acres or 1.7% more than Alternative A, so compared to Alternative A, 

there would likely be a slightly greater long-term, adverse (but minor) reduction in acreages and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-100 

AUMs from loss of vegetation due to wellpad, access road, infrastructure construction, and from 

mineral extraction. 

4.3.6.3.3.3. Impacts of Special Status Species Management Decisions on 

Livestock Grazing Under Alternative C 

Livestock grazing under Alternative C would be prohibited between March 20 and May 15 on 

allotments within sage-grouse habitat. In year-round habitat, grazing levels would be limited as 

necessary to maintain and/or improve habitat in areas within six miles of active sage-grouse 

strutting ground. Allotments subject to these restrictions would be Sageflat, Upper East Canyon, 

Sage-grouse and Dry Farm. The impacts on grazing would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B (negligible), as the prohibitions would not make livestock grazing unavailable on 

the affected allotments, but temporally restricted to protect species habitat. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have the same impacts. 

4.3.6.3.3.4. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under Alternative C 

The impacts from travel decisions would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because 

the travel decisions are similar. While approximately 2,311 acres would be managed as open to 

cross-country OHV use, these areas are relatively small, located in close proximity to each other, 

and are currently used as OHV play areas. Thus, the impacts to livestock grazing would be 

negligible. 

4.3.6.3.3.5. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative C 

Vegetation treatments on 1,500 acres of existing land treatments would continue, and new 

treatment would be annually conducted on 7,800 acres. Grazing on these areas would be 

temporarily suspended, but in the long-term could possibly result in an increase in AUMs 

available to livestock. The impacts to livestock grazing would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B, but to a slightly greater degree, as more acreage would be treated. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative C impacts on livestock grazing would have more potentially adverse 

impacts because 9,300 acres would be treated annually to improve rangeland conditions and 

vegetation communities (approximately 186,000 over 20 years), which would be 20% fewer 

acres throughout the Monticello PA than the proposed acreage treatments under Alternative A. 

4.3.6.3.3.6. Impacts of Wildlife Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative C 

Current grazing management would continue and, where possible, would be altered to benefit 

forb production on pronghorn ranges in the following grazing allotments: Mail Station, Upper 

Mail Station, Dry Valley/Deer Neck, Lone Cedar, Tank Draw and Hart Draw. This could result 

in fewer AUMs available to livestock than under Alternative A, but there are no specific 

prescriptions under this alternative, and therefore quantitative analysis is not possible. When 

compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have the same impacts on livestock grazing. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-101 

4.3.6.3.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

Management of cultural and recreation resources as they affect livestock grazing would be the 

same as all other action alternatives as discussed in the Alternative B analysis above. 

Management of riparian resources as it pertains to grazing would be the same as Alternative A. 

4.3.6.3.4.1. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative D 

The areas listed in Table 4.55 would be unavailable to grazing, in addition to those listed under 

Alternative A in Table 4.51: 

Table 4.55. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under Alternative D in Addition to 

Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 

Area Unavailable 

for Livestock 

Grazing 

Allotment(s) 

BLM Acres 

Remaining 

Unavailable 

for Grazing1

Forage 

Lost 

(AUMs) 

Justification 

Portions of Butler 

Wash Canyons 

Perkins Brothers, 

Tank Bench/ 

Brushy Basin, 

White Mesa 

208 20 Protect cultural resources. 

Slickhorn Canyon Perkins Brothers 2,600 210 Maintain primitive recreational 

opportunities, confined canyon has 

limited forage availability, protect 

cultural resources. 

Rone Bailey Mesa Upper Mail Station 1,162 68 Limited accessibility, lack of livestock 

water, sparse livestock forage. 

Rogers Rogers 40 No active 

preference 

allotted 

Sparse livestock forage, small 

isolated parcel difficult to manage. 

Subtotal 4,010 

Limited to 

Livestock Trailing 

Only 

None in addition to 

Alternative A. 

N/A 

Total 4,010 298 

1Acreages are for BLM-administered land only. Acres for particular areas may vary slightly due to differences in shapefiles used in 

GIS acre calculations. 

These restrictions would leave a total of 1,629,240 acres and 78,161 AUMs available for 

livestock grazing under this alternative. This would be 0.4% fewer AUMs and 0.2% fewer acres 

than Alternative A, with the same impacts as discussed under Alternative A. 

4.3.6.3.4.2. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative D 

Under this alternative, RFD predictions of minerals development indicate that approximately 721 

acres would lose the potential for livestock grazing due to surface-disturbing oil and gas 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-102 

exploration and development activities. This is 22 acres or 3.1% more than Alternative A, which, 

when compared to Alternative A, would have more long-term impacts to livestock grazing from 

the loss of AUMs. 

4.3.6.3.4.3. Impacts of Special Designation Management Decisions on Livestock 

Grazing Under Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the only addition would be 649 acres on the Lavender Mesa that would not 

be managed as an ACEC and therefore would be opened to livestock grazing. However, this land 

is on a mesa top and is physically inaccessible to cattle, and therefore the impacts to grazing 

would be the same as Alternative A and as discussed in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

subsection. 

4.3.6.3.4.4. Impacts of Special Status Species Management Decisions on 

Livestock Grazing Under Alternative D 

Livestock grazing under Alternative D would be prohibited between March 20 and May 15 on 

allotments within sage-grouse habitat. Grazing would be managed to maintain Rangeland Health. 

Allotments subject to these restrictions are Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage-grouse and Dry 

Farm. These management decisions, and their impacts on livestock grazing and AUMs, would be 

the same as discussed under Alternative B. 

4.3.6.3.4.5. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under Alternative D 

The impacts from travel decisions would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because 

the travel decisions are similar. While approximately 2,311 acres would be managed as open to 

cross-country OHV use, these areas are relatively small, located in close proximity to each other, 

and are currently used as OHV play areas. Thus, the impacts to livestock grazing would be 

negligible. 

4.3.6.3.4.6. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative D 

Approximately 9,300 acres/year of new vegetation treatments would be conducted and 

2,000 acres of existing treatments would be maintained per year to improve vegetation 

communities within the Monticello PA. Over 20 years, a potential total of 226,000 acres would 

be treated, with short-term and long-term impacts as discussed under Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives above. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have the same short-term 

and long-term impacts on livestock grazing because Alternative D would treat over 97% of the 

acreage proposed for treatment under Alternative A. 

4.3.6.3.4.7. Impacts of Wildlife Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under Alternative D 

Current grazing management would continue, and where possible, would be altered to favor forb 

production on pronghorn ranges in the same grazing allotments and with the same impacts as 

discussed under Alternative C. As also discussed under Alternative C, it is not possible to 

analyze the management changes in a quantitative sense, but it should be noted that this 

management decision could decrease AUMs available to livestock to some degree within these 

allotments, when compared to Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-103 

4.3.6.3.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

The analysis and impacts from cultural, special designation, recreation, riparian, special status 

species, visual, vegetation, and wildlife resources management decisions as they pertain to 

livestock grazing management would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because the 

management decisions would be the same. 

4.3.6.3.5.1. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative E 

The following areas would be unavailable for grazing under this alternative (Table 4.56), in 

addition to those listed under Alternative A in Table 4.51. 

These restrictions would allow a total of 1,620,191 acres and 77,856 AUMs to be available for 

livestock grazing under this alternative. This is 0.8% fewer acres and 0.8% fewer AUMs than 

Alternative A. 

Table 4.56. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under Alternative E in 

Addition to Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 

Area Unavailable 

for Livestock 

Grazing 

Allotment(s) 

BLM Acres 

Remaining 

Unavailable for 

Grazing1

Forage 

Lost 

(AUMs) 

Justification 

Dodge Canyon Dodge Canyon 1,598 110 Sparse livestock forage, 

protect wildlife habitat. 

Horsehead 

Canyon 

Montezuma 

Canyon 

571 38 Lack of livestock water, 

protect wildlife and riparian 

habitat. 

Portions of Butler 

Wash Canyons 

Perkins Brothers, 

Tank Bench/ 

Brushy Basin, 

White Mesa 

208 20 Protect cultural resources. 

Slickhorn Canyon Perkins Brothers 2,600 210 Maintain primitive 

recreational opportunities, 

confined canyon has limited 

forage availability, protect 

cultural resources. 

Rone Bailey Mesa Upper Mail Station 1,162 68 Limited accessibility, lack of 

livestock water, sparse 

livestock forage. 

Mule Canyon 

(including North 

and South Forks 

north of U-95) 

Comb Wash 1,328 157 Maintain primitive 

recreational opportunities, 

protect cultural resources. 

Rogers Rogers 40 No active 

preference 

allotted 

Sparse livestock forage, 

small isolated parcel difficult 

to manage. 

Subtotal 7507 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-104 

Table 4.56. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under Alternative E in 

Addition to Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 

Area Unavailable 

for Livestock 

Grazing 

Allotment(s) 

BLM Acres 

Remaining 

Unavailable for 

Grazing1

Forage 

Lost 

(AUMs) 

Justification 

Limited to Trailing 

Only 

Lake Canyon, 

Harts Draw, Indian 

Creek 

5555 Confined canyons have 

limited forage availability, 

balance potential conflicts 

with other resources or 

uses (wildlife habitat, 

primitive recreation, 

vegetation, cultural, etc), 

maintain riparian habitat. 

Total 13,062 603 

1Acreages are for BLM-administered land only. Acres for particular areas may vary slightly due to differences in 

shapefiles used in GIS acre calculations.

4.3.6.3.5.2. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, it is predicted that 519 acres of land would be disturbed due to minerals 

exploration and development. This is 181 fewer acres than proposed under Alternative A, or 

25.9% less, but the impacts to grazing would be the same as discussed under Alternative A, but 

to a lesser degree, because fewer acres available for grazing and fewer AUMs would be lost in 

the long-term from minerals-related surface disturbances. 

4.3.6.3.5.3. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics on 

Livestock Grazing Under Alternative E 

Potential beneficial impacts to livestock grazing could occur due to the 582,357 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics not being available for surface-disturbing activities or 

recreational OHV travel. Forage would not be reduced due to surface-disturbing activities (road 

construction, oil and gas facilities, ROWs, etc). In addition, conflicts with motorized recreational 

users (livestock harassment, noise, gates left open, etc.) would be eliminated in non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more 

beneficial because there would be a reduced potential for forage reductions from surface 

disturbance activities. 

4.3.6.3.5.4. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under Alternative E 

No acres would be open to OHV use under this alternative. This is the same as Alternative B. 

Travel decisions to reduce acreages of open motorized OHV travel from 611,310 acres to no 

acres would have long term, beneficial impacts on livestock by reducing noise and human 

presence disturbances and surface disturbances to livestock forage. Compared to Alternative A, 

this alternative would be more beneficial to livestock grazing because potential impacts to 

livestock from motorized OHV travel would be substantially less. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-105 

4.3.6.3.6. THE PROPOSED PLAN

Management of cultural, Special Designation (ACEC), recreation, and riparian resources 

decisions would also the same as discussed under Alternative B, with the same impacts to 

livestock grazing. 

4.3.6.3.6.1. Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

the Proposed Plan 

Table 4.57 lists the areas that would be unavailable to grazing under this alternative, in addition 

to those listed under Alternative A in Table 4.51. 

The same areas would be available for grazing under the Proposed Plan as in Alternative B, with 

the exception of Mule Canyon which would be unavailable for grazing below U-95. These 

restrictions would allow a total of 1,621,515 acres and 78,013 AUMs to be available for 

livestock grazing under this alternative. This is 0.7% fewer acres and 0.6% fewer AUMs than 

Alternative A. 

Table 4.57. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under the Proposed Plan in 

Addition to Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 

Area Unavailable 

for Livestock 

Grazing 

Allotment(s) 

BLM Acres 

Remaining 

Unavailable for 

Grazing1

Forage 

Lost 

(AUMs) 

Justification 

Dodge Canyon Dodge Canyon 1,598 110 Sparse livestock forage, 

protect wildlife habitat. 

Horsehead 

Canyon 

Montezuma 

Canyon 

571 38 Lack of livestock water, 

protect wildlife and riparian 

habitat. 

Portions of Butler 

Wash Canyons 

Perkins Brothers, 

Tank Bench/ 

Brushy Basin, 

White Mesa 

208 20 Protect cultural resources. 

Slickhorn Canyon Perkins Brothers 2,600 210 Maintain primitive 

recreational opportunities, 

confined canyon has limited 

forage availability, protect 

cultural resources. 

Rone Bailey Mesa Upper Mail Station 1,162 68 Limited accessibility, lack of 

livestock water, sparse 

livestock forage. 

Rogers Rogers 40 No active 

preference 

allotted 

Sparse livestock forage, 

small isolated parcel difficult 

to manage. 

Subtotal 6179 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-106 

Table 4.57. Acres and AUMs of Forage Unavailable under the Proposed Plan in 

Addition to Those Listed under Alternative A (No Action)1 

Area Unavailable 

for Livestock 

Grazing 

Allotment(s) 

BLM Acres 

Remaining 

Unavailable for 

Grazing1

Forage 

Lost 

(AUMs) 

Justification 

Limited to 

Livestock Trailing 

only 

Lake Canyon, 

Harts Draw, Indian 

Creek 

5,555 Confined canyons have 

limited forage availability, 

balance potential conflicts 

with other resources or 

uses (wildlife habitat, 

primitive recreation, 

vegetation, cultural, etc), 

maintain riparian habitat. 

Total 11,734 446 

1Acreages are for BLM-administered land only. Acres for particular areas may vary slightly due to differences in 

shapefiles used in GIS acre calculations.

4.3.6.3.6.2. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under 

the Proposed Plan 

Approximately 710 acres are predicted to have minerals-related surface disturbance under this 

alternative. This is 11 acres or 1.7% more than Alternative A, so compared to Alternative A, 

there would likely be a slightly greater long-term, adverse (but minor) reduction in acreages and 

AUMs from loss of vegetation due to wellpad, access road, infrastructure construction, and from 

mineral extraction. 

4.3.6.3.6.3. Impacts of Special Status Species Management Decisions on 

Livestock Grazing Under the Proposed Plan 

Livestock grazing under the Proposed Plan would be prohibited between March 20 and May 15 

on allotments within sage-grouse habitat. In year-round habitat, grazing levels would be limited 

as necessary to maintain and/or improve habitat in areas within four miles of active sage-grouse 

strutting ground. Allotments subject to these restrictions would be Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, 

Sage-grouse and Dry Farm. The impacts on grazing would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B (negligible), as the prohibitions would not make livestock grazing unavailable on 

the affected allotments, but temporally restricted to protect species habitat. This alternative 

would have the same impacts as Alternative A. 

4.3.6.3.6.4. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Livestock Grazing Under the Proposed 

Plan 

The impacts from travel decisions would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because 

the travel decisions are similar. No acres would be managed as open to cross-country OHV use; 

there would be no impacts to livestock grazing would be negligible. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-107 

4.3.6.3.6.5. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation treatments on 1,500 acres of existing land treatments would continue, and new 

treatment would be annually conducted on 7,800 acres. Grazing on these areas would be 

temporarily suspended, but in the long-term could possibly result in an increase in AUMs 

available to livestock. The impacts to livestock grazing would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B, but to a slightly greater degree, as more acreage would be treated. Compared to 

Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would have more potentially adverse impacts on livestock 

grazing as 9,300 acres would be treated annually to improve rangeland conditions and vegetation 

communities (approximately 186,000 over 20 years), which would be 20% fewer acres 

throughout the Monticello PA than the proposed acreage treatments under Alternative A. 

4.3.6.3.6.6. Impacts of Wildlife Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing 

Under the Proposed Plan 

Current grazing management would continue and, where possible, would be altered to benefit 

forb production on pronghorn ranges in the following grazing allotments: Mail Station, Upper 

Mail Station, Dry Valley/Deer Neck, Lone Cedar, Tank Draw and Hart Draw. This could result 

in fewer AUMs available to livestock than under Alternative A, but there are no specific 

prescriptions under this alternative, and therefore quantitative analysis is not possible. When 

compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have the same impacts on livestock grazing. 

4.3.6.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Grazing restrictions due to resource management decisions would cause the following losses to 

acres and AUMs under the Proposed Plan and each alternative (Table 4.58): 

 Table 4.58. Acres and AUMs Lost due to Grazing Restrictions from Resource 

Management Decisions 

Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Acres Closed 134,277 127,136 134,642 133,318 131,149 134,642 

Acres Limited 

To Trailing 

Only 5,555 962 6,518 6,518 962 6,518 

Total 139,832 128,098 141,160 139,836 132,111 141,160 

AUMs 783 337 940 783 635 940 

When subtracted from the 1991 RMP totals of 1,761,351 BLM acres and 78,796 AUMs, 

proposed livestock grazing restrictions would leave the following total acreages available for 

grazing (Table 4.59) 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-108 

Table 4.59. Total Acres Available to Livestock under the Proposed Plan and Each 

Alternative as well as Percent Difference Comparisons 

Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Acres available 1,621,515 1,633,253 1,620,191 1,621,515 1,629,240 1,620,191 

Compared to 

Proposed Plan -- 0.7% more 0.08% less same 0.5% more 0.08% less

Compared to A 0.7% less -- 0.8% less 0.7% less 0.2% less 0.08% less

Compared to B 0.08% more 0.8% more -- 0.08% more 0.6% more same 

Compared to C same 0.7% more 0.08% less -- 0.5% more 0.08% less

Compared to D 0.5% less 0.2% more 0.6% less 0.5% less -- 0.6% less 

Compared to E 0.08% more 0.8% more same 0.08% more 0.6% more -- 

Total AUMs available under each alternative are listed in Table 4.60: 

Table 4.60. Total AUMs Available under Each Alternative and Comparisons Between 

Alternatives 

Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

AUMs available 78,013 78,459 77,856 78,013 78,161 77,856

Compared to Proposed 

Plan -- 0.6% more 0.2% less same 0.2% more 0.2% less 

Compared to A 0.6% less -- 0.8% less 0.6% less 0.4% less 0.8% less 

Compared to B 0.2% more 0.8% more -- 0.2% more 0.4% more same 

Compared to C same 0.6% more 0.2% less -- 0.2% more 0.2% less 

Compared to D 0.2% less 0.4% more 0.4% less 0.2% less -- 0.4% less 

Compared to E 0.2% more 0.8% more same 0.2% more 0.4% more -- 

As shown in the above table, there is very little difference between the numbers or acres and 

AUMs available when analyzed within the context of the area available for livestock grazing 

within the PA. 

Disturbance caused by minerals extraction would have the following impacts in terms of annual 

acres under each alternative (Table 4.61): 

Table 4.61. Annual Acres of Disturbance Due to Minerals Extraction Activities Under the 

Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Acres of disturbance 688 699 636 710 721 519 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-109 

Table 4.61. Annual Acres of Disturbance Due to Minerals Extraction Activities Under the 

Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Compared to 

Proposed Plan 

-- 1.6% more 7.6% less 3.2% more 4.8% more 24.6% less

Compared to A 1.6% less -- 9.0% less 1.5% more 3.0% more 25.9% less

Compared to B 8.2% more 9.9% more -- 11.6% 

more 

13.4% 

more 

18.5% less

Compared to C 3.1% less 1.5% less 10.4% less -- 1.5% more 27.0% less

Compared to D 4.8% less 3.0% less 11.8% less 1.5% less -- 28.2% less

Compared to E 32.6% more 34.9% 

more 

22.7% more 37.1% 

more 

39.2% 

more 

-- 

As shown, Alternative D would have the highest degree of surface disturbance and Alternative E 

would have the least. 

4.3.6.5. MITIGATION MEASURES

All mitigation measures to minimize or avoid impacts have been addressed in the management 

common to all subsections found in Chapter 2 and in livestock grazing practices described in 

Appendices A, I, and O. 

4.3.6.6. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

The loss due to other management decisions that cause permanent surface disturbances (e.g., trail 

construction, facility construction, wellpad access roads) of acres or AUMs that would otherwise 

be available for livestock use would be unavoidable. Unavoidable adverse impacts would also 

include invasive weed species that become established and spread as a result of soil and 

vegetation disturbances (including those disturbances caused by livestock). Impacts adjacent to 

livestock management facilities such as water troughs and handling facilities would be 

unavoidable. Some conflicts with recreational activities would be unavoidable. 

4.3.6.7. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Management decisions for some resources would cause short-term, adverse impacts to livestock 

grazing but would eventually be a benefit to the resource and contribute to long-term 

productivity. Vegetation treatments and fire management treatments would cause short-term loss 

of acres and AUMs available to livestock from vegetation and surface disturbances, but would 

potentially contribute to a greater area and amount of forage in the long-term by improving the 

productivity of vegetation and reducing woodlands. 

4.3.6.8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Irretrievable impacts to the livestock grazing resource would include the establishment and 

spread of weedy, exotic, and/or noxious native-vegetation-displacing plant species that could 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-110 

occur as a result of surface disturbances from minerals development; vegetation and fire 

treatments, woodland harvesting, and improper livestock management. Irreversible impacts to 

acres and AUMs available to livestock would occur anywhere a permanent structure is 

constructed, which would eliminate vegetation productivity for use as livestock forage. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-111 

4.3.7. MINERALS

This section presents the environmental consequences of resource management decisions 

proposed under each of the alternatives described in Chapter 2 on mineral resource development. 

Existing conditions concerning minerals are described in Chapter 3. 

Negligible impacts to mineral resource development would result from air quality, fire, health 

and safety, livestock grazing, paleontology, travel, or woodlands management decisions. The 

impacts would be negligible because maintaining air quality within NAAQS thresholds through 

appropriate mitigation; identifying and reducing wildland fire risks; reducing the risks of 

hazardous spills; maintaining safety around AML sites; establishing utilization levels and 

applying grazing standards and guidelines; designating recreational OHV access within the 

planning area; and permitting woodland harvesting would not reduce the opportunities for 

minerals leasing or for the exploration and development of mineral resources. Therefore, the 

impacts of management actions for these resources or programs on mineral resource 

development will not be analyzed further in this section. No impacts to mineral resource 

development would result from "casual use" activities. 

For the Monticello PA and the expected number of wells (76 wells over the next 15 years) and 

other mineral development air quality does reach a level that precludes or impairs mineral 

resource development. In full field development scenarios, or if production was substantially 

higher than predicted, air quality could become more impacted and would be analyzed in future 

environmental documentation. Further discussion of air quality can be found in Chapters 2 and 3. 

In accordance with BLM policy and its recognition of the National Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 2000 (EPCA), as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, mineral resource 

development would be allowed throughout the Monticello PA subject to standard terms and 

conditions unless precluded by other program prescriptions., Stipulations would be followed to 

mitigate the impacts of oil and gas and other mineral activity (see Appendix A-Stipulations 

Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-disturbing Activities). The stipulations 

would apply to all surface-disturbing activities, aside from the exception, modification, and 

waiver situations as determined by an Authorized Officer and guided by the criteria in Appendix 

A. The area specific restrictions on surface-disturbing activities listed in the table in Appendix A 

vary by alternative and detail limits on timing, surface use, and occupancy, as well as closures 

throughout the Monticello FO. 

As described in Chapter 3, mineral resources are categorized into three mineral program types: 

leasable, locatable, and salable. Leasable minerals are subject to disposal by lease under the 

authority of the Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and include oil, natural gas, coal, 

potash, and tar sands. 

Locatable minerals are usually the base and precious metal ores, ferrous metal ores, and certain 

classes of industrial minerals for which acquisition is made by staking a mining claim (location) 

over the deposit and then acquiring the necessary permits to explore or mine. For purposes of 

this planning effort these include uranium and vandium, placer gold, and limestone. 

Salable minerals are defined as mineral commodities disposed of sales contract or free use 

permit issued by the federal government. Salable minerals are generally common varieties of 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-112 

construction materials and aggregates, such as sand, gravel, and roadbed and ballast material. For 

purposes of this planning effort these include sand and gravel, building stone, and clay. 

The BLM allocates land as available or unavailable for use for the three mineral programs, and 

stipulates conditions of use. Leasing uses Standard Lease Terms, Special Conditions (Timing 

Limitations and/or Controlled Surface Use, TL/CSU), No Surface Occupancy, and closed. Lands 

classified for locatable minerals are identified as open to mineral entry or recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral entry. Lands recommended for withdrawal would be managed as 

prescribed in the PRMP/FEIS until such time as they are actually withdrawn by Congress. Lands 

identified for salable minerals are open with standard terms and conditions, open with special 

conditions, or closed. 

Summaries of the RFD scenario for leasable, locatable, and salable minerals as well as predicted 

geophysical exploration activity levels are summarized below and discussed in detail in the 

Mineral Potential Report and RFD. 

4.3.7.1. SUMMARY OF LEASABLE MINERAL RFD 

The RFD prepared for this PRMP/FEIS utilizes data on past and current oil and gas development 

to predict future development for all lands in the Monticello PA, both BLM lands and non-BLM 

lands (BLM 2005b, 2005d). The RFD estimates the average acreage of disturbance per well 

(including the well pad, roads, and pipelines) to be 9.6 acres; the total number of existing oil and 

gas wells to be 1,615; and the existing surface disturbance as 15,504 acres. 

The BLM administers 38.2% of the lands in the Monticello PA (see Table 1.1). Assuming the 

RFD applies uniformly across all lands in the Monticello PA, any calculations made, in 

conjunction with the disturbance per well number (9.6 acres) and the alternatives matrix in 

Chapter 2, can be used to estimate potential mineral resource development impacts (measured in 

number of wells and resulting acres of surface disturbance) on BLM lands for each alternative. 

For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the number of wells likely to be drilled 

under each alternative would be proportional to the acreage of land open for mineral resource 

development under that alternative. For example, if an alternative had 90% of BLM lands in the 

Monticello FO open for development, it would be assumed that 90% of the RFD on BLM lands 

would be drilled under that alternative. Table 4.62 shows the acreages of and predicted number 

of wells on BLM lands over the next 15 years within the three RFD areas, which are to be the 

focus of this analysis and of future oil and gas development within the Monticello FO. 

Table 4.62. Baseline/RFD Acreages of Lands and Predicted Number of Wells in the 3 RFD 

Areas over the next 15 Years 

Acreage Wells RFD Area 

Total BLM 

BLM% 

of Total Total BLM 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 531,671 257,412 48 53 25 

Blanding Sub-basin 1,173,537 405,664 35 120 42 

Monument Upwarp 1,950,562 734,523 38 23 9

Total 3,655,770 1,397,599 196 76 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-113 

4.3.7.2. SUMMARY OF GEOPHYSICAL RFD 

Calculations can be made regarding impacts of geophysical exploration on BLM lands for each 

alternative in conjunction with the disturbance associated with linear miles of source line within 

the Monticello FO (disturbance of 2,236 acres caused by 1,230 linear miles of source line; BLM 

2005d) and the alternatives matrix in Chapter 2. It is assumed that the linear miles of source line 

likely to be used under a given alternative would be proportional to the acreage of land open for 

mineral resource development under that alternative. 

4.3.7.3. SUMMARY OF LOCATABLE MINERAL RFD AND SALABLE MINERAL RFD 

The same procedure can be applied to calculations regarding impacts of locatable and salable 

mineral resource development on BLM lands for each alternative, in conjunction with the acres 

of disturbance within the Monticello FO (disturbance of 360 acres caused by locatable mineral 

resource development and of 491 acres caused by salable mineral resource development; BLM 

2005b) and the alternatives matrix in Chapter 2. It is assumed that the acreage likely to be 

developed for locatable and salable mineral resources under a given alternative would be 

proportional to the acreage of land open for these types of development under that alternative. 

As mentioned in the introduction to Chapter 4, short-term impacts are those that would last for 

up to 5 years, and long-term impacts are those that would be longer than 5 years. Because the 

impact indicators for this resource were number of wells and the number of acres available for 

mineral resource development over the next 15 years, short-term impacts were not distinguished 

from long-term impacts. 

4.3.7.4. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

In the next 15 to 20 years, 27 dry holes, 20 abandoned wells, and all 480 currently abandoned 

wells would be successfully reclaimed totaling 5,059 acres. . This would result in the surface 

being reclaimed and the restoration of vegetation and soils. Additionally, in the next 15 years, 

approximately 559 linear miles of source line for 2-D and 3-D geophysical exploration would be 

conducted on BLM lands and would result in approximately 886 acres of surface disturbance, 

which would be reclaimed within 10 years. This exploration would beneficially impact mineral 

resource development and production in that it would improve the data available for making 

prudent mineral resource development decisions (BLM 2005d). Geophysical exploration can 

increase the probability of drilling a successful well and reduce the amount of unnecessary 

exploratory drilling (such as step-out drilling) which could reduce operational costs and make 

mineral development more profitable. This is a beneficial impact. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, standard conditions (e.g., standard lease terms, best 

management practices [BMPs], conditions of approval (COAs), and standard operating 

procedures [SOPs]) are applied to all mineral development activities on a site-specific basis. 

These standard conditions include compliance with non-discretionary laws (e.g., threatened and 

endangered species and cultural laws) and are intended to mitigate impacts to other resources 

(e.g., VRM, cultural, wildlife, soils, vegetation, recreation). The standard conditions add to 

operation costs and often result in longer processing time for applications and, delays in 

operations. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-114 

4.3.7.4.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

Under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the development of specific restrictions for 

culturally sensitive areas such as Cedar Mesa could slow the processing of proposed mineral 

resource development for these areas. Generally, more rigorous protection or mitigation 

measures would be applied in culturally sensitive areas. Such plans may specify monitoring 

systems, protective measures, equipment used, the development of research designs, and/or 

treatment. These restrictions and mitigations could add to the cost (in time, labor, or materials) of 

gaining cultural resource clearances for a given mineral resource development project. 

Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,388 acres) would be unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, closed to mineral material disposal, and open to geophysical exploration, except for the 

Special Emphasis area. There would be an adverse impact on the development of 37,388 acres as 

these resources would not be available for development and production and royalties would be 

reduced. The Old Spanish Trial and Hole-in-the-Rock trail would be managed for historic values. 

The prescriptions would generally be impairments to mineral development; but are not expected 

to be prohibitive. 

4.3.7.4.2. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the disposal out of federal ownership of up to 6,581 

acres of BLM lands within the Monticello FO (see Appendix C and Chapter 2) would result in 

fewer opportunities for mineral resource development on those parcels and less production and 

supply of mineral resources. This is somewhat mitigated because lands are evaluated for mineral 

potential as part of the disposal process. High potential lands may not be disposed of because it 

would not be in the public interest. 

WSAa are exclusion areas for ROWs but are still available to locatable mineral development. 

Exclusion of ROWs in WSAs would have a negative impact on mineral resource development 

because it would be more costly and timely to develop and mitigate impacts. These impacts are 

also discussed under special designations because the reason for the exclusion is protection of 

wilderness (WSAa); however, the mechanism of exclusion of ROWs is a realty action. 

4.3.7.4.3. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan developed recreation sites—existing and future—

would be subject to NSO, recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry, and closed to 

mineral materials disposal. Oil and gas developers who wish to lease resources underlying 

developed recreation sites would be required to conduct directional drilling, which adds costs 

and logistical challenges to individual projects. Removing these sites from mineral entry and 

disposal would result in fewer options for developers of locatable and salable mineral resources, 

and potentially would lower the yield and commercial supply of these resources. It is likely that 

mineral resource development would be thus limited on more than 460 acres because they 

become developed recreation sites (see Section 4.3.10, Recreation) and would be a minor impact 

to mineral resource development. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-115 

4.3.7.4.4. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN RESOURCE DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan riparian areas (approximately 20,435 acres) and 

lands within active floodplains or within 100 m of riparian areas would be subject to NSO. The 

impacts to mineral resource development resulting from protection of riparian resources on 

20,435 acres would be increased costs. Producing oil and gas on lands subject to NSO is higher 

than it is on lands subject to standard and special stipulations due to the necessity of drilling 

directionally from adjacent locations where surface occupancy is allowed. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan minor, beneficial impacts to mineral resource 

development could result from allowing non–surface-disturbing geophysical work within 

floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas. Geophysical exploration can increase the probability of 

drilling a successful well and reduce the amount of unnecessary exploratory drilling. Surfacedisturbing exploration techniques (such as step-out drilling) could be reduced, thereby making 

mineral development more profitable by reducing operational costs. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, oil and gas developers would be required to follow 

the Guidance for Pipeline Crossings (see Appendix F), including conducting hydraulic analysis 

during the design phase to eliminate potential environmental degradation. This may result in 

minor to negligible, adverse impacts to oil and gas development because it would potentially 

increase the up front cost of specific development projects. 

Minor, beneficial impacts to mineral resource development could result from allowing mineral 

operations within floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas on a limited basis if there are no 

practical alternatives for avoidance or if impacts could be fully mitigated. Direct beneficial 

impacts occur by having more acreage (20,435 acres) available for mineral resource 

development. Small, indirect, beneficial impacts (less operating cost) occur by having sand and 

gravel available in locations near other mineral development operations. 

4.3.7.4.5. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan including the No Action alternative mineral 

decisions could impact development of minerals by creating restrictions between incompatible 

developments. Generally, prohibitive conflicts would occur between two leasable minerals (such 

as oil and gas versus potash) where large acres of land would exclude other resource 

development. However, potash and coal were determined to be low potential for development so 

this potential conflict will not be analyzed in detail for the Monticello PA. 

A more likely conflict would be between Leasable and Locatable/Salable mineral development, 

where placement of one facility prohibits placement of another. Small surface disturbances (e.g., 

gravel pits, mine locations) could impact oil and gas development. Usually, small 

locatable/salable operations do not prohibit oil and gas development; they only restrict 

placement. Adverse impacts (e.g., increased costs due to directional drilling) may occur where 

placement of an oil and gas facility is required to be moved away from an existing mine/pit. For 

reasons stated in the MPR, development potential is low for coal, tar sand, and salt and potash 

resources in the Monticello FO during the foreseeable future. Thus, mineral resource 

development decisions would result in negligible impacts to the development of these resources 

under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, and these mineral resources are not discussed 

further in this section. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-116 

Because of rights granted to claimants under the mining laws, the BLM may impose only those 

surface use restrictions that are necessary to prevent undue or unnecessary degradation. 

Therefore, based on the RFD scenario, locatable mineral development (primarily uranium and 

vanadium) would likely continue during the next 15 years, regardless of the alternative 

implemented. This would result in beneficial impacts to the mineral resource industry by 

increasing the domestic supply of uranium and vanadium. On the other hand, increased 

extraction of these resources would also, over time, reduce the quantities of finite uraniumvanadium resources in the Monticello FO. 

4.3.7.4.6. IMPACTS OF SOILS AND WATERSHED DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan any mineral resource development occurring in 

sensitive soils (see Chapter 2 and Section 3.14.4.3, Sensitive Soils) would require BMPs and 

applicable mitigation measures (Appendix A and I) to minimize impacts. Moderately and highly 

wind erodible soils (892,228 acres) would require a project proponent to comply with BMPs and 

mitigation measures, which could result in increased costs and time required to implement a 

mineral resource exploration or development project in sensitive soils. The same impact would 

occur for highly water erodible soils on 27,704 acres. Soil characteristics were not used in 

determining lease categories, these are based on criteria such as ACEC designations, floodplains, 

or Special Status Species or wildlife needs; however, the amount of soils that may potentially be 

considered “sensitive” varies under the different alternatives because of the variation in the areas 

assigned different lease categories in each alternative. The presence of “sensitive soils” may 

increase the costs associated with developing areas due to the need for erosion control plans or 

implementation of soil protection measures, therefore comparing the amount of potential 

“sensitive soils” under each lease category provides a basis for comparing potential impacts on 

mineral resource development by alternative from this resource. 

4.3.7.4.7. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

The Monticello FO has 13 existing WSAs or ISA complexes. WSAs are areas that must be 

managed in a manner that does not impair their suitability for congressional designation as 

Wilderness (BLM 1991c; Table 4.39). 

These WSA designations would continue to apply across all alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

and 386,027 acres (or 21.6%) of BLM lands would remain closed to leasing. These closures are 

non-discretionary. Adding to or removing acreage from these WSAs is beyond the scope of this 

Proposed Plan. Maintaining the WSAs would have negative impacts upon mineral resource 

extraction and development because they would exclude lands from mineral resource 

development and lower the number of locations where potential wells could be drilled (BLM 

1990; see Table 4.63). The lower number of locations could lead to a lower production and 

supply of oil and natural gas and fewer royalties paid to the federal government and/or the State 

of Utah. The finite, non-renewable resource found beneath the WSAs would not be depleted. 

Table 4.63. Acres of WSAs within Each RFD Area 

RFD Area RFD Acres within WSAs Total RFD Acres* % of RFD within WSA

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 10,893 268,305 4.1 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-117 

Table 4.63. Acres of WSAs within Each RFD Area 

RFD Area RFD Acres within WSAs Total RFD Acres* % of RFD within WSA

Blanding Sub-basin 15,582 421,246 3.7 

Monument Upwarp 359,552 1,094,076 32.9 

Total 386,027 1,783,627 21.6 

* The administrative definition of RFD areas precludes WSAs, and WSAs were not included in the calculations and projections of 

the RFD (BLM 2005d). However, this number represents the total physical, geographic acreage (rather than the administrative 

acreage) and includes WSA acreages to depict how much of each geographic area is lost to mineral resource exploration and 

development due to being WSAs (i.e., closed to leasing). Note that the vast majority of RFD acres within WSAs—both in area and 

percentage—occur in the Monument Upwarp RFD Area. 

4.3.7.4.8. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ON MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

All alternatives and the Proposed Plan require some degree of spatial or temporal limitation on 

surface-disturbing activities to protect special status species and wildlife populations and their 

important habitats. In the case of mineral and energy resource development, specific conditions 

of approval or lease terms are often required to mitigate the adverse affects of development 

activities on special status species. Measures needed to comply with non-discretionary laws (e.g., 

Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) are provided for in the 

Standard Lease Terms and lease notices. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, there 

would be continued application of lease notices for federally listed plant and animal species as 

determined by Section 7 consultation between the BLM and USFWS and for any non-listed 

special status plant or animal species that occurs or has potential to occur in proposed lease 

areas. In addition, all special status species-related measures outlined in Stipulations Applicable 

to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-disturbing Activities (Appendix A), Conservation 

Measures and Best Management Practices for Federally Listed Species (Appendix Q) would be 

followed. 

Spatial and temporal limitations (hereafter referred to as controlled surface use and timing 

limitations, respectively) would have an adverse impact on mineral resource development by 

increasing exploration costs, time, and effort. However, the degree and magnitude of such 

increases depend on many factors, including the options for project siting, the locale of the lease, 

and the drilling window. Operators may experience adverse economic impacts if drilling 

operations are curtailed during special status species protection periods or if drilling operations 

must be moved to another area on the lease. Impacts to mineral resource development resulting 

from the following species and general wildlife protection measures would apply under all 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.7.4.8.1. Bald Eagle 

All alternatives and the Proposed Plan would implement controlled surface use and timing 

limitations near Bald Eagle nesting or winter roost habitat or during the nesting or roosting 

season. Table 4.64 summarizes the seasonal restrictions on mineral resource development by 

species that occur in the Monticello FO, including the Bald Eagle. Restrictions occur for eight 

months of the year. Potential adverse impacts to mineral resource development could be more 

time and costs for requirements such as nest monitoring or surveys, the exclusion of certain 

areas, avoidance of certain areas for up to eight months, and scheduling extra time for processing 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-118 

applications and drilling. Operators can have difficulty in scheduling a rig due to a timing 

limitation or may incur additional costs having a rig on stand-by. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-119 

Table 4.64. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resource Developm

Alternatives 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Burrowing Owl – Nesting (0.25 mile) 3/1 – 8/31 Cooper's Hawk – Nesting (0.5 mile) 3/15 – 8/31 Ferruginous Hawk – Nesting (0.5 mile) 3/1 – 8/1 Golden Eagle – Nesting (0.5 mile) 1/1 – 8/31 Northern Goshawk – Nesting (0.5 mile) 3/1 – 8/15 Peregrine Falcon – Nesting (1.0 mile) 2/1 – 8/31 Prairie Falcon – Nesting (0.25 mile) 4/1 – 8/31 Red-tailed Hawk – Nesting (0.5 mile) 3/15 – 8/15 Short-eared Owl – Nesting (0.25 mile) 3/1 – 8/1 Swainson's Hawk – Nesting (0.5 mile) 3/1 – 8/31 Bald Eagle – Nesting (1.0 mile) 1/1 – 8/31 Bald Eagle – Roosting (0.5 mile) 11/1 – 3/31 Mexican Spotted Owl – Breeding (0.5 mile) 

3/1 – 8/31 

SWW Flycatcher – Breeding (0.25 mile) 5/1 – 9/30 Yellow-billed Cuckoo – Breed. (0.25 mile) 5/1 – 8/31 California Condor – Known nest (1.0 mile) 3/1 – 8/31 Migratory birds – Known priority habitat 5/1 – 7/31 Source: Romin and Muck 2002. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-120 

4.3.7.4.8.2. Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) 

Surveys for nesting and foraging habitat suitability and individual owls are common components 

of the preservation of the MSO and its habitat in the Monticello FO (see Table 4.64 for seasonal 

restrictions). Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan two-year surveys for MSO are 

required in the case of permanent structures (e.g., new producing oil and gas wells), as is the 

occasional noise analysis if noise generating facilities are sited in or near habitat. Spatial buffers 

of 0.5 mile around nests or habitat are typically adequate. The full avoidance and minimization 

measures specified in the alternatives matrix in Chapter 2 would result in FO-wide impacts on 

mineral resource development similar to those described for the Bald Eagle (above). 

4.3.7.4.8.3. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan the protection of riparian habitat within the range of 

these two species may include surveys or monitoring, timing limitations during the nesting 

season (see Table 4.64), and spatial and noise buffers around suitable habitat, particularly if 

permanent facilities are developed nearby. A 300-foot buffer around suitable riparian habitat is 

required year-round to prevent surface-disturbing activities. This particular species management 

decision would have a negative, minor impact on individual mineral resource development 

projects sited near riparian areas. Costs, time, and effort may increase if surveys are conducted to 

find out if the habitat is suitable, and if it is suitable, costs, time, and effort may increase again in 

the re-routing and re-siting of facilities and/or directional drilling. The full avoidance and 

minimization measures specified in the alternatives matrix in Chapter 2 would result in impacts 

on mineral resource development similar to those described for the Bald Eagle (above). 

4.3.7.4.8.4. Endangered Colorado River Fishes 

Within the Monticello FO, mineral resource development may encroach on riparian habitat in the 

100-year floodplain of designated critical habitat for the bonytail, humpback chub, Colorado 

pikeminnow, and razorback sucker. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan restrictions on 

development in and around riparian habitat would have impacts on mineral resource 

development similar to those described for the riparian habitat of the Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher and the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (above). Additionally, any water depletion 

affecting the Colorado River system requires consultation with the USFWS and would likely 

result in operators paying water depletion fees if they are using surface water to supply drilling 

operations. This would likely increase both development time and costs. 

4.3.7.4.8.5. California Condor 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan mineral resource development in the Monticello FO 

would be timed and sited to avoid the nesting season (see Table 4.64) and locales of California 

condor. The protection of nesting habitat for this species may involve measures similar to those 

described for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

(above). No permanent structures or roads, including new producing oil and gas wells and access 

roads, would be allowed within 1.0 mile of known condor nest sites. This particular species 

management decision would have a negative, minor impact on individual mineral resource 

development projects sited near known nest sites. Costs, time, and effort may increase if surveys 

are conducted to find out if nests are nearby, and if nests are nearby, costs, time, and effort may 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-121 

increase again in the re-routing and re-siting of facilities. The full avoidance and minimization 

measures specified in the alternatives matrix in Chapter 2 would result in impacts on mineral 

resource development similar to those described for the Bald Eagle (above). 

4.3.7.4.8.6. Migratory Birds and Raptors 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan occupied, migratory bird habitat would require 

mineral resource developers to avoid or minimize surface-disturbing activities during nesting 

season. This in turn would result in impacts on mineral resource development similar to those 

described for the Bald Eagle (above). Occupied priority migratory bird habitat will be 

determined with the use of Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy, Intermountain 

West Joint Venture Bird Habitat Conservation Areas, and other migratory bird conservation 

plans. 

4.3.7.4.8.7. Summary of Impacts Common to All Special Status Species Decisions 

on Mineral Resource Development 

Exact acreages of habitat to be restricted would depend on the results of field surveys associated 

with specific projects within the Monticello FO and cannot be quantified at this time. However, 

some general conclusions can be drawn regarding the timing limitations. As is evident from 

Table 4.64, developers would be able to conduct mineral resource exploration, development, and 

production without timing limitations for only one month out of the year (i.e., October). The fall 

and winter months (i.e., September through February) would have the fewest timing limitations 

on mineral resource development, while the spring and summer months (i.e., March through 

August) would have the most. The most restrictive months of the year would be May through 

July; nearly all timing limitations would be in effect during that period. 

4.3.7.4.9. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Mineral resource development would be subject to the VRM class objectives of the area within 

which development would occur. VRM management on areas designated as VRM Class III and 

IV imposes minimal restrictions on mineral resource development. Designation of an area as 

VRM Class I essentially closes the area to mineral resource activity. Management of areas as 

VRM Class II allows alteration of line, form, color and texture that characterize the existing 

landscape, although the resulting contrast should not attract the attention of the casual observer. 

Meeting VRM Class II objectives imposes additional costs on mineral resource developers and 

may restrict development in certain areas. 

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan, areas managed as VRM Classes II, III, and 

IV would typically be available to leasing with either standard lease terms or controlled surface 

use stipulations. This visual resource decision would generally have a beneficial effect on 

mineral resource development because more areas would be available under standard lease terms 

or controlled surface use stipulations, rather than being restricted with NSO. The beneficial 

impact would be that mineral exploration and development could still occur. 

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan, direct, adverse impacts to mineral resource 

development resulting from VRM Class I designations would include the exclusion of lands 

available for mineral resource development, a lower number of locations where potential wells 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-122 

could be drilled, a lower yield and commercial supply of oil and natural gas, and fewer royalties. 

All WSAs (386,027 acres) are managed as VRM Class I for all alternatives. 

4.3.7.4.10. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

Crucial big game habitats are subject to special conditions regulating surface-disturbing activities 

during certain seasons. These seasonal conditions would not impact maintenance and operation 

activities for mineral production. The seasonal conditions would result in negative, minor 

impacts to mineral resource development, in the form of slowed production from mineral 

resource development facilities in this area due to timing limitations. 

4.3.7.4.11. IMPACTS OF OTHER LANDS MANAGED BY BLM ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the BLM manages federal leases on certain lands 

not administered by the BLM, including: 

• 101,720 acres within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (NRA), 

• 366,850 acres within the Manti-LaSal National Forest, Monticello Ranger District, 

• 51,610 acres within the Navajo Indian Reservation, 

• 1,080 acres within Indian Trust Lands, and 

• 55,390 acres on private, split-estate lands. 

The impacts of permitting leasing on these non-BLM lands within the Monticello FO—a total of 

576,650 acres—would have beneficial and long-term impacts upon mineral resource 

development, especially oil and gas. Leasing of these non-BLM lands would result in the 

permitting of additional wells, which in turn would result in an increase in the domestic supply 

of oil and gas and increased royalties to the federal government or the State of Utah. The Navajo 

Nation would also receive economic benefits from the leasing of their lands, including fees from 

the use of surface permits and ROWs. However, continued oil and gas extraction would, over 

time, reduce the quantities of finite fossil fuel resources in the Monticello FO. 

4.3.7.5. ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

4.3.7.5.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.7.5.1.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative A 

Various SRMAs, historic districts and landmarks and historic trails have been designated 

throughout the Monticello FO. Some cultural designations are located within recreational 

designations or special designations. 

• The Cedar Mesa SRMA and its impacts on mineral resource development are discussed in 

full in Section 4.3.7.4.3, Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Mineral Resource Development. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-123 

• The Grand Gulch Historic District is within WSAs that are managed under the IMP. This 

section assesses impacts of the cultural resource decisions associated with this entity. The 

Alkali Ridge Historic Landmark is discussed in Section 4.3.7.5.1.8 Impacts of Special 

Designations on Mineral Resources.. 

• Under the No Action Alternative cultural resource decisions regarding the 37,433-acre Grand 

Gulch Historic District (already within a WSA) and the 4,240-acre special emphasis area 

(within the historic district) would result in the entire historic district being closed to disposal 

of mineral materials (Table 4.65) and the special emphasis area being closed to leasing and 

geophysical work. 

These cultural resource decisions for the Grand Gulch Historic District would have negative, 

minor impacts on mineral resource development, particularly mineral materials. These decisions 

would account for a 2.1% decrease in BLM lands available for mineral materials disposal and a 

0.2% decrease in BLM lands available for leasing and geophysical work, which in turn would 

result in less oil and gas productivity and geophysical exploration within the historic district. 

Ultimately, direct impacts would be manifest as a slightly lower yield of oil and gas; less sand, 

gravel, building stone, and clay available for public consumption; and poorer data on the mineral 

resource reserves underlying the historic district. Indirect impacts would include increased time 

and cost of individual mineral resource development projects within this historic district because 

of the likelihood of needing to re-route pipelines, access roads, and well pads to avoid cultural 

resource sites. 

4.3.7.5.1.2. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative A 

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing transportation and utility ROW corridors would 

have a beneficial impact on mineral resource exploration and development because additional 

travel corridors would allow easier access to mineral resource development facilities, sites, and 

well pads within the Monticello FO. 

Under Alternative A, approximately 132,380 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from 

mineral entry. This decision has the potential to result in fewer opportunities for mineral resource 

development on this acreage and less production and supply of mineral resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-124 

Table 4.65. Acres of BLM Lands Available for Mineral Resource Development under Each Alternative an

Plan 

Resource Alternative A – No Action* Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alterna

LEASABLE MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING OIL AND GAS Standard Lease Terms 578,604 *(584,270) 365,170 629,472 962,283 213,290 Special Conditions 659,626 (815,690) I0 0 0 0 Timing Limitations (TL) 0 786,489 569,657 418,242 511,649 Controlled Surface Use (CSU) 0 67,288 51,419 2,758 25,428 TL and CST 0 22,963 98,425 0 8,564 Subtotal of Open Lands 1,238,230 (1,399,960) 1,241,910 1,348,973 1,383,283 758,929 No Surface Occupancy 161,224 (268,080) 125,105 39,323 14,175 53,915 Closed to Leasing** 385,316 (111,170) 416,612 395,329 386,853 974,463 Due to WSAs 386,027 (111,170) 386,027 386,027 386,027 386,027 Due to non WSA w/ WCs *** 0 0 0 582,357 Due to ACECs *** 1312,950 2,730 0 399,345 Due to WSRs 0 18,768 3,968 0 0 LOCATABLE MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (MINERAL ENTRY) Open 1,652,743 1,533,413 1,663,211 1,738,992 951,053 Withdrawn 132,380 251,710 121,912 46,131 834,070 SALABLE MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (MINERAL MATERIAL DISPOSAL)**** Standard Terms and Conditions 578,604 (584,270) 365,168 624,734 962,279 213,290 Special Conditions 810,652 (821,070) 876,736 724,234 420,998 545,641 Subtotal of Open Lands 1,389,256 (1,405,340) 1,241,904 1,348,968 1,383,277 758,931 Closed 395,514 (373,850) 542,402 435,338 401,026 1,025,37*The acreages currently managed (the first acreage listed) differ from the 1991 RMP acreages (the second acreage listed in parenthesis) because of WSAs (close1991 RMP was signed), which were not taken into account at the time of the 1991 RMP. Most of these WSAs were ACECs and available for leasing subject to spe** Approximately 386,027 of these acres are closed due to WSA designation, across all alternatives (BLM 1990; see the IMP; see also Section 4.3.7.4.7 and Table an itemized list of all closures and their acreages). WSA closures are non-discretionary and, thus, are beyond the scope of this EIS analysis. Due to improvements 1991 RMP and differences in datasets and methods of calculation, the Closed sub-categories (e.g., WSAs, ACECs) do not add up to the total Closed acreage (e.g

Action). *** WSA designations account for all closures under the No Action. **** See Maps 21 – 26 for mineral material disposals under each alternative.

1 There is overlap between ACECs and WSAs so they are not additive under Alternatives B-C and the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-125 

4.3.7.5.1.3. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Mineral Resource Development Under 

Alternative A 

Oil and Gas Resources

In total, approximately 1,238,230 acres of BLM lands within the Monticello FO would remain 

administratively open for oil and gas leasing under Standard and Special lease stipulations within 

the three RFD development areas (see Table 4.65). Based on the proportion of BLM lands open 

for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005d), it is estimated that 73 predicted oil and gas wells would 

be drilled over the next 15 years (Table 4.66; Map 27). The socioeconomic analysis in this 

chapter (Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources) estimates the yield of oil and gas—in terms 

of barrels and thousand cubic feet (Mcf), respectively—that would result from implementation of 

the No Action Alternative. 

Under this alternative, approximately 47% of all open BLM lands would be available under 

standard stipulations, and approximately 53% of all open BLM lands would be available under 

special stipulations. Oil and gas development would occur in all three RFD areas. Although the 

largest acreage available for development is in the Monument Upwarp RFD Area, it is worth 

noting that this area would likely see the least amount of development in terms of wells (i.e., 7). 

Among all RFD areas, it also is the one with the greatest proportion and amount of its lands 

subject to special stipulations from management prescriptions used to protect ACECs, WSAs, 

and VRM Class I or II. Most wells (i.e., 41) would be drilled in the Blanding Sub-basin RFD 

Area. 

Under this alternative, the federal government and/or the State of Utah would continue to receive 

royalties from the production and sale of oil and gas (see Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic 

Resources). Continued oil and gas extraction would also, over time, reduce the quantities of 

finite fossil fuel resources found in the Monticello FO, though it is difficult to quantify the 

proportional impact on these reserves. 

Geophysical Exploration

Under the No Action Alternative, approximately 559 linear miles of source line for 2-D and 3-D 

geophysical exploration would be conducted during the next 15-20 years and would result in 

approximately 886 acres of surface disturbance. This exploration would beneficially impact 

mineral resource development and production because it would refresh or increase the data 

available for making prudent mineral resource development decisions (BLM 2005d). More 

costly and surface-disturbing exploration techniques (e.g., step-out drilling) would be reduced, 

making mineral development more profitable. Geophysical exploration would occur in all three 

RFD areas, as detailed in Table 4.66. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-126 

Table 4.66. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands within RFD Areas u

A–No Action, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Available Geop

RFD Area

Standard Special Total

% of BLM Lands 

Available Predicted Wells* Linear Mi

Source L

AVERAGE OVER 15 YEARS 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 163,953 89,121 253,074 98 25 27Blanding Sub-basin 270,410 127,657 398,067 98 41 20Monument Upwarp 144,241 442,848 587,089 80 7 8LOP Total 578,604 659,626 1,238,230 73 55

MAXIMUM PER YEAR (MPY)** 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt *** *** *** *** 3 2Blanding Sub-basin *** *** *** *** 4 1Monument Upwarp *** *** *** *** 1 MPY Total *** *** *** 8 4Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only. *Oil and natural gas wells are considered together. **Based on the RFD (BLM 2005d), MPY reflects the maximum development that could occur in any given year for the next 15 years. During most Plan yewill be less than this maximum. To find the average development per year, take the value of interest in the first part of the table divide the value by 15, whthe Plan is expected to be in effect. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-127 

Other Leasable Mineral Resources

Although 1,238,230 acres of BLM land are administratively open for the leasing of potash and 

salt and tar sands development, potential (and thus impacts) are low. The Cane Creek and Lisbon 

Valley Known Potash Leasing Areas (KPLAs) (less than 9,000 acres), and the White Canyon 

Designated Tar Sand Area (DTSA) (approximately 10,000 acres) are considered low 

development potential as discussed in the Mineral Potential Report for the Monticello PA (BLM 

2005b, pages 34-35). Based on the low potential and infrequent development/interest in potash 

and salt and tar sands leasing because of mineral resource development decisions, impacts would 

be negligible under the No Action Alternative. 

Locatable Mineral Resources

In total, approximately 1,675,057 acres of BLM land would remain open to development of 

uranium-vanadium, copper, gold, and limestone under the No Action Alternative. Oil and gas 

development has a high potential to co-occur with uranium-vanadium development and some 

potential to co-occur with limestone development (in the south-central and southeastern 

Monticello FO). However, uranium-vanadium and limestone mining operations are typically 

small enough to preclude conflict or adverse impacts with oil and gas development (BLM 

2005d). This is evident in the Lisbon Valley area, a historically well established uranium mining 

district and a prolific producer of oil and gas. The impacts of any future development of 

locatable resources would be analyzed through site-specific NEPA when and if the project(s) are 

proposed. 

Salable Mineral Resources

In total, approximately 1,405,340 acres of BLM land would remain open to development of sand 

and gravel, building stone, and clay (Map 21), and there is high potential for continued 

development of known deposits at existing levels for the next 15 years, regardless of the 

alternative chosen. Although unexplored areas of high development potential are dispersed 

throughout the Monticello PA, and although development of these resources may be co-located 

with oil and gas and other mineral resource development, particularly in the northeastern portion 

of the Monticello PA, mineral material disposal operations are typically discrete sites, small 

enough to avoid conflicts with the development of other mineral resources. Negligible impacts to 

salable resources from development of other mineral resources would be anticipated. Based on 

increased acreages available for oil and gas leasing or other mineral development, an indirect 

impact could be the increased need for sand and gravel for road maintenance and construction. 

4.3.7.5.1.4. Impacts of Management of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics on Mineral Resource Development Under 

Alternative A 

Under the No Action Alternative, no BLM lands would be managed as non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and therefore there would be no impacts on mineral resource 

development. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-128 

4.3.7.5.1.5. Impacts of Recreation Decisions upon Mineral Resource Development 

Under Alternative A 

Under the No Action Alternative, mineral resource development in the 15,100-acre San Juan 

River SRMA would be subject to NSO within the 100-m riparian area and to standard or special 

stipulations outside that area. No impacts on mineral resource development in this SRMA would 

result from recreation decisions under the No Action Alternative. 

Under the No Action Alternative, leasing and other mineral resource development activities 

would be subject to standard or special stipulations for the portions of the 385,000-acre Cedar 

Mesa SRMA that are outside a WSA. Therefore, no impacts on mineral resource development in 

these areas would result from recreation decisions under this alternative. 

4.3.7.5.1.6. Impacts of Riparian Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative A 

The impacts of riparian resource decisions on mineral resource development are the same for all 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan and are discussed above under Section 4.3.7.4, Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives. 

4.3.7.5.1.7. Impacts of Soils and Watershed Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative A 

Under the No Action Alternative, a minimum of 1,063,019 acres of BLM lands open to surfacedisturbing mineral resource development (i.e., leasing under Standard or Special Stipulations, 

and lands that are subject to No Surface Occupancy but are Open to minerals entry, or 76.5% of 

open BLM lands) are overlain by sensitive soils with medium and high limitations (Table 4.67). 

Stipulations required to protect sensitive soils would require a project proponent to comply with 

BMPs and mitigation measures, which could result in increased costs and time required to 

implement a mineral resource exploration or development project in sensitive soils. 

Table 4.67. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, under 

Alternative A–No Action 

RFD Area Leasing Category Total 

Acreage 

Largest Single 

Limiting Factor2 Acreage % Total Acreage 

Blanding Sub-basin Standard 270,410 Alkalinity 223,674 82.7 

 Special 127,657 Alkalinity 107,629 84.3 

NSO, Open to ME1 4,078 Alkalinity 2,971 72.9 

 Subtotal 402,145 334,274 83.1 

Monument Upwarp Standard 144,241 Alkalinity 95,694 66.3 

 Special 442,848 Alkalinity 323,125 73.0 

NSO, Open to ME1 142,032 Alkalinity 111,175 78.3 

 Subtotal 729,121 529,994 72.7 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-129 

Table 4.67. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, under 

Alternative A–No Action 

RFD Area Leasing Category Total 

Acreage 

Largest Single 

Limiting Factor2 Acreage % Total Acreage 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt Standard 163,953 Alkalinity 125,069 76.3 

 Special 89,121 Rooting Depth 69,434 77.9 

NSO, Open to ME1 4,916 Rooting Depth 4,248 86.4 

 Subtotal 257,990 198,751 77.0 

Total 1,389,256 1,063,019 76.5 

1. NSO, Open to ME = No Surface Occupancy but Open to Mineral Entry. 

2. Possible limiting factors are water erosion, wind erosion, droughty soils, excess salt, excess sodium, rooting depth, and 

alkalinity. 

4.3.7.5.1.8. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative A 

Impacts from ACECs on Mineral Resource Development

Protection of the relevant and important values indentified for ACECs generally result in "special 

management attention" which is usually greater restrictions on mineral resource development 

and other surface-disturbing activities. These restrictions are often implemented with a shift 

away from Standard Terms and Conditions to CSU, NSO, or Closure. 

Under the No Action Alternative 492,077 acres of BLM lands occur in ACECs, of which 

387,535 are subject to NSO or closed to leasing. Of the 387,535 acres there are 268,138 acres 

closed to leasing because they are also located in WSAs. The remaining 119,397 acres have been 

limited as a direct result of designation of the ACECs. Closure of 6.7% of all BLM lands 

(119,397 acres) due to ACEC designation (Table 4.68) would have a negative impact on mineral 

resource extraction and development. These areas would be excluded from mineral resource 

development and lower the number of locations where potential wells could be drilled. The 

lower number of locations could indirectly lead to a lower production and supply of oil and 

natural gas and fewer royalties paid to the federal government and/or the State of Utah. The 

finite non-renewable resource found beneath these lands would not be depleted. 

The exact acreage of each ACEC varies by alternative. Across all alternatives, the following 

existing and proposed ACECs are entirely or partially within one or more WSAs: Bridger Jack 

Mesa, Butler Wash North, Cedar Mesa, and Dark Canyon. For each of these ACECs, the 

portion(s) that overlap with a WSA would be managed as WSAs and would be impacted the 

same as described above for WSAs (Map 87). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-130 

Table 4.68. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource Developmen

Alternative A–No Action2

Acres Acres in Each Lease Category Other Ac

ACEC 

Total Within WSA1 Outside WSA 

VRM 

Outside 

WSA2 Standard Special NSO Closed Mineral Entry 

D

EXISTING 

Alkali Ridge 39,202 -- 39,202 III 473 38,729 0 0 Yes 

 (Alkali Ridge NHL) (2,340) -- (2,340) III (0) (2,340) (0) (0) Yes 

Bridger Jack Mesa 6,260 6,260 0 NA 13 0 0 6,247 Yes Butler Wash North 17,464 17,464 0 I (Var.) 536 122 1,213 15,592 Yes Cedar Mesa3 295,336 184,015 111,321 Var. 1,521 75,892 23,387 194,537 Yes 

 (Grand Gulch SEA) (4,240) (4,240) -- I (0) (0) (0) (4,240) No  (Valley of the Gods SEA) (31,387) -- (31,387) I -- -- -- -- Yes  (Scenic Highway Corridor) (SEE POTENTIAL) 

Dark Canyon 61,660 61,660 0 I 114 168 0 61,377 No Hovenweep 1,798 -- 1,798 III 170 913 713 0 Yes Indian Creek/Lockhart Basin 8,510 -- 8,510 I 5 461 3,443 4,602 Yes 

 (Indian Creek) (8,510) -- (8,510) I (5) (461) (3,443) (4,602) Yes  (Lockhart Basin) (SEE POTENTIAL) 

Lavender Mesa 649 -- 649 NA 50 2 597 0 Yes 

POTENTIAL 

 (Lockhart Basin) (0) -- (0) NA (0) (0) (0) (0) -- 

San Juan River 0 -- 15,100 NA 0 0 0 0 -- Shay Canyon 3,561 -- 3,561 III 392 3,169 0 0 Yes 

 (Valley of the Gods SEA) (SEE EXISTING) 

Scenic Highway Corridor 57,637 9,930 47,807 I (Var.) 303 2,879 65,893 9,934 -- "NA" and "–" both mean Not Applicable. Items in parenthesis are subsets of the first number above that is not in parenthesis. 

1. Always VRM I and Closed to leasing. 2. According to Alternatives Matrix in Chapter 2, if specified. 3. Portions of Cedar Mesa ACEC lie within eight WSAs. 

2 There are slight variances between total ACEC acres and Acres in Each Lease Category due to GIS polygon variances. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-131 

Impacts from WSRs on Mineral Resource Development

The number of miles of recommended WSRs varies by alternative. Impacts on mineral resource 

development resulting from WSR decisions include prescriptions for mineral resource 

development in riparian and floodplain areas; these are discussed in detail above, in Section 

4.3.7.4.4, Impacts of Riparian Resources Decisions on Mineral Resource Development. Many 

WSR recommendations prescribe NSO in riparian areas as a condition of designation. However, 

as NSO leasing would occur in riparian areas regardless of the WSR recommendations of these 

segments, designation of the following recommended segments would result in no additional 

impacts to mineral resource development under No Action: 

• Arch Canyon (2,208 acres, BLM river miles, 6.9) 

• Colorado River Segment #1 (352 acres, BLM river miles, 2.2) 

• Indian Creek (1,536 acres, BLM river miles, 4.8) 

• San Juan River Segment #1 (1,360 acres, BLM river miles, 8.5) 

• Dark Canyon (2,048 acres, BLM river miles, 6.4) 

• Fable Valley (2,176 acres, BLM river miles, 6.8) 

Under the No Action Alternative, Colorado River Segments #2 and #3 and San Juan River 

Segments #2 through #5 have been determined to be eligible for WSR designation. Therefore, 

adverse impacts resulting from WSR decisions, in the form of limited mineral resource 

development (e.g., NSO leases and other strict limitations) would occur on 7,168 acres. This 

acreage accounts for a 0.4% decrease in BLM lands available for optimal mineral resource 

development; therefore, the impacts, although adverse, are negligible. 

4.3.7.5.1.9. Impact of Special Status Species and Other Wildlife and Fisheries 

Decisions on Mineral Resource Development Under Alternative A 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing and Rutting

Under the No Action Alternative, oil and gas exploration, development, and geophysical work 

would be prohibited on 329,750 acres of bighorn sheep crucial habitat (or 18.4% of all BLM 

lands) during the lambing season (106 days) and rutting season (92 days; Table 4.69). Other 

mineral resource development may continue with a plan of operation. These management 

decisions would result in negative, minor impacts to mineral resource development, in the form 

of slowed production from mineral resource development facilities in this area due to timing 

limitations. 

Pronghorn Fawning Area

Under the No Action Alternative, oil and gas exploration, development, and/or production and 

geophysical work would be prohibited on the 12,960-acre pronghorn crucial habitat area (or 

0.7% of all BLM lands) during the fawning season (31 days; see Table 4.69). Other mineral 

resource development may continue with a plan of operation. These management decisions 

would result in impacts similar in type to those that would occur in bighorn lambing and rutting 

habitat, though at slightly less magnitude. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-132 

Table 4.69. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resource 

under Alternative A 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Bighorn – Lambing (329,750 acres) 4/1 – 7/15 Bighorn – Rutting (329,750 acres) 10/15 – 12/31 Pronghorn – Fawning (12,960 acres) 5/15 – 6/15 Deer – Winter use (197,550 acres) 12/15 – 4/30 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-133 

Deer Winter Range

Under the No Action Alternative, oil and gas exploration, development, and/or production and 

geophysical work would be prohibited on the 197,550-acre deer crucial winter range (or 11.1% 

of all BLM lands) during the period of critical winter use (151 days; see Table 4.69). Other 

mineral resource development may continue with a plan of operation. These management 

decisions would result in impacts similar in type to those that would occur in bighorn lambing 

and rutting habitat, though at slightly less magnitude. 

In all, wildlife decisions necessitating special stipulations would impact various acreages at 

various times of the year. Under the No Action Alternative, no wildlife related timing limitations 

would be enforced on any acreage from July 15 through October 15 (92 days). However, the 

most limitations would occur from December 15–31 and for the month of April, at which times 

wildlife related restrictions on up to 527,300 acres (or 29.5% of all BLM lands, if habitats do not 

overlap) would be enforced. 

4.3.7.5.1.10. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative A 

Under the No Action Alternative, maintenance of existing vegetation treatments and the 

implementation of new treatments on approximately 232,130 acres of lands in the Monticello PA 

would have minimal impacts on exploration, development, and production of mineral resources. 

Under this alternative, however Bridger Jack Mesa (5,290 acres) and Lavender Mesa (649 acres) 

ACECs are protected for near relict and relict vegetation. The management prescriptions include 

open to oil and gas leasing, but NSO. This will have an adverse impact, as the cost to 

directionally drill is higher than conventional vertical drilling. 

The ACECs are also closed to mineral materials, which removes the acreage and minerals 

available. However, the mineral materials in this area are lower grade and access would be very 

difficult and costly. 

The ACECs are available for locatable minerals with an approved plan of operation. Access 

would likely be along escarpments and not on the mesa tops. However, surface disturbance for 

ventilation shafts might be limited or more costly and be an adverse impact. 

Generally, the impacts of vegetation management on mineral resource development are minor 

because the acreage is small and access is difficult. Additionally, most of the area is protected by 

the IMP as it falls within a WSA (see Section 4.3.14, Special Designations). 

4.3.7.5.1.11. Impacts of Visual Resource Management Decisions on Mineral 

Resource Development Under Alternative A 

Mineral resource development would be subject to the VRM Class objectives of the area within 

which development would occur. Areas managed as VRM III and VRM IV allow a wider range 

of impacts on visual resources and generally would have negligible impacts on mineral resource 

development in the Monticello PA. Areas managed as VRM I and VRM II result in more 

limitations to mineral resource development in the Monticello PA since fewer changes to the 

line, form, color and texture that characterize the existing landscape would be allowed. Table 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-134 

4.70 quantifies the acreages of land within each VRM Class, which dictate the level of surface 

disturbance allowed. 

Table 4.70. Acreages of Each VRM Class by Alternative

VRM 

Class 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

I 371,575 497,668 425,179 390,424 998,370 422,989

II 355,112 250,641 132,001 8,838 111,478 228,041

III 416,806 426,350 531,920 692,741 264,369 507,583

IV 637,875 608,463 693,995 691,119 407,459 623,002

Total 1,781,368 1,783,122 1,783,095 1,783,122 1,781,676 1,781,615

Note that these acreages include WSAs, which are managed as VRM I. Table 4.63 and other tables discussing the impacts of 

mineral resource development decisions on mineral resource development exclude WSAs, and thus reflect different acreages.

Under the No Action Alternative, approximately 371,575 acres (or 20.9% of BLM lands) would 

fall into the VRM I class, and in these areas, mineral resource development would be subject to 

NSO or closed to leasing due to the restrictions on surface disturbance in this VRM class. Most 

of the lands managed as VRM Class I are also WSAs (see discussion for Impacts Common to all 

and Special Designations). These lands would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Lands managed 

as VRM Class I would have little if any surface-disturbing activities, as it is difficult to 

accomplish oil or gas activities of any kind (directional or otherwise) and yet achieve the VRM 

objectives in a VRM I area. Accordingly, it is likely that such areas, including NSO areas, could 

have adverse impacts on mineral resource development, thus resulting in a lower number of 

locations where potential wells could be drilled, a lower yield and commercial supply of oil and 

natural gas, and fewer royalties. 

Areas that inventory as VRM II but are in areas that are available to leasing subject to standard 

or special stipulations would be managed as VRM III, unless otherwise specified in the special 

management prescriptions found in the 1991 RMP. These visual resource decisions would have a 

beneficial, minor impact on mineral resource development because areas normally subject to 

NSO could be available under standard or special stipulations. The beneficial impact would take 

the form of simplified exploration and production, with corresponding lower costs. 

4.3.7.5.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.3.7.5.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative B 

The Comb Ridge CSMA (30,752 acres) and the Tank Bench CSMA (2,646) would be closed to 

locatable mineral entry, mineral material disposal, and geophysical exploration. Oil and gas 

leasing and development would be subject to NSO. In addition McLoyd-Moon House (1,607 

acres) would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. These cultural resource decisions would 

account for a 2.0% decrease in BLM lands available for mineral entry and mineral material 

disposal, though leasing in all but McLoyd-Moon House could continue subject to NSO. Impacts 

on mineral resource development in the historic district would be the same as impacts under the 

No Action Alternative, except that closing the entire historic district to geophysical exploration 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-135 

under Alternative B is more restrictive than the No Action Alternative (accounting for 2.1% of 

all BLM lands). Because no gathering of geophysical data would occur in the historic district 

under Alternative B, no new data or knowledge of the mineral resource reserves underlying the 

historic district would be collected. 

4.3.7.5.2.2. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions for Alternative B on Mineral 

Resource Development Under Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, approximately 251,710 acres (or 14.0.0% of all BLM lands) would be 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. This decision has the potential to result in 

adverse impacts of the same type as the No Action Alternative, but at a greater magnitude. 

Alternative B, along with Alternative E, represents the greatest acreage recommended for 

withdrawal. 

4.3.7.5.2.3. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Mineral Resource Development Under 

Alternative B 

Oil and Gas Resources

Approximately 1,241,910 acres of BLM lands within the Monticello FO would be 

administratively open for oil and gas leasing under standard and special lease stipulations, within 

the three RFD development areas (see Table 4.65). Based on the proportion of BLM lands open 

for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005d), it is estimated that 66 predicted oil and gas wells would 

be drilled over the next 15 years (Table 4.71; Map 28; BLM 2005c). This alternative would 

result in an increase of approximately 3,680 acres available for development (or 0.3%) but a 

decrease of 7 predicted oil and gas wells (or 9.6%) compared to the No Action Alternative. See 

the socioeconomic analysis in this chapter (Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources) for the 

projected yield of oil and gas for Alternative B. 

Alternative B has a slightly larger (0.3%) acreage open to leasing while but has more stipulations 

for protection of resources. Alternative B has less development (as measured in wells), compared 

to Alternative A. The increase in BLM lands administratively open to leasing compared to 

Alternative A is negligible. 

The decrease of wells compared to the No Action Alternative could be due to the smaller 

acreages of BLM lands available under standard stipulations (the most open stipulations). Under 

Alternative B, approximately 29% of all BLM lands available for leasing would be subject to 

standard stipulations, and approximately 71% of all open BLM lands would be subject to special 

stipulations. Considerably more land is subject to special stipulations. The adverse impacts of 

more stipulations include increased costs for development, increased time for processing of 

applications, and fewer months each year that surface-disturbing activities could be conducted. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-136 

Table 4.71. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands within RFD Areas u

Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Available Geop

RFD Area

Standard Special Total

% of BLM Lands 

Available Predicted Wells* Linear M

Source 

AVERAGE OVER 15 YEARS 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 24,359 182,875 207,234 81 20 22Blanding Sub-basin 148,521 217,919 366,440 90 38 18Monument Upwarp 192,290 475,946 668,236 91 8 9LOP Total 365,170 876,740 1,241,910 66 50

MAXIMUM PER YEAR (MPY)** 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt *** *** *** *** 2 2Blanding Sub-basin *** *** *** *** 4 1Monument Upwarp *** *** *** *** 1 MPY Total *** *** *** 7 4Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only. *Oil and natural gas wells are considered together. **Based on the RFD (BLM 2005d), MPY reflects the maximum development that could occur in any given year. During most Plan years, development pemaximum. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-137 

Oil and gas development would occur in all three RFD areas. Similar to the No Action 

Alternative, the Monument Upwarp RFD Area would see the least amount of development in 

terms of wells (i.e., 8), despite having the most lands administratively open to development. Also 

similar to the No Action Alternative, most wells (i.e., 38) would be drilled in the Blanding Subbasin RFD Area. In looking at the individual RFD areas, other possible factors for the notable 

decrease in wells under Alternative B become apparent. First, approximately 81,100 acres of 

open BLM lands have shifted from the Blanding Sub-basin and Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 

RFD Areas (the areas of more active development) to the Monument Upwarp RFD Area (the 

area of least development) under Alternative B. The loss of projected wells from the active areas 

(a loss of 8 wells, compared to the No Action Alternative) is not compensated with the gain of 

wells in the less active area (a gain of 1 well, compared to the No Action Alternative). Second, of 

the acres of BLM lands open to leasing, the Blanding Sub-basin and Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 

RFD areas both have more lands subject to special stipulations than standard stipulations. In the 

Blanding Sub-basin RFD area, 2.5 times more open lands are subject to special stipulations 

under Alternative B than under the No Action Alternative. In the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 

RFD Area, 1.9 times more open lands are subject to special stipulations under Alternative B than 

under the No Action Alternative. 

Ultimately, under Alternative B, the direct impacts of mineral resource development decisions on 

oil and gas production would be somewhat adverse compared to the No Action Alternative. A 

small decrease in the potential number of oil and gas wells under Alternative B (a 9.6% 

decrease) would lead to a small decrease in the available supply of oil and/or natural gas. The 

federal government and/or the State of Utah would continue to receive royalties from the 

production and sale of oil and gas, though at somewhat lower rates than under the No Action 

Alternative (see Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources). However, the decreased number of 

predicted wells would also decrease the rate at which finite reserves of fossil fuel resources in the 

Monticello FO are extracted and consumed (compared to the No Action Alternative), which 

would have a beneficial impact on the long-term viability and availability of these resources. 

Geophysical Exploration

Under Alternative B, approximately 507 linear miles of source line for 2-D and 3-D geophysical 

exploration would be conducted over the next 15 years for the purposes outlined in Section 

4.3.7.1, Summary of Leasable RFD, and would result in approximately 794 acres of surface 

disturbance over the next 15 years . This exploration would result in beneficial impacts to 

mineral resource development of the same type and quality described in Section 4.3.7.1 and for 

the same reasons (BLM 2005d). However, less exploration would happen under Alternative B 

than under the No Action Alternative; 52 fewer miles of source line (a decrease of 9.3%) would 

be used under Alternative B compared to the No Action Alternative. Geophysical exploration 

would occur in all three RFD areas, as detailed in Table 4.71. 

Other Leasable Mineral Resources

Although 1,241,910 acres of BLM land would be administratively open under Alternative B for 

the leasing of potash and salt and tar sands (an increase of approximately 3,700 acres, or 0.3% 

acres, compared to the No Action Alternative); because the level of development expected is 

low, impacts to potash and salt and tar sands leasing due to mineral resource development 

decisions would be negligible; the same as impacts under the No Action Alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-138 

Locatable Mineral Resources

Approximately 1,527,656 acres of BLM land would be open under Alternative B to mineral 

entry of uranium-vanadium, copper, gold, and limestone: a decrease of approximately 147,401 

acres compared to the No Action Alternative. Impacts of locatable resource decisions under this 

alternative would be essentially the same as those described for the No Action Alternative, 

except that there would be slightly less acreage and mineral available for development. The 

surface disturbance and occupation associated with mining operations for uranium-vanadium, 

copper, gold, and limestone are usually small enough that they do not prohibit leasable mineral 

development and therefore the impact is negligible. Small, beneficial impacts could occur to 

leasable minerals as more roads are maintained or developed for access to locatable minerals. 

Salable Mineral Resources

Approximately 1,241,904 acres of BLM land would be open to development of sand and gravel, 

building stone, and clay under Alternative B (Map 22). This represents a decrease of 

approximately 147,350 acres (11%) compared to the No Action Alternative. Impacts of salable 

resource decisions under this alternative would be essentially the same as those described for the 

No Action Alternative, except that there would be slightly less acreage and minerals available for 

development. The surface disturbance and occupation associated with mining operations for sand 

and gravel, building stone, and clay are usually small enough that they do not prohibit leasable 

mineral development, and therefore the impact is negligible. Small, beneficial impacts could 

occur to leasable minerals as more roads are maintained or developed for access to locatable 

minerals. 

4.3.7.5.2.4. Impacts of Management of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics on Mineral Resource Development under 

Alternative B 

Impacts under Alternative B would be the same as under Alternative A, for the same reasons. 

4.3.7.5.2.5. Impacts of Recreation Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, in the 10,203-acre San Juan River SRMA, surface disturbance from 

mineral resource development on existing claims would be minimized without curtailing valid 

existing rights. Leasing in the SRMA would be subject to NSO. The SRMA would be closed to 

and recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Finally, the SRMA would be closed to 

mineral materials disposal except for the area above the rim in the vicinity of the Bluff Airport 

lease. These recreation decisions would account for a 0.6% decrease in BLM lands available for 

leasing-related surface disturbance, mineral entry, and mineral materials disposal compared to 

the No Action Alternative. Thus they would have generally negative but negligible impacts upon 

mineral resource development compared to the No Action Alternative, which does not specify 

restrictions on mineral resource development in this SRMA. 

Under Alternative B, portions of the 375,734-acre Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA that are outside a 

WSA would be leased under standard or special stipulations. As this same area presently 

includes some amount of land subject to NSO (and would continue this categorization under the 

No Action Alternative), Alternative B represents a negligible, beneficial impact to mineral 

resource development in comparison to the No Action Alternative. Standard and special 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-139 

stipulations are the less restrictive leasing stipulations, and if more lands are available under 

these stipulations, a larger yield and commercial supply of oil and gas would potentially result. 

4.3.7.5.2.6. Impacts of Soils and Watershed Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, a minimum of 1,049,158 acres of BLM lands open to surface-disturbing 

mineral resource development (or 76.7% of open BLM lands) are overlain by sensitive soils with 

medium and high limitations (Table 4.72). The particular requirements and limitations on such 

mineral resource development and the resulting impacts on mineral resource development would 

be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

Table 4.72. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, under 

Alternative B 

RFD Area Leasing 

Stipulation 

Total 

Acreage 

Largest Single 

Limiting Factor2 Acreage % Total Acreage 

Blanding Sub-basin Standard 148,521 Alkalinity 127,525 85.9 

 Special 217,919 Alkalinity 182,212 83.6 

NSO, Open to ME1 39,805 Alkalinity 29,888 75.1 

 Subtotal 406,245 339,625 83.6 

Monument Upwarp Standard 192,290 Alkalinity 133,552 69.5 

 Special 475,946 Alkalinity 354,952 74.6 

NSO, Open to ME1 35,826 Rooting Depth 24,142 67.4 

 Subtotal 704,062 512,646 72.8 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt Standard 24,359 Alkalinity 19,544 80.2 

 Special 182,875 Rooting Depth 142,307 77.8 

NSO, Open to ME1 49,473 Rooting Depth 35,036 70.8 

 Subtotal 256,707 196,887 76.7 

Total 1,241,910 1,049,158 76.7 

1. NSO, Open to ME = No Surface Occupancy but Open to Mineral Entry. 

2. Possible limiting factors are water erosion, wind erosion, droughty soils, excess salt, excess sodium, rooting depth, and alkalinity. 

Under Alternative B, in addition to the Gold Book Standards (BLM and FS 2005), a plan (and 

BLM approval) would be required for surface disturbance occurring on slopes between 21 and 

40%, and no surface disturbance would be allowed on slopes over 40%. These soils and 

watershed management decisions would have minor, negative impacts on surface-disturbing 

mineral resource development in several ways. For a given mineral resource development project 

occurring on slopes of 21%–40%, costs, time, and effort for mineral resource development 

would increase due to the necessity of preparing and implementing an erosion control plan. For a 

given mineral resource development project on lands including slopes over 40%, mineral 

resource development facilities such as pads and pipelines would need to be re-sited or re-routed 

which, in addition to increasing costs, time, and effort for the project, would have the potential to 

be less than optimal in design, according to the specific goals of the project proponent. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-140 

4.3.7.5.2.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions for Alternative B on Mineral 

Resource Development Under Alternative B 

ACECs

All ACECs are considered for management in Alternative B. ACECs are designated when 

special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important 

historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or 

processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

In Alternative B, there are 521,142 acres of BLM lands that occur in ACECs (Table. 4.73) that 

require special management protection. Generally, the impacts to mineral development are 

increased costs to implement mitigation, delayed times for processing applications, decreased 

areas available for development and exploration, and limitations of the types of equipment, 

processes, and time available for development. All of these would be considered impediments to 

development and exploration for leasable, locatable, and salable minerals. 

In all, 373,349 of these acres are subject to NSO or closed to leasing. If 285,782 acres (out of 

373,349 acres) are closed to leasing because they are located in WSAs, the remaining 87,567 

acres are limited to mineral resource development as a direct result of designation of the ACECs 

(see Table 4.73). Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, implementation of Alternative B 

represents a closure of 4.9% of all BLM lands (87,567 acres) due to ACEC designation. ACEC 

designation under Alternative B has slightly less negative impact upon mineral resource 

development (about 1.8% less) than it does under the No Action Alternative. 

WSAs

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A and were presented in Impacts Common to All. 

WSRs

Under Alternative B, all WSR segments are recommended suitable. 

• A total of 7,984 acres—comprising Colorado River Segment #3, Dark Canyon, and San Juan 

River Segments #3 and #5—are recommended with prescriptions of VRM I, closure to oil 

and gas development, and recommendations for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

• A total of 3,056 acres—comprising Colorado River Segment #2 and Fable Valley—are 

recommended with prescriptions of VRM II and NSO restrictions on leasing. 

• A total of 2,272 acres—comprising San Juan River Segments #2 and #4—are recommended 

with prescriptions of VRM III and standard stipulations for leasing except in riparian areas. 

Therefore, under Alternative B, a total of 11,040 acres is effectively unavailable for leasing due 

to WSR recommendation decisions. This unavailable acreage accounts for 2.6% of all BLM 

lands and amounts to a minor to negligible, adverse impact, in comparison to the No Action 

Alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-141 

Table 4.73. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource Developmen

Alternative B 

Acres Lease Stipulation (Acres) Other Ac

ACEC 

Total Within WSA1 Outside WSA 

VRM 

Outside 

WSA2 Standard Special NSO Closed Entry D

EXISTING 

Alkali Ridge 39,196 -- 39,196 IV 0 37,050 2,146 0 --  (Alkali Ridge NHL) (2,146) -- (2,146) NA (0) (0) (2,146) (0) no Bridger Jack Mesa 6,225 6,225 0 II 0 7 0 6,212 yes Butler Wash North 17,365 17,365 0 I 4 209 0 17,152 no Cedar Mesa4 306,743 247,954 58,789 III 40,170 65,473 6,270 194,830 --  (Grand Gulch SEA) (4,240) (4,240) -- NA (0) (0) (0) (4,240) --  (Valley of the Gods SEA) ... SEE POTENTIAL ...  (Scenic Highway Corridor) ... NOT SPECIFIED ... Dark Canyon 61,660 61,660 0 I 0 85 0 61,574 no Hovenweep 2,439 -- 2,439 III 2,412 0 0 0 yes Indian Creek/Lockhart Basin 56,293 6,842 49,431 I 0 1 48,704 7,588 no  (Indian Creek) (8,510) (6,842) (1,668) I (0) (1) (3,907) (4,602) no  (Lockhart Basin) (47,783) (0) (47,783) I (0) (0) (44,797) (2,986) no Lavender Mesa 649 -- 649 II 0 0 649 0 yes 

POTENTIAL 

 (Lockhart Basin) ... SEE EXISTING ... San Juan River3 7,590 -- 7,590 I, II, III (Var.) 2,298 0 4,810 432 no Shay Canyon 119 -- 119 II 0 0 119 0 yes Valley of the Gods 22,863 -- 22,863 I 0 0 0 22,863 no "NA" and "–" both mean Not Applicable. Items in parenthesis are subsets of the first number above that is not in parenthesis. 

1. Always VRM I, or closed to leasing. 2. According to Alternatives Matrix in Chapter 2, if specified. 3. To be managed as SRMA in this alternative. 4. Portions of Cedar Mesa ACEC lie within eight WSAs. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-142 

4.3.7.5.2.8. Impacts of Special Status Species and Other Wildlife and Fisheries 

Decisions on Mineral Resource Development Under Alternative B 

Gunnison Sage-grouse

Under Alternative B, management decisions regarding Gunnison Sage-grouse would include 

reserving 4,524 acres of BLM lands (or 0.2% of all BLM lands) for crucial year-round habitat. 

In lek habitat on these lands (within .06 miles of active strutting grounds), the species 

management decisions detailed in the Alternatives Matrix in Chapter 2 would result in 

negligible, adverse impacts to mineral resource development, primarily from leasing limitations 

on surface use near active strutting grounds, including reduced opportunities for geophysical 

work and limitations on activities from March 20 through May 15 of each season. These surface 

and timing limitations would not prohibit or deter mineral resource development; they would 

merely slow down development and/or production of the resource. 

Oil and gas exploration and development subject to standard stipulations would be allowed in 

year-round habitat on these lands (within 6.0 miles of active strutting grounds), though mineral 

resource developers would follow the Suggested Management Practices in the Gunnison Sagegrouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (BLM 2005l), which in some cases may necessitate more 

rigorous conservation practices during standard leasing. Nonetheless, adverse impacts to mineral 

resource development from implementation of the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide 

Conservation Plan would be negligible. 

Alternative B would result in the most restrictions on mineral resource development due to 

Gunnison Sage-grouse management decisions. 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing and Rutting

Under Alternative B, on the 453,388-acre bighorn crucial habitat area (or 25.4% of all BLM 

lands), the special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced for the duration of the 

lambing season and rutting season (Table 4.74; see also the No Action Alternative for the 

duration). These management decisions would result in the same timing related impacts as the 

No Action Alternative. However, because this crucial habitat area is 123,638 acres (37.9%) 

larger than it is under the No Action Alternative, the net impact to mineral resource development 

under Alternative B would be somewhat negative compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Pronghorn Fawning Area

Under Alternative B, on the 29,365-acre pronghorn crucial habitat area (or 1.6% of all BLM 

lands) the special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced for the duration of the 

fawning season (46 days; see Table 4.74). These management decisions would result in minor 

impacts on mineral resource development, in the form of slightly slowed production from 

mineral resource development facilities in this area because of timing limitations, though more 

so than under the No Action Alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-143 

Table 4.74. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resourc

under Alternative B 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Gunnison Sage-grouse leks (2.0 miles) Non-disturbing geophysical work 3/20 – 5/15 All permitted activities (nighttime) 3/20 – 5/15 Bighorn – Lambing (453,388 acres) 4/1 – 7/15 Bighorn – Rutting (453,388 acres) 10/15 – 12/31 Pronghorn – Fawning (29,365 acres) 5/1 – 6/15 Deer – Winter use (785,921 acres) 11/1 – 5/15 Elk – Winter use (191,173 acres) 11/1 – 5/15 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-144 

Because this crucial habitat area is 16,405 acres (129%) larger and the fawning season is 15 days 

(32.6%) longer than under the No Action Alternative, impacts on mineral resource development 

from this wildlife decision would occur over more than twice the area and for a longer period of 

time under Alternative B compared to the No Action Alternative. However, considering the low 

acreage of BLM lands devoted to this habitat under Alternative B, even though the difference 

between this alternative and the No Action Alternative is dramatic, the overall impact on the FOwide mineral resource development program remains very minor to negligible. 

Deer Winter Range

Under Alternative B, on the 785,921-acre deer crucial winter range (or 44.1% of all BLM lands), 

the special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced for 196 days of critical winter 

use (i.e., more than half the year; see Table 4.74). This crucial habitat area is 588,371 acres 

(297.8%) larger and the duration of enforcement is 45 days (29.8%) longer than under the No 

Action Alternative. These management decisions would result in major impacts on mineral 

resource development compared to the No Action Alternative, both in terms of the large area 

restricted as winter range and the duration of enforcement of the restrictions. Major impacts 

would include delays in permitting for production of mineral resources and restrictions on the 

period of surface disturbance. 

Elk

Under Alternative B, on the 191,173-acre elk crucial winter range (or 10.7% of all BLM lands), 

the special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced during the period of winter use 

(196 days, or more than half the year; see Table 4.74). These management decisions would result 

in impacts on mineral resource development compared to the No Action Alternative, similar to 

those described above for deer winter range, though over a much smaller area. 

In all, wildlife decisions necessitating special stipulations would impact various acreages at 

various times of the year. Under Alternative B, as under the No Action Alternative, no wildlife 

related timing limitations would be enforced on any acreage from July 15 through October 15 

(92 days). At the other end of the spectrum, restrictions from May 1 through 15 would be 

enforced on up to 876,736 acres (or 49% of all BLM lands, assuming overlap; see Table 4.65) 

under Alternative B which, throughout this analysis, is the single largest restriction of mineral 

resource development (in area) because of preservation of other resources. 

4.3.7.5.2.9. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative B 

Impacts to mineral resource development under Alternative B would be essentially the same as 

under the No Action Alternative, except that fewer acres of vegetation would be treated (1,000 

acres/year), and because the same acreages of vegetation in ACECs would be protected from 

surface disturbance. 

4.3.7.5.2.10. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, approximately 497,668 acres (or 27.9% of BLM lands) would fall into the 

VRM I class, and in these areas, mineral resource development would be subject to NSO or 

closed to leasing because of the restrictions on surface disturbance in this VRM class. Adverse 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-145 

impacts under Alternative B would be of the same type as in the No Action Alternative, for the 

same reasons, but at a greater magnitude (7.0%). 

4.3.7.5.3. ALTERNATIVE C

4.3.7.5.3.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development–Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, cultural resource decisions regarding the 30,752-acre Comb Ridge CSMA 

and the 37,388-acre Grand Gulch National Historic District would result in the same impacts to 

mineral resource development as occur under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative C, the 2,646-acre Tank Bench CSMA would be open to mineral entry, mineral 

materials disposal, geophysical exploration, and oil and gas leasing and development with 

standard stipulations. The No Action Alternative does not specify cultural resource decisions 

affecting mineral resource development for the Tank Bench CSMA; therefore, Alternative C 

would result in negligible, beneficial impacts to mineral resource development in the Tank 

Bench CSMA, compared to the No Action Alternative. Direct impacts would include a very 

slight increase in oil and gas productivity and productivity of locatable and salable minerals, as 

well as improved data on the mineral resource reserves underlying the CSMA. 

4.3.7.5.3.2. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development–Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, approximately -121,912 acres (or 8.2% of all BLM lands) would be 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. This decision has the potential to result in 

adverse impacts of the same type as the No Action Alternative, but at a much lower magnitude. 

4.3.7.5.3.3. Impacts of Mineral Resource Development Decisions on Mineral 

Resource Development–Alternative C 

Oil and Gas Resources

In total, approximately 1,348,973 acres of BLM lands within the Monticello FO would be 

administratively open for oil and gas leasing under standard and special lease stipulations within 

the three RFD development areas (see Table 4.65). Based on the proportion of BLM lands open 

for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005c), it is estimated that 74 predicted oil and gas wells would 

be drilled over the 15 years (Table 4.75; Map 32; BLM 2005c). This alternative would result in 

an increase of approximately 110,743 acres available for development (or 8.9%) and an increase 

of 1 predicted oil and gas well (or 1.4%) compared to the No Action Alternative. See the 

socioeconomic analysis in this chapter (Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources) for the 

projected yield of oil and gas for Alternative C. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-146 

Table 4.75. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands within RFD Areas u

C, Average 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Available Geop

RFD Area

Standard Special Total

% of BLM Lands 

Available Predicted Wells* Linear M

Source 

AVERAGE OVER 15 YEARS 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 81,564 169,204 250,768 97 24 269 Blanding Sub-basin 254,706 142,314 397,020 98 41 205 Monument Upwarp 293,201 407,984 701,185 95 9 99 LOP Total 629,471 719,502 1,348,973 74 573 

MAXIMUM PER YEAR (MPY)** 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt *** *** *** *** 3 25 Blanding Sub-basin *** *** *** *** 4 14 Monument Upwarp *** *** *** *** 1 7 MPY Total *** *** *** 8 46 Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only. *Oil and natural gas wells are considered together. **Based on the RFD (BLM 2005c), MPY reflects the maximum development that could occur in any given year. During most Plan years, development pemaximum. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-147 

Under this alternative, approximately 47% of all open BLM lands would be available under 

standard stipulations, and approximately 53% of all open BLM lands would be available under 

special stipulations. Although the overall acreage administratively open to leasing is greater 

under this alternative than under the No Action Alternative, Alternative C's standard 

stipulations/special stipulations ratio is very similar to that of the No Action Alternative. 

Oil and gas development would occur in all three RFD areas. Similar to the No Action 

Alternative, the Monument Upwarp RFD area would see the least amount of development in 

terms of wells (i.e., 9), despite having the most lands administratively open to development. Also 

similar to the No Action Alternative, most wells (i.e., 41) would be drilled in the Blanding Subbasin RFD Area. Some notable differences in the RFD areas' land categorizations can be seen 

between Alternative C and the No Action Alternative. In the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt RFD 

area, under Alternative C, more than two-thirds of available lands are subject to special 

stipulations, whereas under the No Action Alternative, nearly two-thirds of available lands are 

available under standard stipulations. In the Monument Upwarp RFD area, more than twice as 

much land is subject to standard stipulations under Alternative C compared to the No Action 

Alternative, while the land subject to special stipulations decreases by only about 7.9% under 

Alternative C. 

Ultimately under Alternative C the direct impacts of mineral resource development decisions on 

oil and gas production would be beneficial, but negligible, compared to the No Action 

Alternative. A very small increase in the potential number of oil and gas wells under Alternative 

C (a 1.4% increase) would lead to a very small increase in the available supply of oil and/or 

natural gas and in royalties (see Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources). 

Geophysical Exploration

Under Alternative C, approximately 573 linear miles of source line for 2-D and 3-D geophysical 

exploration would be conducted over 15 years for the purposes outlined in Section 4.3.7.2, 

Summary of Geophysical RFD and would result in approximately 903 acres of surface 

disturbance over 15 years. This exploration would result in beneficial impacts to mineral 

resource development of the same type and quality described in Section 4.3.7.2 and for the same 

reasons (BLM 2005c), to a greater degree than the No Action Alternative. Fourteen more miles 

of source line (an increase of 2.5%) would be used under Alternative C compared to the No 

Action Alternative. Geophysical exploration would occur in all three RFD areas, as detailed in 

Table 4.75. 

Other Leasable Mineral Resources

Although 1,348,973 acres of BLM land would be administratively open under Alternative C for 

the leasing of potash and salt and tar sands (an increase of approximately 110,743 acres, or 8.9%, 

compared to the No Action Alternative), because the level of development expected is so low, 

impacts to potash and salt and tar sands leasing because of mineral resource development 

decisions would be nearly identical to those described under the No Action Alternative. 

Locatable Mineral Resources

Approximately 1,734,458 acres of BLM land would be open under Alternative C to mineral 

entry of uranium-vanadium, copper, gold, and limestone, a decrease of approximately 81,715 

acres, or an increase of approximately 4.6% compared to the No Action Alternative. The types 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-148 

and forms of impacts under Alternative C would be the same as those described for the No 

Action Alternative. 

Salable Mineral Resources

Approximately 1,358,968 acres of BLM land would be open to development of sand and gravel, 

building stone, and clay under Alternative C. This represents a decrease of approximately 40,288 

acres compared to the No Action Alternative. Impacts under Alternative C would be essentially 

the same as those described for the No Action Alternative. 

4.3.7.5.3.4. Impacts of Management of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics on Mineral Resource Development–Alternative C 

Impacts under Alternative C would be the same as under Alternative A, for the same reasons. 

4.3.7.5.3.5. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Mineral Resource Development–

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, in the 9,859-acre San Juan River SRMA, recreation decisions that pertain 

to mineral resource development would be the same as Alternative B, except that the entire 

SRMA, including the Bluff Airport vicinity, would be closed to mineral materials disposal. 

These recreation decisions would result in essentially the same impacts as Alternative B. 

Under Alternative C, recreation decisions regarding the 375,739-acre Cedar Mesa Cultural 

SRMA would result in the same impacts that would occur under Alternative B. 

4.3.7.5.3.6. Impacts of Soils and Watershed Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development–Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, a minimum of 1,063,652 acres of BLM lands open to surface-disturbing 

mineral resource development (or 76.6% of available BLM lands) are overlain by sensitive soils 

with medium and high limitations (Table 4.76). The particular requirements and limitations on 

such mineral resource development and the resulting impacts on mineral resource development 

would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

Table 4.76. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, under 

Alternative C 

RFD Area Leasing Category Total 

Acreage 

Largest Single 

Limiting Factor2 Acreage % Total Acreage 

Blanding Sub-basin Standard 254,706 Alkalinity 214,035 84.0 

 Special 142,314 Alkalinity 117,263 82.4 

NSO, Open to ME1 8,213 Alkalinity 7,316 89.1 

Subotals 405,233 338,614 83.6 

Monument Upwarp Standard 293,201 Alkalinity 207,717 70.8 

 Special 407,984 Alkalinity 298,098 73.1 

NSO, Open to ME1 25,171 Alkalinity 24,069 95.6 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-149 

Table 4.76. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, under 

Alternative C 

RFD Area Leasing Category Total 

Acreage 

Largest Single 

Limiting Factor2 Acreage % Total Acreage 

Subotals 726,356 529,884 73.0 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt Standard 81,564 Rooting Depth 64,994 79.7 

 Special 169,204 Rooting Depth 124,877 73.8 

NSO, Open to ME1 5,939 Rooting Depth 5,283 89.0 

Subotals 256,707 195,154 76.0 

Total 1,388,296 1,063,652 76.6 

1. NSO, Open to ME = No Surface Occupancy but Open to Mineral Entry. 

2. Possible limiting factors are water erosion, wind erosion, droughty soils, excess salt, excess sodium, rooting depth, and alkalinity. 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of requiring a plan for slopes between 21% and 40% and 

implementing the Gold Book Standards (BLM and FS 2005) would be the same as Alternative B. 

Implementing surface-disturbing mineral resource development on slopes over 40% is still 

generally disallowed under Alternative C, but if re-siting would cause "undue or unnecessary 

degradation" it may be allowed. Therefore, the negative, minor impacts of Alternative C on 

mineral resource development on slopes above 40% are similar in type to Alternative B but 

somewhat less in magnitude. 

4.3.7.5.3.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development–Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, 76,764 acres of BLM lands would occur in ACECs (Table 4.77). In all, 

41,876 of these acres are subject to NSO or closed to leasing. If 4,602 acres (out of 41,876 acres) 

are automatically closed to leasing because they are located in WSAs, we assume that the 

remainder—37,274 acres—has been limited to mineral resource development as a direct result of 

designation of the ACECs (see Table 4.77). Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, 

implementation of Alternative C represents a closure of 2.1% of all BLM lands (37,274 acres) 

due to ACEC designation. ACEC designation under Alternative C has less of a negative impact 

on mineral resource development than it does under the No Action Alternative (about 4.6% less) 

or under Alternative B (about 2.8% less). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-150 

Table 4.77. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource Development

Alternative C 

Acres Acres in Each Lease Category Other A

ACEC 

Total Within WSA1 Outside WSA 

VRM 

Outside 

WSA2 Standard Special NSO Closed Entry 

EXISTING 

Alkali Ridge 39,196 -- 39,196 IV 6,032 31,018 2,146 0 yes  (Alkali Ridge NHL) (2,146) -- (2,146) NA (0) (0) (2,146) (0) no Bridger Jack Mesa 0 NA NA NA 13 0 0 6,212 ... NOT DEButler Wash North 0 NA NA NA 179 35 0 17,152 ... NOT DECedar Mesa -SRMA4 0 NA NA NA 77,889 32,489 15 196,349 ... DESIGN (Grand Gulch SEA) (4,240) (4,240) -- NA (0) (0) (0) (4,240) --  (Valley of the Gods SEA) 22,863  (Scenic Highway Corridor) 0 Dark Canyon 0 NA NA NA 0 85 0 61,574 ... NOT DEHovenweep 2,439 -- 2,439 III 2,412 0 0 0 yes Indian Creek/Lockhart Basin 56,293 6,423 49,870 NA 5,590 37,945 5,170 7,588 --  (Indian Creek) (3,905) (0) (3,905) I (0) (1) (3,907) (4,602) no  (Lockhart Basin) (0) NA NA III (5,590) (37,944) (1,263) (2,986) ... NOT DELavender Mesa 649 -- 649 II 0 0 649 0 yes 

POTENTIAL 

 (Lockhart Basin) ... SEE EXISTING ... San Juan River3 7,590 -- 7,590 I, II, III (Var.) 0 0 4,860 2,730 no Shay Canyon 119 -- 119 II 0 0 119 0 yes Valley of the Gods 22,863 -- 22,863 I 0 0 22,863 0 -- "NA" and "–" both mean Not Applicable. Items in parenthesis are subsets of the first number above that is not in parenthesis. 

1. Always VRM I, or closed to leasing. 2. According to Alternatives Matrix in Chapter 2, if specified. 3. To be managed as SRMA in this alternative. 4. Portions of Cedar Mesa ACEC lie within eight WSAs. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-151 

Under Alternative C, Colorado River Segments #2 and #3 and the Dark Canyon segment, a total 

of 3,968 acres, are recommended suitable for WSR designation. As the suitable segments would 

be managed as VRM I and II, these recommendations would effectively make these areas 

unavailable for leasing. This acreage accounts for a 0.2% decrease in BLM lands available for 

optimal mineral resource development in comparison with the No Action Alternative. 

Accordingly, this would result in essentially the same potential mineral resource development as 

the No Action Alternative. 

4.3.7.5.3.8. Impacts of Special Status Species and Other Wildlife and Fisheries 

Decisions on Mineral Resource Development–Alternative C 

Gunnison Sage-grouse

Approximately 4,524 acres of Gunnison Sage-grouse crucial year-round habitat, would be 

available for leasing subject to NSO. This represents less than 1.0% of the BLM lands in the 

Monticello Field Office. This would have a negligible impact on potential mineral resource 

development. 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing and Rutting

The bighorn lambing and rutting seasons are shorter under Alternative C than they are under the 

No Action Alternative and Alternative B (30 days shorter for lambing and 16 days shorter for 

rutting; Table 4.78). Under Alternative C, the lambing timing restrictions would occur on 

415,395 acres of crucial lambing habitat (or 23.3% of all BLM lands). This area is larger than 

that designated under the No Action Alternative (by 85,645 acres, or 26.0%), but smaller than 

that designated under Alternative B (by 37,993 acres, or 8.4%). Because Alternative C's lambing 

timing limitations are less than the No Action Alternative while the crucial habitat is greater, it 

cannot be determined whether the net, negative impacts on mineral resource development from 

Alternative C are more or less than the No Action Alternative. However, the impacts on mineral 

resource development from Alternative C are definitively less in magnitude than Alternative B, 

due to the smaller acreage of habitat and the shortened duration of the timing limitations. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-152 

Table 4.78. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resourc

under Alternative C 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Gunnison Sage-grouse leks (0.6 miles)  Non-disturbing geophysical work 3/20 – 5/15  All permitted activities (dawn hours) 3/20 – 5/15 Bighorn – Lambing (415,395 acres) 4/1 – 6/15 Bighorn – Rutting (453,390 acres) 10/15 – 12/15 Pronghorn – Fawning (29,365 acres) 5/1 – 6/15 Deer – Winter use (266,406 acres) 11/15 – 4/15 Elk – Winter use (97,471 acres) 11/15 – 4/15 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-153 

Under Alternative C, the rutting timing restrictions would occur across a habitat area that is 

essentially the same size as under Alternative B. Because Alternative C's rutting timing 

limitations are less than the No Action Alternative while its crucial habitat acreage is greater, it 

cannot be determined whether the net, negative impacts on mineral resource development from 

Alternative C are more or less than the No Action Alternative. However, the impacts on mineral 

resource development from Alternative C are definitively less than Alternative B, due to the 

shortened duration of the timing limitations under Alternative C. 

Pronghorn Fawning Area

Under Alternative C, impacts on mineral resource development due to pronghorn decisions 

would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Deer Winter Range

Under Alternative C, on the 266,406-acre deer crucial winter range (or 14.9% of all BLM lands), 

the special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced for 181 days of critical winter 

use (see Table 4.78). These management decisions would result the same type and quality of 

impacts to mineral resource development as are described under the No Action Alternative, but 

to a greater degree. Alternative C results in greater impacts both in terms of the larger area being 

restricted as winter range (larger by 68,856 acres, or 34.9% compared to the No Action 

Alternative) and the longer duration of enforcement of the restrictions (longer by 30 days, or 

16.6% compared to the No Action Alternative). 

Elk

Under Alternative C, on the 97,471-acre elk crucial winter range (or 5.5% of all BLM lands), the 

special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced for 181 days of critical winter use 

(see Table 4.78). These management decisions would result in the same type and quality of 

impacts to mineral resource development as are described under Alternative B, but to a lesser 

degree. Alternative C results in fewer impacts both in terms of the smaller area being restricted 

as winter range (smaller by 93,702 acres, or 49.0% compared to Alternative B) and the shorter 

duration of enforcement of the restrictions (shorter by 15 days, or 7.7% compared to Alternative 

B). 

In all, wildlife decisions necessitating special stipulations would impact various acreages at 

various times of the year. Under Alternative C, no wildlife related timing limitations would be 

enforced on any acreage from June 15 through October 15 (122 days). This amounts to less 

restriction to mineral resource development compared to Alternative B and the No Action 

Alternative, in the form of an additional month of mineral resource development without wildlife 

related timing limitations. At the other end of the spectrum, restrictions from November 15 

through December 15 would be enforced on up to 729,567 acres (or 41% of all BLM lands, 

assuming overlap; see Table 4.65) under Alternative C3

. This maximum is less restrictive than 

Alternative B but more restrictive than Alternative D. 

 

3

 The maximum of 729,567 acres was derived from the acres subject to special stipulations in Table 4.41, rather than the maximum

acreage in Table 4.54 (which would have been 817,267 acres, assuming no overlap). As 817,267 acres is greater than the 

acreage subject to special stipulations in Table 4.41 (729,567 acres), it is evident that there is considerable overlap among the 

various habitats. Therefore, at the most limited time of November 15–December 15, the maximum acreage that can be 

assumed is the one in Table 4.41. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-154 

4.3.7.5.3.9. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development–Alternative C 

Impacts on mineral resource development under Alternative C would be essentially the same as 

under the No Action Alternative. Although only the vegetation of the Lavender Mesa ACEC 

would be protected, the area of the Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC—in which surface disturbance 

would be allowed—is such a small proportion of the total planning area that the impacts at the 

PA-wide level would be essentially the same at approximately 0.03%. 

4.3.7.5.3.10. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development–Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, approximately 425,179 acres (or 23.8% of BLM lands) would fall into the 

VRM I class, and in these areas, mineral resource development would be subject to NSO or 

closed to leasing because of the restrictions on surface disturbance in this VRM class. 

Adverse impacts under Alternative C would be of the same type as the No Action Alternative, 

for the same reasons. The magnitude of these impacts would be greater than Alternative A (by 

2.9%) but less than Alternative B. 

4.3.7.5.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

4.3.7.5.4.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, Comb Ridge would not be managed as a CSMA and no cultural resource 

decisions affecting mineral resource development are specified. Therefore, impacts on the 

mineral resource development of Comb Ridge under Alternative D would be the same as impacts 

under the No Action Alternative. Under Alternative D, Tank Bench would not be managed as a 

CSMA; however, the impacts on mineral resource development would be the same as under 

Alternatives A and C. Under Alternative D, impacts to development of mineral resources 

underlying the Grand Gulch Historic District would be the same as Alternative B, except that 

"casual use" geophysical exploration (as defined under 43 CFR § 3150; see Chapter 2) would be 

allowed, resulting in negligible but beneficial impacts in the form of improvements in the 

accuracy and amount of data and knowledge on the mineral resource reserves underlying the 

historic district. 

4.3.7.5.4.2. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, approximately 46,131 acres (or 2.6% of all BLM lands) would be 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. This decision would result in a very low level 

of adverse impacts to mineral resource development (see Alternative A for impact types and 

forms), similar to Alternative C. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-155 

4.3.7.5.4.3. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Mineral Resource Development Under 

Alternative D 

Oil and Gas Resources

In total, approximately 1,383,283 acres of BLM lands within the Monticello FO would be 

administratively open for oil and gas leasing under standard and special lease stipulations, within 

the three RFD development areas (see Table 4.65). Based on the proportion of BLM lands open 

for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005d), it is estimated that 75 predicted oil and gas wells would 

be drilled over the next 15 years (Table 4.79; Map 30; BLM 2005c). This alternative would 

result in an increase of approximately 145,053 acres available for development (or 11.7%) and 

an increase of 2 predicted oil and gas wells (or 2.7%) compared to the No Action Alternative. 

See the socioeconomic analysis in this chapter (Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources) for 

the projected yield of oil and gas for Alternative D. 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative D represents the largest amount of land open for mineral 

resource development, under the least restrictive terms; Alternative D has the most land available 

under standard stipulations (at approximately 962,300 acres, or 69.6% of available lands) and 

represents a substantial increase in lands available under standard stipulations over the No 

Action Alternative—an increase of nearly 383,700 acres, or 66.3%. The shift toward standard 

stipulations under Alternative D also requires lowering the proportion of available lands subject 

to special stipulations from 53.3% of available lands under the No Action Alternative to 30.4% 

of available lands under Alternative D (see Table 4.79). 

Oil and gas development would occur in all three RFD areas. Similar to the No Action 

Alternative, the Monument Upwarp RFD area would see the least amount of development in 

terms of wells (i.e., 9), despite having the most lands administratively open to development. Also 

similar to the No Action Alternative, most wells (i.e., 41) would be drilled in the Blanding Subbasin RFD area. Between the No Action Alternative and Alternative D, leasing stipulations 

appear to have shifted out of special stipulations and into standard stipulations, particularly in the 

Monument Upwarp and Blanding Sub-basin RFD areas. It also appears that the acreage 

difference between the No Action Alternative and Alternative D can be found almost entirely 

within the Monument Upwarp RFD area: there is a difference of almost 141,000 acres between 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative D in the Monument Upwarp RFD area, while the 

other two RFD areas stay about the same size. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-156 

Table 4.79. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands within RFD Areas u

D, Average over the 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Available Geop

RFD Area

Standard Special Total

% of BLM Lands 

Available Predicted Wells* Linear M

Source 

AVERAGE OVER 15 YEARS 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 153,496 104,374 257,870 100 25 277 Blanding Sub-basin 303,258 94,233 397,491 98 41 205 Monument Upwarp 505,529 222,393 727,922 99 9 103 LOP Total 962,283 421,000 1,383,283 75 585 

MAXIMUM PER YEAR (MPY)** 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt *** *** *** *** 3 25 Blanding Sub-basin *** *** *** *** 4 14 Monument Upwarp *** *** *** *** 1 8 MPY Total *** *** *** 8 47 Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only. *Oil and natural gas wells are considered together. **Based on the RFD (BLM 2005d), MPY reflects the maximum development that could occur in any given year. During most Plan years, development pemaximum. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-157 

Ultimately, under Alternative D, the direct impacts of mineral resource development decisions 

on oil and gas production would be beneficial, but negligible, compared to the No Action 

Alternative. A very small increase in the potential number of oil and gas wells under Alternative 

D (a 2.7% increase) would lead to a very small increase in the available supply of oil and/or 

natural gas and in royalties (see Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources). 

Geophysical Exploration

Under Alternative D, approximately 585 linear miles of source line for 2-D and 3-D geophysical 

exploration would be conducted over the next 15 years for the purposes outlined in Section 

4.3.7.2, Summary of Geophysical RFD and would result in approximately 924 acres of surface 

disturbance over the next 15 years. This exploration would result in beneficial impacts to mineral 

resource development of the same type and quality described in Section 4.3.7.2, for the same 

reasons (BLM 2005d), to a greater degree than the No Action Alternative. Under Alternative D, 

26 more miles of source line (an increase of 4.7%) would be used compared to the No Action 

Alternative. Geophysical exploration would occur in all three RFD areas, as detailed in Table 

4.79. 

Other Leasable Mineral Resources

Although 1,348,973 acres of BLM land would be administratively open under Alternative D for 

the leasing of potash and salt and tar sands (an increase of approximately 110,743 acres, or 

compared to the No Action Alternative), because the level of development expected is so low, 

impacts on potash and salt and tar sands leasing because of mineral resource development 

decisions would be nearly identical to those described under the No Action Alternative. 

Locatable Mineral Resources

Approximately 1,739,389 acres of BLM land would be open under Alternative D to mineral 

entry of uranium-vanadium, copper, gold, and limestone, an increase of nearly 64,332 acres, or 

3.8% compared to the No Action Alternative. Impacts on locatable resources would be beneficial 

compared to the No Action Alternative, due to the increased acreage available for the 

development of these resources. 

Salable Mineral Resources

Approximately 1,383,277 acres of BLM land would be open to development of sand and gravel, 

building stone, and clay under Alternative D (Map 24). This represents a decrease of nearly 

6,000 acres (0.4%) compared to the No Action Alternative. Impacts under Alternative D would 

be essentially the same as those described for the No Action Alternative. 

4.3.7.5.4.4. Impacts of Management of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics on Mineral Resource Development Under 

Alternative D 

Impacts under Alternative D would be the same as under Alternative A, for the same reasons. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-158 

4.3.7.5.4.5. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Mineral Resource Development 

Under Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, recreation decisions regarding the 10,203-acre San Juan River SRMA and 

the 375,734-acre Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA would result in essentially the same impacts that 

would occur under Alternative B. 

4.3.7.5.4.6. Impacts of Soils and Watershed Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, a minimum of 1,069,495 acres of BLM lands open to surface-disturbing 

mineral resource development (or 76.5% of available BLM lands) are overlain by sensitive soils 

with medium and high limitations (Table 4.80). The particular requirements and limitations on 

such mineral resource development and the resulting impacts on mineral resource development 

would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

Table 4.80. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, under 

Alternative D 

RFD Area Leasing 

Stipulation 

Total 

Acreage 

Largest Single 

Limiting Factor2 Acreage % Total Acreage 

Blanding Sub-basin Standard 303,258 Alkalinity 249,443 82.3 

 Special 94,233 Alkalinity 82,372 87.4 

NSO, Open to ME1 8,936 Alkalinity 7,291 81.6 

 Subtotal 406,427 339,106 83.4 

Monument Upwarp Standard 505,529 Alkalinity 357,781 70.8 

 Special 222,393 Alkalinity 171,730 77.2 

NSO, Open to ME1 5,240 Alkalinity 4,755 90.7 

 Subtotal 733,162 534,266 72.9 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt Standard 153,496 Rooting Depth 122,329 79.7 

 Special 104,374 Rooting Depth 73,794 70.7 

NSO, Open to ME1 0 — 0 — 

 Subtotal 257,870 196,123 76.1 

Total 1,397,459 1,069,495 76.5 

1. NSO, Open to ME = No Surface Occupancy but Open to Mineral Entry. 

2. Possible limiting factors are water erosion, wind erosion, droughty soils, excess salt, excess sodium, rooting depth, and alkalinity. 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of requiring a plan only for slopes greater than 40% would be 

the same as Alternatives B and C in type. However, the impacts under Alternative D would be 

much less than Alternatives B and C in magnitude. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-159 

4.3.7.5.4.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, zero acres of BLM lands would be designated as ACECs (Table 4.81). 

Though management prescriptions are made for these parcels of land (e.g., leasing and VRM 

categories, whether to allow minerals entry, disposal, or geophysical work) none of these 

prescriptions are associated with an ACEC designation. Therefore, under Alternative D, special 

designation decisions regarding ACECs would have no impacts on mineral resource 

development. 

Under Alternative D, none of the river segments recommended for WSR designation in other 

alternatives are recommended as suitable. Therefore, under Alternative D, WSR decisions would 

cause no impacts on mineral resource development. 

4.3.7.5.4.8. Impacts of Special Status Species and Other Wildlife and Fisheries 

Decisions on Mineral Resource Development Under Alternative D 

Gunnison Sage-grouse

Impacts to mineral resource development under Alternative D would be of the same type and 

quality as under Alternative B, except that the reserved year-round habitat would be slightly 

smaller (at 2,877 acres, which is a decrease of 1,647 acres, or 36.4%, compared to Alternative B) 

and that the lek habitat buffer zone would be slightly smaller (i.e., 0.25-mile buffer around lek 

habitat under Alternative D, compared with the 2.0-mile buffer in Alternative B). Of all the 

action alternatives, Alternative D represents the fewest Gunnison Sage-grouse related restrictions 

on mineral resource exploration, development, and production. 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing and Rutting

The bighorn lambing and rutting seasons under Alternative D are identical to those under 

Alternative C (i.e., shorter than under the No Action Alternative and Alternative B; Table 4.82). 

Under Alternative D, the lambing and rutting timing restrictions would occur on 299,009 acres of 

crucial habitat (or 16.8% of all BLM lands). This area is smaller than that designated under the 

No Action Alternative (by 30,741 acres, or 9.3%), smaller than that designated under Alternative 

B (by 154,379 acres, or 34.1%), and smaller than that designated under Alternative C (by at least 

116,386 acres, or 28.0%), making Alternative D by far the least restrictive to mineral resource 

exploration, development and production in terms of wildlife decisions of both timing limitations 

and habitat acreage restrictions. Nonetheless, impacts from these wildlife decisions would be of 

the type and quality described under the No Action Alternative. 

Pronghorn Fawning Area

Under Alternative D, impacts on mineral resource development from pronghorn decisions would 

be the same in type and quality as under Alternative B, except they would occur over a smaller 

area: 13,961 acres (or 1.0% of all BLM lands; see Table 4.82). This crucial habitat area is 

approximately 1,000 acres (7.7%) larger than it is under the No Action Alternative but 

approximately 15,400 acres (52.5%) smaller than under Alternatives B and C. Ultimately, 

impacts would be greater than under the No Action Alternative but less than under Alternatives 

B and C. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-160 

Table 4.81. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource Development

Alternative D 

Acres Leasing Stipulation Other A

ACEC 

Total Within WSA1 Outside WSA 

VRM 

Outside 

WSA2 Standard Special NSO Closed Entry 

EXISTING 

Alkali Ridge 0 NA NA NA 12,951 24,098 2,146 0 ... NOT  (Alkali Ridge NHL) 0 NA NA NA (0) (0) (2,146) (0) no Bridger Jack Mesa 0 NA NA NA 0 0 0 6,212 ... NOT Butler Wash North 0 NA NA NA 183 30 0 17,152 ... NOT Cedar Mesa -SRMA4 0 NA NA NA 107,355 3,038 0 196,349 ... DE (Grand Gulch SEA) 0 NA NA NA (0) (0) (0) (4,240) --  (Valley of the Gods SEA) NA  (Scenic Highway Corridor) NA Dark Canyon 0 NA NA NA 232 101 61,326 ... NOT Hovenweep NA 2,412 0 0 0 yes Indian Creek/Lockhart Basin 0 NA NA NA -- -- -- -- --  (Indian Creek) 0 NA NA NA 107 3,802 0 4,602 ... NOT  (Lockhart Basin) 0 NA NA NA 5,938 40,024 0 1,821 ... NOT Lavender Mesa 0 NA NA NA 649 0 0 0 ... NOT 

POTENTIAL 

 (Lockhart Basin) ... SEE EXISTING ... San Juan River3 ... NOT DESIGNATED ACEC ... II 0 0 7,590 0 -- Shay Canyon 0 -- 119 III 119 0 0 0 ... NOT Valley of the Gods 0 -- 22,863 III 22,863 0 0 0 ... NOT "NA" and "–" both mean Not Applicable. Items in parenthesis are subsets of the first number above that is not in parenthesis. 

1. Always VRM I, or closed to leasing. 2. According to Alternatives Matrix in Chapter 2, if specified. 3. To be managed as SRMA in this alternative. 4. Portions of Cedar Mesa ACEC lie within eight WSAs. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-161 

Table 4.82. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resourc

under Alternative D 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Gunnison Sage-grouse leks (0.25 miles) Non-disturbing geophysical work 3/20 – 5/15 Minerals Ops activities (dawn hours) 3/20 – 5/15 Bighorn – Lambing (299,009 acres) 4/1 – 6/15 Bighorn – Rutting (299,009 acres) 10/15 – 12/15 Pronghorn – Fawning (13,961 acres) 5/1 – 6/15 Deer – Winter use (182,315 acres) 12/1 – 4/15 Elk – Winter use (62,484 acres) 12/1 – 4/15 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-162 

Deer Winter Range

Under Alternative D, on the 182,315-acre deer crucial winter range (or 10.2% of all BLM lands), 

the special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced for 136 days of critical winter 

use (see Table 4.82). These management decisions would result the same type and quality of 

impacts on mineral resource development as are described under the No Action Alternative, but 

to a lesser degree. Alternative D results in fewer impacts both in terms of the smaller area being 

restricted as winter range (smaller by 15,235 acres, or 7.7% compared to the No Action 

Alternative) and the shorter duration of enforcement of the restrictions (shorter by 15 days, or 

9.9%, compared to the No Action Alternative). Therefore, of all the alternatives, Alternative D 

represents the least amount of restriction to mineral resource development due to deer winter 

range decisions. 

Elk

Under Alternative D, on the 62,484-acre elk crucial winter range (or 3.5% of all BLM lands), the 

special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced for 136 days of critical winter use 

(see Table 4.82). These management decisions would result the same type and quality of impacts 

on mineral resource development as are described under Alternative B, but to a much lesser 

degree. Alternative D would result in fewer impacts to mineral resource development both in 

terms of the smaller area being restricted as winter range (smaller by 128,689 acres, or 67.3%, 

compared to Alternative B) and the shorter duration of enforcement of the restrictions (shorter by 

60 days, or 30.6%, compared to Alternative B). Elk management decisions under Alternative E 

would result in the least impacts on mineral resource development of all the alternatives. 

In all, wildlife decisions necessitating special stipulations would impact various acreages at 

various times of the year. Under Alternative D, no wildlife related timing limitations would be 

enforced on any acreage from June 15 through October 15—identical to Alternative C (122 

days). At the other end of the spectrum, restrictions from April 1–15 and from December 1–15 

would be enforced on up to 420,998 acres (or 23.6% of all BLM lands, assuming overlap; see 

Table 4.65) under Alternative D.4

 This acreage represents the least restriction of mineral 

resource development of all the alternatives. 

4.3.7.5.4.9. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, no relict or near relict vegetation would be protected. Therefore, no 

impacts on mineral resource development would result from vegetation management decisions. 

4.3.7.5.4.10. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, approximately 390,424 acres (or 21.9% of BLM lands) would fall into the 

VRM I class, and in these areas, mineral resource development would be subject to NSO or 

closed to leasing because of the restrictions on surface disturbance in this VRM class. 

 

4 The maximum of 420,998 acres was derived from the acres subject to special stipulations in Table 4.41, rather than the maximum 

acreage in Table 4.55 (which would have been 543,808 acres, assuming no overlap). As 543,808 acres is greater than the acreage 

subject to special stipulations in Table 4.41 (420,998 acres), it is evident that there is considerable overlap among the various 

habitats. Therefore, at the most limited times of April 1–15 and December 1–15, the maximum acreage that can be assumed is the 

one in Table 4.41.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-163 

Of the action alternatives, Alternative D most closely resembles the No Action Alternative. 

Adverse impacts under Alternative D would be of the same type as the No Action Alternative, 

for the same reasons. The magnitude of these impacts would be greater than Alternative A (by 

1.0%) but less than Alternatives B and C. 

4.3.7.5.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.3.7.5.5.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative E 

Impacts under Alternative E would be the same as under Alternative B, except that the 30,752-

acre Comb Ridge CSMA would be closed to mineral resource development instead of subject to 

NSO. This additional restriction on mineral resource development from cultural resource 

decisions would be a more adverse impact on mineral resource development than Alternative B, 

as not even directional drilling would be allowed in this CSMA. 

4.3.7.5.5.2. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed as exclusion areas for ROWs. This would limit mineral 

production and access for exploration. Existing production could be limited by not allowing 

needed ROWs. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would also be recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral entry, prohibiting development of uranium-vanadium, copper, gold, 

and limestone on 582,360 acres. 

4.3.7.5.5.3. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Mineral Resource Development Under 

Alternative E 

Oil and Gas Resources

In total, approximately 758,931 acres of BLM lands within the Monticello FO would be 

administratively open for oil and gas leasing under standard and special lease stipulations, within 

the three RFD development areas (see Table 4.65). Based on the proportion of BLM lands open 

for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005d), it is estimated that 54 predicted oil and gas wells would 

be drilled over the next 15 years (Table 4.83; Map 31; BLM 2005c). This alternative would 

result in a decrease of approximately 479,300 acres available for development (or 38.7%) and a 

decrease of 19 predicted oil and gas wells (or 26.0%) compared to the No Action Alternative. 

See the socioeconomic analysis in this chapter (Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources) for 

the projected yield of oil and gas for Alternative E. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-164 

Table 4.83. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands within RFD Areas u

Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Available Geop

RFD Area

Standard Special Total

% of BLM Lands 

Available Predicted Wells* Linear M

Source 

AVERAGE OVER 15 YEARS 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 21,584 132,087 153,671 60 15 Blanding Sub-basin 130,253 217,905 348,158 86 36 Monument Upwarp 61,451 195,648 257,099 35 3 Lop Total 213,288 545,640 758,928 54 

MAXIMUM PER YEAR (MPY)** 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt *** *** *** *** 2 Blanding Sub-basin *** *** *** *** 4 Monument Upwarp *** *** *** *** 1 MPY Total *** *** *** 7 Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only. *Oil and natural gas wells are considered together. **Based on the RFD (BLM 2005d), MPY reflects the maximum development that could occur in any given year. During most Plan years, development pemaximum. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-165 

By far, Alternative E would result in the most adverse impacts on mineral resource development, 

compared to the No Action Alternative. One contributing factor in the decrease of acres available 

and wells (compared to the No Action Alternative) is that Alternative E has the smallest acreage 

of BLM lands available under standard stipulations (the most open stipulations), of all the 

alternatives. Under this alternative, approximately 28% of all open BLM lands would be 

available under standard stipulations, and approximately 72% of all open BLM lands would be 

subject to special stipulations. However, the greatest contributing factor in the decrease of acres 

available and wells is the closure of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under 

Alternative E. 

Oil and gas development likely would occur in all three RFD areas, but most years, the 

Monument Upwarp RFD area would see no development in terms of wells (see Table 4.83). 

Alternative E is the only alternative in which the Monument Upwarp RFD area has fewer lands 

open to leasing than another RFD area—specifically, the Blanding Sub-basin RFD area. Indeed, 

the Blanding Sub-basin RFD area is the area that changes least in terms of acres available under 

Alternative E compared to the No Action Alternative; the Blanding Sub-basin RFD area is only 

49,909 acres smaller under Alternative E. Similar to the No Action Alternative, most wells (36) 

would be drilled in the Blanding Sub-basin RFD area. In a comparison between Alternative E 

and the No Action Alternative, the notable difference between percentage of lands available and 

percentage of wells drilled over 15 years can be explained by the fact that many of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics in the Monument Upwarp RFD Area, which already has a 

lower development potential than the other 2 RFD areas. 

Ultimately, a decrease in the potential number of oil and gas wells under Alternative E (a 26% 

decrease) would lead to a decrease in the available supply of oil and/or natural gas. The federal 

government and/or the State of Utah would continue to receive royalties from the production and 

sale of oil and gas, though at lower rates than under the No Action Alternative (see Section 

4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources). However, the decreased number of predicted wells would 

also decrease the rate at which finite reserves of fossil fuel resources in the Monticello FO are 

extracted and consumed (compared to the No Action Alternative), which would have a beneficial 

impact on the long-term viability and availability of these resources. 

Geophysical Exploration

Under Alternative E, approximately 380 linear miles of source line for 2-D and 3-D geophysical 

exploration would be conducted over the next 15 years for the purposes outlined in Section 

4.3.7.2, Summary of Geophysical RFD, and would result in approximately 591 acres of surface 

disturbance over the next 15 years. This exploration would result in beneficial impacts to mineral 

resource development of the same type and quality described in Section 4.3.7.2, for the same 

reasons (BLM 2005d). However, less exploration would happen under Alternative E than under 

the No Action Alternative: 179 fewer miles of source line (a decrease of 32.0%) would be used 

under Alternative E compared to the No Action Alternative. Geophysical exploration would 

occur in all three RFD areas, as detailed in Table 4.83. 

Other Leasable Mineral Resources

Although 758,929 acres of BLM land would be administratively open under Alternative E for the 

leasing of potash and salt and tar sands (a decrease of approximately 479,301 acres, or 39%, 

compared to the No Action Alternative), because the level of development expected is so low, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-166 

impacts on potash and salt and tar sands leasing from mineral resource development decisions 

would be the same as impacts under the No Action Alternative. 

Locatable Mineral Resources

Approximately 1,015,384 acres of BLM land would be open under Alternative E to mineral entry 

of uranium-vanadium, copper, gold, and limestone, a decrease of approximately 659,673 acres, 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Impacts of locatable resource decisions under this 

alternative would be essentially the same as those described for the No Action Alternative, 

except that there would be slightly less acreage available for the development of these resources. 

Salable Mineral Resources

Approximately 758,931 acres of BLM land would be open to development of sand and gravel, 

building stone, and clay under Alternative E (Map 25). This represents a decrease of 

approximately 630,324 acres compared to the No Action Alternative. Impacts of salable resource 

decisions under this alternative would be essentially of the same form and type as those 

described for the No Action Alternative, except that they would be more adverse under 

Alternative E. 

4.3.7.5.5.4. Impacts of Management of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics on Mineral Resource Development Under 

Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (or 32.6%) would be managed as closed to mineral leasing, proposed for 

withdrawal from mineral entry, ROW avoidance area, closed to disposal of mineral materials, 

and managed as VRM I. 

These management decisions would have an adverse impact on mineral resource development. 

Fewer lands would be available for oil and gas leasing and subsequent mineral resource 

development; this would result in fewer wells drilled over the next 15 years. Adverse impacts on 

mineral entry could occur because 32.6% fewer acres would be available for development of 

locatable minerals, resulting in less mining activity and less production of uranium-vanadium, 

copper, and placer gold. 

4.3.7.5.5.5. Impacts of Recreation Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative E 

Impacts from recreation decisions under Alternative E would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Impacts of recreation decisions under Alternative E would result in an adverse impact compared 

to the No Action Alternative, of essentially the same magnitude as Alternative B. Non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics which would be closed to leasing, occur within many 

SRMAs, but these closures are not a result of recreation decisions. 

4.3.7.5.5.6. Impacts of Soils and Watershed Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, a minimum of 659,170 acres of BLM lands open to surface-disturbing 

mineral resource development (or 81.1% of open BLM lands) are overlain by sensitive soils with 

medium and high limitations (Table 4.84). The particular requirements and limitations on such 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-167 

mineral resource development and the resulting impacts on mineral resource development would 

be the same as those under the No Action Alternative; however, Alternative E is unique because, 

while it reflects the lowest minimum acreage, it also reflects the highest percentage of open BLM 

lands overlain by sensitive soils. 

Table 4.84. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, under 

Alternative E 

RFD Area Leasing Category Total 

Acreage 

Largest Single 

Limiting Factor2 Acreage % Total Acreage 

Blanding Sub-basin Standard 130,253 Alkalinity 110,367 84.7 

 Special 217,905 Alkalinity 182,198 83.6 

NSO, Open to ME1 21,427 Alkalinity 19,319 90.2 

 Subtotal 369,585 311,884 84.4 

Monument Upwarp Standard 61,451 Alkalinity 42,971 69.9 

 Special 195,648 Alkalinity 153,274 78.3 

NSO, Open to ME1 7,960 Droughty 7,678 96.5 

 Subtotal 265,059 203,923 76.9 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt Standard 21,584 Alkalinity 17,702 82.0 

 Special 132,087 Rooting Depth 103,840 78.6 

NSO, Open to ME1 24,528 Droughty 21,821 89.0 

 Subtotal 178,199 143,363 80.5 

Total 812,843 659,170 81.1

1. NSO, Open to ME = No Surface Occupancy but Open to Mineral Entry. 

2. Possible limiting factors are water erosion, wind erosion, droughty soils, excess salt, excess sodium, rooting depth, and alkalinity. 

Under Alternative E, impacts on areas of over 20% slope would be the same as under Alternative 

B, for the same reasons. 

4.3.7.5.5.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, 521,141 acres of BLM lands would occur in ACECs (Table 4.85). In all, 

432,145 of these acres are subject to NSO or closed to leasing. If 393,477 acres (out of 432,145 

acres) are automatically closed to leasing because they are located in WSAs or are non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics, we assume that the remainder—38,668 acres—has been 

limited to mineral resource development as a direct result of designation of the ACECs (see 

Table 4.85). Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, implementation of Alternative E 

represents a limitation of 2.2% of all BLM lands (38,668 acres) due to ACEC designation. 

ACEC designation under Alternative E has less of a negative impact on mineral resource 

development than it does under the No Action Alternative (about 4.5% less) or Alternative B 

(about 2.7% less). Alternative E is most like Alternative C in terms of impacts to mineral 

resource development from ACEC designation.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-168 

Table 4.85. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource Developmen

Alternative E 

Acres Lease Stipulations (Acres) Other 

ACEC 

Total 

Within WSA

and LWC1 

Outside WSA 

and LWC 

VRM Outside 

WSA and LWC2 Standard Special NSO Closed Entry 

EXISTING 

Alkali Ridge 39,196 -- 39,196 IV 0 37,050 2,146 0 --  (Alkali Ridge NHL) ... NOT SPECIFIED ... Bridger Jack Mesa 6,225 6,214 11 I 0 5 0 6,220 yes Butler Wash North 17,365 15,524 1,841 I 4 172 0 17,188 no Cedar Mesa3 306,743 254,879 51,864 III 21,524 27,779 2,560 254,879 --  (Grand Gulch SEA) (4,240) (4,240) -- NA (0) (0) (0) (4,240) --  (Valley of the Gods SEA) ... SEE POTENTIAL ...  (Scenic Highway Corridor) ... NOT SPECIFIED ... Dark Canyon 61,660 61,606 54 I 0 22 0 61,638 no Hovenweep 2,439 -- 2,439 III 2,412 0 0 0 yes Indian Crk/Lockhart Basin 56,293 31,608 24,685 I 0 0 24,508 31,785 no  (Indian Creek) (8,510) (8,489) (21) I (0) (0) (21) (8,489) no  (Lockhart Basin) (47,783) (23,119) (24,664) I (0) (0) (24,487) (23,296) no Lavender Mesa 649 649 0 I 0 0 0 649 no 

POTENTIAL 

 (Lockhart Basin) ... SEE EXISTING ... San Juan River4 7,590 2,155 5,435 I, II, III 0 0 3,567 4,023 no Shay Canyon 119 99 20 I 0 0 20 99 no Valley of the Gods 22,863 20,743 2,120 I 0 0 0 22,863 no "NA" and "–" both mean Not Applicable. Items in parenthesis are subsets of the first number above that is not in parenthesis. 

LWC = Lands with Wilderness Characteristics; bolded ACECs indicate those with LWCs. 1. Always VRM I, or closed to leasing. 2. According to Alternatives Matrix in Chapter 2, if specified. 3. Portions of Cedar Mesa ACEC lie within eight WSAs. 4. To be managed as SRMA in this alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-169 

Impacts due to WSR recommendations under Alternative E would be the same in type and form 

as under Alternative B. 

4.3.7.5.5.8. Impacts of Special Status Species and Other Wildlife and Fisheries 

Decisions on Mineral Resource Development Under Alternative E 

Gunnison Sage-grouse

Under Alternative E, management decisions regarding Gunnison Sage-grouse would be the same 

as under Alternative B, as would the impacts on mineral resource development from these 

management decisions. 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing and Rutting

Under Alternative E, on the 453,386-acre bighorn crucial habitat area (or 25.4% of all BLM 

lands), the special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced for the duration of the 

lambing season and rutting season (Table 4.86; see also the No Action Alternative for the 

duration). These management decisions would result in the same impacts as Alternative B. 

Pronghorn Fawning Area

Impacts under Alternative E would be the same as under Alternative B, for the same reasons. 

Deer Winter Range

Impacts under Alternative E would be the same as under Alternative B, for the same reasons. 

Elk

Impacts under Alternative E would be the same as under Alternative B, for the same reasons. 

4.3.7.5.5.9. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative E 

Impacts on mineral resource development under Alternative E would be essentially the same as 

under Alternative B, except that fewer acres of vegetation would be treated (2,000 acres/year), 

and because the same acreages of vegetation would be protected from surface disturbance. 

4.3.7.5.5.10. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 998,370 acres (or 56.0% of BLM lands) would fall into the 

VRM I class, and in these areas, mineral resource development would be subject to NSO or 

closed to leasing because of the restrictions on surface disturbance in this VRM class. Adverse 

impacts under Alternative E would be of the same type as under the No Action Alternative, for 

the same reasons, but at a greater magnitude (35.1%). Alternative E proposes the greatest VRM 

related limits to mineral resource development. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-170 

Table 4.86. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resourc

under Alternative E 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Gunnison Sage-grouse leks (2.0 miles)  • Non-disturbing geophysical work 3/20 – 5/15  • All permitted activities (nighttime) 3/20 – 5/15 Bighorn – Lambing (453,388 acres) 4/1 – 7/15 Bighorn – Rutting (453,388 acres) 10/15 – 12/31 Pronghorn – Fawning (29,365 acres) 5/1 – 6/15 Deer – Winter use (785,921 acres) 11/1 – 5/15 Elk – Winter use (191,173 acres) 11/1 – 5/15 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-171 

4.3.7.5.6. PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.7.5.6.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under The Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, cultural resource decisions regarding the 37,388-acre Grand Gulch 

National Historic District, Comb Ridge Management Zone (30,752 acres) McLoyd-Moon House 

(1,609 acres), and Beef Basin SRMA (20,302 acres) would result in the same impacts to mineral 

resource development as occur under Alternative B. 

4.3.7.5.6.2. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under The Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 50,665 acres (or 2.9% of all BLM lands) would be 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. This decision has the potential to result in 

adverse impacts of the same type as the No Action Alternative, but at a much lower magnitude. 

4.3.7.5.6.3. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Mineral Resource Development Under 

The Proposed Plan 

Oil and Gas Resources

In total, approximately 1,224,811 acres of BLM lands within the Monticello FO would be 

administratively open for oil and gas leasing under standard and special lease stipulations within 

the three RFD development areas (see Table 4.65). Based on the proportion of BLM lands open 

for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005d), it is estimated that 72 predicted oil and gas wells would 

be drilled over the next 15 years (Table 4.87; Map 32; BLM 2005c). This alternative would 

result in an decrease of approximately 17,102 acres available for development and an decrease of 

1 predicted oil and gas well (or 1.4%) compared to the No Action Alternative. See the 

socioeconomic analysis in this chapter (Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources) for the 

projected yield of oil and gas for the Proposed Plan. 

Under this alternative, approximately 40% of all open BLM lands would be available under 

standard stipulations, and approximately 60% of all open BLM lands would be available under 

special stipulations. Although the overall acreage administratively open to leasing is greater 

under this alternative than under the No Action Alternative, standard stipulations/special 

stipulations ratio under the Proposed Plan is very similar to that of the No Action Alternative. 

Oil and gas development would occur in all three RFD areas. Similar to the No Action 

Alternative, the Monument Upwarp RFD area would see the least amount of development in 

terms of wells (i.e., 9), despite having the most lands administratively open to development. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-172 

Table 4.87. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells and Geophysical Exploration on BLM Lands within RFD Areas u

Plan, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Available Geop

RFD Area

Standard Special Total

% of BLM Lands 

Available Predicted Wells* Linear M

Source 

AVERAGE OVER 15 YEARS 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 40,242 210,525 250,767 97 24 269 Blanding Sub-basin 224,265 145,007 369,272 96 41 205 Monument Upwarp 230,925 376,945 607,870 83 7 99 LOP Total 629,471 732,477 1,227,909 72 573 

MAXIMUM PER YEAR (MPY)** 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt *** *** *** *** 3 25 Blanding Sub-basin *** *** *** *** 4 14 Monument Upwarp *** *** *** *** 1 7 MPY Total *** *** *** 8 46 Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only. *Oil and natural gas wells are considered together. **Based on the RFD (BLM 2005d), MPY reflects the maximum development that could occur in any given year. During most Plan years, development pemaximum. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-173 

Also similar to the No Action Alternative, most wells (i.e., 41) would be drilled in the Blanding 

Sub-basin RFD Area. Some notable differences in the RFD areas' leasing stipulations can be 

seen between the Proposed Plan and the No Action Alternative. In the Paradox Fold and Fault 

Belt RFD area, under the Proposed Plan, more than two-thirds of available lands are subject to 

special stipulations, whereas under the No Action Alternative, nearly two-thirds of available 

lands are available under standard stipulations. In the Monument Upwarp RFD area, more than 

twice as much land is subject to standard stipulations under the Proposed Plan compared to the 

No Action Alternative, while the land subject to special stipulations decreases by only about 

7.9% under the Proposed Plan. 

Ultimately under the Proposed Plan the direct impacts of mineral resource development 

decisions on oil and gas production would be beneficial, but negligible, compared to the No 

Action Alternative. A very small increase in the potential number of oil and gas wells under the 

Proposed Plan (a 1.4% increase) would lead to a very small increase in the available supply of oil 

and/or natural gas and in royalties (see Section 4.3.12, Socioeconomic Resources). 

Geophysical Exploration

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 556 linear miles of source line for 2-D and 3-D 

geophysical exploration would be conducted over the next 15 years for the purposes outlined in 

Section 4.3.7.2, Summary of Geophysical RFD and would result in approximately 879 acres of 

surface disturbance over the next 15 years. This exploration would result in beneficial impacts to 

mineral resource development of the same type and quality described in Section 4.3.7.2 and for 

the same reasons (BLM 2005d), to a greater degree than the No Action Alternative. Fourteen 

more miles of source line (an increase of 2.5%) would be used under the Proposed Plan 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Geophysical exploration would occur in all three RFD 

areas, as detailed in Table 4.87. 

Other Leasable Mineral Resources

Although 1,348,973 acres of BLM land would be administratively open under the Proposed Plan 

for the leasing of potash and salt and tar sands (an increase of approximately 110,743 acres, or 

8.9%, compared to the No Action Alternative), because the level of development expected is so 

low, impacts to potash and salt and tar sands leasing because of mineral resource development 

decisions would be nearly identical to those described under the No Action Alternative. 

Locatable Mineral Resources

Approximately 1,682,865 acres of BLM land would be open under the Proposed Plan to mineral 

entry of uranium-vanadium, copper, gold, and limestone, a decrease of approximately 7,808 

acres, or less than 1%, compared to the No Action Alternative. The types and forms of impacts 

under the Proposed Plan would be the same as those described for the No Action Alternative. 

Salable Mineral Resources

Approximately 1,358,968 acres of BLM land would be open to development of sand and gravel, 

building stone, and clay under the Proposed Plan (Map 26). This represents a decrease of 

approximately 40,288 acres compared to the No Action Alternative. Impacts under the Proposed 

Plan would be essentially the same as those described for the No Action Alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-174 

4.3.7.5.6.4. Impacts of Management of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics on Mineral Resource Development Under 

The Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (or 5.0 %) would be managed as NSO and closed to mineral leasing, proposed for 

withdrawal from mineral entry (approximately 4,280 acres), ROW avoidance area, closed to 

disposal of mineral materials, and managed as VRM II. 

These management decisions would have an adverse impact on mineral resource development. 

Fewer lands would be available for oil and gas leasing and subsequent mineral resource 

development; this would result in fewer wells drilled over the next 15 years. Adverse impacts on 

mineral entry could occur because 5.0 % fewer acres would be available for development of 

locatable minerals, resulting in less mining activity and less production of uranium-vanadium, 

copper, and placer gold. 

4.3.7.5.6.5. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Mineral Resource Development 

Under The Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, in the 9,859-acre San Juan River SRMA, recreation decisions that 

pertain to mineral resource development would be the same as Alternative B, except that the 

entire SRMA, including the Bluff Airport vicinity, would be closed to mineral materials disposal. 

These recreation decisions would result in essentially the same impacts as Alternative B. 

Under the Proposed Plan, recreation decisions regarding the 375,734-acre Cedar Mesa Cultural 

SRMA would result in the same impacts that would occur under Alternative B. 

4.3.7.5.6.6. Impacts of Soils and Watershed Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under The Proposed Plan 

Under The Proposed Plan, a minimum of 1,063,652 acres of BLM lands open to surfacedisturbing mineral resource development (or 76.6% of available BLM lands) are overlain by 

sensitive soils with medium and high limitations (Table 4.88). The particular requirements and 

limitations on such mineral resource development and the resulting impacts on mineral resource 

development would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

Table 4.88. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, under 

The Proposed Plan 

RFD Area Leasing 

Stipulation 

Total 

Acreage 

Largest Single 

Limiting Factor2 Acreage % Total Acreage 

Blanding Sub-basin Standard 254,706 Alkalinity 214,035 84.0 

 Special 142,314 Alkalinity 117,263 82.4 

NSO, Open to ME1 8,213 Alkalinity 7,316 89.1 

 Subtotal 405,233 338,614 83.6 

Monument Upwarp Standard 293,201 Alkalinity 207,717 70.8 

 Special 407,984 Alkalinity 298,098 73.1 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-175 

Table 4.88. Minimum Acreages of High- and Medium-risk Sensitive Soils within Lands 

Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Resource Development, by RFD Area, under 

The Proposed Plan 

RFD Area Leasing 

Stipulation 

Total 

Acreage 

Largest Single 

Limiting Factor2 Acreage % Total Acreage 

NSO, Open to ME1 25,171 Alkalinity 24,069 95.6 

 Subtotal 726,356 529,884 73.0 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt Standard 81,564 Rooting Depth 64,994 79.7 

 Special 169,204 Rooting Depth 124,877 73.8 

NSO, Open to ME1 5,939 Rooting Depth 5,283 89.0 

 Subtotal 256,707 195,154 76.0 

Total 1,388,296 1,063,652 76.6 

1. NSO, Open to ME = No Surface Occupancy but Open to Mineral Entry. 

2. Possible limiting factors are water erosion, wind erosion, droughty soils, excess salt, excess sodium, rooting depth, and alkalinity. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of requiring a plan for slopes between 21% and 40% and 

implementing the Gold Book Standards (BLM and FS 2005) would be the same as Alternative B. 

Implementing surface-disturbing mineral resource development on slopes over 40% is still 

generally disallowed under the Proposed Plan, but if re-siting would cause "undue or 

unnecessary degradation" it may be allowed. Therefore, the negative, minor impacts of the 

Proposed Plan on mineral resource development on slopes above 40% are similar in type to 

Alternative B but somewhat less in magnitude. 

4.3.7.5.6.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under The Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 73,492 acres of BLM lands would occur in ACECs (Table 4.89). In all, 

41,292 of these acres are subject to NSO or closed to leasing. If 4,602 acres (out of 41,292 acres) 

are automatically closed to leasing because they are located in WSAs, we assume that the 

remainder—34,942 acres—has been limited to mineral resource development as a direct result of 

designation of the ACECs (see Table 4.89). Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, 

implementation of the Proposed Plan represents a closure of 1.9% of all BLM lands (34,942 

acres) due to ACEC designation. ACEC designation under the Proposed Plan has less of a 

negative impact on mineral resource development than it does under the No Action Alternative 

(about 4.4% less) or under Alternative B (about 2.6% less). 

Under the Proposed Plan, Colorado River Segments #2 and #3, San Juan Segment # 5, and the 

Dark Canyon segment, a total of 35.7 miles (BLM River Miles) , are recommended suitable for 

WSR designation. As the suitable segments would be managed as VRM I and II, these 

recommendations would effectively make these areas unavailable for leasing. This mileage 

accounts for a 0.2% decrease in BLM lands available for optimal mineral resource development 

in comparison with the No Action Alternative for WSR segments. Accordingly, this would result 

in essentially the same potential mineral resource development as the No Action Alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-176 

4.3.7.5.6.8. Impacts of Special Status Species and Other Wildlife and Fisheries 

Decisions on Mineral Resource Development Under The Proposed 

Plan 

Gunnison Sage-grouse

Impacts to mineral resource development under the Proposed Plan would be of the same type 

and quality as under Alternative B, except that the lek habitat buffer zone would be slightly 

smaller (i.e., a 0.6-mile buffer around lek habitat under the Proposed Plan, compared with a 2.0-

mile buffer in Alternative B), in favor of mineral resource exploration and development. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-177 

Table 4.89. Acreages of Existing and Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource Development

the Proposed Plan 

Acres Lease Stipulation (Acres) Other A

ACEC 

Total Within WSA1 Outside WSA 

VRM 

Outside 

WSA2 Standard Special NSO Closed Entry 

EXISTING 

Alkali Ridge 39,196 -- 39,196 IV 0 37,050 2,146 0 yes  (Alkali Ridge NHL) (2,146) -- (2,146) NA (0) (0) (2,146) (0) no Bridger Jack Mesa 0 NA NA NA 13 0 0 6,212 ... NOT DEButler Wash North 0 NA NA NA 179 35 0 17,152 ... NOT DE (Grand Gulch SEA) 0 0 -- NA (0) (0) (0) (4,240) --  (Valley of the Gods SEA) 22,863  (Scenic Highway Corridor) 0 Dark Canyon 0 NA NA NA 0 85 0 61,574 ... NOT DEHovenweep 2,439 -- 2,439 III 0 1535 877 0 yes Indian Creek/Lockhart Basin 0 0 0 NA 5,590 37,945 5,170 7,588 --  (Indian Creek) (3,908) (0) (3,908) I (0) (1) (3,908) 0 no  (Lockhart Basin) (0) NA NA III (5,590) (37,944) (1,263) (2,986) ... NOT DELavender Mesa 649 -- 649 II 0 0 649 0 yes 

POTENTIAL 

 (Lockhart Basin) ... SEE EXISTING ... San Juan River3 4,321 -- 4,321 I, II, III (Var.) 0 0 4204 982 no Shay Canyon 119 -- 119 II 0 0 119 0 yes Valley of the Gods 22,863 -- 22,863 I 0 0 22,863 0 -- "NA" and "–" both mean Not Applicable. Items in parenthesis are subsets of the first number above that is not in parenthesis. 

1. Always VRM I, or closed to leasing. 2. According to Alternatives Matrix in Chapter 2, if specified. 3. To be managed as SRMA in this alternative. 4. Portions of Cedar Mesa ACEC lie within eight WSAs. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-178 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing and Rutting

The bighorn lambing and rutting seasons are shorter under the Proposed Plan than they are under 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative B (30 days shorter for lambing and 16 days shorter for 

rutting; Table 4.90). Under the Proposed Plan, the lambing timing restrictions would occur on 

415,395 acres of crucial lambing habitat (or 23.3% of all BLM lands). This area is larger than 

that designated under the No Action Alternative (by 85,645 acres, or 26.0%), but smaller than 

that designated under Alternative B (by 37,993 acres, or 8.4%). Because the Proposed Plan's 

lambing timing limitations are less than the No Action Alternative while the crucial habitat is 

greater, it cannot be determined whether the net, negative impacts on mineral resource 

development from The Proposed Plan are more or less than the No Action Alternative. However, 

the impacts on mineral resource development from the Proposed Plan are definitively less in 

magnitude than Alternative B, due to the smaller acreage of habitat and the shortened duration of 

the timing limitations. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the rutting timing restrictions would occur across a habitat area that is 

essentially the same size as under Alternative B. Because timing limitations for rutting under the 

Proposed Plan are less than the No Action Alternative while its crucial habitat acreage is greater, 

it cannot be determined whether the net, negative impacts on mineral resource development from 

the Proposed Plan are more or less than the No Action Alternative. However, the impacts on 

mineral resource development from the Proposed Plan are definitively less than Alternative B, 

due to the shortened duration of the timing limitations under the Proposed Plan. 

Pronghorn Fawning Area

Under the Proposed Plan, impacts on mineral resource development due to pronghorn decisions 

would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Deer Winter Range

Under the Proposed Plan, on the 266,406-acre deer crucial winter range (or 14.9% of all BLM 

lands), the special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced for 181 days of critical 

winter use (see Table 4.90). These management decisions would result the same type and quality 

of impacts to mineral resource development as are described under the No Action Alternative, 

but to a greater degree. The Proposed Plan results in greater impacts both in terms of the larger 

area being restricted as winter range (larger by 68,856 acres, or 34.9% compared to the No 

Action Alternative) and the longer duration of enforcement of the restrictions (longer by 30 days, 

or 16.6% compared to the No Action Alternative). 

Elk

Under he Proposed Plan, on the 97,471-acre elk crucial winter range (or 5.5% of all BLM lands), 

the special conditions described in Chapter 2 would be enforced for 181 days of critical winter 

use (see Table 4.90). These management decisions would result in the same type and quality of 

impacts to mineral resource development as are described under Alternative B, but to a lesser 

degree. he Proposed Plan results in fewer impacts both in terms of the smaller area being 

restricted as winter range (smaller by 93,702 acres, or 49.0% compared to Alternative B) and the 

shorter duration of enforcement of the restrictions (shorter by 15 days, or 7.7% compared to 

Alternative B). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-179 

Table 4.90. Additional Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resourc

under The Proposed Plan 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Gunnison Sage-grouse leks (0.6 miles)  Non-disturbing geophysical work 3/20 – 5/15  All permitted activities (dawn hours) 3/20 – 5/15 Bighorn – Lambing (415,395 acres) 4/1 – 6/15 Bighorn – Rutting (453,390 acres) 10/15 – 12/15 Pronghorn – Fawning (29,365 acres) 5/1 – 6/15 Deer – Winter use (266,406 acres) 11/15 – 4/15 Elk – Winter use (97,471 acres) 11/15 – 4/15 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-180 

In all, wildlife decisions necessitating special stipulations would impact various acreages at 

various times of the year. Under the Proposed Plan, no wildlife related timing limitations would 

be enforced on any acreage from June 15 through October 15 (122 days). This amounts to less 

restriction to mineral resource development compared to Alternative B and the No Action 

Alternative, in the form of an additional month of mineral resource development without wildlife 

related timing limitations. At the other end of the spectrum, restrictions from November 15 

through December 15 would be enforced on up to 729,567 acres (or 41% of all BLM lands, 

assuming overlap; see Table 4.65) under the Proposed Plan5. This maximum is less restrictive 

than Alternative B but more restrictive than Alternative D. 

4.3.7.5.6.9. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under The Proposed Plan 

Impacts on mineral resource development under the Proposed Plan would be essentially the same 

as under the No Action Alternative, except that fewer acres of vegetation would be treated (1,500 

acres/year). Although only the vegetation of the Lavender Mesa ACEC would be protected, the 

area of the Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC—in which surface disturbance would be allowed—is such 

a small proportion of the total planning area that the impacts at the PA-wide level would be 

essentially the same at approximately 0.03% 

4.3.7.5.6.10. Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development Under The Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 422,989 acres (or 23.8% of BLM lands) would fall into 

the VRM I class, and in these areas, mineral resource development would be subject to NSO or 

closed to leasing because of the restrictions on surface disturbance in this VRM class. 

Adverse impacts under the Proposed Plan would be of the same type as the No Action 

Alternative, for the same reasons. The magnitude of these impacts would be greater than 

Alternative A (by 2.9%) but less than Alternative B. 

4.3.7.6. MITIGATION MEASURES

None of the alternatives would result in impacts that would necessitate mitigation of mineral 

resource development other than those found in standard operating procedures (Appendix A and 

I, and O). Furthermore, the various leasing stipulations and policies (see Appendix A) serve as a 

framework for best management practices for mineral resource development in the Monticello 

FO. 

4.3.7.7. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable, adverse impacts for mineral resource development include the slow, steady 

depletion of finite mineral resources under the surface of the Monticello FO, including oil, 

natural gas, potash, salt, tar sands, uranium-vanadium, copper, gold, limestone, sand, gravel, 

building stone, and clay. To a lesser extent, unavoidable, adverse impacts also include the 

 

5

 The maximum of 729,567 acres was derived from the acres subject to special stipulations in Table 4.41, rather than the maximum

acreage in Table 4.54 (which would have been 817,267 acres, assuming no overlap). As 817,267 acres is greater than the 

acreage subject to special stipulations in Table 4.41 (729,567 acres), it is evident that there is considerable overlap among the 

various habitats. Therefore, at the most limited time of November 15–December 15, the maximum acreage that can be 

assumed is the one in Table 4.41. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-181 

relatively small, project-sized alterations to the geological surfaces and topography of the 

Monticello FO because of mineral resource extraction practices. 

4.3.7.8. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short-term uses of mineral resources at the predicted rate (RFD) are unlikely to affect the longterm productivity of the resource over the next 15 years. 

4.3.7.9. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

The extraction and development of mineral resources from the Monticello FO would result in 

both an irreversible and irretrievable loss of those mineral resources because of the finite nature 

of the resource. The impacts would be irretrievable and irreversible because once extracted, the 

mineral resource cannot be used again, nor can it be replaced in the foreseeable future. 

4.3.7.10. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

The summary of impacts on mineral resource development can be found in Table 2.2. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-182 

4.3.8. NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are areas having 5,000 acres, or areas less than 

5,000 acres that are contiguous to designated wilderness, WSAs, or other lands administratively 

endorsed for wilderness; or in accordance with the Wilderness Act’s language, areas “of 

sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition." These 

are areas in a natural or undisturbed condition that provide outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or primitive forms of recreation (non-motorized and non-mechanized activities in undeveloped 

settings). BLM used the same criteria for determining wilderness characteristics as in the 1979 

wilderness inventory. The 5,000 acre value was helpful to BLM in making preliminary 

judgments, but it was not considered a limiting factor. 

The Proposed Plan and all of the alternatives would impact the values of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics to some degree. Generally, actions that create surface disturbance 

adversely affect the natural characteristics of these areas and the setting for experiences of 

solitude and primitive recreational activities. Motorized uses in these areas detract from 

opportunities for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation. 

Under the Proposed Plan, parts of four non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics totaling 

88,871 acres would be managed with emphasis on protection of the area’s wilderness 

characteristics. All or parts of 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling 

493,489 acres would be managed with emphasis on other resources values and uses. Under 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D, no non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed with specific emphasis on protection of the wilderness characteristics. Under 

Alternative E, all 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed with 

emphasis on protection of wilderness characteristics on 582,360 acres. See Table 2.1, Summary 

Table of Alternatives 

The analysis that follows will disclose the effects of the various actions prescribed under the 

Proposed Plan and each alternative on the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics proposed for management and protection of those characteristics and 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are proposed for management with emphasis 

on other resource values and uses. 

Resources or uses determined to have negligible impacts on non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics include air quality and health and safety. This is because 1) maintaining air 

quality within threshold levels for constituent pollutants would not affect wilderness 

characteristics within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and 2) there are no 

abandoned mine lands, unauthorized dumping sites, or hazardous materials spills that have been 

identified in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics; therefore, it is not an issue or 

resource for further analysis. 

4.3.8.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, the BLM would provide for legitimate field 

research by qualified scientists and institutions. These activities could create temporary surfacedisturbing activities by digging and excavation. If conducted in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, it would create a loss of naturalness and temporarily disturb opportunities for 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-183 

solitude and primitive recreation in the immediate area of research due to excavation activities. 

In the long-term, however, knowing more about the cultural resources of an area, interpreting the 

resource in a fashion consistent with protection of wilderness characteristics, and viewing 

cultural resource sites in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would all add to the 

enjoyment of these areas for primitive recreational purposes. Protection of historic and 

prehistoric resources in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would enhance 

opportunities for primitive forms of recreation. And, protection of cultural resources adds to the 

character of the setting that supports these recreational opportunities. 

4.3.8.1.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.8.1.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected or 

managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Alternative A would not designate any 

Cultural Special Management Areas or Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), thus 

there would be no impacts from this decision on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Because there would be no CSMA or SRMA prescriptions for protecting cultural resources in 

portions of the Butler Wash, Dark Canyon, Comb Ridge, Fish and Owl Creeks, Road Canyon, 

and San Juan River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, archeological site integrity 

may be endangered by OHV use and other surface-disturbing activities that are currently allowed 

under the existing land-use plan. Loss of archaeological site integrity would reduce opportunities 

for primitive recreation associated with viewing and studying cultural resources sites. 

4.3.8.1.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.3.8.1.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected or 

managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative B, Comb Ridge would 

be managed as a 38,012-acre Cultural Special Management Area (CSMA). This includes all 

13,760 acres of Comb Ridge, 3,580 acres of Fish and Owl Creeks, 530 acres of Road Canyon, 

and 640 acres of the San Juan River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under 

management prescriptions for this CSMA, the area would be closed to geophysical work, closed 

to disposal of mineral materials, open to oil and gas leasing subject to an NSO stipulation, and 

closed to private and commercial firewood cutting. Vegetation treatments would be allowed by 

non-surface-disturbing methods only, OHV use would be limited to designated routes, the area 

would be closed to dispersed camping, and group sizes would be limited. Improvements for 

range, wildlife habitat, and watershed would be allowed. 

Beef Basin would be managed as a 20,302-acre CSMA. This would include 13,280 acres of the 

Dark Canyon and 1,180 acres of the Butler Wash non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Management would include closing the CSMA to private and commercial 

firewood cutting, limiting OHV use to designated routes, and limiting group size. Improvements 

for range, wildlife habitat, watershed, and vegetation treatments would be allowed, and primitive 

car camping areas would be designated in Ruin Park, Middle Park, House Park, and along the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-184 

Beef Basin Loop Road within the Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The CSMA has moderate potential for oil and gas production, and would be open to oil and gas 

leasing subject to controlled surface use or timing limitation. 

In both of these CSMAs, the majority of management prescriptions would protect the natural 

characteristics of portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and continue to 

provide opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Improvements for range, wildlife 

habitat and watershed would diminish the natural characteristics of the areas, depending on the 

methods used in both CSMAs. In the Beef Basin CSMA, vegetation treatments could be by 

mechanical, biological, chemical, or fire. If mechanical treatments are used within the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics, the natural characteristics of the areas would be 

compromised within the treatment area because it would leave an apparent imprint of human 

work on the land that would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. During the time of the treatments, opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation would be foregone in and around the areas being treated due to noise and 

human activity associated with the vegetation manipulations. Road and well pad construction 

associated with oil and gas development in the Beef Basin CSMA would reduce the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The noise and presence of 

people and equipment, and the alteration of the landscape would reduce opportunities for 

solitude and primitive forms of recreation. 

OHV use on designated routes in both CSMAs would detract from the opportunities for solitude 

and conflict with primitive recreation when vehicles (and associated motorized noise) are in the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. In addition, developing a car campground in 

Ruin Park and designating car camping sites in Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would detract from the natural characteristics of these lands and reduce 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in the immediate areas where car camping is 

occurring. 

4.3.8.1.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.3.8.1.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected or 

managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Management proposed for the Comb Wash 

CSMA would be different from Alternative B in that the area would be open to private and 

commercial firewood cutting and available for vegetation treatments and surface-disturbing land 

treatments. These types of activities, if done within the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, would have long-term impacts to the natural characteristics of the landscape by 

leaving chain-sawed stumps from firewood cutting and allowing for other types of mechanical 

surface disturbance that do not appear natural. During the time of the activities, opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation would be interrupted by chain saw noise and other mechanical 

equipment as well as by the human working presence. 

Management proposed for the Beef Basin CSMA would generally be the same as in Alternative 

B, thus the same impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would ensue. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-185 

4.3.8.1.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

4.3.8.1.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected or 

managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative D, Comb Ridge would 

not be managed as a CSMA and Beef Basin would not be managed as an CSMA either. The 

cultural resources in the Comb Ridge area would be managed with the same prescriptions as the 

surrounding lands. Harvest of woodland products; construction of livestock, wildlife, and 

watershed facilities; land treatments, and motorized use of designated routes would disturb the 

landscape and natural characteristics of portions of the Comb Wash, Fish and Owl Creeks, Road 

Canyon, and San Juan River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The noise and 

presence of people, equipment, and vehicles used for these activities would also change the 

setting needed to support opportunities for primitive recreation and reduce opportunities to find 

solitude. 

The cultural resources in the Beef Basin area would be managed by closing the area to private or 

commercial use of woodland products, and allowing for a commercial campground in the Ruin 

Park area. Closing the area to firewood cutting would continue to protect the natural 

characteristics within the Dark Canyon and Butler Wash non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. However, managing the area for mineral, energy, and mineral material 

production; constructing livestock, wildlife, and watershed facilities; implementing vegetation 

treatments; and developing a commercial campground within the Ruin Park area would create 

surface disturbances and introduce human-made facilities that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the affected portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

the opportunity for a primitive recreation experience would be lost in portions of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics where these activities would be developed. 

4.3.8.1.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.3.8.1.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Under this alternative, all 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling 582,360 

acres, would be managed to protect and preserve their wilderness characteristics. Management of 

the Comb Ridge and Beef Basin CSMAs would be similar to Alternative B, except that the 

prescription would be more restrictive. They would be closed to oil and gas leasing, closed to 

OHV use in those areas within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

construction of new range, wildlife, or watershed facilities would not be allowed. All of these 

management actions would fully protect the wilderness characteristics of the 13,760 acres of 

Comb Ridge, 3,580 acres of Fish and Owl Creeks, 530 acres of Road Canyon, 640 acres of San 

Juan River, 13,280 acres of the Dark Canyon, and 1,180 acres of the Butler Wash non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics that fall within these CSMAs, as no surface-disturbing 

activities would be allowed. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-186 

4.3.8.1.6. PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.8.1.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Under the Proposed Plan, five areas totaling 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics comprising Dark Canyon (11,540 acres), Nokai Dome East (18,618 acres), Nokai 

Dome West (14,988 acres), Mancos Mesa (30,068 acres), and Grand Gulch (13,657 acres) would 

be manage to protect their wilderness characteristics. 

Under the Proposed Plan, Comb Ridge would be managed as a Recreation Management Zone 

within the Cedar Mesa SRMA. The prescription for the Comb Ridge Recreation Management 

Zone would be different than management proposed under Alternative B. Under the Proposed 

Plan, the area would be open to private and commercial firewood cutting and available for 

vegetation treatments and surface-disturbing land treatments, where consistent with plan 

objectives. These types of activities, if done within the Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics in the SRMA, would have long-term impacts to the natural 

characteristics of the landscape, leaving chain-sawed stumps from firewood cutting, vegetation 

clearing, and other types of mechanical surface disturbance that would not appear natural. 

During the time of the activities, opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be 

interrupted by the noise of chain saws and other mechanical equipment, as well as by the 

presence of people working, and the loss of the natural characteristics that provide the setting for 

primitive recreation activities and experiences of solitude. 

Management proposed for the Beef Basin SRMA would generally be the same as in Alternative 

B, except vegetation treatments in the Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would only be permitted if consistent with plan objectives, protecting the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. During the treatment, 

however, the presence and noise of people and equipment would reduce opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation. When implementation of the treatment 

was finished, and any needed reclamation occurred, those opportunities would return. 

4.3.8.1.6.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

The management prescription for the Comb Ridge Recreation Management Zone within the 

Cedar Mesa SRMA would have the same effects on the wilderness characteristics of Lime 

Creek, Valley of the Gods, Road Canyon, Comb Ridge, and Fish and Owl Creeks non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics as described for Grand Gulch above (see Section 4.3.8.1.6.1 

above). However, under the Proposed Plan, these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would not be managed with emphasis on protection of their wilderness characteristics. 

Management proposed for the Beef Basin SRMA would have the same effect on the wilderness 

characteristics of Butler Wash non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described for 

Dark Canyon above (see Section 4.3.8.1.6.1 above). 

In summary, cultural resources decisions affect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Decisions that protect cultural resources also tend to protect wilderness characteristics. Under the 

Proposed Plan and Alternatives B, C, and E, CSMAs, SRMAs, and Recreation Management 

Zones within SRMAs are established with management actions to protect cultural resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-187 

Alternative E is the most restrictive, and fully protects the wilderness characteristics of all or 

portions of the six non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that fall within two of the 

CSMAs. The Proposed Plan would allow for firewood cutting and surface-disturbing land 

treatment when consistent with plan objectives. These actions would have some impacts on the 

natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the SRMAs and 

Recreation Management Zones within the SRMAs. Alternative B is very similar to Alternative 

E, but allows for some surface-disturbing activities associated with watershed, wildlife, range 

facilities and vegetation treatments, which would affect the naturalness of portions of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, if implemented. Alternative C establishes CSMAs at 

Cedar Mesa (including Comb Ridge) and Beef Basin. In the Cedar Mesa CSMA, the effect of 

cultural resource decisions on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be similar 

to Alternative B, except that harvest of woodland products and land treatments would be 

permitted with impacts to the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. In the Beef Basin CSMA, the effects of cultural resources decisions on 

wilderness characteristics would be similar to Alternative B, except in Dark Canyon. There, 

limitation on vegetation treatments to non-surface-disturbing methods would protect the natural 

characteristics of the Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Alternatives 

A and D propose no CSMAs and apply the same management as surrounding public lands. Many 

of those decisions would allow for surface-disturbing actions that would degrade the wilderness 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, the BLM would attempt to restore natural fire 

regimes in fire-dependent and adapted ecosystems through the use of prescribed or managed 

wildland fire. The Monticello FO would base its priorities for all aspects of fire management 

decisions based on five categories (see Chapter 2, Table 2.1 Fire Management) to determine 

where fire is desired and where it is not. Further, following any wildland fire event, emergency 

stabilization and restoration (ESR) actions would be developed and implemented, as appropriate. 

Fuels treatment and management activities would be consistent with the resource goals and 

objectives in the PRMP/FEIS and may include mechanical treatments, manual treatments, 

prescribed fire, chemical spraying, or biological treatments and seeding. 

Restoration of fire to fire-dependent and adapted ecosystems would restore a more natural 

vegetation community (in both species and composition) and watershed conditions and wildlife 

populations dependent on those communities. In the short-term, a burned landscape may reduce 

desire (opportunities) for primitive recreation. In the long-term, following reclamation of fire 

management disturbances, however, a more natural vegetation community would benefit the 

natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and enhance the setting 

and opportunities for primitive forms of recreation, including hiking, backpacking, hunting, 

wildlife viewing, photography, and nature study. This would enhance the natural conditions of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Setting fire objectives through fire management categories would identify where fire is desired 

on the land, leading to the same benefits to natural characteristics as restoring fire to firedependent and adapted ecosystems. When it is necessary to suppress fire in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, development and implementation of the ESR plan would restore fire 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-188 

suppression disturbances to the land and vegetation (e.g., fire line construction), resulting in the 

restoration of the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands. Fuels treatments in non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would aid in restoration of a more natural fire regime in 

these lands. The use of fire to accomplish this reduction would be compatible with the natural 

characteristics of these areas. The use of mechanical treatments would leave an apparent imprint 

of human work on the land that would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. 

In the short-term, fire operations (e.g., fire line construction) would create surface disturbances 

that degrade the natural landscape and characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The noise and presence of the people, equipment, and operations would also 

diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation. In the longterm, however, surface disturbance associated with the fire treatment would be restored, with 

little to no net impact on the natural characteristics. The impacts of the noise and presence of fire 

operations on opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would cease, restoring those 

opportunities. 

4.3.8.3. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON- WSA LANDS 

WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.3.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

An existing utility corridor overlies slivers of Comb Ridge, Road Canyon, and San Juan River 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics along Highway 163. Although none are currently 

proposed, placement of future utility ROWs within these portions of the corridors would 

diminish the wilderness characteristics of these areas. Construction and placement of utility lines 

would cause surface-disturbing activities and placement of surface facilities that would reduce 

the natural characteristics of the lands within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

and alter the setting needed to support opportunities for primitive recreation activities and 

experiences of solitude. 

4.3.8.3.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.8.3.2.1. Impacts Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for 

Other Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected or 

managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Surface disturbances and impacts resulting 

from lands and realty management decisions would degrade natural characteristics, diminish 

opportunities for solitude, and conflict with opportunities for primitive recreation. 

Portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling 8,880 acres, would be 

proposed for mineral withdrawal, to give management emphasis to other resource values and 

uses, under Alternative A. 

• 280 acres of the Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

• 390 acres of the Gooseneck non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

• 3,890 acres of the Indian Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

• 4,320 acres of the San Juan River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-189 

The proposed mineral withdrawals would preserve the natural characteristics and opportunities 

for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation in each of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics by preventing surface disturbance created by mining and the noise and 

presence people, vehicles, and equipment associated with mining. 

A total of 113,240 acres in all or portions of 19 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would continue to be ROW avoidance or exclusion areas (Table 4.91). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with 

4-190 

Table 4.91. Acres of Avoidance or Exclusion for ROWs in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteris

under exclusion or avoidance remain open for ROWs) 

Name of NonWSA Land with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Total 

Acres Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (all avoidance areas) 

Arch Canyon 50 50 0 0 0 Bridger Jack Mesa 

23,050 1,220 670 690 0 23,0

Butler Wash 1,660 40 0 0 0 1,6Cheesebox Canyon 

13,240 2,630 0 0 0 13,2

Comb Ridge 13,760 520 13,760 0 0 13,7Cross Canyon 1,350 0 0 0 0 1,3Dark Canyon 66,330 0 3,310 3,350 0 66,3Fish and Owl Creeks 

24,650 2,110 3,590 0 0 24,6

Fort Knocker Canyon 

12,410 5,710 0 0 0 12,4

Gooseneck 3,570 0 3,570 970 0 3,5Grand Gulch 55,240 17,810 100 70 0 55,2Gravel and Long 

36,890 6,020 0 0 0 36,8

Hammond Canyon 

4,700 0 0 0 0 4,7

Harmony Flat 9,660 2,900 0 0 0 9,6Harts Point 24,740 0 170 0 0 24,7Hatch Lockhart Hart 

1,760 0 1,760 0 0 1,7

Indian Creek 23,280 3,680 19,760 4,140 0 23,2Lime Creek 5,560 5,530 5,560 5,560 0 5,5
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with 

4-191 

Table 4.91. Acres of Avoidance or Exclusion for ROWs in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteris

under exclusion or avoidance remain open for ROWs) 

Name of NonWSA Land with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Total 

Acres Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (all avoidance areas) 

Mancos Mesa 61,570 27,490 12,760 250 0 61,5Nokai Dome 94,270 15,200 12,600 420 0 94,2Red Rock Plateau 

17,010 0 0 0 0 17,0

Road Canyon 11,320 2,220 2,080 1,540 0 11,3San Juan River 14,340 5,110 4,820 4,180 0 14,3Shay Mountain 6,710 0 100 100 0 6,7Sheep Canyon 4,000 0 0 0 0 4,0Squaw and Papoose Canyons 

3,570 0 0 0 0 3,5

Upper Red Canyon 

24,920 1,500 0 0 0 24,9

Valley of the Gods 

13,670 13,450 13,670 13,670 0 13,6

White Canyon 9,080 50 0 0 0 9,0Total Acres 582,360 113,240 

(19%)

98,280 

(17%) 

34,940 

(6%) 

0 

(0%) 

582,3

(100

1Of this 33,606 acres, 18,618 acres are in Nokai Dome East and 14,988 acres are in Nokai Dome West. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-192 

The majority of lands within the Lime Creek and Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be within ROW avoidance areas. Only the 5,110 acres in the 

San Juan River non-WSA would be an exclusion area, the rest would be avoidance areas. These 

areas are to be avoided but may be available for location of ROWs with special stipulations if the 

proposal meets the goals and objectives of other resources and uses in the land-use plan. There 

are no ROW proposals for these areas at this time, and the avoidance areas would protect the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in these areas. 

However, the rest of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (469,120 acres) would 

remain available for the placement of ROWs. More permanent, long-term impacts would occur if 

the ROW is for an overhead power line than for a buried pipeline. However, any surfacedisturbing activity and/or placement of permanent visual facilities would detract from the natural 

characteristics of the area and disrupt the setting needed to support primitive forms of recreation. 

4.3.8.3.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.3.8.3.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Nine non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas, totaling 49,835 acres, intersect with 

proposed mineral withdrawals under Alternative B: 

• 40 acres of the Butler Wash non-WSA 

• 280 acres of the Dark Canyon non-WSA 

• 3,570 acres of the Gooseneck non-WSA 

• 155 acres of the Harts Point non-WSA 

• 18,870 acres of the Indian Creek non-WSA 

• 5,560 acres of the Lime Creek non-WSA 

• 1,530 acres of the Road Canyon non-WSA 

• 6,160 acres of the San Juan River non-WSA 

• 13,670 acres of the Valley of the Gods non-WSA 

The proposed mineral withdrawals would preserve the natural characteristics and opportunities 

for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation in all of the Lime Creek and Valley of the 

Gods non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and portions of the other seven non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics by preventing the location of mining claims and the noise 

and presence of surface disturbance, people, vehicles, and equipment associated with mining. 

A total of 98,280 acres in all or portions of 16 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be ROW avoidance or exclusion areas (see Table 4.91). All of the lands within the Comb 

Ridge, Gooseneck, Hatch/Lockhart/Hart, Lime Creek, and Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would be within ROW avoidance areas. Only the 4,820 acres in 

the San Juan River non-WSA area would be an exclusion area, the rest would be avoidance 

areas. These areas are to be avoided but may be available for location of ROWs with special 

stipulations if the proposal meets the goals and objectives of other resources and uses in the landuse plan. There are no ROW proposals for these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

at this time, and the avoidance area prescription would prevent surface disturbance and 

placement of structures, and protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-193 

wilderness characteristics. However, the rest of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (484,080 acres) would remain available for the placement of ROWs. More 

permanent, long-term impacts would occur if the ROW is for an overhead power line than for a 

buried pipeline. However, any surface-disturbing activity and/or placement of permanent visual 

facilities would detract from the natural characteristics of the area and disrupt the setting needed 

to support primitive forms of recreation. 

4.3.8.3.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.3.8.3.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Three non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas, totaling 10,230 acres, intersect with 

proposed mineral withdrawals under Alternative C: 

• 390 acres of the Gooseneck non-WSA 

• 3,890 acres of the Indian Creek non-WSA 

• 5,950 acres of the San Juan River non-WSA 

The proposed mineral withdrawals would preserve the natural characteristics and opportunities 

for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation in each of these areas by preventing mining 

claims and the noise and presence of surface disturbance, people, vehicles, and equipment 

associated with mining. 

A total of 34,940 acres in all or portions of 12 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would continue to be ROW avoidance or exclusion areas (see Table 4.91). All of the lands within 

the Lime Creek and Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

within ROW avoidance areas. Only the 4,180 acres in the San Juan River non-WSA would be an 

exclusion area, the rest would be avoidance areas. These areas are to be avoided but may be 

available for location of ROWs with special stipulations if the proposal meets the goals and 

objectives of other resources and uses in the land-use plan. There are no ROW proposals for 

these areas at this time, and it is expected and assumed that the avoidance areas would protect the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, the rest 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (547,420 acres) would remain available 

for the placement of ROWs. More permanent, long-term impacts would occur if the ROW is for 

an overhead power line than for a buried pipeline. However, any surface-disturbing activity 

and/or placement of permanent visual facilities would detract from the natural characteristics of 

the area and disrupt the setting needed to support primitive forms of recreation. 

4.3.8.3.5. ALTERNATIVE D 

4.3.8.3.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

One non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling 1,960 acres, intersects with 

proposed mineral withdrawals under Alternative D: 

• 1,960 acres of the San Juan River non-WSA 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-194 

This proposed mineral withdrawal would preserve the natural characteristics and opportunities 

for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation in this non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics by preventing location of mining claims and the noise and presence of surface 

disturbance, people, vehicles, and equipment associated with mining. 

All 582,360 acres would be open for placement of ROWs (see Table 4.91). No specific ROWs 

are proposed at this time, but if implemented, more permanent, long-term impacts would occur if 

the ROW is for an overhead power line than for a buried pipeline. However, any surfacedisturbing activity and/or placement of permanent visual facilities would detract from the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and disrupt the setting 

needed to support primitive forms of recreation. 

4.3.8.3.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.3.8.3.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

All 29 areas of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling 582,360 acres would be 

proposed for mineral withdrawal. The proposed mineral withdrawal would preserve the natural 

characteristics and opportunities for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation in each of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristic by preventing location of mining claims and the 

noise and presence of surface disturbance, people, vehicles, and equipment associated with 

mining. If surface-disturbing activities occur on existing mining claims in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, natural characteristics would be lost in the immediate area of the 

mining activities. Opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would also be forgone in 

those areas, but would be regained as the recreationists moved farther away from the mining 

activity. 

Under this alternative, all 29 areas of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed as ROW exclusion areas (see Table 4.91). Exclusion from future ROW development 

for pipelines and power lines, corridor designation, or other ROWs would protect the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of the natural 

landscape would also preserve the setting needed to support primitive forms of recreation and 

experiences of solitude. 

4.3.8.3.7. PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.8.3.7.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

A total of 88,871 acres in portions of five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be ROW avoidance areas (see Table 4.91). All of the lands located in the Dark Canyon, Mancos 

Mesa, Nokai Dome East, Nokai Dome West, and Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that would be managed to protect those characteristics under the Proposed Plan 

would be managed as ROW avoidance areas. These areas are to be avoided but may be available 

for location of ROWs with special stipulations if the proposal meets the goals and objectives of 

other resources and uses in the land-use plan. There are no ROW proposals for these non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics at this time, and the avoidance area prescription would 

protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-195 

4.3.8.3.7.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Three non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas, totaling 10,230 acres, intersect with 

proposed mineral withdrawals under the Proposed Plan: 

• 390 acres of the Gooseneck non-WSA 

• 3,890 acres of the Indian Creek non-WSA 

• 5,950 acres of the San Juan River non-WSA 

The proposed mineral withdrawals would preserve the natural characteristics and opportunities 

for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation in each of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics by preventing location of mining claims and the noise and presence of 

surface disturbance, people, vehicles, and equipment associated with mining. 

A total of 30,850 acres in all or portions of eight non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be ROW avoidance or exclusion areas (see Table 4.91). All of the lands within the Valley 

of the Gods non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be within a ROW exclusion 

area. The lands in Lime Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be in an 

avoidance area. Only the 4,180 acres in the San Juan River non-WSA would be an exclusion 

area, the rest would be avoidance areas. These areas are to be avoided but may be available for 

location of ROWs with special stipulations if the proposal meets the goals and objectives of 

other resources and uses in the land-use plan. There are no ROW proposals for these non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics at this time, and the avoidance area prescription would 

protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

However, the rest of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (463,329 acres) would 

remain available for the placement of ROWs. More permanent, long-term impacts would occur if 

the ROW is for an overhead power line than for a buried pipeline. However, any surfacedisturbing activity and/or placement of permanent visual facilities would detract from the natural 

characteristics of the area and disrupt the setting needed to support primitive forms of recreation. 

In summary, Alternative E would protect all 582,360 acres of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics by precluding surface-disturbing activities associated with mining and 

ROWs by proposing mineral withdrawals and managing them as ROW exclusion areas. In 

contrast, Alternative D would not manage any of the non-WSA lands as ROW avoidance or 

exclusion areas and only proposes a portion of one non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (1,960 acres) for mineral withdrawal. This would leave the majority of all 582,360 

acres of non-WSA lands vulnerable to surface-disturbing activities that would allow them to lose 

their wilderness characteristics. The Proposed Plan and other three alternatives provide 

descending protections from ROW avoidance or exclusion areas. The Proposed Plan protects 

20% of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by managing them as avoidance or 

exclusion areas, Alternative A protects 19%, Alternative B protects 17%, and Alternative C 

protects 6%. 

Proposed mineral withdrawals under Alternative A protect the wilderness characteristics on 

portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics totaling 8,880 acres, Alternative 

B protects all or portions of nine non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics totaling 49,835 

acres, and the Proposed Plan and Alternative C protects a portion of three non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics totaling 10,230 acres. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-196 

4.3.8.4. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON NON- WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

Livestock grazing is guided by livestock objectives set in the Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Grazing Management. Proper levels of livestock use are guided by these 

objectives, thus, it is not anticipated that livestock grazing would have impacts on the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under the Proposed Plan or 

any alternative because meeting these objectives would maintain healthy vegetation communities 

and watershed condition of the lands. When livestock use is properly managed, it would not 

affect the appearance of the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Grazing assessments completed by Monticello FO staff and any subsequent 

actions taken to remedy impending issues would maintain and enhance the natural characteristics 

of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, improved natural characteristics 

would sustain the setting needed to support opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation 

and the experience of solitude that visitors seek. 

While there would be some visual evidence of livestock use in the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics (presence of livestock, feces, trampling of soil, fences, and 

consumption of vegetation), rangeland health and riparian conditions would be maintained 

through proper management under the Standards and Guidelines assessments, and the 

appearance of natural characteristics of these areas would be maintained. For some visitors, the 

presence of livestock would be an adverse impact on the desired experience (connection with the 

natural world and experiences of solitude). However, this impact would be seasonal. At other 

times of the year, livestock would not be present, soils would recover, and vegetation would regrow, reducing the impact on the visitor. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, some allotments, or some parts of allotments, that 

overlie portions of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be unavailable for 

grazing. When some visitors encounter an area with little or no evidence of livestock use, their 

experience of solitude and primitive recreation may be enhanced. 

4.3.8.5. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DECISIONS ON NON- WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.5.1. OIL AND GAS

The mineral assumptions for analysis and the RFD scenarios presented in the beginning of this 

chapter were used in the analysis of impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

These RFD scenarios for oil and gas development were derived from the MPR for the Monticello 

FO (BLM 2005b). Three development areas, each with its own RFD, have been identified in the 

Monticello PA: the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt, the Monument Upwarp, and the Blanding Subbasin. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics lie within all three of them. 

The Paradox Fold and Fault Belt area totals 259,390 acres of public lands outside of WSAs. It 

encompasses all of four and portions of two areas of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics which total 79,750 acres, or about 31% of the public land within this minerals 

development area (Table 4.92). About 70 acres within two of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics are currently leased for oil and gas development or have pending 

leases. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-197 

Table 4.92. Paradox Fold and Fault Belt Development Area and Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Acres and (% of Non-WSA 

within Public Lands in 

Paradox Fold and Fault 

Belt Area) 

Acres of Non-WSA with 

Existing Leases and (% of 

Lease Total of Non-WSA) 

Bridger Jack Mesa 19,900 (8%) 0 

Gooseneck 3,570 (1%) 0 

Harts Point 24,740 (10%) 60 (< 1%) 

Hatch/Lockhart/Hart 1,760 (<1%) 0 

Indian Creek 23,280 (9%) 10 (<1%) 

Shay Mountain 6,500 (3%) 0 

The Monument Upwarp area has a total of 739,640 acres of public lands outside of WSAs. It 

includes all of 16 and portions of seven non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, which 

total 465,000 acres, or about 63% of the public land area (Table 4.93). About 3,340 acres within 

six non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are currently leased for oil and gas 

development or have pending leases. 

Table 4.93. Monument Upwarp Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Name of Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Acres and (% of Non-WSA 

within Public Lands in 

Monument Upwarp Area) 

Acres of Non-WSA with 

Existing Leases and (% of 

Lease Total of Non-WSA) 

Arch Canyon 50 (<1%) 0 

Bridger Jack Mesa 3,150 (<1%) 0 

Butler Wash 1,660 (<1%) 0 

Cheesebox Canyon 13,240 (2%) 0 

Comb Ridge 1,080 (<1%) 0 

Dark Canyon 66,330 (9%) 0 

Fish and Owl Creeks 18,800 (3%) 210 (1%) 

Fort Knocker Canyon 12,410 (2%) 0 

Grand Gulch 55,240 (7%) 1,600 (3%) 

Gravel and Long Canyon 36,890 (5%) 0 

Hammond Canyon 4,700 (<1%) 380 (8%) 

Harmony Flat 9,660 (1%) 660 (7%) 

Lime Creek 5,200 (<1%) 290 (6%) 

Mancos Mesa 61,570 (8%) 0 

Nokai Dome 94,270 (13%) 0 

Red Rock Plateau 17,010 (2%) 0 

Road Canyon 3,360 (<1%) 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-198 

Table 4.93. Monument Upwarp Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Name of Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Acres and (% of Non-WSA 

within Public Lands in 

Monument Upwarp Area) 

Acres of Non-WSA with 

Existing Leases and (% of 

Lease Total of Non-WSA) 

San Juan River 7,570 (1%) 0 

Shay Mountain 210 (<1%) 0 

Sheep Canyon 4,000 (<1%) 0 

Upper Red Canyon 24,920 (3%) 0 

Valley of the Gods 13,670 (2%) 200 (1%) 

White Canyon 9,080 (1%) 0 

The Blanding Sub-basin area has a total of 406,770 acres of public lands outside of WSAs. It 

includes all of two and portions of five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, which 

total 38,540 acres, or about 9% of the public land area (Table 4.94). About 1,030 acres within 

two non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are currently leased for oil and gas 

development or have pending leases. 

Table 4.94. Blanding Sub-basin Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Name of Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Acres and (% of Non-WSA 

within Public Lands in 

Blanding Sub-Basin Area) 

Acres of Non-WSA with 

Existing Leases and (% of 

Lease Total of Non-WSA) 

Comb Ridge 12,680 (3%) 0 

Cross Canyon 1,350 (<1%) 740 (55%) 

Fish and Owl Creeks 5,850 (1%) 0 

Lime Creek 360 (<1%) 0 

Road Canyon 7,960 (2%) 0 

San Juan River 6,770 (2%) 0 

Squaw and Papoose Canyon 3,570 (1%) 290 (8%) 

Each of the three development areas has differing RFD projections for oil and gas development 

by alternative. Table 4.4 in Section 4.1.2, Assumptions and Methodology for Mineral 

Development, portrays those projections. Table 4.95 below summarizes that information. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-199 

Table 4.95. Development Areas with RFD Projected Number of Wells/Year Over the Next 

15 years 

Development 

Areas 

Alternative 

A 

Projected 

Wells Per 

Year/LOP 

Alternative 

B 

Projected 

Wells Per 

Year/LOP 

Alternative 

C 

Projected 

Wells Per 

Year/LOP 

Alternative 

D 

Projected 

Wells Per 

Year/LOP 

Alternative 

E 

Projected 

Wells Per 

Year/LOP 

Proposed 

Plan 

Projected 

Wells Per 

Year/LOP 

Paradox Fold 

and Fault Belt 

~2/ 25 ~1/ 20 ~2/24 ~2/25 ~1/15 ~2/24 

Monument 

Upwarp 

~1 / 7 ~1 /8 ~1 / 9 ~1 / 9 ~1/ 3 ~1 / 9 

Blanding 

Sub-Basin 

~3 / 41 ~3 / 38 ~3/ 41 ~3 / 41 ~2/ 36 ~3/ 41 

It is assumed that 9.6 acres would be disturbed for every well drilled. The assumed disturbance 

for the RFD by well is inclusive of well pads, road access, associated infrastructure, pipelines, 

gas plants, and for water disposal facilities, among other things. 

4.3.8.5.2. IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH OIL AND GAS LEASING/DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE 

PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES 

A number of variables would determine the degree of impact to non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, including where surface-disturbing activities occur, land form or topography, 

vegetation type, sequence of development, and reclamation time. Soil types and climate would 

affect the time it takes to reclaim disturbances. Successful reclamation would take about 10 

years. 

Construction and operation of oil and gas wells and associated support facilities, including roads, 

surface and buried pipelines, power lines, and compressor stations would create soil and 

vegetation disturbance and the presence of permanent structures (for the life of the oil/gas field) 

that would degrade the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

In addition to site-specific surface disturbance, the cumulative number of wells would change the 

appearance of natural characteristics. 

Noise from construction and operation of producing wells, including the presence of work crews, 

vehicles, and equipment, would degrade opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive 

recreational opportunities in proximity to industrial development. As recreational visitors move 

away from the sources of development, the sights and sounds of development would diminish. 

However, it can be expected that sights and sounds from development would reduce 

opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation up to one-half mile beyond the 

direct loss of natural characteristics. 

Table 4.96 displays the oil and gas leasing stipulations, by alternative, for each of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with 

4-200 

Table 4.96. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations for Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name Total Acres Currently Leased Stipulation1 Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

50 0 Standard 0 0 50 50 

 0 CSU/TL 0 50 0 0  0 NSO 50 0 0 0 

Arch Canyon 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

23,050 0 Standard 15,040 1,490 4,590 22,780 

 0 CSU/TL 6,790 20,890 17,770 270  0 NSO 1,220 670 690 0 

Bridger Jack Mesa 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

1,660 0 Standard 90 0 350 360 

 0 CSU/TL 1,530 1,660 1,310 1,300  0 NSO 40 0 0 0 

Butler Wash 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

13,240 0 Standard 4,140 0 4,940 8,350 

 0 CSU/TL 6,470 13,240 8,300 4,890  0 NSO 2,630 0 0 0 

Cheesebox Canyon 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

13,760 0 Standard 5,320 0 12,630 13,760 

 0 CSU/TL 7,920 0 1,130 0  0 NSO 500 13,760 0 0 

Comb Ridge 

 0 Closed 20 0 0 0 

1,350 710 Standard 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 

 30 CSU/TL 0 0 0 0 

 0 NSO 0 0 0 0 

Cross Canyon 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with 

4-201 

Table 4.96. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations for Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name Total Acres Currently Leased Stipulation1 Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

66,330 0 Standard 43,720 3,290 10,400 44,570 

 0 CSU/TL 22,610 59,730 52,580 21,760  0 NSO 0 0 0 0 

Dark Canyon 

 0 Closed 0 3,310 3,350 0 

24,650 210 Standard 1,190 3,360 16,490 24,650 

 0 CSU/TL 21,350 17,700 8,160 0  0 NSO 2,110 3,590 0 0 

Fish and Owl Creeks 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

12,410 0 Standard 170 0 0 11,600 

 0 CSU/TL 6,530 12,410 12,410 810  0 NSO 5,710 0 0 0 

Fort Knocker Canyon 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

3,570 0 Standard 1,650 0 0 0 

 0 CSU/TL 1,920 0 2,600 3,570  0 NSO 0 2,580 80 0 

Gooseneck 

 0 Closed 0 990 890 0 

55,240 1,600 Standard 3,710 36,550 46,240 52,070 

 0 CSU/TL 34,350 18,590 8,930 3,170  0 NSO 17,180 100 70 0 

Grand Gulch 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

36,890 0 Standard 20 0 1,350 460 

 0 CSU/TL 30,850 36,890 35,540 36,430  0 NSO 6,020 0 0 0 

Gravel and Long 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with 

4-202 

Table 4.96. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations for Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name Total Acres Currently Leased Stipulation1 Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

4,700 380 Standard 2,600 0 4,700 4,700 

 0 CSU/TL 2,100 4,700 0 0  0 NSO 0 0 0 0 

Hammond Canyon 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

9,660 660 Standard 0 0 0 7,740 

 0 CSU/TL 6,760 9,660 9,660 1,920  0 NSO 2,900 0 0 0 

Harmony Flat 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

24,740 60 Standard 9,860 1,400 6,320 12,890 

 0 CSU/TL 14,880 23,170 18,420 11,530  0 NSO 0 170 0 0 

Harts Point 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

1,760 0 Standard 1,760 0 0 0 

 0 CSU/TL 0 0 1,760 1,760  0 NSO 0 1,760 0 0 

Hatch Lockhart Hart 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

23,280 10 Standard 12,240 0 3,000 6,940 

 0 CSU/TL 7,360 3,520 16,140 16,340  0 NSO 3,680 19,760 4,140 0 

Indian Creek 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

5,560 285 Standard 30 0 0 5,560 

 0 CSU/TL 0 0 0 0  0 NSO 5,530 0 5,560 0 

Lime Creek 

 0 Closed 0 5,560 0 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with 

4-203 

Table 4.96. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations for Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name Total Acres Currently Leased Stipulation1 Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

61,570 0 Standard 4,720 22,070 22,070 40,940 

 0 CSU/TL 29,360 26,740 39,250 20,630  0 NSO 27,490 12,760 250 0 

Mancos Mesa 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

94,270 0 Standard 0 40,250 40,250 94,270 

 0 CSU/TL 79,070 41,420 53,600 0  0 NSO 15,200 12,600 420 0 

Nokai Dome 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

17,010 0 Standard 0 0 0 0 

 0 CSU/TL 17,010 17,010 17,010 17,010  0 NSO 0 0 0 0 

Red Rock Plateau 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

11,320 0 Standard 220 7,970 9,390 11,320 

 0 CSU/TL 8,880 1,270 390 0  0 NSO 2,220 550 1,540 0 

Road Canyon 

 0 Closed 0 1,530 0 0 

14,340 0 Standard 9,230 9,520 10,160 14,340 

 0 CSU/TL 0 0 0 0  0 NSO 5,110 3,660 3,060 0 

San Juan River 

 0 Closed 0 1,160 1,120 0 

6,710 0 Standard 2,730 6,610 910 6,710 

 0 CSU/TL 3,980 0 5,700 0  0 NSO 0 100 100 0 

Shay Mountain 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with 

4-204 

Table 4.96. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations for Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name Total Acres Currently Leased Stipulation1 Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

4,000 0 Standard 800 0 0 4,000 

 0 CSU/TL 3,200 4,000 4,000 0  0 NSO 0 0 0 0 

Sheep Canyon 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

3,570 110 Standard 3,570 3,570 3,570 3,570 

 180 CSU/TL 0 0 0 0 

 0 NSO 0 0 0 0 

Squaw and Papoose Canyons 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

24,920 0 Standard 4,330 21,200 21,220 12,570 

 0 CSU/TL 19,090 3,720 3,700 12,350  0 NSO 1,500 0 0 0 

Upper Red Canyon 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

13,670 200 Standard 130 0 0 13,670 

 0 CSU/TL 0 0 0  0 NSO 13,540 0 13,670 0 

Valley of the Gods 

 0 Closed 0 13,670 0 0 

9,080 0 Standard 4,250 380 1,810 5,930 

 0 CSU/TL 4,780 8,700 7,270 3,150  0 NSO 50 0 0 0 

White Canyon 

 0 Closed 0 0 0 0 

1CSU/TL = Controlled Surface Use/Timing Limitations NSO = No surface occupancy 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-205 

4.3.8.5.2.1. Alternative A 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected or 

managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Surface disturbances resulting from oil and 

gas leasing decision that permit development would degrade natural characteristics, diminish 

opportunities for solitude, and conflict with primitive recreation activities. All or portions of 28 

of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, comprising 470,590 acres, would 

remain open to leasing and development under standard oil and gas stipulations or under CSU or 

TL stipulations (see Table 4.96). This comprises over 80% of the non-WSA wilderness lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Twenty percent of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (all of one and portions of 18 non-WSAs with wilderness characteristics) would 

be either closed to leasing or have an NSO stipulation on the leases. 

In the Paradox Fold area, all or portions of the six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, comprising 74,850 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard 

stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations. This is about 29% of the public lands within the 

development area. Approximately 4,900 acres (1,220 acres in Bridger Jack Mesa and 3,680 acres 

in Indian Creek non-WSAs) would have an NSO stipulation applied to the lease, or about 2% of 

the development area. Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and the existing or pending leases within those six areas, the highest potential for 

leasing and/or development would be in Harts Point, Indian Creek or Bridger Jack Mesa nonWSAs lands with wilderness characteristics. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas 

is about two wells per year for the public lands within the Paradox Fold area, and that 31% of the 

development area encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, up to one well 

per year, or up to 15 wells over a 15-year period, could be drilled within these areas. This could 

disturb up to 9.6 acres per year, or approximately 144 acres over the next 15 years within the 

non-WSA wilderness characteristics lands. Leasing and development within these non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would cause the affected portions to lose their natural 

characteristics. The effects on opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to 

exploration for and development of oil and gas resources would be broader than just for the 144 

acres of direct surface-disturbing activities, and could impact these values for up to one-half mile 

from the ongoing activity. However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas would lose their 

wilderness characteristics in totality because of the small amount of acreage projected to be 

disturbed and the number of projected wells in this development area over the next 15 years. 

In the Monument Upwarp area, 22 of the 23 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would remain all or partially open to leasing under standard stipulations or under CSU or TL 

stipulations (357,200 acres, or 48% of the development area). Approximately 107,800 acres in 

17 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be under an NSO stipulation or closed 

to leasing, which is about 15% of the public land within the development area. This includes 50 

acres in Arch Canyon (100% of this non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics); 40 acres in 

Butler Wash (2%); 2,630 acres in Cheesebox Canyon (20%); 520 acres in Comb Ridge (4%); 

2,110 acres in Fish and Owl Creeks (9%); 5,710 acres in Fort Knocker Canyon (5%); 17,180 in 

Grand Gulch (31%); 6,020 acres in Gravel and Long Canyon (16%); 2,900 acres in Harmony 

Flat (30%); 5,530 acres in Lime Creek (99%); 27,490 acres in Mancos Mesa (45%); 15,200 acres 

in Nokai Dome (16%); 2,220 in Road Canyon (20%); 5,110 acres in San Juan River (36%); 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-206 

1,500 acres in Upper Red Canyon (6%); 13,540 acres in Valley of the Gods (99%); and 50 acres 

in White Canyon (1%). Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and the existing and pending leases within those areas, the highest potential for 

leasing and/or development would be in Nokai Dome, Dark Canyon, Mancos Mesa, and Grand 

Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Given that the projection for drilling for 

oil and gas is less than one well per year for all of the public lands in the Monument Upwarp 

area, and that 63% of the development area encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, that projected one well per year, or up to seven wells over a 15-year period, could 

be drilled within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This could disturb up to 9.6 

acres per well, or approximately 67 acres over the next 15 years. Leasing and development 

within these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics could cause the affected portion to 

lose its natural characteristics. Loss of opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to 

exploration for and development of oil and gas resources would be broader than just for the 67 

acres of direct surface-disturbing activities, and would impact these values for up to one-half 

mile from the ongoing activity. However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas would lose 

their wilderness characteristics in totality because of the small amount of acreage projected to be 

disturbed and the few projected wells in this development area over the next 15 years. 

In the Blanding Sub-basin area, all seven non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

totaling 38,540 acres (or 9% of the development area), would remain open to leasing under 

standard stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations. None of the lands would be under an NSO 

stipulation or closed to leasing. Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and/or the existing and pending leases within those areas, the highest potential for 

leasing and/or development would be in Cross Canyon, Squaw and Papoose Canyon, and the east 

side of Comb Ridge non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Given that the projection 

for drilling for oil and gas is three wells per year for all of the public lands within the Monument 

Upwarp area, and that 9% of the development area encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics open to leasing under standard stipulations, CSU, or TL, up to one well per year, 

or up to 15 wells over a 15-year period, could be drilled within the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. This could disturb up to 9.6 acres per year, or up to 144 acres over the 

next 15 years. Leasing and development within these non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would cause the affected portion to lose its natural characteristics. Loss of 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil 

and gas resources would be broader than just for the 144 acres of direct surface-disturbing 

activities, and could impact these values for up to one-half mile from the ongoing activity. 

However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in 

totality because of the small amount of acreage projected to be disturbed and the few projected 

wells in this development area over the next 15 years. 

Geophysical exploration activities would be authorized for all non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, subject to the oil and gas leasing stipulations and the exceptions to those 

activities that are non-surface-disturbing as defined in Appendix A. Geophysical activities would 

have short-term, minimal impacts on naturalness due to crushed vegetation, tire tracks, and small 

drill holes and their cuttings. Solitude and primitive recreation opportunities would be impacted 

in the short-term by the presence of equipment, people, noise, and work associated with 

geophysical exploration activities. When the geophysical activity ceases, solitude and primitive 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-207 

recreation opportunities would resume and disturbances to the naturalness would be restored in 

the short-term. 

In summary, up to 37 wells over the 15-year RFD scenario, disturbing up to 355 acres, could 

occur in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under this alternative. Ten of the 29 

areas have a higher potential for these wells to be drilled based on existing leases and/or 

percentages of non-WSA lands within the development areas. All of Arch Canyon and the 

majority (99%) of Lime Creek and Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be protected from surface-disturbing activities associated with oil and gas 

leasing due to an NSO stipulation or closed to leasing. 

4.3.8.5.2.2. Alternative B 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected or 

managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Surface disturbances resulting from oil and 

gas leasing decision that permit development would degrade natural characteristics, diminish 

opportunities for solitude, and conflict with primitive recreation activities. All or portions of 24 

of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, comprising 485,010 acres, would 

remain open to leasing and development under standard oil and gas stipulations or under CSU or 

TL stipulations (see Table 4.96). This comprises nearly 83% of these non-WSA lands. Seventeen 

percent of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (all of five and portions of 11 nonWSAs) would be either closed to leasing or have an NSO stipulation on the leases. It is assumed 

that the various waivers, exceptions, and modifications under the NSO stipulation would not be 

granted because they would not be in concert with other resource goals and objectives in these 

areas. 

In the Paradox Fold area, portions of four of the six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, comprising 53,720 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard 

stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations. This is about 21% of the public lands within the 

development area. Approximately 26,030 acres, which includes 670 acres in Bridger Jack Mesa 

(3% of the non-WSA); 3,570 acres in Gooseneck (100%), 170 acres in Harts Point (1%); 1,760 

acres in Hatch/Lockhart/Hart (100%); 19,760 acres in Indian Creek (85%); and 100 acres in 

Shay Mountain (1%), would have an NSO stipulation applied to the lease or be closed to leasing. 

This comprises about 10% of the development area. Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics and the existing or pending leases within those six areas, the 

highest potential for leasing and/or development would be in Harts Point or Bridger Jack Mesa 

non-WSAs wilderness characteristics areas. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas 

is about one well per year for all of the public lands within the Paradox Fold area, and that 30% 

of the development area encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics open for 

leasing, up to one well per year, or up to 15 wells over a 15-year period, could be drilled within 

these areas. This could disturb up to 9.6 acres per year, or approximately 144 acres over the next 

15 years within the non-WSA lands. No surface disturbance associated with oil and gas activities 

would occur in Gooseneck or Hatch/Harts/Lockhart non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics or on over 85% of the Indian Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Leasing and development within the Bridger Jack Mesa, Harts Point, Indian 

Creek, or Shay Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would cause the 

affected portion to lose its natural characteristics and diminish opportunities for solitude and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-208 

primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources. However, it 

is not anticipated that any of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in totality 

because of the small amount of acreage projected to be disturbed and the number of projected 

wells in this development area over the next 15 years. 

In the Monument Upwarp area, all of 14 and portions of six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, comprising 407,870 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard 

stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations. This is about 55% of the public lands within the 

development area. Approximately 57,130 acres or about 8% of the lands in the development 

area, in all or portions of nine non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be under an 

NSO stipulation or closed to leasing. This includes 1,080 acres in Comb Ridge (100% of this 

non-WSA); 3,310 acres in Dark Canyon (5%); 3,590 acres in Fish and Owl Creeks (15%); 100 

acres in Grand Gulch (<1%); 5,200 acres in Lime Creek (100%); 12,760 acres in Mancos Mesa 

(21%); 12,600 acres in Nokai Dome (13%); 4,820 acres in San Juan River (63%); and 13,670 

acres in Valley of the Gods (100%). Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and the existing and pending leases within those areas, the highest potential for 

leasing and/or development would be the same as in Alternative A: Nokai Dome, Dark Canyon, 

Mancos Mesa, and Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, all of 

Comb Ridge, Lime Creek and Valley of the Gods non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics 

would be protected from surface-disturbing oil- and gas-related activities, thus protecting their 

wilderness characteristics. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is less than one 

well per year for all of the public land within the Monument Upwarp area, and that 63% of the 

development area encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the projected 

one well per year, or up to eight wells over a 15-year period, could be drilled within the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This would disturb up to 9.6 acres per well, or 

approximately 77 acres over the next 15 years. Surface disturbance associated with leasing and 

development within these non-WSA wilderness characteristics lands would cause the affected 

portion to lose their natural characteristics. Loss of opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation due to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources would be broader than 

just for the 77 acres of direct surface-disturbing activities, and would impact these values for up 

to one-half mile from the ongoing activity. However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas 

would lose their wilderness characteristics in totality because of the small amount of acreage 

projected to be disturbed and the few projected wells in this development area over the next 15 

years. 

In the Blanding Sub-basin area, all of four and a portion of one non-WSA land with wilderness 

characteristics, totaling 23,420 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard stipulations 

or under CSU or TL stipulations. This comprises 6% of the public lands in the development area. 

Approximately 15,120 acres in three non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

under an NSO stipulation or closed to leasing, which is about 4% of the public land development 

area. This includes 12,680 acres in Comb Ridge (100% of this non-WSA with wilderness 

characteristics); 360 acres in Lime Creek (100%); and 2,080 acres in Road Canyon (26%). Based 

on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and/or the existing and 

pending leases within those areas, the highest potential for leasing and/or development would be 

in Cross Canyon and Squaw and Papoose Canyon. Given that the projection for drilling for oil 

and gas is three wells per year for the all of the public land in the Blanding Sub-basin area, and 

that just over 5% of the development area encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-209 

characteristics open to leasing under standard, CSU, or TL stipulations, it is still anticipated that 

up to one well per year could be drilled in the non-WSA lands because the Blanding Sub-basin 

area contains oil and gas fields and the majority of existing wells within the whole Monticello 

FO. This could disturb up to 9.6 acres per year, or up to 144 acres over then next 15 years; 

however, none of the surface-disturbing activities would be within Comb Ridge or Lime Creek 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, thus protecting those values. Leasing and 

development within these non-WSAs wilderness lands with wilderness characteristics would 

cause the affected portion to lose its natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources. However, it 

is not anticipated that any of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in totality 

because of the small amount of acreage projected to be disturbed and the few projected wells in 

this development area over the next 15 years. 

Impacts from geophysical activities would be the same as Alternative A. 

In summary, up to 38 wells over the 15-year RFD scenario, disturbing up 365 acres could occur 

in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under this alternative. Eight of the 29 areas 

have a higher potential for these wells to be drilled based on existing leases and/or percentages of 

non-WSA lands within the development areas. All of Gooseneck, Hatch/Lockhart/Hart, Lime 

Creek, Valley of the Gods, Comb Ridge, and 85% of Indian Creek non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be protected from surface-disturbing activities associated with 

oil and gas leasing due to NSO or closed to leasing stipulations. 

4.3.8.5.2.3. Alternative C 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected or 

managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Surface disturbances resulting from oil and 

gas leasing decision that permit development would degrade natural characteristics, diminish 

opportunities for solitude, and conflict with primitive recreation activities. All or portions of 27 

of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, comprising 547,420 acres, would 

remain open to leasing and development under standard oil and gas stipulations or under CSU or 

TL stipulations (see Table 4.96). This comprises nearly 94% of these non-WSA lands. Six 

percent of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics totaling 34,940 acres (all of two 

and portions of 10 non-WSAs wilderness areas) would be either closed to leasing or have an 

NSO stipulation on the leases. It is assumed that the various waivers, exceptions, and 

modifications under the NSO stipulation would not be granted because they would not be in 

concert with other resource goals and objectives in these areas. 

In the Paradox Fold area, all or portions of the six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, comprising 73,850 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard 

stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations. This is about 29% of the public lands within the 

development area. Approximately 5,900 acres, which includes 690 acres in Bridger Jack Mesa 

(3% of the non-WSA); 970 acres in Gooseneck (27%), 4,140 acres in Indian Creek (18%), and 

100 acres in Shay Mountain (2%) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have an 

NSO stipulation applied to the lease or be closed to leasing. This comprises about 2% of the 

development area. Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

and the existing or pending leases within those six areas, the highest potential for leasing and/or 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-210 

development would be in Bridger Jack Mesa, Harts Point, or Indian Creek non-WSAs. Given 

that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is about two wells per year for all of the public 

lands in the Paradox Fold area, and that 31% of the development area encompasses non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics open for leasing, up to one well per year, or up to 15 wells 

over a 15-year period, could be drilled within these areas. This could disturb up to 9.6 acres per 

year, or up to 144 acres over the next 15 years within the non-WSA wilderness lands. Leasing 

and development within the seven non-WSAs wilderness characteristics areas would cause that 

portion to lose its natural characteristics. Loss of opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation due to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources would be broader than 

just for the 144 acres of direct surface-disturbing activities, and could impact these values for up 

to one-half mile from the ongoing activity. However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas 

would lose their wilderness characteristics in totality because of the small amount of acreage 

projected to be disturbed and the number of projected wells in this development area over the 

next 15 years. 

In the Monument Upwarp area, all of 15 and portions of six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, comprising 437,860 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard 

stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations. This is about 59% of the public lands within the 

development area. Approximately 27,140 acres, or about 4% of the lands in the development 

area, in all of two and portions of six non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

under an NSO stipulation or closed to leasing. This includes 3,350 acres in Dark Canyon (5% of 

this non-WSA); 70 acres in Grand Gulch (<1%); 5,200 acres in Lime Creek (100%); 250 acres in 

Mancos Mesa (<1%); 420 acres in Nokai Dome (<1%); 4,180 acres in San Juan River (55%); 

and 13,670 acres in Valley of the Gods (100%). Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and the existing and pending leases within those areas, the highest 

potential for leasing and/or development would be the same as in Alternative A: in Nokai Dome, 

Dark Canyon, Mancos Mesa, and Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

However, all of Lime Creek and Valley of the Gods non-WSAs would be protected from 

surface-disturbing oil- and gas-related activities, thus protecting their wilderness characteristics. 

Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is less than one well per year for the public 

lands within the Monument Upwarp area, and that 63% of the development area encompasses 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the projected one well per year, or up to nine 

wells over a 15-year period, could be drilled within the non-WSA lands. This could disturb up to 

9.6 acres per well, or approximately 86 acres over the next 15 years. Leasing and development 

within these non-WSA lands could cause that portion to lose its natural characteristics. Loss of 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil 

and gas resources would be broader than just for the 86 acres of direct surface-disturbing 

activities, and could impact these values for up to one-half mile from the ongoing activity. 

However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in 

totality because of the small amount of acreage projected to be disturbed and the few projected 

wells in this development area over the life of the next 15 years. 

In the Blanding Sub-basin area, all of five and a portion of one non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, totaling 36,640 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard stipulations 

or under CSU or TL stipulations. This comprises over 9% of the public lands in the development 

area. Approximately 1,900 acres in two non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

under an NSO stipulation or closed to leasing, which is less than 1% of the public lands within 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-211 

this development area. This includes 360 acres in Lime Creek (100% of the non-WSA) and 

1,540 acres in Road Canyon (24%). Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and/or the existing and pending leases within those areas, the highest potential for 

leasing and/or development would be in Comb Ridge, Cross Canyon, and Squaw and Papoose 

Canyon. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is three wells per year for the all of 

the public lands within the Blanding Sub-basin area, and that just over 9% of the development 

area encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics open to leasing under standard 

stipulations, CSU, or TL stipulations, it is still anticipated that up to one well per year could be 

drilled in the non-WSA lands because the Blanding Sub-basin area contains oil and gas fields 

and the majority of existing wells within the Monticello PA. This could disturb up to 9.6 acres 

per year, or approximately 144 acres over the next 15 years, however, none of the surfacedisturbing activities would be within Lime Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, thus protecting those values. Leasing and development within these non-WSA 

wilderness lands could cause that portion to lose its natural characteristics. Loss of opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil and gas 

resources would be broader than just for the 144 acres of direct surface-disturbing activities, and 

could impact these values for up to one-half mile from the ongoing activity. However, it is not 

anticipated that any of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in totality because of 

the small amount of acreage projected to be disturbed and the few projected wells in this 

development area over the next 15 years. 

Impacts from geophysical activities would be the same as Alternative A. 

In summary, up to 39 wells over the 15-year RFD scenario, disturbing up to 374 acres could 

occur in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under this alternative. Ten of the 29 

areas have a higher potential for these wells to be drilled based on existing leases and/or 

percentages of non-WSA wilderness lands within the development areas. However, all of Lime 

Creek and Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

protected from surface-disturbing activities associated with oil and gas leasing due to an NSO 

stipulation. 

4.3.8.5.2.4. Alternative D 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected or 

managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Surface disturbances resulting from oil and 

gas leasing decision that permit development would degrade natural characteristics, diminish 

opportunities for solitude, and conflict with primitive recreation activities. All of the 29 nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would remain open to leasing and development under 

standard oil and gas stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations under this alternative. 

In the Paradox Fold area, all six non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would remain 

open to leasing under standard stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations (79,750 acres). This 

is 31% of all of the public lands within this development area. Based on the percentage of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and the existing leases within those areas, the highest 

potential for leasing and/or development would be in Bridger Jack Mesa, Indian Creek, and Harts 

Point. Because well projections under this alternative are similar to Alternative A, and generally 

the same percentage of lands in the development area encompass non-WSA lands with 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-212 

wilderness characteristics, the same analysis of impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics resulting from development of one well in this area would occur. 

In the Monument Upwarp area, all 23 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

remain open to leasing under standard stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations (465,000 

acres). This is 63% of the public lands in the whole development area. Based on the percentage 

of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and the existing leases within those areas, the 

highest potential for leasing and/or development would be in the Dark Canyon, Grand Gulch, 

Mancos Mesa, and Nokai Dome non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Because well 

projections under this alternative are generally the same as in Alternative A, and generally the 

same percentage of lands in this development area encompass non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, the same analysis of impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

resulting from development of one well would occur. 

In the Blanding Sub-basin area, all seven non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

totaling 38,540 acres (or 9% of the public lands in the development area), would remain open to 

leasing under standard stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations. Based on the percentage of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and/or the existing and pending leases within 

those areas, the highest potential for leasing and/or development would be in Cross Canyon, 

Squaw and Papoose Canyon, and the east side of Comb Ridge non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is generally the same as 

Alternative A and the same acreage is available for leasing, the same assumptions and impacts to 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would occur. 

Impacts from geophysical activities would be the same as Alternative A. 

In summary, up to 37 wells over the 15-year RFD scenario, disturbing up to 355 acres could 

occur in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under this alternative. All areas would 

remain available for leasing and development. Ten of the 29 non-WSAs have a higher potential 

for these wells to be drilled based on their large acreage and existing leases within the 

development areas. 

4.3.8.5.2.5. Alternative E 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative E, all the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed 

to protect their wilderness characteristics and closed to leasing. However, existing leases still 

remain in 10 of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Development of these 

leases could compromise wilderness characteristics values in these areas. Below is a breakdown 

of how or where that may occur based on the development areas and the predicted surface 

disturbance for oil and gas activity under this alternative. Those non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that are not currently leased would be fully protected under the leasing closure 

under this alternative. This would preserve the naturalness of the areas and maintain the 

outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude. 

In the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt area, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be closed to future leasing. However, portions of two non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are under existing leases comprising 70 acres. Based on the size of the leases in 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the highest potential for development would 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-213 

be in Harts Point and Indian Creek non-WSA wilderness areas. The projection for drilling for oil 

and gas is one well per year for the all of the public lands within the development area under this 

alternative. The leased lands comprise far less than 1% of the public lands within the 

development area. It is not expected that these leases would be developed based on this low RFD 

and the amount of other public lands available for leasing and development. However, if they are 

developed, and one well would, on average, cause surface disturbance on up to 9.6 acres, far less 

than 1% of each of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be impacted. 

Surface disturbance associated with development of these small, leased areas within the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would cause the affected portion to lose its natural 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and 

development of oil and gas resources. 

In the Monument Upwarp area, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

closed to future leasing. However, portions of six of the 23 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are under existing leases comprising 3,340 acres. Based on the size of the leases 

within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the highest potential for development 

of those leases could be in Grand Gulch or Harmony Flat. The RFD projection for drilling for oil 

and gas is less than one well per year (or seven wells over the next 15 years) for all of the public 

lands in this development area under this alternative. The leased lands comprise far less than 1% 

of the public lands within the development area. However, because of the amount of public land 

that would be closed to leasing under this alternative in this development area, it is assumed that 

the leases within any of the six areas could be developed. If they are developed and one well 

would, on average, cause surface disturbance on up to 9.6 acres, far less than 1% of each of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be impacted. Even if all of the projected 

seven wells over the next 15 years are developed in the 1,600 acres leased in Grand Gulch, the 

total disturbance would be 67 acres within this 55,240-acre area (far less than 1%). Development 

of any of these small leased areas within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would cause the affected portion to lose its natural characteristics. Loss of opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources 

would be broader than just for the 67 acres of direct surface-disturbing activities, and could 

impact these values for up to one-half mile from the ongoing activity. However, the majority of 

the areas would maintain their wilderness characteristics integrity. 

In the Blanding Sub-basin area, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

closed to future leasing. However, portions of two of the seven non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are under existing leases comprising 1,030 acres. Both of these non-WSAs, Cross 

Canyon and Squaw and Papoose Canyon, are vulnerable to development of the existing leases 

since they are near an existing oil and gas field and they lie within an area of the Monticello FO 

that has had the most oil and gas activity. The leases within the development area, however, 

comprise far less than 1% of the public lands within this development area. Given that the 

projection for drilling for oil and gas is two wells per year for the whole 406,770 acres of public 

land within the Blanding Sub-basin area, and only 1,030 acres is available for development 

within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristic, it is not anticipated that any wells 

would be drilled in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. If developed, however, it 

would cause these non-WSA wilderness areas to lose a small portion of their natural 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and 

development of oil and gas resources. However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas would 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-214 

lose their wilderness characteristics in totality because of the small amount of acreage projected 

to be disturbed and the few projected wells in this development area over the 15-year scenario. 

Geophysical operations would be considered if they are not surface-disturbing (i.e., heliportable 

drilling, walked lines, etc.) See Appendix A for a definition of surface-disturbing activities. 

Impacts to wilderness characteristics would be negligible except for the actual time of 

operations. Noise and movement associated with the activities could temporarily disrupt the 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. 

In summary, existing leases within 10 non-WSA lands would allow for development on those 

leases; however, it is not anticipated that development would occur in any of the areas except 

possibly within the Monument Upwarp area due to the limited amount of land that would remain 

available for leasing. All other non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

protected from oil and gas leasing and developments activities by closing the areas to future 

leasing. 

4.3.8.5.2.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (88,871 acres) 

would be managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Of these five areas, Dark Canyon 

(11,540 acres) would be available for leasing with a NSO stipulation. The remaining four areas, 

Nokai Dome East, Nokai Dome West, Mancos Mesa, and Grand Gulch, totaling 77,331 acres 

would not be available for leasing. This comprises about 15% of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics that have been identified in the planning area. It is assumed that the 

various waivers, modifications, and exceptions to the NSO stipulation would not be granted 

because they would not be in concert with other resources objectives of the Dark Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

All or portions of 27 of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, comprising 

460,093 acres, would remain open to leasing and development under standard oil and gas 

stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations (see Table 4.96). This comprises nearly 79% of 

these non-WSA lands. Twenty-one percent of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

totaling 123,197 acres (all of two and portions of nine non-WSAs lands with wilderness 

characteristics) would be either closed to leasing or have an NSO stipulation on the leases. It is 

assumed that the various waivers, exceptions, and modifications under the NSO stipulation 

would not be granted because they would not be in concert with other resource goals and 

objectives in these areas. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

In the Monument Upwarp area, all of 15 and portions of six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, comprising 349,603 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard 

stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations. This is about 47% of the public lands within the 

development area. Approximately 88,871 acres or about 12% of the lands in the development 

area, in portions of five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be available for 

leasing with an NSO stipulation or closed to leasing. This includes 11,540 acres in Dark Canyon 

(17% of this non-WSA); 13,657 acres in Grand Gulch (25%); 30,068 acres in Mancos Mesa 

(49%); 18,618 acres in Nokai Dome East (20%); and 14,988 acres in Nokai Dome West (16%). 

Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and the existing and 

pending leases within those areas, the highest potential for leasing and development would be the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-215 

same as in Alternative A: in Nokai Dome East, Nokai Dome West, Dark Canyon, Mancos Mesa, 

and Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, but outside the portions of 

these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed for their wilderness 

characteristics (and NSO or closed to leasing) under the Proposed Plan. Since these five nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics are NSO or closed to leasing and do not contain any 

existing leases, there would be no impacts to the natural characteristics or opportunities for 

solitude or primitive recreation from surface disturbance, noise, or presence of people, vehicles, 

and equipment use during exploration and production of oil or gas. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

In the Paradox Fold area, all or portions of the six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, comprising 73,850 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard 

stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations. This is about 28% of the public lands within the 

development area. Approximately 5,900 acres, which includes 690 acres in Bridger Jack Mesa 

(3% of the non-WSA); 970 acres in Gooseneck (27%), 4,140 acres in Indian Creek (18%), and 

100 acres in Shay Mountain (2%) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have an 

NSO stipulation applied to the lease or be closed to leasing. This comprises about 2% of the 

development area. Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

and the existing or pending leases within those six areas, the highest potential for leasing and/or 

development would be in Bridger Jack Mesa, Harts Point, or Indian Creek non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is about two wells 

per year for all of the public lands in the Paradox Fold area, and that 31% of the development 

area encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics open for leasing, up to one 

well per year, or up to 15 wells over a 15-year period, would be drilled within non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. This would disturb up to 9.6 acres per year, or up to 144 acres 

over the next 15 years within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Leasing and 

development within these non-WSAs lands with wilderness characteristics would cause the 

affected portion to lose its natural characteristics. The loss of opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources would be 

broader than just for the 144 acres of direct surface-disturbing activities, and could impact these 

values for up to one-half mile from the ongoing activity. However, it is not anticipated that any 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would lose their wilderness characteristics 

in totality because of the small amount of acreage projected to be disturbed and the number of 

projected wells in this development area over the next 15 years. 

In the Monument Upwarp area, all of 15 and portions of six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, comprising 349,603 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard 

stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations. This is about 47% of the public lands within the 

development area. Approximately 23,050 acres or about 3% of the lands in the development 

area, in all two and a portion of one non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

available for leasing with an NSO stipulation or closed to leasing. This includes 5,200 acres in 

Lime Creek (100%); 4,180 acres in San Juan River (55%); and 13,670 acres in Valley of the 

Gods (100%). Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and 

the existing and pending leases within those areas, the highest potential for leasing and 

development would be the same as in Alternative A: in Nokai Dome, Dark Canyon, Mancos 

Mesa, and Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, outside portions of 

these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed for their wilderness 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-216 

characteristics (and NSO or closed to leasing) under the Proposed Plan. However, all of Lime 

Creek and Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

protected from surface-disturbing oil- and gas-related activities, thus protecting their wilderness 

characteristics. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is less than one well per year 

for the public lands within the Monument Upwarp area, and that 63% of the development area 

encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the projected one well per year, or 

up to nine wells over a 15-year period, would be drilled within the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristic. This would disturb up to 9.6 acres per well, or approximately 86 acres 

over the next 15 years. Leasing and development within these non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would cause the affected portion to lose its natural characteristics. Loss of 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil 

and gas resources would be broader than just for the 86 acres of direct surface-disturbing 

activities, and could impact these values for up to one-half mile from the ongoing activity. 

However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in 

totality because of the small amount of acreage projected to be disturbed and the few projected 

wells in this development area over the next 15 years. 

In the Blanding Sub-basin area, all of five and a portion of one non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, totaling 36,640 acres, would remain open to leasing under standard stipulations 

or under CSU or TL stipulations. This comprises over 9% of the public lands in the development 

area. Approximately 1,900 acres in two non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

available for leasing with an NSO stipulation or closed to leasing, which is less than 1% of the 

public lands within this development area. This includes 360 acres in Lime Creek (100% of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics) and 1,540 acres in Road Canyon (24%). Based 

on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and the existing and 

pending leases within those areas, the highest potential for leasing and development would be in 

Comb Ridge, Cross Canyon, and Squaw and Papoose Canyon. Given that the projection for 

drilling for oil and gas is three wells per year for all of the public lands within the Blanding Subbasin area, and that just over 9% of the development area includes non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics open to leasing under standard stipulations, CSU, or TL stipulations, it 

is still anticipated that up to one well per year would be drilled in the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics because the Blanding Sub-basin area contains oil and gas fields and 

the majority of existing wells within the Monticello PA. This would disturb up to 9.6 acres per 

year, or approximately 144 acres over the next 15 years, however, none of the surface-disturbing 

activities would be within Lime Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, thus 

protecting those values. Leasing and development within these non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would cause the affected portion to lose its natural characteristics. Loss of 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil 

and gas resources would be broader than just for the 144 acres of direct surface-disturbing 

activities, and could impact these values for up to one-half mile from the ongoing activity. 

However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in 

totality because of the small amount of acreage projected to be disturbed and the few projected 

wells in this development area over the next 15 years. 

Impacts from geophysical activities would be the same as Alternative A. 

In summary, up to 39 wells over the 15-year RFD scenario, disturbing up to 374 acres would 

occur in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under the Proposed Plan. Ten of the 29 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-217 

areas have a higher potential for these wells to be drilled based on existing leases and/or 

percentages of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the development areas. 

However, all of Lime Creek and Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be protected from surface-disturbing activities associated with oil and gas 

leasing due to an NSO stipulation. 

Under the Proposed Plan and each alternative, the following percentage of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would remain open to leasing and development under standard oil and 

gas stipulations or under CSU or TL stipulations: 

• Alternative A, 81% of all non-WSA lands (470,590 acres) 

• Alternative B, 83% of all non-WSA lands (485,010 acres) 

• Alternative C, 94% of all non-WSA lands (548,350 acres) 

• Alternative D, 100% of the non-WSA lands (582,360 acres) 

• Alternative E, 0% of the 29 non-WSA lands (0 acres) 

• Proposed Plan, 79% of the 29 non-WSA lands (460,093 acres) 

Based on the low RFDs for the Monticello PA, up to three wells could be drilled per year in the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are open to leasing and development under 

the Proposed Plan and Alternatives A, B, C, and D. It is assumed that 9.6 acres of surface 

disturbance would be associated with each well drilled. Under the Proposed Plan and all four 

alternatives, the maximum amount of surface disturbance would be between 355 acres and 374 

acres over the 15-year RFD scenario. Although oil and gas well development would cause 

surface-disturbing activities that would result in loss of wilderness characteristics in some areas, 

it is not expected under the Proposed Plan or any alternative that the amount of disturbance based 

on well projections and the scattered nature of the wells would be substantial. Although small 

acreages may be lost in some of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, it is not 

predicted that any of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in whole. 

4.3.8.5.3. SALABLE MINERALS

4.3.8.5.3.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Salable minerals are managed following the same objectives as oil and gas resources. The same 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are open under standard stipulations or 

minor constraints for oil and gas leasing would be available for salable mineral disposal, just as 

those non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics either closed to leasing or under NSO 

stipulations would be unavailable for salable mineral disposal (see Table 4.96). The non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics with the highest potential for sand and gravel occurrence 

within 3 miles of a road overlie portions of the Comb Ridge, Harts Point, Valley of the Gods, 

Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome, Upper Red Canyon, Fort Knocker Canyon, and Gravel and Long 

Canyon areas. Currently there is only one sand and gravel pit contiguous to the northernmost end 

of Comb Ridge. All or portions of 26 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics have high 

potential for building stone occurrence. None of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are currently near a building stone quarry. Those non-WSAs with wilderness 

characteristics that do not intersect with the building stone resource are Grand Gulch, Lime 

Creek and Valley of the Gods. The San Juan River non-WSA land with wilderness 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-218 

characteristics has a high potential for limestone occurrence, and there is a limestone quarry near 

the area. 

4.3.8.5.3.2. Alternative A 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

All or portions of 28 of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, comprising 

469,660 acres, would remain open to salable mineral disposal. This comprises over 80% of these 

non-WSA lands. Most of the Comb Ridge non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics (13,240 

acres) would remain open to sand and gravel disposal and 9,230 acres of the San Juan River nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be open to limestone disposal. Where surface 

disturbance would occur, natural characteristics and opportunities for primitive recreation and 

solitude would be foregone. If the gravel pits or building rock quarries have associated support 

facilities, including roads and power lines, soil and vegetation disturbance, the presence of 

permanent structures would degrade the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Noise from the operation of sand and gravel pits or rock quarries, 

including the presence of work crews, vehicles, and equipment, would degrade opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive recreational opportunities in proximity to industrial 

development. As recreational visitors move away from the sources of development, the sights 

and sounds of development would diminish. However, it can be expected that sights and sounds 

from development would reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation up to one-half mile beyond the direct loss of natural character, depending on 

topography. 

Twenty percent of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics totaling 112,700 acres (all 

of one and portions of 18 non-WSAs) would be closed to salable mineral disposal; thus, the 

wilderness characteristics of those areas would be maintained. 

4.3.8.5.3.3. Alternative B 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

All or portions of 24 of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas, comprising 

484,080 acres, would remain open to salable mineral disposal. This comprises nearly 83% of 

these non-WSA lands. Where surface disturbance would occur, natural characteristics and 

opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude would be foregone. The same impacts to 

wilderness values as described under Alternative A would ensue. Seventeen percent of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics totaling 98,280 acres (all of five and portions of 11 

non-WSAs) would be closed to salable mineral disposal, thus, the wilderness characteristics of 

those areas would be maintained. The Comb Ridge non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to sand and gravel disposal, but 9,520 acres of the San Juan River 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be open to limestone disposal. 

4.3.8.5.3.4. Alternative C 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

All or portions of 27 of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, comprising 

547,420 acres, would remain open to salable mineral disposal. This comprises nearly 94% of 

these non-WSA lands. The Comb Ridge non-WSA would remain open to sand and gravel 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-219 

disposal. Where surface disturbance would occur, naturalness and opportunities for primitive 

recreation and solitude would be foregone. The same impacts to wilderness values as described 

under Alternative A would ensue. Six percent of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics totaling 34,940 acres (all of two and portions of 10 non-WSAs) would be closed 

to salable mineral disposal, thus the wilderness characteristics of those areas would be protected. 

The San Juan River non-WSA would be closed to limestone disposal. 

4.3.8.5.3.5. Alternative D 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

All of the 29 non-WSA in the 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would remain open to disposal of salable minerals under standard conditions or minor 

constraints. Where surface disturbance occurs, natural characteristics and opportunities for 

primitive recreation and solitude would be diminished or lost, with the same impacts to 

wilderness characteristics as described under Alternative A. 

4.3.8.5.3.6. Alternative E 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative E, all lands within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be closed to salable mineral disposal as part of the prescription to manage for protection of their 

wilderness characteristics. These areas would not be developed for production of sand, gravel, 

and building stone under this alternative. This would preserve natural characteristics and 

maintain the outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.5.3.7. Proposed Plan 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Portions of five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, including 88,871 acres would be 

closed to mineral material disposal. This comprises 15% of all the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Under the Proposed Plan, Dark Canyon (11,540 acres), Mancos Mesa 

(30,068 acres), Nokai Dome East (18,618 acres), Nokai Dome West (14,988 acres), and Grand 

Gulch (13,657 acres) would be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics and would be 

closed to mineral material disposal. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

All or portions of 27 of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, comprising 

459,163 acres, would remain open to salable mineral disposal. This comprises nearly 79% of 

these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The Comb Ridge would remain open to 

sand and gravel disposal. Where surface disturbance would occur, naturalness and opportunities 

for primitive recreation and solitude would be foregone. The same impacts to wilderness 

characteristics as described under Alternative A would ensue. Six percent of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics totaling 34,326 acres (all of two and portions of six non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics) would be closed to salable mineral disposal, thus the 

wilderness characteristics of those areas would be maintained. The San Juan River non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to limestone disposal. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-220 

4.3.8.5.4. LOCATABLE MINERALS

4.3.8.5.4.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Portions of 17 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are located within areas of 

moderate to high potential for uranium and vanadium and are within historic mining districts: 

Bridger Jack Mesa (8,670 acres within the non-WSA), Butler Wash (80 acres), Cheesebox 

Canyon (12,440 acres), Comb Ridge (470 acres), Fort Knocker Canyon (1,180 acres), 

Gooseneck (3,330 acres), Gravel and Long Canyon (19,270 acres), Hammond Canyon (340 

acres), Harmony Flat (180 acres), Harts Point (18,860 acres), Hatch/Lockhart/Hart (1,520 acres), 

Indian Creek (10,020 acres), Red Rock Plateau (15,480 acres), Shay Mountain (5,380 acres), 

Squaw and Papoose Canyon (3,570 acres), Upper Red Canyon (9,550 acres), and White Canyon 

(1,170 acres). In all, 111,510 acres within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, or 

19% of the non-WSA lands are within areas of moderate to high potential for uranium and 

vanadium occurrence, and in historic mining districts. 

Future development of these resources is expected to occur within the historic mining districts, 

and currently there are over 7,000 mining claims for this resource, many within the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics within the Monticello FO. If new mining development 

occurs within these areas, direct loss of wilderness characteristics would be unavoidable due to 

surface-disturbing activities. To date, however, there has been no new activity associated with 

the existing claims within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. New mining 

claims are filed continually, and changes could occur that would impact lands with wilderness 

characteristics by removing vegetation, moving soils, and disrupting the natural landscape. It 

would also alter the setting needed to support primitive recreation activities and opportunities to 

find solitude for those non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics where new mining 

activities occur. For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that development for uranium and 

vanadium mining could occur anywhere within the moderate to high development potential areas 

in the historic mining districts. 

Some lands in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics have been recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral entry to give management emphasis to other resource values and uses. 

The withdrawals would prevent surface disturbance that would reduce or eliminate wilderness 

characteristics. The following is an analysis of the effects of proposed mineral withdrawals on 

the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.5.4.2. Alternative A 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

There are two non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within historic uranium and 

vanadium mining districts, totaling 4,280 acres, where mineral withdrawals have been proposed: 

• 390 acres of the Gooseneck non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

• 3,890 acres of the Indian Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

The proposed mineral withdrawals would preserve the natural characteristics and opportunities 

for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation in each of these areas by preventing location 

of mining claims and the noise and presence of surface disturbance, people, vehicles, and 

equipment associated with mining in those areas. However, if mining claims currently exist in 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-221 

these areas, wilderness characteristics could be at risk of development for uranium and vanadium 

mining as described in Section 4.3.8.5.3.1, Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All 

Alternatives. 

4.3.8.5.4.3. Alternative B 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

There are three non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas within historic uranium and 

vanadium mining districts, totaling 13,505 acres, where mineral withdrawals have been 

proposed: 

• 3,330 acres of the Gooseneck non-WSA wilderness characteristics area 

• 155 acres of the Harts Point non-WSA wilderness characteristics area 

• 10,020 acres of the Indian Creek non-WSA wilderness characteristics area 

The proposed mineral withdrawals would preserve the natural characteristics and opportunities 

for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation by preventing location of mining claims and 

the noise and presence of surface disturbance, people, vehicles, and equipment associated with 

mining in those areas. However, if mining claims currently exist in these areas, wilderness 

characteristics could be at risk of development for uranium/vanadium mining as described in 

Section 4.3.8.5.3.1, Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives. 

4.3.8.5.4.4. Alternative C 

The impacts would be the same as Alternative A because management decisions are the same. 

4.3.8.5.4.5. Alternative D 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

None of the withdrawals proposed under this alternative would occur in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics within an historic uranium or vanadium mining district. All non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics within the historic mining areas could be claimed and 

mined. If new mining development occurs within these areas, the natural characteristics of the 

landscape would be altered and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be 

diminished due to surface-disturbing activities related to mining. 

4.3.8.5.4.6. Alternative E 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

All non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be proposed for mineral withdrawal 

under this alternative as part of the management prescription to protect wilderness 

characteristics. However, uranium and vanadium mining claims currently exist in the majority of 

the historic mining districts. If new mining development occurs within these areas, direct loss of 

natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be 

unavoidable due to surface-disturbing activities. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-222 

4.3.8.5.4.7. Proposed Plan 

The effects of proposed mineral withdrawals on uranium and vanadium mining, and the resultant 

impact on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristic would be the same as Alternative A 

because management decisions are the same. 

4.3.8.6. IMPACTS OF NON- WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

There are 29 areas, outside of existing WSAs, totaling 582,360 acres, in the Monticello PA that 

were inventoried and found to have wilderness characteristics. See Table 3.19 for a list of areas 

by name and acreage with wilderness characteristics and Maps 33 and 34 for locations and 

names of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.6.1. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND D 

4.3.8.6.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristic Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under these alternatives, there are no specific actions prescribed to directly protect or enhance 

the natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation in the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Thus, there are no effects on the natural characteristics or 

opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

4.3.8.6.2. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.3.8.6.2.1. Non-WSA Land with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative E, all 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling 582,360 

acres, would be managed with emphasis on protection of their wilderness characteristics, by the 

following prescription: 

• VRM Class I objectives 

• Closed to commercial or personal woodland harvest 

• Closed to OHV use 

• Managed with “Light-on-the-Land” fire suppression techniques 

• ROW exclusion areas 

• Proposed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 

• Closed to mineral leasing 

• Closed to disposal of mineral materials 

These decisions would prevent surface disturbances that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA wilderness lands, prevent surface disturbances and uses that 

would be incompatible with primitive recreation activities, and protect the setting needed to 

support the experience of solitude. These management decisions would protect the natural 

characteristics of all of the non-WSA wilderness lands, and maintain the opportunities for 

solitude or primitive recreation that exists within these areas. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-223 

Many elements of the prescription to protect the wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would prevent surface disturbances that would degrade the 

natural characteristics of these areas. Closure of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics to oil and gas leasing, ROW exclusion objectives, and closure to harvest of 

woodland products would prevent surface disturbances that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of the 

undeveloped nature of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would also maintain 

the setting needed to support primitive forms of recreation and experiences of solitude. 

Management to visual resource management Class I objectives would prevent landscape 

modifications that would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Closing the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to (OHV) travel would prevent 

expansion of OHV use and surface disturbance that would degrade the natural characteristics of 

these lands. This element of the prescription would also prevent the noise and presence of motor 

vehicles would degrade opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation 

like hiking, backpacking, wildlife viewing, and nature study. 

Under this alternative, the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

recommended for mineral withdrawal. This action would prevent mineral entry and surface 

disturbance that would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, diminish opportunities for solitude, and conflict with primitive forms of 

recreation. Use of “Light-on-the-Land” fire suppression techniques would minimize surface 

disturbances resulting from fire suppression efforts that would degrade the natural characteristics 

of these areas. It would also reduce and minimize the reclamation effort that would be needed 

following fire suppression to restore the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.6.3. PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.8.6.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Under the Proposed Plan five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed 

to protect their wilderness characteristics: Dark Canyon (11,540 acres), Grand Gulch (13,657 

acres), Mancos Mesa (30,068 acres), and Nokai Dome East (18,618 acres), and Nokai Dome 

West (14,988 acres). To give emphasis to management of wilderness characteristics, the five 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed by the following prescription: 

• VRM Class II objectives 

• OHV use limited to designated roads and trails 

• ROW avoidance areas 

• NSO for mineral leasing in Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

• Closed to mineral leasing in Grand Gulch, Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome East, and Nokai 

Dome West non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

• Closed to disposal of mineral materials 

• Existing facilities (e.g., livestock or wildlife facilities) would be maintained 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-224 

• Closed to commercial or personal woodland harvest 

• Managed with “Light-on-the-Land” fire suppression techniques 

These decisions would limit surface disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics 

of the non-WSA wilderness lands. Closure to woodland harvest, limiting motorized vehicle use 

to designated routes, ROW avoidance objectives, NSO and closure to mineral leasing, and 

closure to mineral material production would prevent surface disturbances that would degrade 

the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. VRM Class II 

objectives, however, would allow minor developments that would result in localized surface 

disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics of small areas of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Overall, however, the natural character of the landscape, and thus 

its natural characteristics, would remain in tact. 

Motorized use of designated routes in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be inconsistent with primitive forms of recreation and the noise and presence of the vehicles 

would degrade opportunities for solitude. For some visitors, the impacts would be temporary, 

lasting only while the vehicles are present. For others, the presence and noise of motor vehicles 

would have a longer lasting effect on their desired experience. However, no routes are designated 

in the five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed for those values under the 

Proposed Plan. Maintenance of existing facilities would temporarily diminish opportunities for 

solitude and primitive forms of recreation. Once the noise and presence of people and equipment 

is removed, those opportunities would return. 

4.3.8.6.3.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under the Proposed Plan, no specific actions are prescribed to directly protect or enhance the 

wilderness characteristics of all or portions of 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Thus, there would be no effect on the wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.7. IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Paleontology decisions common to the Proposed Plan and all alternatives provide for mitigation 

of impacts to fossils resulting from BLM-authorized activities, interpretation of fossils, 

collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils, and protection of significant vertebrate and 

invertebrate fossils. As with cultural resources, knowing more about the paleontological 

resources of the area, interpreting the resource in a manner consistent with protection of 

wilderness characteristics, viewing fossil sites in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, and protecting significant fossils from collection or damage would add to the 

enjoyment of these areas for primitive recreational purposes. Protection of fossils would add to 

the character of the setting that supports these recreational opportunities. However, collection of 

even common invertebrate fossils, while providing a primitive recreational experience, would 

remove an element of the natural landscape, and thus the areas’ natural characteristics. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-225 

4.3.8.8. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.8.1. SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMAS) 

4.3.8.8.1.1. Alternative A 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Three existing SRMAs include all or portions of 13 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. All other non-WSA wilderness lands would be managed as part of the Extensive 

Recreation Management Area (ERMA). 

San Juan River SRMA: A portion (4,240 acres) of the San Juan River non-WSA land with 

wilderness characteristics lies within the San Juan River SRMA. The SRMA is more than double 

the size of the non-WSA, and the primary objective for management of this scenic area is for 

outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experience for back-country river running, 

camping, and cultural appreciation. Management under this alternative allows for motorized 

boating, 40,000 user days per year, restricted camping areas along the river, and vehicle camping 

in the uplands. Portions of the SRMA would be open to leasing under standard stipulations and 

under NSO, and a portion would be recommended for locatable mineral withdrawal. The area 

would be a mixture of open, closed, and limited OHV use. The SRMA would remain closed to 

woodland product harvest. The SRMA prescription would partially protect the natural 

characteristics of the landscape and opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation 

in that portion of the San Juan non-WSA within the SRMA, but would disrupt the opportunity 

for solitude and primitive recreation along the river due to motorized boat noise and the number 

of user days per year allowed on the river. Motorized vehicle activity, especially cross-county 

driving would create surface disturbance that reduces the natural characteristics of the area and 

allow for disruption of the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation when vehicles are 

in the vicinity. Some areas would remain open for surface disturbance associated with oil and gas 

leasing activity which, if leased and developed, would cause the loss of natural characteristics 

within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Canyon Basin SRMA: This 214,390-acre SRMA includes all or portions of the Bridger Jack 

Mesa (22,380 acres), Butler Wash (1,530 acres), Dark Canyon (52,290 acres), Harts Point 

(14,070 acres), Indian Creek (14,750 acres), and Shay Mountain (6,450 acres) non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. The purpose of this large SRMA is to provide outstanding 

recreational opportunities and experiences. Management allows for creating designated parking 

areas for rock climbers and firewood cutting. There are no group limits or group size limits and 

the majority of the area is open to dispersed camping and vehicle use, including dispersed 

camping in many areas along the Indian Creek Corridor. Detailed management for this SRMA is 

not proposed that would protect or enhance the wilderness characteristics of these non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. In fact, providing no group size or number of group limits 

and dispersed vehicle camping throughout the SRMA would result in numbers of visitors and 

types of activities that detract from the solitude and primitive recreation experiences of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Surface-disturbing activities such as development of 

new parking areas or cutting firewood would degrade the natural characteristics of the affected 

areas. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-226 

Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA: There are 122,704 acres in six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics located in the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA (in the other alternatives the name of 

the SRMA is changed to the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA). This includes 13,654 acres in Comb 

Ridge, 23,560 acres in Fish and Owl Creeks, 54,970 acres in Grand Gulch, 5,560 acres in Lime 

Creek, 11,290 acres in Road Canyon, and 13,670 acres in Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. The SRMA includes all of the acreage in Lime Creek and Valley 

of the Gods and almost all acreage in Fish and Owl Creeks, Grand Gulch and Road Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The objective for management of this SRMA is to 

provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experience to engage in back-country 

and front-country recreation, and rural cultural appreciation. The management prescription 

includes restrictions on numbers of visitors, commercial uses and numbers, and equestrian use in 

certain areas of the SRMA, as well as restrictions on camping and limits of days and people. 

There are numerous implementation-level decisions included in the management prescriptions 

for this SRMA, the most salient, and the ones most affecting wilderness characteristics being: 

• Open to commercial and/or private firewood cutting 

• No limit on recreation day-use permits 

• Mesa Top Day Use, no group size limit 

• Mesa Top Overnight Camping, open to dispersed camping with no group size limit 

• Canyons for Day Use, private and commercial group size limit of 12, including stock trips 

• Canyons for Day Use, no limit on numbers of parties for private or commercial use per day 

per trailhead 

• Canyons Overnight Camping, group size limit of 12 

• Canyons Overnight Camping, commercial trips limited to one per day per trailhead 

• Trailhead allocations range from 22 -26 overnight visitors per day 

These prescriptions would affect the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics primarily 

due to the numbers of people, group size limits, and commercial activities allowed to occur in 

this SRMA under this alternative. The opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would 

be diminished because a person seeking that experience would, inevitably, meet other people, 

groups, and commercial outfitting and stock activities. In addition, allowing private and 

commercial woodcutting within these areas would deter from the natural characteristics of the 

area by leaving cross-county vehicle tracks, tree stumps and cut limbs. The noise associated with 

chain saws and vehicles would, temporarily impact the opportunities for solitude, as well. 

None of the remaining non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are within SRMAs under 

this alternative, therefore, there would be no recreation management objectives or focus within 

those areas. Because these lands are not within a managed SRMA with specific recreation 

objectives, they would be available for other surface-disturbing uses including commercial 

permitting activities, special recreation permits, new road construction, and other activities that 

could impact the natural characteristics and opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude 

that currently exist in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-227 

4.3.8.8.1.2. Alternative B 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Five SRMAs would be designated that include all or portions of 16 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. All other non-WSA lands would be managed as part of the ERMA. 

San Juan River SRMA: A portion (4,120 acres) of the San Juan River non-WSA land with 

wilderness characteristics lies within the 10,203-acre San Juan River SRMA. The primary 

objective for management of this scenic area is for outstanding recreational opportunities and 

visitor experiences for back-country river running, camping, and cultural appreciation. The 

SRMA management prescription under this alternative would not allow motorized boating, 

permits 30,000 user days per year, restricts camping areas along the river, restricts vehicle 

camping in the uplands, and provides for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO stipulations. The 

SRMA would be closed to disposal of mineral materials and recommended for locatable mineral 

withdrawal. The SRMA would be closed to OHV use in some areas and limited to designated 

routes in others. The area would remain closed to woodland product harvest. The SRMA 

management prescription would protect the natural characteristics of the landscape and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation in that portion of the San Juan nonWSA within the SRMA. Compared to Alternative A, motorized boating would be prohibited and 

user days would be reduced by 10,000. This would enhance the recreation setting to provide 

greater opportunities to experience solitude and primitive recreation. Vehicle use on designated 

routes would disrupt the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation when vehicles are in 

the vicinity, but opportunities would return when the vehicle noise has subsided. Surfacedisturbing activities associated with mineral development would not be allowed, protecting and 

enhancing both the natural characteristics of the area and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

forms of recreation. 

Indian Creek SRMA: This 89,271-acre SRMA (a portion of the Canyon Basins SRMA in 

Alternative A) encompasses portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

totaling 47,390 acres: Bridger Jack Mesa (22,780 acres), Harts Point (8,970 acres), Indian Creek 

(12,980 acres), and Shay Mountain (960 acres). The management prescription would close the 

SRMA to commercial and private firewood cutting and only allow vehicle camping in 

designated sites. The majority of use within this SRMA is outside of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, although some rock climbing does occur. Closing the area to private 

or commercial firewood cutting would protect the natural characteristics of the area and would 

prevent the noise and activities associated with this action. Allowing camping only in designated 

sites would focus vehicle camping to specific areas where disturbance has already occurred and 

not permit new surface disturbance, thereby protecting the natural characteristics of the nonWSA lands. 

Dark Canyon SRMA: This 30,820-acre SRMA (a portion of the Canyon Basins SRMA in 

Alternative A) encompasses small portions of the Dark Canyon (1,563 acres) and Gravel and 

Long Canyon (220 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Group size would be 

limited to 10 people in a private party and 12 people in a commercial party. Only one 

commercial trip per week is allowed and no more that 15 private users per day would be allowed. 

Camping would only be allowed in designated sites. The SRMA would be closed to private or 

commercial firewood cutting which would protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA 

lands. Because the topography is rough with numerous canyons bisecting the SRMA, and the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-228 

limits on numbers of private and commercial user is low, the potential to experience solitude and 

a primitive recreation experience would be enhanced. Closing the SRMA to firewood cutting 

would protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

In addition, designating camping areas would also protect the SRMA from additional surfacedisturbing activity, thereby protecting the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA: There are 109,700 acres in six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics included in the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA. This includes 640 acres in Comb 

Ridge, 23,560 acres in Fish and Owl Creeks, 54,980 acres in Grand Gulch, 5,560 acres in Lime 

Creek, 11,290 acres in Road Canyon, and 13,670 acres in Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. The C-SRMA includes all of the acreage in Lime Creek and 

Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and almost all acreage in Fish 

and Owl Creeks, Grand Gulch and Road Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The objective for management of this C-SRMA is to provide outstanding recreational 

opportunities and visitor experiences to engage in back-country and front-country recreation, and 

rural cultural appreciation. The C-SRMA management prescription would include restrictions on 

numbers of visitors, type and number of commercial uses, and equestrian use in certain areas of 

the C-SRMA, as well as restrictions on camping and limits of length of stay and numbers of 

people. There are numerous planning- and implementation-level decisions included in the 

management prescriptions for this C-SRMA, the most salient, and the ones that would most 

affect wilderness characteristics include: 

• Closed to commercial and private firewood cutting 

• Available for construction of watershed, range, and wildlife improvements and vegetation 

treatments 

• 25-person limit on recreation day-use permits 

• Mesa Top Day Use, 10-person group size limit 

• Mesa Top Overnight Camping, designated primitive campsites, 12-person group size limit 

• Canyons for Day Use, 10-person group size limit for private and commercial groups; one 

commercial group limit every other day; no stock trips allowed in canyon 

• Canyons Overnight Camping, 6-person private group size limit and 10-person commercial 

group size limit; commercial trips limited to one per day per trailhead 

• Trailhead allocations are 16 overnight visitors per day 

These prescriptions would affect the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics primarily 

due to the limits on numbers of people, group size, and commercial activities allowed to occur in 

this C-SRMA under this alternative. Compared to Alternative A, the opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation would be augmented because a person seeking that experience would 

meet fewer people, groups, and commercial outfitting and stock activities. Closing the area to 

woodcutting would maintain the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Impacts to natural characteristics would occur to varying degrees, depending on 

the types of watershed, range, wildlife facilities or vegetation treatments that would be 

implemented in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. If vegetation treatment 

would be implemented with biological or chemical methods, or with prescribed fire, the area 

would have temporary visual impacts, but surface disturbance would be limited and the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-229 

treatments would have a natural appearance. If mechanical methods would be used, surface 

disturbance would be evident and visual imprints of people would be apparent. During the time 

of the activities, the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be temporarily 

affected due to noise and human activities in the area. 

White Canyon SRMA: This 2,828-acre SRMA includes small portions of four non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics: 400 acres in Cheesebox Canyon, 1,258 acres in Fort Knocker 

Canyon, 430 acres in Gravel and Long Canyon, and 960 acres in Sheep Canyon. The SRMA 

management prescription would exclude the area from private or commercial firewood cutting, 

which would protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Primitive campgrounds would be developed at Soldier and Gravel Crossings and 

implementation-level actions such as packing out human waste and use of fire pans would be 

enacted. Surface disturbance and the presence of human-made structures associated with 

developing primitive campgrounds would reduce the natural characteristics of those specific 

localities of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

None of the remaining non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are within SRMAs under 

this alternative, therefore, there would be no recreation management objectives or focus within 

those areas. Because these lands are not within a managed SRMA with specific recreation 

objectives, they would be available for other surface-disturbing uses including commercial and 

special recreation permit activities, new road construction, and other uses that would impact the 

natural characteristics and opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude that currently exist 

in those non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.8.1.3. Alternative C 

4.3.8.8.1.3.1 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource 

Values and Uses

Five SRMAs would be designated that overlie all or portions of 16 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. All other non-WSA lands would be managed as an ERMA. 

San Juan River SRMA: A portion (3,810 acres) of the San Juan River non-WSA land with 

wilderness characteristics lies within the 9,859-acre San Juan River SRMA. The primary 

objective for management of this scenic area is for outstanding recreational opportunities and 

visitor experience for back-country river running, camping, and cultural appreciation. 

Management under this alternative allows for motorized boating, 40,000 user days per year, 

restricted camping areas along the river, restricted vehicle camping in the uplands and leasing 

subject to NSO stipulations. The area is closed to mineral material disposal and recommended 

for locatable mineral withdrawal. The SRMA would be closed to OHV use in some areas and 

limited to designated routes in others. The area would remain closed to woodland product 

harvest. The SRMA management would partially protect the natural characteristics of the 

landscape and opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation in that portion of the 

San Juan non-WSA that overlies the SRMA. Like Alternative A, motorized boating would be 

allowed on the river, and 40,000 user days would be permitted. This could impact the 

opportunity for solitude and primitive recreation by having so much human activity on the river, 

as well as noise from motorized boat engines. Like Alternative B, surface-disturbing activities 

associated with minerals would be precluded, protecting the natural characteristics of this area. 

In addition, fewer non-WSA lands would be protected because the SRMA would be smaller than 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-230 

Alternative B and the acreage of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics overlying it 

would be reduced by 310 acres. 

Dark Canyon SRMA: This 30,820-acre SRMA (formerly a portion of the Canyon Basins 

SRMA) encompasses small portions of the Dark Canyon (1,563 acres) and Gravel and Long 

Canyon (220 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Group size limits include 15 

people in a private party and 15 people in a commercial party. Three commercial trips per week 

are allowed and no more than 20 private users per day would be allowed. Camping would only 

be allowed in designated sites. The SRMA is closed to private or commercial firewood cutting 

which would protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands. Although an increased 

level of human use would be allowed in this area from Alternative B, because the topography is 

rough with numerous canyons bisecting the SRMA the potential to experience solitude and a 

primitive recreation experience is high, even with the increased level of human use. In addition, 

designating camping areas would also protect the SRMA from additional surface-disturbing 

activity, thereby protecting the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands. 

Indian Creek SRMA: This 89,271-acre SRMA (formerly a portion of the Canyon Basins 

SRMA in Alternative A) encompasses portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics totaling 47,390 acres: Bridger Jack Mesa (22,780 acres), Harts Point (8,970 

acres), Indian Creek (12,980 acres), and Shay Mountain (960 acres). Management prescriptions 

would be the same as in Alternative B except that some dispersed vehicle camping would be 

allowed in some areas along the Indian Creek corridor and designated to specific sites in other 

areas. Dispersed vehicle camping allows for new surface disturbance as vehicles pull off routes 

and establish new camp sites. This would detract from the natural characteristics of the nonWSA lands if the dispersed camping were to occur there. Otherwise, the analysis would be the 

same as Alternative B. 

Cedar Cultural Mesa SRMA: There are 109,700 acres in six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that overlie the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA. This includes 640 acres in Comb 

Ridge, 23,560 acres in Fish and Owl Creeks, 54,980 acres in Grand Gulch, 5,560 acres in Lime 

Creek, 11,290 acres in Road Canyon, and 13,670 acres in Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. This is all of the acreage in Lime Creek and Valley of the Gods 

and almost all acreage in Fish and Owl Creeks, Grand Gulch and Road Canyon non-WSAs lands 

with wilderness characteristics. The objective for management of this C-SRMA is to provide 

outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experience to engage in back-country, frontcountry and rural cultural appreciation recreation. Management includes restrictions on numbers 

of visitors, commercial uses and numbers, and equestrian use in certain areas of the C-SRMA, as 

well as restrictions on camping and limits of days and people. There are numerous planning and 

implementation-level decisions included in the management prescriptions for this C-SRMA, the 

most salient, and the ones most affecting wilderness characteristics being: 

• Open to commercial and/or private firewood cutting 

• Available for watershed, range, and wildlife improvements and vegetation treatments 

• 25 person limit on recreation day-use permits 

• Mesa Top Day Use, 12 person group size limits 

• On Mesa Top Overnight Camping, designated primitive campsites, with group size limit of 

24 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-231 

• In Canyons for Day Use, private and commercial group size limit of 12, one commercial 

group allowed each day, no stock trips in canyons, elsewhere stock limited to 8 animals 

• In Canyons Overnight Camping, group size limits of 8 for private and 12 for commercial; 

commercial trips limited to one per day per trailhead 

• Trailhead allocations are all 20 overnight visitors per day 

Similar to Alternative A, these prescriptions would affect the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics primarily due to the numbers of people, group size limits, and commercial 

activities allowed to occur in this C-SRMA under this alternative. The opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation would be diminished because a person seeking that experience would, 

inevitably, meet other people, groups, and commercial outfitting and stock activities. In addition, 

allowing private and commercial woodcutting within these areas would deter from the natural 

characteristics of the area by leaving cross-county vehicle tracks, tree stumps and litter from 

cutting limbs. The noise associated with chain saws and vehicles would temporarily impact the 

opportunities for solitude, as well. Impacts to natural characteristics could also occur depending 

on the types of watershed, range, wildlife or vegetation treatments that would be implemented in 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Treatments by biological, chemical, or fire 

methods, the area would have temporary visual impacts, but surface disturbance would be 

limited and the treatments would have more of a natural appearance. If by mechanical methods, 

surface disturbance would be evident and visual imprints of humans would be apparent. During 

the time of the activities, the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be 

temporarily affected due to noise and human activities in the area. 

White Canyon SRMA: Generally the same impacts as Alternative B. 

None of the other non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are within SRMAs under this 

alternative, therefore, there would be no recreation management objectives or focus within those 

areas. Because these lands are not within a managed SRMA with specific recreation objectives, 

they would be vulnerable to surface-disturbing uses including commercial and special recreation 

permit activities, new road construction, and other uses that could impact the natural 

characteristics and opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude that currently exist in those 

areas. 

4.3.8.8.1.4. Alternative D 

4.3.8.8.1.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource 

Values and Uses

Five SRMAs would be designated that include all or portions of 16 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. All other non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed as part of the ERMA. 

San Juan River SRMA: A portion (1,960 acres) of the San Juan River non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics lies within the 3,365-acre San Juan River SRMA. The primary 

objective for management of this scenic area is for outstanding recreational opportunities and 

visitor experiences for back-country river running, camping, and cultural appreciation. The 

SRMA management prescription under this alternative would allow for motorized boating, 

45,000 user days per year, some restricted camping areas along the river, some restricted vehicle 

camping in the uplands, and oil and gas leasing subject to NSO stipulations. The area would be 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-232 

closed to mineral material disposal and recommended for locatable mineral withdrawal. The 

SRMA would be closed to OHV use in some areas and limited to designated routes in others. 

The SRMA would remain closed to woodland product harvest. Impacts of this SRMA alternative 

on the San Juan River non-WSA lands would be the same as Alternative C except that even more 

visitor days would be permitted on the river, further detracting from the opportunities of solitude 

and primitive recreation. In addition, fewer non-WSA lands would be protected because the 

SRMA would be smaller than Alternative B and the non-WSA acreage overlying it would be 

reduced by 2,160 acres. 

Dark Canyon SRMA: This 30,820-acre SRMA (a portion of the Canyon Basins SRMA under 

Alternative A) encompasses small portions of the Dark Canyon (1,563 acres) and Gravel and 

Long Canyon (220 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Group size would be 

limited to 15 people in a private party and 15 people in a commercial party. Commercial trips 

would be limited to seven per week but there would be no limits on private users per day. 

Dispersed camping would be allowed within the canyons and mesa tops. The SRMA would be 

closed to private or commercial firewood cutting, which would protect the natural characteristics 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This alternative would allow the most 

human use. This increased use could diminish the opportunity for solitude and conflict with 

primitive recreation due to interaction with other uses, either private or commercial. In addition, 

allowing dispersed camping throughout the area would reduce the natural characteristics of the 

area by creating new surface disturbances from campfire rings and crushed vegetation. 

Indian Creek SRMA: This 89,271-acre SRMA (a portion of the Canyon Basins SRMA in 

Alternative A) includes portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics totaling 

47,390 acres: Bridger Jack Mesa (22,780 acres), Harts Point (8,970 acres), Indian Creek (12,980 

acres), and Shay Mountain (960 acres). Management prescriptions would be the same as in 

Alternative B except that some dispersed vehicle camping would be allowed throughout the 

Indian Creek corridor. Dispersed vehicle camping would create new surface disturbance as 

vehicles pull off routes and establish new camp sites. This would reduce the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics where the vehicle camping 

occurred. Otherwise, the analysis would be the same as Alternative B. 

Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA: There are 109,700 acres in six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics within the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA. This includes 640 acres in Comb Ridge, 

23,560 acres in Fish and Owl Creeks, 54,980 acres in Grand Gulch, 5,560 acres in Lime Creek, 

11,290 acres in Road Canyon, and 13,670 acres in Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The C-SRMA includes all of the acreage in Lime Creek and Valley of 

the Gods and almost all acreage in Fish and Owl Creeks, Grand Gulch, and Road Canyon nonWSAs lands with wilderness characteristics. The objective for management of this C-SRMA is 

to provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences to engage in backcountry and front-country recreation and rural cultural appreciation. The C-SRMA management 

prescription includes restrictions on numbers of visitors, types and numbers of commercial uses, 

and equestrian use in certain areas of the C-SRMA, as well as restrictions on camping and limits 

on length of stay and numbers of people. There are numerous planning- and implementationlevel decisions that would be included in the management prescriptions for this C-SRMA, the 

most salient, and the ones most affecting wilderness characteristics being: 

• Open to commercial and private firewood cutting 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-233 

• Available for watershed, range, and wildlife improvements and vegetation treatments 

• 25-person limit on recreation day-use permits 

• Mesa Top Day Use, 12- and 25-person group size limits 

• Mesa Top Overnight Camping, no designated campsites for groups less than 24, no group 

size limit, campsite facility development allowed 

• Canyons for Day Use, 12-person private and commercial group size limit, two commercial 

groups allowed each day, no stock trips in canyons, elsewhere no stock limits on numbers of 

animals 

• Canyons Overnight Camping, 12-person private group size limit and 12-person commercial 

group size limit; commercial trips limited to one per day per trailhead 

• Trailhead allocations are 24 overnight visitors per day 

This alternative provides for the greatest amount of human and stock use of all alternatives 

within this C-SRMA and would have the largest impact on opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation due to the numbers of people, size of groups, and commercial activities 

allowed. This alternative provides for the greatest probability of encountering other humans, 

stock animals, and evidence of human activity. Large group sizes and commercial activities, 

along with potential campsite facility development; private and commercial firewood cutting; 

and construction of watershed, range, and wildlife facilities and vegetation treatments would all 

reduce the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. This is because of increased human 

encounters and more surface-disturbing activities. A person seeking solitude would, inevitably, 

encounter other people, groups, and commercial outfitters and stock. Allowing private and 

commercial woodcutting within these areas would degrade the natural characteristics of the area 

by leaving cross-county vehicle tracks, tree stumps and cut limbs. The noise associated with 

chain saws and vehicles would temporarily impact the opportunities for solitude, as well. 

Impacts to naturalness would also occur in varying degrees, depending on the types of 

watershed, range, and wildlife facilities constructed or vegetation treatments that would be 

implemented in the non-WSA lands. If treatments were implemented by biological or chemical 

methods, or with prescribed fire, the area would have temporary visual impacts, but surface 

disturbance would be limited and the treatments would have more of a natural appearance. If 

mechanical methods were used, surface disturbance would be evident and visual imprints of 

humans would be apparent. During the time of the activities, the opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation would be temporarily diminished due to noise and human activities in the 

area. 

White Canyon SRMA: Generally the same impacts as Alternative B. 

None of the remaining non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are within SRMAs under 

this alternative, therefore, there would be no recreation management objectives or focus within 

those areas. Because these lands are not within a managed SRMA with specific recreation 

objectives, they would be available for other surface-disturbing uses including commercial and 

special recreation permit activities, new road construction, and other uses that would impact the 

natural characteristics and opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude that currently exist 

in those non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-234 

4.3.8.8.1.5. Alternative E 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Five SRMAs would be designated that include all or portions of 16 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. All remaining non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be managed as part of the ERMA. 

San Juan River SRMA: A portion (4,120 acres) of the San Juan River non-WSA land with 

wilderness characteristics lies within the 10,203-acre San Juan River SRMA. The primary 

objective for management of this scenic area is for outstanding recreational opportunities and 

visitor experiences for back-country river running, camping, and cultural appreciation. The 

SRMA management prescription under this alternative would be the same as in Alternative B 

except that non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to OHV use. The 

effect of SRMA management on the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be the same as in Alternative B except that opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation would be enhanced because the presence and noise of OHVs 

would be precluded. 

Indian Creek SRMA: The effect of SRMA management on the wilderness characteristics of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as in Alternative B, except 

that vehicle camping would not be allowed within the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be enhanced 

because the presence and noise of OHVs would be precluded. 

Dark Canyon SRMA: Same impacts to wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics as Alternative B. 

Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA: There are 109,700 acres in six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics within the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA. This includes 640 acres in Comb Ridge, 

23,560 acres in Fish and Owl Creeks, 54,980 acres in Grand Gulch, 5,560 acres in Lime Creek, 

11,290 acres in Road Canyon, and 13,670 acres in Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The C-SRMA would include all of the acreage in Lime Creek and 

Valley of the Gods and almost all acreage in Fish and Owl Creeks, Grand Gulch, and Road 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The objective for management of this 

C-SRMA would be to provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences to 

engage in back-country and front-country recreation and rural cultural appreciation. The CSRMA management prescription includes restrictions on numbers of visitors, types and numbers 

of commercial uses and users, and equestrian use in certain areas of the C-SRMA, as well as 

restrictions on camping, including length of stay and numbers of people. There would be 

numerous planning- and implementation-level decisions included in the management 

prescriptions for this C-SRMA, the most salient, and the ones most affecting wilderness 

characteristics being: 

• Closed to commercial and private firewood cutting 

• Allows maintenance of existing range improvements, but no new improvements would be 

constructed 

• 25-person limit on recreation day-use permits 

• Mesa Top Day Use, 10-person group size limit 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-235 

• Mesa Top Overnight Camping, designated primitive campsites, with 12-person group size 

limit 

• Canyons for Day Use, 10-person private and commercial group size limit, limit of one 

commercial group allowed every other day, no stock trips allowed in canyon 

• Canyons Overnight Camping, 6-person private group size limit and 10-person commercial 

group size limit; commercial trips limited to one per day per trailhead 

• Trailhead allocations are 16 overnight visitors per day 

The impacts to wilderness characteristics would be the same as for Alternative B, except further 

protection to the wilderness characteristics would be provided by precluding construction of 

watershed, range, and wildlife improvements and vegetation treatments on non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Surface disturbance associated with such activities would be 

prohibited, thereby protecting the natural characteristics 

White Canyon SRMA: Same impacts to wilderness characteristics as Alternative B. 

None of the remaining non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are within SRMAs under 

this alternative, therefore, there would be no recreation management objectives or focus within 

those areas. Because these lands are not within a managed SRMA, They would not be subject to 

specific recreation objectives, However, recreation management decisions that may result in 

substantial surface-disturbing actions would not be permitted in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics under this alternative. 

4.3.8.8.1.6. Proposed Plan 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Three Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) would be designated under the Proposed 

Plan that include non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect those 

characteristics. 

Dark Canyon SRMA: The SRMA includes a portion (11,540 acres) of the Dark Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under the Proposed Plan, the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be managed with emphasis on protection of those 

characteristics. The effects of recreation management for the SRMA on the wilderness 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as 

described in the Dark Canyon SRMA section below, for that portion of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics managed to protect those characteristics. 

Cedar Mesa SRMA: Cedar Mesa SRMA also includes a portion (13,657 acres) of the Grand 

Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under the Proposed Plan, it would be 

managed with emphasis on protection of its wilderness characteristics. The effects of recreation 

management for the Cedar Mesa SRMA on the wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would be the same as described in the Cedar Mesa SRMA section 

below, for that portion of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect 

those characteristics. 

Beef Basin SRMA: The Beef Basin SRMA includes the 11,540 acres of the Dark Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect those characteristics. 

Management would include closing the SRMA to private and commercial firewood cutting, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-236 

limiting OHV use to designated routes, and limiting group size. Improvements for range, wildlife 

habitat, watershed, and vegetation treatments would be allowed if consistent with management 

objectives, and primitive car camping areas would be designated in Ruin Park, Middle Park, 

House Park, and along the Beef Basin Loop Road. The SRMA has moderate potential for oil and 

gas production, and would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to controlled surface use or 

timing limitation, but the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be available for 

leasing only with an NSO stipulation. 

The majority of management prescriptions would protect the natural characteristics in the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and continue to provide opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation. Improvements for range, wildlife habitat and watershed would result in 

surface disturbance and minimal structures that diminish the natural characteristics of the areas, 

but in the long term, restore vegetation communities and wildlife populations, enhancing the 

natural characteristics and opportunities for primitive forms of recreation (hunting, wildlife 

viewing, and nature study) depending on the methods used in the SRMAs. Vegetation treatments 

in the Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would only be permitted if 

consistent with plan objectives, protecting the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. During the treatment, however, the presence and noise of people and 

equipment would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of 

recreation. When implementation of the treatment was finished, and any needed reclamation 

occurred, those opportunities would return. 

OHV use on designated routes in the SRMAs would detract from the opportunities for solitude 

and conflict with primitive recreation when vehicles (and associated motorized noise) are in 

proximity to the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. In addition, developing a car 

campground in Ruin Park and designating car camping sites in Dark Canyon non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would detract from the natural characteristics of these lands and 

reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in the immediate areas where car 

camping is occurring. 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are managed to protect their wilderness 

characteristics under the Proposed Plan in Mancos Mesa (30,068 acres), Nokai Dome East 

(18,618 acres), and Nokai Dome West (14,988 acres) are not located in any proposed SRMA. 

Thus, SRMA decisions would not affect the wilderness characteristics of these non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. The effects of recreation management decisions identified for the 

ERMA (see analysis below) would be similar to those identified under Alternative E. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Six SRMAs would be designated that include all or portions of 17 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. All other non-WSA lands would be managed as part of the ERMA. 

San Juan River SRMA: A portion (3,810 acres) of the San Juan River non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics lies within the 9,859-acre San Juan River SRMA. The primary 

objective for management of this scenic area is for outstanding recreational opportunities and 

visitor experiences for back-country river running, camping, and cultural appreciation. The 

SRMA management prescription under this alternative allows for motorized boating, 40,000 user 

days per year, restricted camping areas along the river, restricted vehicle camping in the uplands 

and oil and gas leasing subject to NSO stipulations. The area is closed to mineral material 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-237 

disposal and recommended for locatable mineral withdrawal. The SRMA would be closed to 

OHV use in some areas and limited to designated routes in others. The area would remain closed 

to woodland product harvest. The SRMA management prescription would partially protect the 

natural characteristics of the landscape and opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation in that portion of the San Juan River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

included in the SRMA. Like Alternative A, motorized boating would be allowed on the river, 

and 40,000 user days would be permitted. This would impact the opportunity for solitude and 

primitive recreation by allowing this level human activity on the river, as well as noise from 

motorized boat engines. Like Alternative B, surface-disturbing activities associated with 

minerals would be precluded, protecting the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. In addition, fewer non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be protected because the SRMA would be smaller than Alternative B and the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics acreage within the SRMA would be reduced by 310 acres. 

Dark Canyon SRMA: This 30,820-acre SRMA (a portion of the Canyon Basins SRMA under 

Alternative A) encompasses small portions of the Dark Canyon (1,563 acres) and Gravel and 

Long Canyon (220 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Group size would be 

limited to 18 people in a private party and 18 people in a commercial party. Three commercial 

trips per week would be allowed and no more than 20 private users per day would be allowed. 

Camping would only be allowed in designated sites. The SRMA would be closed to private or 

commercial firewood cutting which would protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Although an increased level of human use would be 

allowed in this SRMA as compared to Alternative B, the rough, canyon topography enhances the 

potential to experience solitude and a primitive recreation experience, even with the increased 

level of human use. In addition, designating camping areas would also protect the SRMA from 

additional surface-disturbing activity, thereby protecting the natural characteristics of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Indian Creek SRMA: This 89,271-acre SRMA (a portion of the Canyon Basins SRMA in 

Alternative A) encompasses portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

totaling 47,390 acres: Bridger Jack Mesa (22,780 acres), Harts Point (8,970 acres), Indian Creek 

(12,980 acres), and Shay Mountain (960 acres). The SRMA management prescription would be 

the same as in Alternative B except that some dispersed vehicle camping would be allowed in 

some areas along the Indian Creek corridor and designated to specific sites in other areas. 

Dispersed vehicle camping would result in new surface disturbance as vehicles pull off routes 

and establish new camp sites. This would degrade the naturalness of small portions of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics if the camps were established there. Otherwise, the 

analysis would be the same as Alternative B. 

Cedar Mesa SRMA: There are 122,820 acres in six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that overlie the Cedar Mesa SRMA. This includes 13,760 acres in Comb Ridge, 

23,560 acres in Fish and Owl Creeks, 54,980 acres in Grand Gulch, 5,560 acres in Lime Creek, 

11,290 acres in Road Canyon, and 13,670 acres in Valley of the Gods non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The SRMA includes all of the acreage in Lime Creek and Valley of 

the Gods and almost all acreage in Fish and Owl Creeks, Grand Gulch and Road Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The objective for management of this SRMA is to 

provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences to engage in back-country 

and front-country recreation and rural cultural appreciation. The management prescription would 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-238 

include restrictions on numbers of visitors, types and numbers of commercial uses, and 

equestrian use in certain areas of the SRMA, as well as restrictions on camping and limits on 

length of stay and numbers of people. There would be numerous planning and implementationlevel decisions included in the management prescription for this SRMA, the most salient, and the 

ones most affecting wilderness characteristics being: 

• Open to commercial and private firewood cutting, except in the portion of the Grand Gulch 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics being managed to protect its wilderness 

characteristics 

• Available for construction of watershed, range, and wildlife improvements and vegetation 

treatments. In the Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to 

protect its wilderness characteristics, vegetation treatment would be permitted by nonsurface-disturbing methods only. 

• 25-person limit on recreation day-use permits 

• Mesa Top Day Use, 12-person group size limit 

• Mesa Top Overnight Camping, designated primitive campsites for groups of 20 to 24 

individuals, 24-person group size limit 

• Canyons for Day Use, 12-person private and commercial group size limit, one commercial 

group allowed each day, no stock trips in canyons, elsewhere stock limited to 8 animals 

• Canyons Overnight Camping, 8-person private group size limit and 12-person commercial 

group size limit; commercial trips limited to one per day per trailhead 

• Trailhead allocations are 20 overnight visitors per day 

Similar to Alternative A, these prescriptions would affect the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics primarily due to the limits on numbers of people, group size, and commercial 

activities allowed to occur in this SRMA under the Proposed Plan. The opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation would be diminished because a person seeking that experience would, 

inevitably, meet other people, groups, and commercial outfitters with stock. In addition, allowing 

private and commercial woodcutting within these areas would degrade the natural characteristics 

of the area by leaving cross-county vehicle tracks, tree stumps and cut limbs. The noise 

associated with chain saws and vehicles would temporarily impact the opportunities for solitude, 

as well. Impacts to natural characteristics would also occur to different degrees depending on the 

types of watershed, range, and wildlife facilities constructed or vegetation treatments that would 

be implemented in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. If treatment were 

conducted with biological or chemical methods, or with prescribed fire, the area would have 

temporary visual impacts, but surface disturbance would be limited and the treatments would 

have more of a natural appearance. If mechanical methods were used, surface disturbance would 

be evident and visual imprints of humans would be apparent. During the time of the activities, 

the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be temporarily diminished due to 

the noise and human activities in the area. 

In the portion of the Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to 

protect its wilderness characteristics, no wood cutting would be permitted and vegetation 

treatments would be only be implemented with non-surface-disturbing methods. These 

limitations on these activities would preserve the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. With limits on wood cutting, there would be no impacts to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-239 

opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. The noise and presence of people and 

equipment during vegetation treatments, however, would temporarily diminish opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation. 

White Canyon SRMA: Generally, the same impacts on the wilderness characteristics of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described under Alternative B. 

None of the remaining non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are within SRMAs under 

this alternative, therefore, there would be no recreation management objectives or focus within 

those areas. Because these lands are not within a managed SRMA with specific recreation 

objectives, they would be available for other surface-disturbing uses including commercial and 

special recreation permit activities, new road construction, and other uses that would impact the 

natural characteristics and opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude that currently exist 

in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Beef Basin SRMA: Beef Basin SRMA includes 1,740 acres of the Dark Canyon and 1,180 acres 

of the Butler Wash non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Management would include 

closing the SRMA to private and commercial firewood cutting, limiting OHV use to designated 

routes, and limiting group size. Improvements for range, wildlife habitat, watershed, and 

vegetation treatments would be allowed, and primitive car camping areas would be designated in 

Ruin Park, Middle Park, House Park, and along the Beef Basin Loop Road within the Dark 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The SRMA has moderate potential for 

oil and gas production, and would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to controlled surface use 

or timing limitation. 

In the SRMA, the majority of management prescriptions would protect the natural characteristics 

of portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and continue to provide 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Improvements for range, wildlife habitat and 

watershed, however, would diminish the natural characteristics of the areas, depending on the 

methods used in the SRMA. In the Beef Basin SRMA, vegetation treatments could be by 

mechanical, biological, chemical, or fire. If mechanical treatments are used within the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics, the natural characteristics of the areas would be 

compromised within the treatment area because it would leave an apparent imprint of human 

work on the land that would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. During the time of the treatments, opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation would be foregone in and around the areas being treated due to noise and 

human activity associated with the vegetation manipulations. Road and well pad construction 

associated with oil and gas development in the SRMA would reduce the natural characteristics of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The noise and presence of people and 

equipment, and the alteration of the landscape would reduce opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation. 

OHV use on designated routes in the SRMA would detract from the opportunities for solitude 

and conflict with primitive recreation when vehicles (and associated motorized noise) are in the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. In addition, developing a car campground in 

Ruin Park and designating car camping sites in Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would detract from the natural characteristics of these lands and reduce 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in the immediate areas where car camping is 

occurring. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-240 

4.3.8.8.2. EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (ERMAS) 

4.3.8.8.2.1. Alternative A 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Dispersed camping would be allowed throughout the Monticello FO under this alternative and 

vehicle pull-offs to existing dispersed sites or to new dispersed sites would not be limited to a 

specified distance of disturbance off of existing routes. This would impact non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics with existing routes, because new vehicle disturbances could ensue 

and the natural characteristics would be degraded by new routes, crushed vegetation, compacted 

soil areas, fire rings, and other human disturbances. 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) would only be required for commercial uses. There would be 

no established criteria or limits on numbers of people or group size for private parties. SRPs 

would be considered for off-route commercial events. All non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are open for SRP consideration subject to site-specific NEPA analysis. SRPs 

could be considered throughout the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the 

ERMA. Impacts to natural characteristics from off-road OHV events and other unregulated 

recreational activities, as well as impacts to opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation 

would result due to noise from vehicles and large groups throughout these areas. New routes 

could be created in the OHV open areas that would further degrade the wilderness characteristics 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.8.2.2. Alternative B 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Dispersed camping would be allowed only in previously disturbed areas off designated routes 

under this alternative. This would protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics by not allowing for any new surface disturbance associated with 

vehicle camping. 

SRPs would be required for groups of more than 25 people for day use and for groups of more 

than 15 people for overnight groups. SRPs would also be required for OHV groups of more than 

15 motorized vehicles and camping groups with more than 10 vehicles or more than 50 people. 

All permitted use would be on designated routes. Commercial camping would be in designated 

areas and commercial motorized events would be limited to two groups of 12 vehicles per route 

per day. Special OHV events would be limited to 350 vehicles. Providing SRPs for numbers of 

people, vehicles, and events at set levels allows the BLM to maintain control of activities on 

public lands and also allows the BLM to guide large groups and events to areas where there is 

the least amount of conflict with or impacts to natural resources. Still, any SRPs authorized in 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have the potential to impact the natural 

characteristics of the areas due to surface disturbances created by group camping activities and to 

affect opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, depending on where the SRP has been 

issued or where an event is taking place. Most of these impacts would be short-term, however, 

and when the event is over, or the group leaves the area, the opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation would be present. Only allowing SRP events on designated routes provides 

for protection of the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

because new surface-disturbing vehicle activities would not be permitted. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-241 

4.3.8.8.2.3. Alternative C 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, dispersed camping would be allowed throughout the Monticello FO 

within 150 feet of centerline off designated routes. This would impact all non-WSA lands with 

existing routes, because new vehicle disturbances could ensue and the natural characteristics of 

the areas would be affected by new routes, crushed vegetation, compacted soil areas, fire rings, 

and other human disturbances. However, limiting the disturbance to 150 feet concentrates use 

near an already disturbed linear intrusion (the route) and protects the natural characteristics of the 

non-WSA lands beyond the 150-foot corridor (300 feet wide total). 

SRPs would be required for groups of more than 50 people for day use and for groups of more 

than 25 people for overnight groups. SRPs would also be required for OHV groups of more than 

25 motorized vehicles, and camping groups with more than 15 vehicles or more than 50 people. 

All permitted use would be on designated routes. There would be no group or size limits on 

commercial use SRPs. Like Alternative B, providing SRPs for numbers of people, vehicles, and 

events that set limitations allows the BLM to maintain control of activities on public lands and 

also allows the BLM to guide large groups and events to areas where there is the least amount of 

conflict with or impacts to natural resources. However, number limits would be considerably 

higher under this alternative than under Alternative B, and therefore, there could be additional 

impacts from more people causing more surface disturbance. Any SRPs authorized in non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would have the potential to impact natural characteristics 

due to group camping activities and to affect opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, 

depending on where the SRP has been issued or where an event is taking place. Most of these 

impacts would be short-term, however, and when the event is over, or the group leaves the area, 

the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be present. Only allowing SRP 

events on designated routes provides for protection of the natural characteristics of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics because new surface-disturbing vehicle activities would not 

be permitted. 

4.3.8.8.2.4. Alternative D 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, dispersed camping would be allowed throughout the Monticello FO 

within 300 feet of centerline off designated routes. This would impact all non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics with existing routes, because new vehicle disturbances would ensue 

and the natural characteristics of the areas would be affected by new routes, crushed vegetation, 

compacted soil areas, fire rings, and other human disturbances. This alternative allows for the 

most potential disturbance from vehicle camping and off-road use due to the width of the 

corridor. However, limiting the disturbance to 300 feet concentrates use near an alreadydisturbed linear intrusion (the route), and protects the natural characteristics of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics beyond the 300-foot corridor (600 feet wide total). 

SRPs would be required for groups of more than 75 people for day use and for groups of more 

than 50 people for overnight use. SRPs would not be required for motorized vehicles (any 

numbers) on designed routes. Car camping groups of more than 20 vehicles or more than 50 

people would require an SRP. Special OHV events would be limited to 350 vehicles. All 

permitted use would be on designated routes. There would be no group or size limits on 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-242 

commercial use SRPs. Authorizing SRPs that limit numbers of people, vehicles, and events 

would allows the BLM to maintain control of activities on public lands and guide large groups 

and events to areas where there is the least amount of conflict with or impacts to natural 

resources or other uses. This alternative, however, would allow the highest number of people, 

groups, and commercial activities before requiring an SRP. As a result, there could be additional 

impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics from more people causing more 

surface disturbance. Any SRPs issued in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

have the potential to impact natural characteristics due to surface disturbance created by group 

camping activities, and to affect opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, depending on 

where the SRP has been issued or where an event is taking place. Most of these impacts would 

be short-term, however, and when the event is over, or the group leaves the area, the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be present. Only allowing SRP events 

on designated routes would provide for protection of the natural characteristics of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics because new surface-disturbing activities would not be 

permitted. 

4.3.8.8.2.5. Alternative E 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

All routes in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to vehicle use 

under this alternative; therefore, there would be no surface disturbance associated with off-road 

vehicle travel for camping. This would protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics because no new surface-disturbing activities would be allowed, 

and existing disturbance would be provided an opportunity to rehabilitate. 

SRPs would be required for groups and commercial activities at the same numbers prescribed 

under Alternative B. However, there would be no competitive mechanized or motorized events 

permitted in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. All motorized activities would be 

precluded within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, thus, the loss of opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation from the noise and presence of vehicles would be prevented. 

Other non-motorized, non-commercial activities would still be permitted within the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics, however. Those uses would temporarily impact 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, but would be short-term. When the event was 

over, or the group left the area, the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be 

present. 

4.3.8.8.2.6. Proposed Plan 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Under the Proposed Plan, dispersed camping would be allowed throughout the Monticello FO in 

previously disturbed areas within 150 feet of centerline off designated routes. However, in the 

Dark Canyon, Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome East, Nokai Dome West, and Grand Gulch non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect their wilderness characteristics under 

the Proposed Plan, vehicle travel would be limited to designated routes and surface disturbance 

resulting from off-road travel to dispersed camp sites would not occur. Thus, the natural 

characteristics of these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be degraded. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-243 

SRPs would be required for groups of more than 50 people for day use and for overnight groups 

of more than 25 people. SRPs would also be required for OHV groups of more than 25 

motorized vehicles, and camping groups with more than 15 vehicles or more than 50 people. All 

permitted use would be on designated routes. There would be no group or size limits on 

commercial use SRPs. Like Alternative B, authorizing SRPs that limit numbers of people, 

vehicles, and events, allows the BLM to maintain control of activities on public lands and also 

allows the BLM to guide large groups and events to areas where there is the least amount of 

conflict with or impacts to natural resources or other uses. However, use limits would be 

considerably higher under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative B, and therefore, there could 

be additional surface disturbance resulting from more people. Any SRPs provided in non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would have the potential to impact naturalness due to 

surface disturbance created by group camping activities, and to affect opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation, depending on where the SRP has been issued or where an event is 

taking place. Most of these impacts would be short-term, however, and when the event is over, or 

the group leaves the area, the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be 

present. Only allowing SRP events on designated routes would provide for protection of the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics because new 

surface-disturbing vehicle activities would not be permitted. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under the Proposed Plan, dispersed camping would be allowed throughout the Monticello FO in 

previously disturbed areas within 150 feet of centerline off designated routes. While this 

requirement would prevent expansion of surface disturbance that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the presence and noise of 

motor vehicles driving on these routes to existing campsites would diminish opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation on lands in proximity to the routes. 

However, as a person participating in primitive forms of recreation moves away from the route, 

deeper into the heart of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the adverse effect of 

motor vehicles would diminish and eventually disappear as the separation from the noise and 

presence of vehicles increases. 

SRPs would be required for groups of more than 50 people for day use and for overnight groups 

of more than 25 people. SRPs would also be required for OHV groups of more than 25 

motorized vehicles, and camping groups with more than 15 vehicles or more than 50 people. All 

permitted use would be on designated routes. There would be no group or size limits on 

commercial use SRPs. Like Alternative B, providing SRPs that limit numbers of people, 

vehicles, and events allows the BLM to maintain control of activities on public lands and also 

allows the BLM to guide large groups and events to areas where there is the least amount of 

conflict with or impacts to natural resources. However, use limits would be considerably higher 

under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative B, and therefore, there could be additional 

surface disturbance resulting from more people. Any SRPs provided in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would have the potential to impact naturalness due to surface 

disturbance created by group camping activities, and to affect opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation, depending on where the SRP has been issued or where an event is taking 

place. Most of these impacts would be short-term, however, and when the event is over, or the 

group leaves the area, the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be present. 

Only allowing SRP events on designated routes would provide for protection of the natural 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-244 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics because new surfacedisturbing vehicle activities would not be permitted. 

4.3.8.9. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON- WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.9.1. OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Table 4.97 displays acres of OHV area designations by non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and alternative. 

Table 4.97. OHV Management in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Name 

Total 

Acres 

OHV 

Category 

Alt 

A 

Alt 

 B 

Alt 

C 

Alt 

 D 

Alt 

 E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Arch Canyon 50 open 50 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

0 50 50 50 0 50

 closed 0 0 0 0 50 0

Bridger Jack Mesa 23,050 open 14,55

0 

0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

6,790 22,38

0

22,36

0

23,05

0 

0 22,360

 closed 1710 670 690 0 23,05

0 

690

Butler Wash 1,660 open 90 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

900 1,660 1,660 1,660 0 1,660

 closed 670 0 0 0 1,660 0

Cheesebox Canyon 13,240 open 4,840 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

8,400 13,24

0

13,24

0

13,24

0 

0 13,240

 closed 0 0 0 0 13,24

0 

0

Comb Ridge 13,760 open 12,94

0

0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

820 13,76

0

13,76

0

13,76

0 

13,76

0 

13,760

 closed 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cross Canyon 1,350 open 1,350 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

0 1,350 1,350 1,350 0 1,350

 closed 0 0 0 0 1,350 0

Dark Canyon 66,330 open 43,72

0

0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

21,66

0

66,33

0

66,33

0

66,33

0 

0 66,330

 closed 950 0 0 0 66,33

0 

0

Fish and Owl 

Creeks 

24,650 open 550 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-245 

Table 4.97. OHV Management in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Name 

Total 

Acres 

OHV 

Category 

Alt 

A 

Alt 

 B 

Alt 

C 

Alt 

 D 

Alt 

 E 

Proposed 

Plan 

 limited to 

designated 

24,10

0

24,65

0

24,65

0

24,65

0 

0 24,650

 closed 0 0 0 0 24,65

0 

0

Fort Knocker 

Canyon 

12,410 open 170 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

12,24

0

12,41

0

12,41

0

12,41

0 

0 12,410

 closed 0 0 0 0 12,41

0 

0

Gooseneck 3,570 open 1,650 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

1,920 3,570 3,570 3,570 0 3,570

 closed 0 0 0 0 3,570 0

Grand Gulch 55,240 open 3,640 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

43,11

0

55,21

0

55,21

0

55,24

0 

0 55,208

 closed 8,490 0 30 0 55,24

0 

32

Gravel and Long 36,890 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

36,89

0

36,89

0

36,89

0

36,89

0 

0 36,890

 closed 0 0 0 0 36,89

0 

0

Hammond Canyon 4,700 open 2,590 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

2,110 4,700 4,700 4,700 0 4,700

 closed 0 0 0 0 4,700 0

Harmony Flat 9,660 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 0 9,660

 closed 0 0 0 0 9,660 0

Harts Point 24,740 open 10,41

0

0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

14,33

0

24,74

0

24,74

0

24,74

0 

0 24,740

 closed 0 0 0 0 24,74

0 

0

Hatch Lockhart Hart 1,760 open 1,760 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

0 1,760 1,760 1,760 0 1,760

 closed 0 0 0 0 1,760 0

Indian Creek 23,280 open 12,25

0

0 20 20 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

7,350 19,39

0

23,26

0

23,26

0 

0 23,280
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-246 

Table 4.97. OHV Management in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Name 

Total 

Acres 

OHV 

Category 

Alt 

A 

Alt 

 B 

Alt 

C 

Alt 

 D 

Alt 

 E 

Proposed 

Plan 

 closed 3,680 3,890 0 0 23,28

0 

0

Lime Creek 5,560 open 30 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

5,530 5,560 5,560 5,560 0 5,560

 closed 0 0 0 0 5,560 0

Mancos Mesa 61,570 open 4,760 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

35,72

0

48,42

0

49,06

0

61,57

0 

0 61,484

 closed 21,09

0

13,15

0

12,51

0

0 61,57

0 

86

Nokai Dome 94,270 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

82,73

0

81,67

0

81,89

0

94,27

0 

0 94,270

 closed 11,54

0

12,60

0

12,38

0

0 94,27

0 

0

Red Rock Plateau 17,010 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

17,01

0

17,01

0

17,01

0

17,01

0 

0 17,010

 closed 0 0 0 0 17,01

0 

0

Road Canyon 11,320 open 50 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

11,05

0

11,32

0

11,32

0

11,32

0 

0 11,320

 closed 220 0 0 0 11,32

0 

0

San Juan River 14,340 open 9,230 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

0 10,27

0

10,55

0

14,34

0 

0 10,550

 closed 5,110 4,070 3,790 0 14,34

0 

3,790

Shay Mountain 6,710 open 2,730 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

3,980 6,710 6,710 6,710 0 6,710

 closed 0 0 0 0 6,710 0

Sheep Canyon 4,000 open 800 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

3,200 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 4,000

 closed 0 0 0 0 4,000 0

Squaw and Papoose 

Canyons 

3,570 open 3,570 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

0 3,570 3,570 3,570 0 3,570

 closed 0 0 0 0 3,570 0

Upper Red Canyon 24,920 open 4,320 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-247 

Table 4.97. OHV Management in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Name 

Total 

Acres 

OHV 

Category 

Alt 

A 

Alt 

 B 

Alt 

C 

Alt 

 D 

Alt 

 E 

Proposed 

Plan 

 limited to 

designated 

20,60

0

24,92

0

24,92

0

24,92

0 

0 24,920

 closed 0 0 0 0 24,92

0 

0

Valley of the Gods 13,670 open 130 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

13,54

0

13,67

0

13,67

0

13,67

0 

0 13,670

 closed 0 0 0 0 13,67

0 

0

White Canyon 9,080 open 4,420 0 0 0 0 0

 limited to 

designated 

4,660 9,080 9,080 9,080 0 9,080

 closed 0 0 0 0 9,080 0

4.3.8.9.1.1. Alternative A 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under present management, cross-country motorized use is allowed for game retrieval and antler 

collection in areas open for motorized travel. The Monticello FO also has the discretion to 

authorize cross-country travel for any commercial or organized group events. These actions 

would continue to degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics by allowing new surface-disturbing activity from motorized vehicles, as well as 

conflict with solitude and primitive recreation experiences from the sights and sounds of vehicle 

travel. 

Under current management, 140,600 acres in all or portions of 25 of the 29 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics are open to cross-country travel (see Table 4.97). Cross-country 

motorized travel in these non-WSA lands would result in surface disturbance to soils and 

vegetation that would alter the landscape and diminish the natural characteristics of these nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, the presence and noise of motorized vehicles 

would degrade a visitor's opportunity for solitude and conflict with opportunities for primitive 

and unconfined recreation activities. 

Under this alternative, OHV use would be limited to designated routes on 388,390 acres within 

portions of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Current route inventories in the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics have found approximately 410 miles of existing 

routes in 27 of the 29 areas: 

• Bridger Jack Mesa – 27.97 miles 

• Butler Wash – 2.60 miles 

• Cheesebox Canyon – 2.28 miles 

• Comb Ridge – 5.28 miles 

• Cross Canyon – 1.78 miles 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-248 

• Dark Canyon – 56.55 miles 

• Fish and Owl Creeks – 26.53 miles 

• Fort Knocker Canyon – 2.44 miles 

• Gooseneck – 2.20 miles 

• Grand Gulch – 60.49 miles 

• Gravel and Long Canyon – 13.73 miles 

• Harmony Flat – 1.88 miles 

• Harts Point – 19.08 miles 

• Hatch/Lockhart/Hart – 2.99 miles 

• Indian Creek – 21.20 miles 

• Lime Creek – 2.52 miles 

• Mancos Mesa – 27.80 miles 

• Nokai Dome – 55.98 miles 

• Red Rock Plateau – 8.39 miles 

• Road Canyon – 11.26 miles 

• San Juan River – 10.65 miles 

• Shay Mountain – 2.60 miles 

• Sheep Canyon – 0.10 miles 

• Squaw and Papoose Canyon – 10.17 miles 

• Upper Red Canyon – 18.04 miles 

• Valley of the Gods – 5.42 miles 

• White Canyon – 10.01 miles 

Limiting OHV use would confine soil and vegetation disturbance caused by motor vehicles to 

existing routes, and result in no additional change to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of vehicles using these routes, 

however, would reduce the opportunity for visitors to find solitude, especially in proximity to the 

routes. Motorized uses would conflict with primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities 

sought in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Currently, there are no routes within the 4,700-acre Hammond Canyon or the 50-acre Arch 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Because no routes would be designated 

in these areas, surface disturbance caused by motorized travel, and the resultant impacts to the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, would not be 

evidenced. Further, because there would be no OHV use in these areas, there would be no 

degradation of opportunities for solitude or conflict with primitive forms of recreation in these 

areas. The natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of these 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be unaffected by OHV travel on 

designated routes. While these two non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics currently 

have no routes within them, Arch Canyon and over half of Hammond Canyon remain open to 

cross-country OHV travel and impacts to wilderness characteristics could occur if OHV users

choose to engage in cross-country use. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-249 

There are 53,370 acres in portions of nine non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that 

are closed to OHV use. The natural characteristics of these areas and the opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation would be preserved because no surface disturbance from 

vehicle tracks or noise from this use would occur within the closed areas. 

4.3.8.9.1.2. Impacts Common to Alternatives B, C, and D 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, vehicles would be required to stay on designated routes, with 

the exception of 20 acres designated open in the Indian Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics under Alternative D. Game retrieval and antler collection must be done on foot 

and vehicles cannot go off designated roads for such activities. The Monticello FO would not 

authorize cross-country travel for any commercial or organized group events. All motorized 

routes not designated as open would be signed as closed. These actions would continue to 

preserve the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

because no new surface-disturbing activity would be allowed from motorized vehicles. 

4.3.8.9.1.3. Alternative B 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be limited to 

designated routes or closed (see Table 4.69). There would be approximately 258 miles of routes 

designated in the following non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics: 

• Bridger Jack Mesa – 13.57 miles 

• Butler Wash – 0.24 miles 

• Cheesebox Canyon – 0.29 miles 

• Comb Ridge – 1.66 miles 

• Cross Canyon – 1.78 miles 

• Dark Canyon – 38.60 miles 

• Fish and Owl Creeks – 13.85 miles 

• Fort Knocker Canyon – 0.92 miles 

• Gooseneck – 2.20 miles 

• Grand Gulch – 48.47 miles 

• Gravel and Long Canyon – 8.20 miles 

• Harmony Flat – 1.83 miles 

• Harts Point – 8.61 miles 

• Hatch/Lockhart/Hart – 2.99 miles 

• Indian Creek – 12.81 miles 

• Lime Creek – 2.13 miles 

• Mancos Mesa – 11.62 miles 

• Nokai Dome – 29.34 miles 

• Road Canyon – 7.93 miles 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-250 

• San Juan River – 6.67 miles 

• Shay Mountain – 2.60 miles 

• Sheep Canyon – 0.10 miles 

• Squaw and Papoose Canyon – 10.17 miles 

• Upper Red Canyon – 16.68 miles 

• Valley of the Gods – 5.42 miles 

• White Canyon – 9.23 miles 

Reducing the miles of designated routes to 258 miles (by 152 miles of inventoried routes in 21 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, as compared to Alternative A) would reduce the 

impacts to solitude and primitive recreations by limiting motorized noise within these areas. 

Limiting OHV use to existing routes would confine soil and vegetation disturbance caused by 

motor vehicles to existing routes, and result in no additional change to the natural characteristics 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of vehicles using 

these routes, however, would reduce the opportunity for visitors to find solitude, especially in 

proximity to the routes. And, motorized uses would conflict with primitive and unconfined 

recreation opportunities sought in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The most notable areas where there would be a substantial decrease in miles of routes designated 

for travel would be in Bridger Jack Mesa, Dark Canyon, Fish and Owl Creeks, Grand Gulch, 

Harts Point, Indian Creek, Mancos Mesa, and Nokai Dome non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. In addition, two areas that would have designated routes under Alternative A 

would have none under Alternative B: Red Rock Plateau and Sheep Canyon non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Because no routes would be designated in these areas, there 

would be no new surface disturbance caused by motorized travel that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, because there 

would be no OHV use in these areas, the opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation would be unaffected by motorized travel. 

There are 35,070 acres in portions of five non-WSAs with wilderness characteristics that would 

be closed to OHV use. The natural characteristics of these areas and the opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation would be preserved because no new surface disturbance or 

noise would occur from this use within those portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics closed to motorized use. 

4.3.8.9.1.4. Alternative C 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be limited to 

designated routes or closed (see Table 4.97). In these areas, 348 miles of routes would be 

designated in the following non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics: 

• Bridger Jack Mesa – 24.69 miles 

• Butler Wash – 1.29 miles 

• Cheesebox Canyon – 2.28 miles 

• Comb Ridge – 1.92 miles 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-251 

• Cross Canyon – 1.78 miles 

• Dark Canyon – 43.92 miles 

• Fish and Owl Creeks – 20.57 miles 

• Fort Knocker Canyon – 1.23 miles 

• Gooseneck – 2.20 miles 

• Grand Gulch – 50.09 miles 

• Gravel and Long Canyon – 8.30 miles 

• Harmony Flat – 1.88 miles 

• Harts Point – 11.38 miles 

• Hatch/Lockhart/Hart – 2.99 miles 

• Indian Creek – 19.72 miles 

• Lime Creek – 2.13 miles 

• Mancos Mesa – 26.83 miles 

• Nokai Dome – 54.10 miles 

• Red Rock Plateau – 7.87 miles 

• Road Canyon – 7.93 miles 

• San Juan River – 9.52 miles 

• Shay Mountain – 2.60 miles 

• Sheep Canyon – 0.10 miles 

• Squaw and Papoose Canyon – 10.17 miles 

• Upper Red Canyon – 17.2 miles 

• Valley of the Gods – 5.42 miles 

• White Canyon – 10.07 miles 

Reducing the miles of designated routes by 62 miles in 19 non-WSA lands from the inventoried 

routes (Alternative A) would help to reduce the impacts to solitude and primitive recreation by 

limiting motorized presence and noise within these areas. The most notable areas where there 

would be a substantial decrease in miles of routes designated are in Dark Canyon, Grand Gulch, 

and Harts Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Limiting OHV use to existing 

routes would confine soil and vegetation disturbance caused by motor vehicles to existing routes, 

and result in no additional change to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of vehicles using these routes, however, 

would reduce the opportunity for visitors to find solitude in the non-WSA lands, especially in 

proximity to the routes. And, motorized uses would conflict with primitive and unconfined 

recreation opportunities sought in the non-WSA lands. 

There are also 29,400 acres in portions of five non-WSAs that are closed to OHV use. The 

naturalness of these areas and the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be 

preserved because no surface disturbance from vehicle tracks or presence of vehicles and noise 

from this use within those closed portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would ensue. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-252 

Twenty acres in Indian Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would remain open 

to cross-country vehicle use, as part of an open OHV play area designation. Cross-country 

motorized travel in this non-WSA would result in surface disturbance to soils and vegetation that 

would alter the landscape and diminish the natural characteristics of this 20-acre area of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, the presence and noise of motorized vehicles 

would degrade a visitor's opportunity for solitude and conflict with opportunities for primitive 

and unconfined recreation activities. 

4.3.8.9.1.5. Alternative D 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, OHV use would be limited to designated routes on all 582,360 acres 

within the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, except for 20 acres in the Indian 

Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics which would remain open to cross-country 

travel as part of an OHV play area (see Table 4.97). 

All inventoried routes from Alternative A would be designated open for OHV use, resulting in 

410 miles of designated routes in 27 of the 29 non-WSAs: 

• Bridger Jack Mesa – 27.97 miles 

• Butler Wash – 2.60 miles 

• Cheesebox Canyon – 2.28 miles 

• Comb Ridge – 5.28 miles 

• Cross Canyon – 1.78 miles 

• Dark Canyon – 56.55 miles 

• Fish and Owl Creeks – 26.53 miles 

• Fort Knocker Canyon – 2.44 miles 

• Gooseneck – 2.20 miles 

• Grand Gulch – 60.49 miles 

• Gravel and Long Canyon – 13.73 miles 

• Harmony Flat – 1.88 miles 

• Harts Point – 19.08 miles 

• Hatch/Lockhart/Hart – 2.99 miles 

• Indian Creek – 21.20 miles 

• Lime Creek – 2.52 miles 

• Mancos Mesa – 27.80 miles 

• Nokai Dome – 55.98 miles 

• Red Rock Plateau – 8.39 miles 

• Road Canyon – 11.26 miles 

• San Juan River – 10.65 miles 

• Shay Mountain – 2.60 miles 

• Sheep Canyon – 0.10 miles 

• Squaw and Papoose Canyon – 10.17 miles 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-253 

• Upper Red Canyon – 18.04 miles 

• Valley of the Gods – 5.42 miles 

• White Canyon – 10.01 miles 

Limiting OHV use to designated routes would confine soil and vegetation disturbance caused by 

motor vehicles to the existing routes, and result in no additional change to the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of 

vehicles using these routes, however, would reduce the opportunity for visitors to find solitude, 

especially in proximity to the routes. Motorized uses would conflict with primitive and 

unconfined recreation opportunities sought in areas with wilderness characteristics. There are 

two non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that have no routes: Arch Canyon (50 acres) 

and Hammond Canyon (4,700 acres). Because no routes would be designated in these areas, 

surface disturbance caused by motorized travel, and the resultant degradation of the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, would not occur. Further, 

because there would be no presence or noise of motorized vehicles, opportunities for solitude 

and primitive forms of recreation would be protected. 

Twenty acres in Indian Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would remain open 

to cross-country vehicle use, as part of an open OHV play area designation. Cross-country 

motorized travel in this portion of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

result in surface disturbance to soils and vegetation that would alter the landscape and diminish 

the natural characteristics of this 20-acre area. Further, the presence and noise of motorized 

vehicles would degrade a visitor's opportunity for solitude and conflict with opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined recreation activities. 

4.3.8.9.1.6. Alternative E 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

This alternative would designate all 582,360 acres of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristic areas as closed to OHV use. Because these acres would be closed, no routes would 

be designated and surface disturbance caused by motorized travel and the resultant impacts to the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not occur. 

Further, because there would be no OHV use in these areas, there would be no conflicts with 

opportunities for solitude or primitive forms of recreation in these areas because noise and 

disturbance associated with OHV would be eliminated. The natural characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of these non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be unaffected by OHV travel. 

4.3.8.9.1.7. Proposed Plan 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

The five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be limited to designated routes 

(see Table 4.97). However, under the Proposed Plan, no routes would be designated in the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect their wilderness characteristics: 

• Dark Canyon 

• Grand Gulch 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-254 

• Mancos Mesa 

• Nokai Dome East 

• Nokai Dome West 

Because no roads or trails would be designated in the five non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, there would be no surface disturbance that would degrade natural characteristics 

and no presence or noise of vehicles the diminish opportunities for solitude or conflict with 

primitive forms of recreation. This would be a substantial decrease in motorized use, compared 

to Alternative A). 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under the Proposed Plan, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be limited to 

designated routes or closed (see Table 4.97). In these areas, 173 miles of routes would be 

designated in the following non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics: 

• Bridger Jack Mesa – 24.69 miles 

• Butler Wash – 1.29 miles 

• Cheesebox Canyon – 2.28 miles 

• Comb Ridge – 1.92 miles 

• Cross Canyon – 1.78 miles 

• Fish and Owl Creeks – 20.57 miles 

• Fort Knocker Canyon – 1.23 miles 

• Gooseneck – 2.20 miles 

• Gravel and Long Canyon – 8.30 miles 

• Harmony Flat – 1.88 miles 

• Harts Point – 11.38 miles 

• Hatch/Lockhart/Hart – 2.99 miles 

• Indian Creek – 19.72 miles 

• Lime Creek – 2.13 miles 

• Red Rock Plateau – 7.87 miles 

• Road Canyon – 7.93 miles 

• San Juan River – 9.52 miles 

• Shay Mountain – 2.60 miles 

• Sheep Canyon – 0.10 miles 

• Squaw and Papoose Canyon – 10.17 miles 

• Upper Red Canyon – 17.2 miles 

• Valley of the Gods – 5.42 miles 

• White Canyon – 10.07 miles 

Reducing the miles of designated routes to 173 miles (as compared to Alternative A) would 

reduce the impacts to solitude and primitive recreation by limiting the presence of motorized 

vehicles and their noise within these areas. The most notable area where there would be a 

substantial decrease in miles of routes traveled are in Harts Point non-WSA lands with 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-255 

wilderness characteristics. Limiting OHV use to existing routes would confine soil and 

vegetation disturbance caused by motor vehicles to existing routes, and result in no additional 

disturbance and change to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The presence and noise of vehicles using these routes, however, would reduce the 

opportunity for visitors to find solitude, especially in proximity to the routes. And, motorized 

uses would conflict with primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities sought in the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

There are also 4,598 acres in portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that 

would be closed to OHV use. The naturalness of these areas and the opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation would be protected because no surface disturbance or noise from this 

use would occur within those portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

closed to motorized use. 

In summary, Alternative E would provide the most protection to the naturalness and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics by closing all these lands to OHV travel, followed by Alternative B. In 

Alternative B there would be no non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics designated as 

open to cross-country OHV use. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

protected by restricting OHV use to designated routes (258 miles) on 94% of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics and closing the remainder to OHV use. Under Alternative C, 20 

acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be designated as open to crosscountry OHV use. The rest of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

protected by restricting OHV use to designated routes (348 miles) on 95% of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics and closing the remainder to OHV use. The effects of OHV 

decisions on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under the Proposed Plan would be 

very similar to Alternative C. Alternative D also allows for cross-country OHV use on 20 acres 

of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and designates all inventoried routes as open 

for OHV use (410 miles). No areas would be closed to OHV use. Alternative A would continue 

to allow for cross-country OHV use on 25% of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, limit use to designated or existing roués on 66% of the areas, and close 9% to 

OHV use. Alternative A and D would provide the lowest level of protection. Although 

Alternative A provides some protection within closed OHV areas, it contains the most acres of 

open OHV use. Alternative D contains no closed OHV areas and would continue to allow open 

OHV use on 20 acres of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.9.2. MECHANIZED RECREATIONAL TRAVEL (MOUNTAIN BIKES) 

4.3.8.9.2.1. Alternative A 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Areas currently open to motorized cross-country travel would continue to be open for crosscountry mountain bike use. In non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, lands open to 

cross country mountain bike use under Alternative A are described under Section 4.3.8.9.1, OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) Travel Management. Any new development of trails for mountain 

bikes in non-WSA lands would be in conflict with the primitive forms of trail use. If there were 

substantial levels of use on the trails (by foot, horse, and/or bike) in the non-WSA lands, the 

visitor's ability to find and experience solitude would be reduced. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-256 

4.3.8.9.2.2. Alternatives B , C, and D 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under these alternatives, mountain bikes would only be allowed on routes designated open for 

motorized use. Under all of the alternatives there are varying miles of routes that would be 

designated for OHV, and thus mountain bike travel. If there were substantial levels of use on the 

trails (by OHV, foot, horse, and/or bike) in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

the visitor's ability to find and experience solitude would be reduced. Change to the natural 

characteristics of the landscape as a result of mountain bike use is expected to be minimal, 

however, because the routes are already established and no new surface disturbance is expected. 

4.3.8.9.2.3. Alternative E 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to mountain bike use because 

no OHV routes would be designated for such use. This would protect and enhance opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

because fewer forms of recreation use would be allowed, and access for recreational purposes 

would be limited to non-mechanized users on foot or on horseback. This would potentially 

reduce the number of people recreating in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

enhancing opportunities for both solitude and the other primitive recreational activities. 

4.3.8.9.2.4. Proposed Plan 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Under the Proposed Plan, mountain bikes would only be allowed on routes designated open for 

motorized use. Under all of the alternatives there are varying miles of routes that would be 

designated for OHV, and thus mountain bike travel. If there were substantial levels of use on the 

trails (by OHV, foot, horse, and/or bike) in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

the visitor's ability to find and experience solitude would be reduced. Change to the natural 

characteristics of the landscape as a result of mountain bike use is expected to be minimal, 

however, because the routes are already established and no new surface disturbance is expected. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

The impacts would be the same as described for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

managed to protect their wilderness characteristics (see Section 4.3.8.9.2.4 above). 

4.3.8.10. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON NON- WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

All non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics contain riparian ecosystems. The objective of 

riparian management is to manage riparian areas for properly functioning condition and to avoid 

or minimize loss or degradation of riparian areas, wetlands, and associated floodplains so as to 

preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values and provide for fish, wildlife and special 

status species habitats. Decisions to implement any of these objectives would improve the natural 

vegetation condition of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and thus, their natural 

characteristics. Improved riparian and wetland condition would enhance wildlife habitat, and 

thus, the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands. Further, improved wildlife habitat would lead 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-257 

to increases in riparian-obligate wildlife species populations and opportunities for wildlife 

viewing. And, improved riparian and wetland condition would improve the setting for other 

primitive recreational opportunities, including hiking, camping, and nature study. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, no surface disturbance would be permitted within 

active floodplains or within 100 m of riparian areas. This protection would prevent soil and 

vegetation disturbances and placement of structures that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of natural 

characteristics would preserve the setting needed to support opportunities for primitive forms of 

recreation and experiences of solitude. 

Inventory of riparian areas not functioning or functioning at risk would result in the identification 

and implementation of measures to restore these areas to properly functioning condition, which 

would enhance the natural characteristics of the riparian portions of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Riparian zones are critical to the life cycles of many wildlife species 

(fish, amphibians, mammals, and birds). They are typically scenic and desired recreation 

settings. Maintenance and restoration of riparian zones would maintain and enhance 

opportunities for primitive recreation, including hiking, wildlife viewing, camping, nature study, 

fishing, and other activities dependent upon water courses and riparian ecosystems. 

Closing unnecessary multiple social trails in the riparian area of Fish Creek within the Fish and 

Owl Creeks non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristic would protect the natural 

characteristics of Fish Creek by preventing additional surface disturbance. 

4.3.8.11. IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED DECISIONS ON NON- WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.11.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.8.11.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under the No Action Alternative, where surface-disturbing actions are allowed in sensitive soil 

areas, there are no specific requirements for an erosion control strategy, approved survey and 

design, or slope restrictions for surface-disturbing activities on slopes between 21 and 40%. 

Depending on the type of surface-disturbing activities and the level of development or 

disturbance in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, watershed issues associated with 

soil erosion could impact the naturalness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

4.3.8.11.2. ALTERNATIVES B, C, AND D 

4.3.8.11.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Where surface-disturbing actions are allowed in sensitive soil areas, specific requirements for an 

erosion control strategy, approved survey and design, or slope restrictions for surface-disturbing 

activities on steep slopes would be mandatory. Applying these requirements would help maintain 

natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by mitigating potential 

erosion problems that could be created from permitted activities in these areas. However, even 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-258 

with an approved plan to stabilize surface disturbance and prevent erosion, the disturbance and 

associated treatment or structure would still impact the natural characteristics to varying degrees, 

depending on the type and extent of the treatment or development. 

4.3.8.11.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.3.8.11.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

No surface-disturbing activities on sensitive soils would be permitted within non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, thereby maintaining their natural characteristics. 

4.3.8.11.4. PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.8.11.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Where surface-disturbing actions are allowed in sensitive soil areas, specific requirements for an 

erosion control strategy, approved survey and design, or slope restrictions for surface-disturbing 

activities on steep slopes would be mandatory. Applying these requirements would help maintain 

natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by mitigating potential 

erosion problems that could be created from permitted activities in these areas. However, even 

with an approved plan to stabilize surface disturbance and prevent erosion, the disturbance and 

associated treatment or structure would still impact the natural characteristics to varying degrees, 

depending on the type and extent of the treatment or development. 

Under the Proposed Plan, portions of Dark Canyon, Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome East, Nokai 

Dome West, and Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. To achieve that objective, only minimal 

development and non-surface-disturbing land treatment would be permitted, minimizing or 

preventing impacts to the natural characteristics of these non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

4.3.8.11.4.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Where surface-disturbing actions are allowed in sensitive soil areas, specific requirements for an 

erosion control strategy, approved survey and design, or slope restrictions for surface-disturbing 

activities on steep slopes would be mandatory. Applying these requirements would help maintain 

natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by mitigating potential 

erosion problems that could be created from permitted activities in these areas. However, even 

with an approved plan to stabilize surface disturbance and prevent erosion, the disturbance and 

associated treatment or structure would still impact the natural characteristics to varying degrees, 

depending on the type and extent of the treatment or development. 

4.3.8.12. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON NON- WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

For the purposes of this section of the analysis, “special designations” include ACECs 

established under each alternative, rivers recommended eligible in Alternative A and suitable for 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-259 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the Proposed Plan and four 

action alternatives, and wilderness study areas (WSAs) being managed to protect their 

wilderness characteristics under each alternative. 

4.3.8.12.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.8.12.1.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Of the 10 ACECs that would continue to be designated under this alternative to protect a variety 

of relevant and important values, seven ACECs would include portions of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Those ACECs are the Scenic Highway Corridor, Indian Creek, Butler 

Wash, Dark Canyon, Shay Canyon, Lavender Mesa and Cedar Mesa. The management 

prescriptions for these ACECs would generally provide protection to the naturalness and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in all of the non-WSA lands. 

The Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC includes portions of 13 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics totaling 38,580 acres: White Canyon (30 acres), Grand Gulch (7,935 acres), Comb 

Ridge (590 acres), Upper Red Canyon (915 acres), Harmony Flat (2,545 acres), Cheesebox 

Canyon (2,630 acres), Nokai Dome (3,140 acres), Mancos Mesa (5,260 acres), Fort Knocker 

Canyon (5,390 acres), Gravel and Long Canyon (6,350 acres), Road Canyon (420 acres), Fish 

and Owl Creeks (2,175 acres), and Valley of the God (1,200 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Special conditions for managing the ACEC include: 1) reseeding with 

native vegetation; 2) NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing; 3) retaining lands in public 

ownership; 4) managing to a VRM Class I objective; and 5) OHV use on designated roads and 

trails. All of these measures would help to protect and enhance the natural characteristics by 

eliminating new surface-disturbing activities. OHV use on designated routes would temporarily 

interfere with opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation when OHVs are in the area. 

Although the ACEC would remain available for mineral materials disposal, this is a discretionary 

action that must meet VRM objectives, and thus is unlikely to occur within this area. The ACEC 

would also remain open to firewood cutting in specified areas which would detract from the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. It would also 

detract from the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation when wood cutters are in the 

area due to chain saw noise, vehicle tracks, and evidence of surface disturbance. Although the 

ACEC would not be proposed for mineral withdrawal, and no recent mining activity has 

occurred along these highway stretches, it could be at risk of new development for uranium and 

vanadium extraction in the old mining districts (see Section 4.3.8.5.4, Locatable Minerals). 

Indian Creek ACEC includes 3,900 acres of the Indian Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Special conditions for managing the ACEC include: 1) reseeding with native 

vegetation; 2) NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing; 3) retaining lands in public ownership; 4) 

managing to a VRM Class I objective; and 5) closed to OHV use; 6) closed to mineral materials 

disposal; and 7) closed to commercial and personal firewood cutting. All of these measures 

would help to protect and enhance the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, as well as protect the opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation, by eliminating new surface-disturbing activities. Although the ACEC would not be 

proposed for mineral withdrawal, and no recent mining activity has occurred, it could be at risk 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-260 

of new development for uranium and vanadium extraction in the old mining districts (see Section 

4.3.8.5.4, Locatable Minerals). 

Butler Wash ACEC includes 40 acres of the Butler Wash non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Special conditions for managing the ACEC include: 1) NSO stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing; 2) retaining lands in public ownership; 3) managing to a VRM Class I objective; 

and 4) closed to OHV use; 5) closed to mineral materials disposal; and 6) closed to commercial 

and personal firewood cutting. All of these measures would help to protect and enhance the 

natural characteristics, as well as protect the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, 

by eliminating new surface-disturbing activities. Although the ACEC would not be proposed for 

mineral withdrawal, and no recent mining activity has occurred, it could be at risk of new 

development for uranium and vanadium extraction in the old mining districts (see Section 

4.3.8.5.4, Locatable Minerals). 

Dark Canyon ACEC includes 280 acres of the Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Special conditions for managing the ACEC include: 1) unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing; 2) retaining lands in public ownership; 3) managing to a VRM Class I objective; and 4) 

closed to OHV use; 5) closed to mineral materials disposal; 6) closed to commercial and 

personal firewood cutting. All of these measures would help to protect and enhance the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, as well as protect the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, by eliminating new surface-disturbing 

activities. 

The Shay Canyon ACEC includes 515 acres of the Harts Point and 1,022 of the Shay Mountain 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This ACEC is open for mineral leasing under 

special conditions, available for disposal of mineral materials, and open to mineral entry. Any of 

these activities, if approved within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

result in surface disturbance that would cause that portion to lose its natural characteristics. 

Opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be diminished in these non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics due to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources, 

mineral material pit development, or mining, and could impact these opportunities for up to onehalf mile from the ongoing activity. However, the ACEC is also protected with a VRM Class I 

objective, closed to private and commercial wood cutting, and limited OHV use on designated 

routes only. Any new development would need to meet the VRM management objective, thereby 

mandating extensive mitigation to any such activities. Closing the area to wood cutting would 

help protect the natural characteristics, as well as opportunities for solitude, by excluding the 

noise, tire tracks and other human activities associated with wood cutting. The occasional 

presence and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with 

primitive forms of recreation when vehicles were traveling the designated routes. 

The Lavender Mesa ACEC includes 650 acres of the Bridger Jack Mesa non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Special conditions for managing the ACEC include: 1) NSO 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing; 2) retaining lands in public ownership; 3) closed to OHV use; 

4) closed to mineral materials disposal; 5) excluded from surface-disturbing activities; 6) 

excluded from land treatments or habitat improvements; and 7) closed to commercial and 

personal firewood cutting. All of these measures would protect, preserve, and enhance the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, as well as protect 

the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, by eliminating new surface-disturbing 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-261 

activities. Although the ACEC would not be proposed for mineral withdrawal, and no recent 

mining activity has occurred, it could be at risk of new development for uranium and vanadium 

extraction in the old mining districts (see Section 4.3.8.5.4, Locatable Minerals). 

The Cedar Mesa ACEC overlies all or portions of six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics totaling 62,640 acres: all of Lime Creek (5,560 acres), the majority of Road 

Canyon (10,830 acres), Valley of the Gods (12,450 acres), Fish and Owl Creeks (21,870), and 

portions of Grand Gulch (11,680 acres), and Comb Ridge (250 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Lime Creek, Road Canyon, and Valley of the Gods non-WSAs lands 

with wilderness characteristics lie within a special emphasis area of the ACEC and have more 

restrictions than the other three non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The special 

emphasis area management includes: 1) closed to oil and gas leasing; 2) retaining lands in public 

ownership; 3) managing to a VRM Class I objective; and 4) closed to OHV use; 5) closed to 

mineral materials disposal; 6) closed commercial and personal firewood cutting, and 7) 

recommended segregation from mineral entry. These measures would protect the natural 

characteristics, as well as the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, by eliminating 

many surface-disturbing activities. 

Portions of Fish and Owl Creeks, Grand Gulch, and Comb Ridge non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would fall within the less restrictive part of the Cedar Mesa ACEC, 

which allows for: 1) oil and gas leasing and development under standard stipulations; 2) disposal 

of mineral materials; 3) land treatments and range improvements; 4) commercial and private 

wood cutting; 5) OHV use on designated routes; and 6) mineral entry. These management 

decisions would allow for surface-disturbing activities that would create the loss of natural 

characteristics by placement of oil and gas wells and associated facilities, mechanical land and 

vegetation treatments, and wood-cutting activities. Limiting OHV activity to designated routes 

would help protect the natural characteristics of the areas by not allowing cross-country travel 

and new surface disturbance. Although the ACEC would not be proposed for mineral 

withdrawal, and no recent mining activity has occurred, it could be at risk of new development 

for uranium/vanadium extraction in the old mining districts (see Section 4.3.8.5.4, Locatable 

Minerals). 

4.3.8.12.1.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, two of the 29 non-WSA land areas are within eligible WSR segments, 

totaling 14.7 miles in those three areas. There are 5 miles of the eligible river segment of the 

Colorado River that includes the Gooseneck non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

And, there are 9.7 miles of the eligible river segment of the San Juan River that includes the San 

Juan River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of river values (pending 

future suitability studies) would prevent uses and surface disturbances that would detract from 

the natural characteristics of the two non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the 

half-mile river corridor (a quarter mile on each side of the river segment). The presence and 

noise of motor boat use along the San Juan River would reduce opportunities for solitude and 

conflict with primitive recreation in this river. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-262 

4.3.8.12.1.3. Wilderness Study Areas 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Even though Alternative A does not propose specific management to protect the wilderness 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the presence of contiguous 

WSAs and National Park Service lands would expand and enhance opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation available in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.12.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.3.8.12.2.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative there would be 12 ACECs designated to protect a variety of relevant and 

important values, of which 10 ACECs would include portions of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Those ACECs are the Indian Creek, Butler Wash, Dark Canyon, Shay 

Canyon, Lavender Mesa, Cedar Mesa, Lockhart Basin, San Juan River, and Valley of the Gods. 

The management prescriptions for these ACECs would generally provide protection to the 

natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in all of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The Indian Creek ACEC includes 3,900 acres of the Indian Creek non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Prescriptions for managing the ACEC are the same as described in 

Alternative A, and the impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the 

same. 

The Butler Wash ACEC includes 40 acres of the Butler Wash non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Special conditions for managing the ACEC include: 1) NSO stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing; 2) retaining lands in public ownership; 3) managing to a VRM Class I objective; 

4) OHV use limited to designated routes; 5) closed to mineral materials disposal; 6) closed to 

commercial and personal firewood cutting; and 7) proposed for mineral withdrawal. All of these 

measures would help to protect and enhance the natural characteristics, as well as protect the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, by eliminating new surface-disturbing 

activities. The occasional presence and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation when vehicles were traveling the 

designated routes. 

The Dark Canyon ACEC includes 280 acres of the Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Prescriptions for managing the ACEC are the same as described in 

Alternative A, and the impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the 

same. 

The Shay Canyon ACEC includes 100 acres of the Shay Mountain non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The prescriptions for managing this potential ACEC include: 1) NSO 

for oil and gas leasing; 2) OHV use limited to designated routes; 3) no surface-disturbing 

vegetation treatment or wildlife and watershed improvements; 4) hiking only on designated 

trials; 5) open to mineral entry; 6) closed to disposal of mineral materials; 7) closed to private or 

commercial wood cutting; and 8) managed to VRM Class II objectives. This prescription is 

much more restrictive than Alternative A and would protect natural characteristics from surface-
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-263 

disturbing activities. The occasional presence and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities 

for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation when vehicles were traveling the 

designated routes. Although the ACEC would not be proposed for mineral withdrawal, and no 

recent mining activity has occurred, it could be at risk of new development for 

uranium/vanadium extraction in the old mining districts (see Section 4.3.8.5.4, Locatable 

Minerals). 

The Lavender Mesa ACEC includes 650 acres of the Bridger Jack Mesa non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Special conditions for managing the ACEC include: 1) NSO 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing; 2) retaining lands in public ownership; 3) managing to a VRM 

Class II objective; 4) closed to OHV use; 5) closed to mineral materials disposal; 6) excluded 

from surface-disturbing activities; 7) excluded from surface-disturbing land treatments or habitat 

improvements; and 8) closed to commercial and personal firewood cutting. Like Alternative A, 

all of these measures would protect and enhance the natural characteristics, as well as protect the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, by eliminating new surface-disturbing 

activities. Although the ACEC would not be proposed for mineral withdrawal, and no recent 

mining activity has occurred, it could be at risk of new development for uranium/vanadium 

extraction in the old mining districts (see Section 4.3.8.5.4, Locatable Minerals). 

The Cedar Mesa ACEC includes portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

totaling 60,055 acres: Fish and Owl Creeks (24,010 acres), Grand Gulch (26,635 acres), Road 

Canyon (9,160 acres) and Comb Ridge (250 acres). Management prescriptions for this ACEC 

include 1) open to oil and gas leasing and development under standard stipulations; 2) available 

for watershed, vegetation and range projects; 3) VRM Class III objectives; 4) closed to 

commercial and private wood cutting; and 5) OHV use permitted on designated routes. This 

management prescription allows for surface-disturbing activities that would create the loss of 

wilderness characteristics by potential placement of oil and gas wells and associated facilities 

and mechanical land and vegetation treatments. Limiting OHV activity to designated routes (no 

cross country travel) would prevent added surface disturbance and protect natural characteristics. 

Closing the ACEC to wood cutting would prevent impacts associated with that activity on the 

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

The Lockhart Basin ACEC includes portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics totaling 21,305 acres: Indian Creek (15,820 acres), all of Gooseneck (3,570 

acres), Hatch/Lockhart/Hart (1,765 acres), and Harts Point (150 acres). The management 

objectives for this ACEC would prescribe: 1) NSO for oil and gas leasing; 2) closed to disposal 

of mineral materials; 3) VRM Class I objectives; 4) prohibit surface-disturbing activities; 5) 

retained in public ownership; 6) proposed for mineral withdrawal; and 7) closed to commercial 

or private firewood cutting. The management prescription for this ACEC would protect and 

enhance the natural characteristics and provide opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation 

in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The San Juan River ACEC includes 2,155 acres of the San Juan River non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The management prescription includes: 1) OHV use limited to 

designated routes; 2) closed to private and commercial firewood cutting; 3) available for 

watershed, range improvements and vegetation treatments; 4) managed to VRM Class I, II, and 

III objectives; 5) NSO for oil and gas leasing; 6) closed to mineral materials disposal; and 7) 

retained in public ownership. This prescription would maintain the wilderness characteristics of 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-264 

the San Juan River. Depending on the methods used for the land treatments and improvements, 

short-term or long-term impacts to natural characteristics would occur if accomplished with 

surface-disturbing methods in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (see Section 

4.3.17, Vegetation, for description of methods and impacts). The occasional presence and noise 

of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of 

recreation when vehicles were traveling the designated routes. 

The Valley of the Gods ACEC includes all of Lime Creek (5,560 acres), all of Valley of the 

Gods (13,670 acres), and a small portion of Road Canyon (1,530 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The prescription for this ACEC includes: 1) unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing; 2) retaining lands in public ownership; 3) managing to a VRM Class I objective; 4) 

OHV use limited to designated routes; 5) closed to mineral materials disposal; 6) closed to 

commercial and personal firewood cutting in designated areas; and 7) available for vegetation 

treatments. Virtually all of these measures would protect the natural characteristics, as well as 

protect the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, by eliminating many surfacedisturbing activities. OHV use on designated routes would temporarily interfere with 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation when OHVs are in the area. Any vegetation 

treatment would be required to meet VRM Class I objectives and would probably be by fire, 

biological, or chemical methods to meet this objective. 

4.3.8.12.2.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, three of the 29 non-WSA land areas are located in suitable WSR 

segments, totaling 15.3 miles in those three areas. 

Five miles of the Colorado River segment found suitable under this alternative includes the 

Gooseneck non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. It would be managed for its 

recommended classification as "scenic." The river corridor would be available for oil and gas 

leasing with an NSO stipulation, closed to OHV use, recommended for mineral withdrawal, 

managed to VRM Class I objectives, and closed to motorized use. This management prescription 

would protect and preserve natural characteristics because no surface-disturbing activities would 

be allowed, and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation as noise from motorized uses 

would be eliminated. 

There are 9.7 miles of the suitable river segment of the San Juan River that includes with the San 

Juan River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This portion of the river has a 

recommended suitable classification of "wild," and would be managed to VRM Class I 

objectives, closed to oil and gas leasing, closed to OHV use, and recommended for mineral 

withdrawal. This management prescription would protect and preserve the natural characteristics 

because no surface-disturbing activities would be allowed, and opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation as noise from motorized uses would be eliminated. 

There is 0.6 mile of Indian Creek suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River 

System that includes the Shay Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This 

river has a recommended suitable classification of "recreational" and would be managed under 

VRM Class III objectives, open to oil and gas leasing under standard lease terms, and OHV use 

would be limited to designated routes. Although limiting OHV activity to designated routes 

would help protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-265 

characteristics by not allowing cross-country travel, the other management prescriptions would 

not protect these values. Surface-disturbing activities would be permitted which would detract 

from the natural characteristics of the area and interrupt opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. 

4.3.8.12.2.3. Wilderness Study Areas 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Even though Alternative B does not propose specific management to protect the wilderness 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the presence of contiguous 

WSAs and National Park Service lands would expand and enhance opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation available in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.12.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.3.8.12.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative there would be seven ACECs designated to protect a variety of relevant 

and important values, of which five ACECs would overlie portions of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Those ACECs are Indian Creek, Shay Canyon, Lavender Mesa, San 

Juan River, and Valley of the Gods. The management prescriptions for these ACECs would 

generally provide some protection to the natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation in all of the non-WSA lands. 

The 3,900-acre potential Indian Creek ACEC falls within the Indian Creek non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The acreage and prescriptions for managing the ACEC are the same 

as described in Alternative A, except OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

The effect of this ACEC prescription on the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be the same as for Alternative B, except that allowable motorized use would disrupt 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. 

The potential Shay Canyon ACEC overlies 100 acres of the Shay Mountain non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The acreage and prescriptions for managing this potential ACEC 

would be the same as Alternative B, thus the analysis would be the same. 

The potential Lavender Mesa ACEC overlies 650 acres of the Bridger Jack Mesa non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. The acreage and prescriptions for managing this potential 

ACEC would generally be the same as Alternative A, thus the analysis would be essentially the 

same. 

The potential San Juan River ACEC overlies 2,155 acres of the San Juan River non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. While the acreage would be less than Alternative B, prescription 

for managing this potential ACEC would be the same. Thus, the analysis would be the same, on 

fewer ACEC acres. 

The potential Valley of the Gods ACEC overlies all of Lime Creek (5,560 acres), all of Valley of 

the Gods (13,670 acres), and a small portion of Road Canyon (1,530 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The acreage and prescriptions for managing this potential ACEC 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-266 

would be the same as Alternative B, except the ACEC would not be recommended for mineral 

withdrawal and utility corridors would be permitted. These differences in the impact analysis 

with Alternative B would allow for surface disturbance and land uses that would degrade the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Operations of 

mines and utility lines would detract from the setting needed to support opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation activities. 

4.3.8.12.3.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, one of the 29 non-WSA land areas intersect with a suitable WSR segment. 

Five miles of the Colorado River segment found suitable under this alternative intersect with the 

Gooseneck non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. As with Alternative B, it would be 

managed for it tentative classification as "scenic" and would be unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, closed to OHV use, recommended for mineral withdrawal, managed to VRM Class I 

objectives, and closed to motorized use. All of these management actions would protect and 

preserve natural characteristics because no surface-disturbing activities would be allowed, and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, as noise from motorized uses would be 

eliminated. 

4.3.8.12.3.3. Wilderness Study Areas 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Even though Alternative C does not propose specific management to protect the wilderness 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the presence of contiguous 

WSAs and National Park Service lands would expand and enhance opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation available in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.12.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

4.3.8.12.4.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under Alternative D, no ACECs would be designated, therefore, management prescriptions to 

protect relevant and important values would not be applied and would not afford protection of 

wilderness characteristics in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.12.4.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under this alternative, no WSR segments would be found suitable. Therefore, management 

prescriptions to protect the suitable river segments would not be applied and would not afford 

protection of wilderness characteristics in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-267 

4.3.8.12.4.3. Wilderness Study Areas 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Even though Alternative D does not propose specific management to protect the wilderness 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the presence of contiguous 

WSAs and National Park Service lands would expand and enhance opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation available in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.12.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.3.8.12.5.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative E designates the same number of ACECs and includes the same number of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics as Alternative B. All of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that fall within the ACECs (Indian Creek, Butler Wash, Dark Canyon, Shay 

Canyon, Lavender Mesa, Cedar Mesa, Lockhart Basin, San Juan River, and Valley of the Gods) 

would be afforded protection under this alternative due to the ACEC prescriptions that include 

protections for wilderness characteristics. All of the lands would be closed to oil and gas leasing, 

closed to firewood cutting, closed to OHV use, proposed for mineral withdrawal, managed to a 

VRM Class I objective, and excluded from any surface-disturbing activities. The natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be protected and the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be preserved. 

4.3.8.12.5.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

All three suitable river segments that include non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

described under Alternative B would be carried forward into this alternative. This would include 

5 miles along the Colorado River within the Gooseneck non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, 9.7 miles along the San Juan River in the San Juan River non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, and 0.6 miles of the suitable portion of Indian Creek that includes the 

Shay Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Management prescriptions to 

protect wilderness characteristics under this alternative would be equally or more restrictive to 

other land uses than the wild and scenic river prescriptions, limiting surface disturbances and 

protecting the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and 

preserving the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.3.8.12.5.3. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in Arch Canyon, Bridger Jack Mesa, Butler 

Wash, Cheesebox Canyon, Cross Canyon, Dark Canyon, Fish and Owl Creeks, Grand Gulch, 

Indian Creek, Lime Creek, Mancos Mesa, Road Canyon, and Squaw and Papoose Canyon are 

contiguous to wilderness study areas (many of the same name) that are managed under the 

BLM's IMP to protect their wilderness values. Protecting and maintaining the wilderness 

characteristics in the non-WSA lands would continue to safeguard their natural characteristics 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-268 

and expand opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation found in the adjacent 

WSAs. In addition, Bridger Jack Mesa, Butler Wash, Dark Canyon, Gooseneck, and Indian 

Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are contiguous with lands administratively 

endorsed for wilderness within Canyonlands National Park. Dark Canyon non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics are also contiguous with the Forest Service's Dark-Woodenshoe 

Canyon Wilderness Area. There are also non-WSA lands that are contiguous to lands 

administratively endorsed for wilderness within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. 

These are the Grand Gulch, Dark Canyon, Nokai Dome, and Sheep Canyon non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are contiguous to 

lands administratively endorsed for wilderness within Natural Bridges National Monument 

include Cheesebox Canyon and Harmony Flat. Similar to the WSAs, protecting the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics to preserve their wilderness characteristics would enhance 

and expand the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, as well as natural 

characteristics, in the National Park units and the Forest Service-designated wilderness area. 

4.3.8.12.6. PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.8.12.6.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Management decisions for designated ACECs under the Proposed Plan would not affect the five 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect those characteristics. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under the Proposed Plan, there would be seven ACECs designated to protect a variety of 

relevant and important values, of which five ACECs would include portions of non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Those ACECs are Indian Creek, Shay Canyon, Lavender Mesa, 

and Valley of the Gods. The management prescriptions for these ACECs would generally 

provide some protection to the natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation in all of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The 3,900-acre Indian Creek ACEC falls within the Indian Creek non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The prescription for managing the smaller ACEC would be the 

generally the same as described in Alternative A, except that OHV use would be permitted on 

designated roads and trails. Thus, the impacts of ACEC management on wilderness 

characteristics would be similar to Alternative A, except that motor vehicle use of roads and 

trails would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation. 

The Shay Canyon ACEC includes 100 acres of the Shay Mountain non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The acreage and prescriptions for managing this ACEC would be the 

same as Alternative B, thus the impacts to wilderness characteristics would be the same. 

The Lavender Mesa ACEC includes 650 acres of the Bridger Jack Mesa non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The acreage and prescriptions for managing this ACEC would be the 

same as Alternative B, thus the impacts to wilderness characteristics would be the same. 

The San Juan River ACEC includes 2,155 acres of the San Juan River non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The prescription for managing this ACEC would be the same as 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-269 

Alternative B for a smaller ACEC. Thus, the impacts of ACEC management on wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as Alternative B. 

The Valley of the Gods ACEC includes all of Lime Creek (5,560 acres), all of Valley of the 

Gods (13,670 acres), and a small portion of Road Canyon (1,530 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The acreage and prescriptions for managing this ACEC would be 

generally the same as Alternative B, except the ACEC would not be recommended for mineral 

withdrawal. Thus the impacts to wilderness characteristics would be similar, but allow for 

surface disturbance related to locatable mining. This disturbance could degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and reduce opportunities 

for both solitude and primitive recreation activities. 

4.3.8.12.6.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under the Proposed Plan, one of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics lies 

within suitable WSR segments. Approximately 7 miles of the Colorado River (5 miles of 

Segment 3 and 2 miles of Segment 2) found suitable under this alternative includes the 

Gooseneck non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, though the Gooseneck non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics are not managed to protect their wilderness characteristics 

under this alternative. As with Alternative B, these two river segments would be managed for 

their recommended suitable classification as "scenic." Segment 2 would be managed as NSO for 

mineral leasing, managed by VRM Class II objectives (landscape retention), and open to 

motorized use on the river. Segment 3 would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing, closed to 

OHV use, recommended for mineral withdrawal, managed to VRM Class II objectives, and open 

to motorized use on the river. All of these management actions would protect the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics because no surfacedisturbing activities would be allowed. However, the presence and noise (use) of motorized boats 

on the river would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation uses 

of the non-WSA lands adjacent to the river. 

4.3.8.12.6.3. Wilderness Study Areas 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

The Proposed Plan would manage portions of Dark Canyon, Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome East, 

Nokai Dome West, and Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to protect 

their wilderness characteristics. Dark Canyon, Mancos Mesa, and Grand Gulch are contiguous to 

existing WSAs. Nokai Dome West is contiguous to lands administratively endorsed for 

wilderness in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Nokai Dome East is not contiguous to 

any lands with identified wilderness characteristics or values. Managing these non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics for those wilderness characteristics would expand opportunities 

for primitive recreation activities in large undeveloped settings from the adjacent WSAs and 

Park Service lands to include these areas, enhancing and expanding undeveloped landscapes, 

primitive recreational opportunities, and opportunities to find solitude. 

In summary, the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and E would provide the most long-term 

protection to the naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics by designating the most acres as ACECs and by 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-270 

recommending the longest stretches of waterways for protection in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System, followed by Alternative A. Alternative C would provide some protection of the 

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, but recommends few ACECs and only recommends two river segment 

for protection in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Alternative D would provide the 

lowest level of protection, as it would not designate ACECs or recommend suitable river 

segments for protection. 

4.3.8.13. IMPACT OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON NON- WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, management actions would focus on maintaining, 

protecting, and enhancing habitats for special status species. Decisions that would help protect 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics include applying avoidance and minimization 

measures for all surface-disturbing activities in special status species habitats, including using 

BMPs wherever possible. This would limit surface disturbance and help to maintain the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics where they intersect with 

special status species habitat. Another action common to the Proposed Plan and all alternatives 

would be to implement habitat manipulations where translocation and population augmentation 

of special status species would occur, if necessary. If surface-disturbing methods were used, this 

would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

at least in the short term. During the time the habitat manipulation is being conducted, the 

opportunity for solitude and primitive recreation would be disrupted. In addition, any recovery 

plan actions that require construction of range improvements would introduce unnatural elements 

of human manipulation to the landscape, degrading the natural characteristics of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Mexican Spotted Owl habitat is generally associated with deep, narrow canyons that are within 

Hatch/Lockhart/Hart, Indian Creek, Harts Point, Shay Mountain, Dark Canyon, Fish and Owl 

Creeks, Gravel and Long Canyon, and Nokai Dome non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yellow-billed Cuckoo habitat, as well as 

riverine habitat for endangered Colorado river fishes, fall within the San Juan River non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Actions taken to maintain, protect, and enhance these 

habitats for special status species would improve the populations and would enhance the natural 

characteristics of the lands where these species occur in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Further, larger and healthier populations would expand opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities, including wildlife viewing, photography, and 

natural history study. 

Vegetation treatments and manipulations to improve special status species habitats would be 

completed with fire, chemicals, biologically, or mechanically. In the long-term, vegetation 

treatments with fire would restore vegetation communities and display a more natural 

composition of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees. If these treatments occurred in non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, this objective would enhance the natural characteristics of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the long-term, and healthy populations would 

enhance opportunities for primitive recreation, wildlife viewing, and wildlife studies. In the 

short-term, however, burning operations would result in disturbance of the landform and 

vegetation through fire-line construction needed to manage the fire. Further, the presence and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-271 

noise of people, vehicles, equipment, and aircraft would eliminate opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation in proximity to the fire. The impacts on opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation would be temporary, lasting for the duration of the burning 

operation and reclamation. When the fire and reclamation operations are complete, these 

opportunities would return. Soil and vegetation disturbance for fire-line construction would 

diminish the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, but 

reclamation would restore the natural conditions in a relatively short period of time. Mechanical 

vegetation manipulation in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have long-term 

impacts on the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristic and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. While restoration of 

vegetation communities would be beneficial to the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, the use of chain saws, bull dozers, and brush hogs to accomplish the 

objective would leave an obvious imprint of human activity on the land, diminishing the natural 

characteristics. Also, in the short-term, the presence and noise of people and equipment would 

eliminate opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation in proximity to the 

treatment area. In the long-term, a setting clearly manipulated by humans would reduce the 

opportunities for both solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.3.8.14. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, existing vegetation treatments would be 

maintained, as appropriate, to allow for the desired mix of vegetation types, structural stages, and 

landscape/riparian/watershed function and provide for native plant, fish, and wildlife habitats. 

Vegetation treatments would be completed with fire, chemicals, biologically, or mechanically to 

achieve and maintain standards for rangeland health and desired vegetation condition. In the 

long-term, vegetation treatments with fire would restore vegetation communities and display a 

more natural composition of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees. If these treatments occurred in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, this objective would enhance the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the long-term. 

Maintenance of vegetation treatment areas with fire would maintain or enhance wildlife habitat 

and populations of species dependent on that habitat (e.g., deer, elk, antelope, sage-grouse, and 

song birds). If these treatments occurred in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

healthy wildlife populations would enhance opportunities for primitive recreation, wildlife 

viewing, and hunting. In the short-term, however, burning operations would result in disturbance 

of the landform and vegetation through fire-line construction needed to manage the fire. Further, 

the presence and noise of people, vehicles, equipment, and aircraft would eliminate opportunities 

for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation in proximity to the fire. The impacts on 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be temporary, lasting for the duration of 

the burning operation and reclamation. When the fire and reclamation operations are complete, 

these opportunities would return. Soil and vegetation disturbance for fire-line construction would 

diminish the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, but 

reclamation would restore the natural conditions in a relatively short period of time. 

Mechanical vegetation manipulation in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

have long-term impacts on the natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

and unconfined recreation. While restoration of vegetation communities would be beneficial to 

the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the use of chain 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-272 

saws, bull dozers, and brush hogs to accomplish the objective would leave an obvious imprint of 

human activity on the land, diminishing the natural characteristics. Also, in the short-term, the 

presence and noise of people and equipment would eliminate opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation in proximity to the treatment area. In the long-term, a setting 

clearly manipulated by humans would reduce the opportunities for both solitude and primitive 

recreation. 

Actions that are common to the Proposed Plan and all action alternatives include prioritizing 

sagebrush communities for treatment within numerous areas in the Monticello FO. Non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics that lie within these priority areas include Harts Point, Dark 

Canyon, and Shay Mountain. In addition, proposed greasewood treatments would occur in 

portions of Fish and Owl Creeks, Road Canyon, Comb Wash, Indian Creek, and Hammond 

Canyon. Depending on the method used to treat these areas, prescribed fire, mechanical, 

biological, or chemical impacts to wilderness characteristics would be varied, as described 

above. 

The control of noxious weeds would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the wilderness 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, depending on the method of 

control, under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives. The use of fire, chemical, and biological 

treatments would control noxious weeds and insects with no apparent evidence of human 

intervention on the landscape. Thus there would be no noticeable impact on the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Control of non-native 

vegetation and restoration of native vegetation communities, however, would result in a more 

natural vegetation community, and thus more natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The use of mechanical treatments to eradicate non-native vegetation 

and would leave a noticeable imprint of human work on the landscape, and degrade the natural 

characteristics, if the treatments were to occur in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Depending on the vegetation community treated (grassland and shrub land vs. 

woodland or coniferous forest), the length of time the evidence of mechanical treatments 

remained on the landscape would vary before the surface and vegetation disturbances returned to 

a more natural or unmodified condition. 

Reclaiming or restoring of up to 30,000 to 50,000 acres of vegetation treatments in FRCC III; 

maintaining existing land treatments; and implementing new vegetation treatments in sagebrush, 

pinyon-juniper, riparian, and greasewood habitats would have the same impact on the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described above. 

Depending on the treatment method used, the loss of natural characteristics could be substantial 

in the short-term, but would be beneficial to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics in the long-term. If done by a surface-disturbing mechanized 

method, the evidence of human intervention on the land would be apparent and would remain 

longer. 

4.3.8.15. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON- WSA LANDS 

WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

4.3.8.15.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

There are four objectives for visual resources management (VRM Classes I–IV) that provide for 

various levels of landscape protection and change. The objective of Class I is to preserve the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-273 

characteristic landscape, while the objective of VRM Class IV provides for landscape 

modifications (see Chapter 3, Section 3.19.2). Land-use planning decisions to designate and 

manage areas by Class I objectives would preserve the characteristic landscape. In non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics, this objective (VRM Class I) would preserve the natural 

characteristics of the area. VRM Class II objectives would retain the characteristic landscape, 

allowing for minor changes to the landform and vegetation. This objective would generally 

protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The 

objective of VRM Class III is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape, allowing 

for moderate changes to land and vegetation. This objective is not compatible with preserving 

the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. VRM Class IV 

objectives provide for major modification of the landscape, clearly incompatible with 

preservation of the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under Class I and II objectives, preserving the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would also preserve the undeveloped setting needed to support 

opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation. Since VRM Class III and IV 

objectives would not preserve an undeveloped setting, opportunities for both solitude and 

primitive recreation would be diminished. 

Table 4.98 shows the VRM objectives (Classes I–IV) for non-WSA wilderness areas, by 

alternative. 

Table 4.98. VRM Classes in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics by 

Alternative

Name 

Total 

Acres 

VRM 

Class 

Alt. A 

(acres) 

Alt. B 

(acres) 

Alt. C 

(acres) 

Alt. D 

(acres) 

Alt. E 

(acres) 

Proposed 

Plan 

50 I 0 0 0 0 50 0

 II 50 50 0 0 0 0

 III 0 0 50 50 0 50

Arch Canyon 

 

 

 IV 0 0 0 0 0 0

23,050 I 0 0 0 0 23,050 0

 II 18,900 19,580 18,010 0 0 18,010

 III 1,710 1,710 3,280 21,290 0 3,280

Bridger Jack 

Mesa 

 

 

 IV 2,440 1,760 1,760 1,760 0 1,760

1,660 I 0 40 40 40 1,660 40

 II 0 0 0 0 0 0

 III 1,660 1,620 1,620 1,620 0 1,620

Butler Wash 

 

 

 IV 0 0 0 0 0 0

13,240 I 2,350 6,230 0 0 13,240 0

 II 3,700 0 2,610 0 0 2,610

 III 0 0 3,740 6,350 0 3,740

Cheesebox 

Canyon 

 

 

 IV 7,190 7,010 6,890 6,890 0 6,890

Comb Ridge 13,760 I 670 11,930 0 0 13,760 0 II 10,760 0 11,650 0 0 11,650
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-274 

Table 4.98. VRM Classes in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics by 

Alternative

Name 

Total 

Acres 

VRM 

Class 

Alt. A 

(acres) 

Alt. B 

(acres) 

Alt. C 

(acres) 

Alt. D 

(acres) 

Alt. E 

(acres) 

Proposed 

Plan 

 III 2,330 1,830 2,110 13,760 0 2,110 IV 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,350 I 0 0 0 0 1,350 0

 II 0 0 0 0 0 0

 III 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cross Canyon 

 

 

 IV 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 0 1,350

66,330 I 6,530 3,260 3,260 3,260 66,330 3,310

 II 8,770 8,930 0 0 0 11,613

 III 29,510 30,880 39,800 39,800 0 31,213

Dark Canyon 

 

 

 IV 21,520 23,260 23,270 23,270 0 20,194

24,650 I 2,890 0 0 0 24,650 0

 II 8,600 30 0 0 0 0

 III 11,550 0 23,040 23,040 0 23,040

Fish and Owl 

Creeks 

 

 

 IV 1,610 24,620 1,610 1,610 0 1,610

12,410 I 5,130 0 0 0 12,410 0

 II 380 3,750 3,520 0 0 3,520

 III 0 0 230 3,750 0 230

Fort Knocker 

Canyon 

 

 

 IV 6,900 8,660 8,660 8,660 0 8,660

3,570 I 0 3,570 990 0 3,570 990

 II 3,570 0 80 0 0 80

 III 0 0 2,500 3,570 0 2,500

Gooseneck 

 

 

 IV 0 0 0 0 0 0

55,240 I 16,150 30 30 30 55,240 78

 II 6,270 0 0 0 0 13,662

 III 32,780 55,210 55,140 55,140 0 41,378

Grand Gulch 

 

 

 IV 40 0 70 70 0 122

36,890 I 6,970 36,890 0 0 36,890 0

 II 29,850 0 6,350 0 0 6,350

 III 0 0 30,540 36,890 0 30,540

Gravel and 

Long 

 

 

 IV 70 0 0 0 0 0

4,700 I 0 0 0 0 4,700 0

 II 0 0 0 0 0 0

 III 2,840 3,090 3,090 3,090 0 3,090

Hammond 

Canyon 

 

 

 IV 1,860 1,610 1,610 1,610 0 1,610

Harmony Flat 9,660 I 1,990 0 0 0 9,660 0
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-275 

Table 4.98. VRM Classes in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics by 

Alternative

Name 

Total 

Acres 

VRM 

Class 

Alt. A 

(acres) 

Alt. B 

(acres) 

Alt. C 

(acres) 

Alt. D 

(acres) 

Alt. E 

(acres) 

Proposed 

Plan 

 II 6,000 8,400 8,400 0 0 8,400

 III 0 0 0 8,400 0 0

 

 

 

 IV 1,670 1,260 1,260 1,260 0 1,260

24,740 I 450 150 0 0 24,740 0

 II 9,980 10,790 10,790 0 0 10,790

 III 40 20 170 10,960 0 170

Harts Point 

 

 

 IV 14,270 13,780 13,780 13,780 0 13,780

1,760 I 0 1,760 0 0 1,760 0

 II 1,760 0 0 0 0 0

 III 0 0 1,760 1,760 0 1,760

Hatch 

Lockhart Hart 

 

 

 IV 0 0 0 0 0 0

23,280 I 3,970 19,700 4,130 0 23,280 4,130

 II 19,310 3,580 3,470 0 0 3,470

 III 0 0 15,680 23,280 0 15,680

Indian Creek 

 

 

 IV 0 0 0 0 0 0

5,560 I 5,560 5,560 5,560 0 5,560 5,560

 II 0 0 0 0 0 0

 III 0 0 0 5,560 0 0

Lime Creek 

 

 

 IV 0 0 0 0 0 0

61,570 I 19,270 15,220 0 0 61,570 0

 II 14,670 14,730 12,760 0 0 30,828

 III 8,740 12,090 28,780 41,540 0 19,640

Mancos Mesa 

 

 

 IV 18,890 19,530 20,030 20,030 0 11,102

94,270 I 16,030 12,390 0 0 94,270 0

 II 1,420 3,720 12,600 0 0 38,994

 III 13,680 15,160 18,490 32,000 0 9,115

Nokai Dome 

 

 

 IV 63,140 63,000 63,180 62,270 0 46,161

17,010 I 0 0 0 0 17,010 0

 II 640 330 0 0 0 0

 III 0 0 330 330 0 330

Red Rock 

Plateau 

 

 

 IV 16,370 16,680 16,680 16,680 0 16,680

11,320 I 1,990 1,550 1,530 0 11,320 1,530

 II 240 17 0 0 0 0

 III 5,930 9,725 7,090 8,600 0 7,090

Road Canyon 

 

 

 IV 3,160 28 2,700 2,720 0 2,700
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-276 

Table 4.98. VRM Classes in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics by 

Alternative

Name 

Total 

Acres 

VRM 

Class 

Alt. A 

(acres) 

Alt. B 

(acres) 

Alt. C 

(acres) 

Alt. D 

(acres) 

Alt. E 

(acres) 

Proposed 

Plan 

14,340 I 3,600 3,030 3,030 0 14,340 3,030

 II 650 890 890 3,020 0 890

 III 2,990 2,720 2,720 3,540 0 2,720

San Juan 

River 

 

 

 IV 7,100 7,700 7,700 7,780 0 7,700

6,710 I 1,890 0 0 0 6,710 0

 II 1,990 4,120 1,970 0 0 1,970

 III 1,110 1,040 3,190 5,160 0 3,190

Shay 

Mountain 

 

 

 IV 1,720 1,550 1,550 1,550 0 1,550

4,000 I 40 0 0 0 4,000 0

 II 0 0 0 0 0 0

 III 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sheep 

Canyon 

 

 

 IV 3,960 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 4,000

3,570 I 0 0 0 0 3,570 0

 II 0 0 0 0 0 0

 III 0 0 0 0 0 0

Squaw and 

Papoose 

Canyons 

 

 

 IV 3,570 3,570 3,570 3,570 0 3,570

24,920 I 620 0 0 0 24,920 0

 II 0 0 0 0 0 0

 III 2,330 2,630 2,630 2,630 0 2,630

Upper Red 

Canyon 

 

 

 IV 21,970 22,290 22,290 22,290 0 22,290

13,670 I 13,670 13,670 13,670 0 13,670 13,670

 II 0 0 0 0 0 0

 III 0 0 0 13,670 0 0

Valley of the 

Gods 

 

 

 IV 0 0 0 0 0 0

9,080 I 30 0 30 0 9,080 30

 II 5,030 5,370 0 0 0 0

 III 0 0 5,340 5,370 0 5,340

White Canyon 

 

 

 IV 4,020 3,710 3,710 3,710 0 3,710

4.3.8.15.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.8.15.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative A, 262,340 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and II objectives in all 

of six and parts of 19 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting the natural 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-277 

characteristics of those lands in the non-WSAs lands with wilderness characteristics as described 

above. Conversely, 320,020 acres would be managed by Class III and IV objectives. While the 

focus of these VRM objectives (III and IV) is to provide for activities and uses that would 

change the landscape, this does not mean every acre would be developed or changed. Thus, in 

those non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics with these VRM objectives, the natural 

characteristics could be lost. And, if the natural characteristics of these areas are lost, the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be lost, as the setting needed to support 

these opportunities would be altered. 

4.3.8.15.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.3.8.15.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative B, 219,267 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and II objectives in all 

of six and parts of 17 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting the natural 

characteristics of those lands in the non-WSAs lands with wilderness characteristics, as 

described above. Conversely, 363,093 acres would be managed by Class III and IV objectives. 

The impact of these visual objectives (III and IV) on natural characteristics, solitude, and 

primitive recreation would be the same as described for Alternative A. 

4.3.8.15.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.3.8.15.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative C, 125,370 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and II objectives in all 

of two and parts of 18 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting the natural 

character of those lands in the non-WSAs. Also, under this alternative, 456,990 acres would be 

managed by VRM Class III and IV objectives. The impact of these visual objectives (III and IV) 

on natural characteristics, solitude, and primitive recreation would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. 

4.3.8.15.5. ALTERNATIVE D 

4.3.8.15.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative C, 6,350 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and II objectives in parts 

of four non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting the natural characteristics of 

those lands in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Conversely, 576,010 acres 

would be managed by VRM Class III and IV objectives. The impact of these visual objectives 

(III and IV) on natural characteristics, solitude, and primitive recreation would be the same as 

described for Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-278 

4.3.8.15.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.3.8.15.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative D, 582,360 acres would be managed by VRM Class I objectives in all of the 

29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting the natural characteristics of those 

lands, and the settings required to support opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation. 

4.3.8.15.7. PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.8.15.7.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Under the Proposed Plan, 88,871 acres would be managed by VRM Class II objectives in parts 

of five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting the natural characteristics of 

those lands in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.15.7.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under the Proposed Plan, 106,334 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and II objectives in 

all of two and parts of 18 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting the natural 

characteristics of those lands in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Also, under 

this alternative, 387,155 acres would be managed by VRM Class III and IV objectives. The 

impact of these visual objectives (III and IV) on natural characteristics, solitude, and primitive 

recreation would be the same as described for Alternative A. 

In summary, the VRM class objectives proposed in Alternative E would provide protection of 

the natural characteristics of all the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by applying a 

VRM Class I management objective to those lands. VRM objectives in Alternative A, which is 

the No Action Alternative, would provide protection to the natural characteristics of the 262,340 

acres in all or parts of 25 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by applying both VRM 

Class I and II management objectives to those lands. Alternative B would protect 219,267 acres 

in all or parts of 23 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, also by applying both VRM 

Class I and II management objectives to those lands. Alternative C would protect 125,330 acres 

in all or parts of 20 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics with VRM Class I and II 

objectives. Alternative D would protect 6,350 acres in portions of four non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics with VRM Class I and II management objectives. And, the Proposed 

Plan would protect 195,205 acres in all or parts of 20 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics with VRM Class I and II objectives. 

4.3.8.16. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON NON- WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, a variety of decisions would be implemented to 

restore, maintain, and enhance wildlife habitat and populations. Improved wildlife populations 

would enhance the natural characteristics of the land in all of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Further, larger and healthier wildlife populations would expand 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-279 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities, including wildlife viewing, 

hunting, photography, and natural history study. 

Within pronghorn fawning areas, which includes a small part of the eastern portion of the Harts 

Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (under the Proposed Plan and Alternatives 

B, C, and E), special condition decisions to close the habitat from May 1–June 15 to numerous 

surface-disturbing activities would enhance opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation on 

a seasonal basis. If construction of water sources to support antelope populations would be 

needed, this would result in more animals and the benefits described above. Construction of 

human-made features on the land, however, would degrade the natural, undeveloped 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative E, Harts 

Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed with emphasis on 

protection of wilderness characteristics, and new water developments or facilities would either 

be precluded or constructed with mitigation to protect their wilderness characteristics. 

In bighorn sheep habitat, a decision to prioritize habitat improvement projects on the "five mesa 

tops" would affect Upper Red Canyon, Red Rock Plateau, Gravel and Long Canyon, Cheesebox 

Canyon, White Canyon, and Mancos Mesa non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Habitat improvement projects would include installation of guzzlers, development of springs, 

and vegetation manipulations. Because the five mesas are small, isolated mesa tops within a 

larger habitat, the animals move in and out of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Construction of water sources to support wildlife populations would result in more wildlife and 

the benefits to opportunities for primitive recreation as described above. Construction of humanmade features on the land, however, would degrade the natural, undeveloped characteristics of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under the Proposed Plan, portions of Mancos Mesa and Nokai Dome non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Under 

Alternative E, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed with 

emphasis on protection of their wilderness characteristics. In areas managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics under the Proposed Plan and Alternative E, new water developments 

or facilities would either be precluded or constructed with mitigation within the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics to protect their wilderness characteristics. Each of the alternatives 

defines a different amount of habitat for bighorn sheep lambing and rutting areas. Non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics that lie within portions of this habitat by alternative are as 

follows: 

• Alternatives A (329,750 acres): Fort Knocker Canyon, White Canyon, Gravel and Long 

Canyon, Cheesebox Canyon, Mancos Mesa, and Upper Red Canyon 

• Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and E (453,388 acres): Fort Knocker Canyon, White 

Canyon, Gravel and Long Canyon, Cheesebox Canyon, Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome, Upper 

Red Canyon, Gooseneck, Hatch/Lockhart/Harts, Indian Creek, and Harts Point 

• Alternative C (415,395/453,390 acres): Fort Knocker Canyon, White Canyon, Gravel and 

Long Canyon, Cheesebox Canyon, Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome, Upper Red Canyon, 

Gooseneck, Hatch/Lockhart/Harts, Indian Creek, Harts Point, Dark Canyon, Red Rock 

Plateau, and Sheep Canyon 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-280 

• Alternative D (299,009 acres): Fort Knocker Canyon, White Canyon, Gravel and Long 

Canyon, Cheesebox Canyon, Mancos Mesa, Upper Red Canyon, Gooseneck, 

Hatch/Lockhart/Harts, Indian Creek, and Harts Point 

Special condition decisions to close lambing and rutting areas to numerous surface-disturbing 

activities from April 1–June 15 and October 15–December 15 (Proposed Plan and Alternatives C 

and D), and April 1–July 15 and October 15–December 31 (Alternatives A, B, and E) would 

enhance opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation on a seasonal basis. 

Numerous non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics overlie crucial deer winter ranges, and 

vegetation treatments are proposed within the crucial habitat to improve winter range. Depending 

on the type of treatment conducted different impacts to wilderness characteristics would ensue. 

Vegetation treatments would be completed with fire, chemicals, biologically, or mechanically to 

achieve the desired vegetation condition. In the long-term, vegetation treatments with fire would 

restore vegetation communities and display a more natural composition of grasses, forbs, shrubs, 

and trees. If these treatments occurred in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, this 

objective would enhance the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the long-term. Maintenance of vegetation treatment areas with fire would 

maintain or enhance wildlife habitat and populations of species dependent on that habitat (deer 

and elk). If these treatments occurred in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, healthy 

wildlife populations would enhance opportunities for primitive recreation, wildlife viewing, and 

hunting. In the short-term, however, burning operations would result in disturbance of the 

landform and vegetation through fire-line construction needed to manage the fire. Further, the 

presence and noise of people, vehicles, equipment, and aircraft would eliminate opportunities for 

solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation in proximity to the fire. The impacts on 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be temporary, lasting for the duration of 

the burning operation and reclamation. When the fire and reclamation operations are complete, 

these opportunities would return. Soil and vegetation disturbance for fire-line construction would 

diminish the natural characteristic of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, but 

reclamation would restore the natural conditions in a relatively short period of time. Biological 

and chemical treatment methods would have similar impacts as prescribed fire. 

Mechanical vegetation manipulation in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

have long-term impacts on the natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

and unconfined recreation. While restoration of vegetation communities would be beneficial to 

the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the use of chain 

saws, bull dozers, and brush hogs to accomplish the objective would leave an obvious imprint of 

human activity on the land, diminishing the natural characteristics. Also, in the short-term, the 

presence and noise of people and equipment would eliminate opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation in proximity to the treatment area. In the long-term, a setting 

clearly manipulated by humans would reduce the opportunities for both solitude and primitive 

recreation. 

Under the Proposed Plan, portions of Dark Canyon and Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Under 

Alternative E, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed with 

emphasis on protection of their wilderness characteristics. In areas managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics under the Proposed Plan and Alternative E, vegetation treatments with 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-281 

non-mechanical methods would be more compatible with protection of the natural characteristics 

of the landscape and providing opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities (see 

analysis above). Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that lie within crucial deer 

winter habitat, by alternative, are as follows: 

• Alternatives A and D: Harts Point, Dark Canyon, Butler Wash, Harmony Flat and Grand 

Gulch 

• Alternatives B and E: Harts Point, Bridger Jack Mesa, Shay Mountain, Dark Canyon, Butler 

Wash, White Canyon, Sheep Canyon, Long Canyon, Gravel and Long Canyon, Cheesebox 

Canyon, Harmony Flat, Grand Gulch, Fish and Owl Canyon, Comb Ridge, Arch Canyon, 

Hammond Canyon 

• Alternative C: Harts Point, Bridger Jack Mesa, Shay Mountain, Dark Canyon, Butler Wash, 

White Canyon, Cheesebox Canyon, Harmony Flat, Grand Gulch, Fish and Owl Canyon, and 

Comb Ridge 

• Proposed Plan: Harts Point, Bridger Jack Mesa, Shay Mountain, Dark Canyon, Butler Wash, 

White Canyon, Cheesebox Canyon, Harmony Flat, Grand Gulch, Fish and Owl Canyon, 

Comb Ridge, Hammond Canyon, and Road Canyon 

Special condition decisions that would close crucial deer winter range to numerous surfacedisturbing activities from December 15–April 30 (Alternative A), November 1–May 15 

(Alternative B and E), November 15–April 15 (Proposed Plan and Alternative C), and December 

1–April 15 (Alternative D) would enhance opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation on 

a seasonal basis. 

Numerous non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics also lie within crucial elk habitat. 

Vegetation treatments would be proposed within these areas to improve winter range for deer 

and elk. Depending on the type of treatment conducted, different impacts to wilderness 

characteristics could ensue (see analysis under crucial deer winter range above). 

Under the Proposed Plan, portions of Dark Canyon and Grand Gulch non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Under 

Alternative E, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed with 

emphasis on protection of their wilderness characteristics. In areas managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics under the Proposed Plan and Alternative E, vegetation treatments with 

non-mechanical methods would be more compatible with protection of the natural characteristics 

of the landscape and providing opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities (see 

analysis above). Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that lie within crucial elk 

habitat, by alternative are as follows: 

• Alternatives A: None defined 

• Alternatives B and E: Bridger Jack Mesa, Shay Mountain, Dark Canyon, Butler Wash, White 

Canyon, Gravel and Long Canyon, Cheesebox Canyon, Grand Gulch, Fish and Owl Canyon, 

Arch Canyon, and Hammond Canyon 

• Alternative C and D: Bridger Jack Mesa, Shay Mountain, Dark Canyon, White Canyon, and 

Hammond Canyon 

• Proposed Plan: Bridger Jack Mesa, Cheesebox Canyon, Dark Canyon, White Canyon, and 

Hammond Canyon 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-282 

4.3.8.17. IMPACTS OF WOODLAND AND FOREST DECISIONS ON NON- WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives permits for woodland products would continue to be 

sold to the public, consistent with the availability of woodland products and the protection of 

sensitive resource values. The Proposed Plan and each alternative prescribes areas where 

woodland product harvest is allowed or prohibited. Table 4.99 provides the acres of areas open 

or closed to woodland harvest by the Proposed Plan and alternative for non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Table 4.99. Wood-cutting Allocations in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Wood-cutting Allocations in Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics Alternative (acres) 

Name Acres Restriction A B C D E Proposed 

Plan 

Arch Canyon 50 open 50 50 50 50 0 50

 closed 0 0 0 0 50 0

Bridger Jack Mesa 23,050 open 130 130 130 130 0 130

 closed 22,920 22,920 22,920 22,920 23,050 22,920

Butler Wash 1,660 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 closed 1,660 1,660 1,660 1,660 1,660 1,660

Cheesebox Canyon 13,240 open 13,170 12,770 12,770 12,770 0 12,770

 closed 70 470 470 470 13,240 470

Comb Ridge 13,760 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 closed 13,760 13,760 13,760 13,760 13,760 13,760

Cross Canyon 1,350 open 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 0 1,340

 closed 10 10 10 10 1,350 10

Dark Canyon 66,330 open 33,960 33,960 33,960 33,960 0 33,960

 closed 32,370 32,370 32,370 32,370 66,330 32,370

Fish & Owl Creeks 24,650 open 13,320 0 13,320 13,320 0 13,320

 closed 11,330 24,650 11,330 11,330 24,650 11,330

Fort Knocker Canyon 12,410 open 12,400 11,140 11,140 11,140 0 11,140

 closed 10 1,270 1,270 1,270 12,410 1,270

Gooseneck 3,570 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 closed 3,570 3,570 3,570 3,570 3,570 3,570

Grand Gulch 55,240 open 21,924 0 21,924 21,924 0 21,924

 closed 33,316 55,240 33,316 33,316 55,240 33,316

Gravel & Long Canyon 36,890 open 36,850 36,420 36,420 36,420 0 36,420

 closed 40 470 470 470 36,890 470

Hammond Canyon 4,700 open 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 0 4,700

 closed 0 0 0 0 4,700 0

Harmony Flat 9,660 open 9,630 9,630 9,630 9,630 0 9,630

 closed 30 30 30 30 9,660 30

Harts Point 24,740 open 8,890 8,890 8,890 8,890 0 8,890

 closed 15,850 15,850 15,850 15,850 24,740 15,850

Hatch/Lockhart/Hart 1,760 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 closed 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-283 

Table 4.99. Wood-cutting Allocations in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Wood-cutting Allocations in Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics Alternative (acres) 

Name Acres Restriction A B C D E Proposed 

Plan 

Indian Creek 23,280 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 closed 23,280 23,280 23,280 23,280 23,280 23,280

Lime Creek 5,560 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 closed 5,560 5,560 5,560 5,560 5,560 5,560

Mancos Mesa 61,570 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 closed 61,570 61,570 61,570 61,570 61,570 61,570

Nokai Dome 94,270 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 closed 94,270 94,270 94,270 94,270 94,270 94,270

Red Rock Plateau 17,010 open 17,010 17,010 17,010 17,010 0 17,010

 closed 0 0 0 0 17,010 0

Road Canyon 11,320 open 1,810 0 1,810 1,810 0 1,810

 closed 9,510 11,320 9,510 9,510 11,320 9,510

San Juan River 14,340 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 closed 14,340 14,340 14,340 14,340 14,340 14,340

Shay Mountain 6,710 open 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 0 4,040

 closed 2,670 2,670 2,670 2,670 6,710 2,670

Sheep Canyon 4,000 open 3,990 3,990 3,990 3,990 0 3,990

 closed 10 10 10 10 4,000 10

Squaw & Papoose 

Canyon 3,570 open 3,530 3,530 3,530 3,530 0 3,530

 closed 40 40 40 40 3,570 40

Upper Red Canyon 24,920 open 24,920 24,920 24,920 24,920 0 24,920

 closed 0 0 0 0 24,920 0

Valley of the Gods 13,670 open 0 0 0 0 0 0

 closed 13,670 13,670 13,670 13,670 13,670 13,670

White Canyon 9,080 open 9,080 9,080 9,080 9,080 0 9,080

 closed 0 0 0 0 9,080 0

4.3.8.17.1. ALTERNATIVE A

4.3.8.17.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Commercial and personal wood cutting would be prohibited on 361,616 acres on all or portions 

of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Ten non-WSAs lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed in their entirety to wood-cutting activities (Butler Wash, Comb 

Ridge, Gooseneck, Hatch/Hart/Lockhart, Indian Creek, Lime Creek, Mancos Mesa, Nokai 

Dome, San Juan River, and Valley of the Gods), thereby protecting the natural characteristics of 

the landscape from surface-disturbing activities associated with wood cutting. Those portions of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the other 14 areas that are closed to woodcutting activities would be provided the same protections. However, in the 220,744 acres that 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-284 

remain open for wood cutting (and where the resource exists), natural characteristics would be 

compromised by surface-disturbing activities such as driving cross-country to the trees, cutting 

the trunks of trees, and leaving stumps and debris. Wood cutting would also diminish 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to the noise of vehicles and chain saws 

and surface disturbances associated with human activity. 

4.3.8.17.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.3.8.17.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Commercial and personal wood cutting would be prohibited on 387,090 acres on all or portions 

of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Thirteen non-WSAs would be completely 

restricted from wood cutting activities (Butler Wash, Comb Ridge, Fish and Owl Creek, 

Gooseneck, Grand Gulch, Hatch/Hart/Lockhart, Indian Creek, Lime Creek, Mancos Mesa, Nokai 

Dome, Road Canyon, San Juan River, and Valley of the Gods), thereby protecting the natural 

characteristics of the landscape from surface-disturbing activities associated with wood cutting. 

Those portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the other 11 areas that 

are closed to wood cutting activities would be provided the same protections. However, in the 

195,270 acres that remain open for wood cutting (and where the resource exists), natural 

characteristics may be compromised by surface-disturbing activities such as driving crosscountry to the trees, cutting the trunks of trees, and leaving stumps and debris. Wood cutting 

would also diminish opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to noise of vehicles 

and chain saws and surface disturbances associated with human activity. 

4.3.8.17.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.3.8.17.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, commercial or personal wood cutting would be prohibited on 350,380 

acres on all or portions of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Similar to 

Alternative A, 10 non-WSAs would be completely restricted from wood-cutting activities (Butler 

Wash, Comb Ridge, Gooseneck, Hatch/Hart/Lockhart, Indian Creek, Lime Creek, Mancos Mesa, 

Nokai Dome, San Juan River, and Valley of the Gods), thereby protecting the natural character 

of the landscape from surface-disturbing activities associated with wood cutting. Those portions 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the other 14 areas that are restricted 

from wood-cutting activities would be provided the same protections. However, in the 231,980 

acres that remain open for wood cutting (and where the resource exists), natural characteristics 

would be compromised by surface-disturbing activities such as driving cross-country to the trees, 

cutting the trunks of trees and leaving stumps and debris, and by affecting the solitude and 

primitive recreation opportunities with mechanical chain saws and surface disturbances 

associated with human activity. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-285 

4.3.8.17.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

4.3.8.17.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative D, commercial or personal wood cutting would be prohibited on 363,706 

acres on all or portions of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Similar to 

Alternative A, 10 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be entirely closed to 

wood cutting activities (Butler Wash, Comb Ridge, Gooseneck, Hatch/Hart/Lockhart, Indian 

Creek, Lime Creek, Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome, San Juan River, and Valley of the Gods), 

thereby protecting the natural characteristics of the landscape from surface-disturbing activities 

associated with wood cutting. Those portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the other 14 areas that are closed to wood cutting would be provided the same 

protections. However, in the 218,654 acres that remain open for wood cutting (and where the 

resource exists), natural characteristics would be compromised by surface-disturbing activities 

such as driving cross-country to the trees, cutting the trunks of trees, and leaving stumps and 

debris. Wood cutting would also diminish opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due 

to noise of vehicles and chain saws and surface disturbances associated with human activity. 

4.3.8.17.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.3.8.17.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

All 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the 29 areas within the 

Monticello FO would be closed to wood cutting under this alternative. Wilderness 

characteristics, therefore, would be protected from the surface and vegetation disturbance and 

noise and presence of people, vehicles, and equipment associated with wood cutting. Closing the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to wood cutting would maintain the natural 

characteristics of the landscape and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.3.8.17.6. PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.8.17.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Under the Proposed Plan, commercial or personal wood cutting would be prohibited on 88,871 

acres in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics being managed to protect their 

wilderness characteristics. Similar to Alternative A, the five non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics being managed to protect their wilderness characteristics would be closed to wood 

cutting activities (Dark Canyon – 11,540 acres, Mancos Mesa – 30,068 acres, Nokai Dome East 

– 18,618 acres, Nokai Dome West – 14,988 acres, and Grand Gulch – 13,657 acres), thereby 

preserving the natural characteristics of the landscape from surface-disturbing activities typically 

associated with wood cutting, such as driving cross-country to the trees, cutting the trunks of 

trees, and leaving stumps and debris. Closure to wood cutting would also maintain opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation by preventing the presence and noise of vehicles and chain 

saws normally used for wood cutting. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-286 

4.3.8.17.6.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under the Proposed Plan, commercial or personal wood cutting would be prohibited on 274,835 

acres on all or portions of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Similar to 

Alternative A, 10 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be entirely closed to 

wood cutting activities (Butler Wash, Comb Ridge, Gooseneck, Hatch/Hart/Lockhart, Indian 

Creek, Lime Creek, Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome, San Juan River, and Valley of the Gods), 

thereby protecting the natural characteristics of the landscape from surface-disturbing activities 

associated with wood cutting. Those portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the other 14 areas that are closed to wood cutting would be provided the same 

protections. However, in the 218,654 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

that remain open for wood cutting, the natural characteristics would be compromised by surfacedisturbing activities such as driving cross-country to the trees, cutting the trunks of trees, and 

leaving stumps and debris. Wood cutting would also diminish opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation due to noise of vehicles and chain saws and surface disturbances associated 

with human activity. 

4.3.8.18. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

See Table 2.2 for a summary of impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

There are 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the Monticello FO. 

4.3.8.18.1. ALTERNATIVE A–NO ACTION

Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, no actions would be prescribed to specifically 

protect the wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

However, 262,340 acres in all or parts of the 25 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed by VRM Class I and Class II objectives. These management objectives 

provide for preservation and retention of the landscape and would limit surface disturbances, and 

protect the natural characteristics of these lands. In addition, designation and management of 

seven ACECs and recommendations for designation of two wild and scenic rivers would 

prescribe measures that would protect all or portions of 22 of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Further, 53,370 acres of non-WSA lands would be closed to OHV 

use, protecting the natural characteristics of the landscape and the opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation. 

Other actions prescribed under No Action, however, would provide for other resources values 

and uses that would degrade the wilderness characteristics of parts of these areas. About 470,590 

acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be open to oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard and timing and controlled surface use stipulations. Even with this amount of 

land available for leasing and development, only 37 wells and 355 acres of disturbance are 

anticipated over the next 15 years. Cross country OHV use would be permitted on 140,600 acres 

resulting in additional surface disturbance that would degrade the natural characteristics of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Motorized travel would be limited to 410 miles 

of designated routes on another 388,390 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

While limiting OHV use to designated routes would prevent further surface disturbance and loss 

of natural characteristics, the presence and noise of vehicles would diminish opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. Fire wood cutting would be permitted 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-287 

on 220,774 acres, resulting in surface and vegetation disturbance that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Again, the noise and 

presence of people, vehicles, and equipment would reduce opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation. 

4.3.8.18.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, no actions would be prescribed to specifically protect the wilderness 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, 219,267 acres in 

all or parts of the 23 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed by VRM 

Class I and Class II objectives. These management objectives provide for preservation and 

retention of the landscape and would limit surface disturbances, and protect the natural 

characteristics of these lands. In addition, designation and management of 10 ACECs and 

recommendations for designation of three wild and scenic rivers would prescribe measures that 

would protect all or portions of 15 of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Further, 35,070 acres of non-WSA lands would be closed to OHV use, protecting the natural 

characteristics of the landscape and the opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation. 

Other actions prescribed under Alternative B, however, would provide for other resources values 

and uses that would degrade the wilderness characteristics of parts of these areas. About 485,010 

acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be open to oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard and timing and controlled surface use stipulations. Even with this amount of 

land available for leasing and development, only 38 wells and 365 acres of disturbance are 

anticipated over the next 15 years. Motorized travel would be limited to 258 miles of designated 

routes on another 547,290 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. While 

limiting OHV use to designated routes would prevent further surface disturbance and loss of 

natural characteristics, the presence and noise of vehicles would diminish opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. Fire wood cutting would be permitted 

on 195,270 acres, resulting in surface and vegetation disturbance that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Again, the noise and 

presence of people, vehicles, and equipment would reduce opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation. 

4.3.8.18.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, no actions would be prescribed to specifically protect the wilderness 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, 125,370 acres in 

all or parts of the 20 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed by VRM 

Class I and Class II objectives. These management objectives provide for preservation and 

retention of the landscape and would limit surface disturbances, and protect the natural 

characteristics of these lands. In addition, designation and management of five ACECs and 

recommendations for designation of one wild and scenic river would prescribe measures that 

would protect all or portions of eight of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Further, 29,400 acres of non-WSA lands would be closed to OHV use, protecting the natural 

characteristics of the landscape and the opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-288 

Other actions prescribed under Alternative C, however, would provide for other resources values 

and uses that would degrade the wilderness characteristics of parts of these areas. About 548,350 

acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be open to oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard and timing and controlled surface use stipulations. Even with this amount of 

land available for leasing and development, only 39 wells and 374 acres of disturbance are 

anticipated over the next 15 years. Motorized travel would be limited to 348 miles of designated 

routes on another 552,960 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. While 

limiting OHV use to designated routes would prevent further surface disturbance and loss of 

natural characteristics, the presence and noise of vehicles would diminish opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. Fire wood cutting would be permitted 

on 231,980 acres, resulting in surface and vegetation disturbance that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Again, the noise and 

presence of people, vehicles, and equipment would reduce opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation. 

4.3.8.18.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, no actions would be prescribed to specifically protect the wilderness 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, 6,350 acres in 

parts of the five non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed by VRM 

Class I and Class II objectives. These management objectives provide for preservation and 

retention of the landscape and would limit surface disturbances, and protect the natural 

characteristics of these lands. No ACECs would be designated and no wild and scenic rivers 

would be recommended, providing no additional protection to the wilderness characteristics of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Other actions prescribed under Alternative D, however, would provide for other resources values 

and uses that would degrade the wilderness characteristics of parts of these areas. About 582,360 

acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be open to oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard and timing and controlled surface use stipulations. Even with this amount of 

land available for leasing and development, only 37 wells and 355 acres of disturbance are 

anticipated over the next 15 years. Motorized travel would be limited to 410 miles of designated 

routes on another 582,340 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. While 

limiting OHV use to designated routes would prevent further surface disturbance and loss of 

natural characteristics, the presence and noise of vehicles would diminish opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. Fire wood cutting would be permitted 

on 218,654 acres, resulting in surface and vegetation disturbance that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Again, the noise and 

presence of people, vehicles, and equipment would reduce opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation. 

4.3.8.18.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, all 582,360 acres in 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. To protect these values, the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to mineral leasing (though some 

leases currently exist), closed to OHV use, closed to mineral material disposal, closed to wood 

cutting, managed under VRM Class I objectives, and recommended for withdrawal from mineral 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-289 

entry. There are currently 4,400 acres in parts of 10 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics under lease. These leases could be explored and developed, subject the terms and 

conditions of the leases, even if they degrade wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.18.6. PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan five areas totaling 88,871 acres would be managed with emphasis on 

protection of their wilderness characteristics. To protect their wilderness values, the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing, OHV use 

would be limited to designated routes, closed to fire wood cutting, closed to mineral material 

disposal, managed as VRM Class II, and exclusion and avoidance areas for future placement of 

ROWs. 

Of the 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 195,205 acres in all or parts of the 23 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed by VRM Class I and Class II 

objectives. These management objectives provide for preservation and retention of the landscape 

and would limit surface disturbances, and protect the natural characteristics of these lands. In 

addition, designation and management of five ACECs and recommendations for designation of 

one wild and scenic river would prescribe measures that would protect all or portions of eight of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, 4,598 acres of non-WSA lands 

would be closed to OHV use, protecting the natural characteristics of the landscape and the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation. 

Other actions prescribed under the Proposed Plan, however, would provide for other resources 

values and uses that would degrade the wilderness characteristics of parts of these areas. About 

460,093 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be open to oil and gas 

leasing, subject to standard and timing and controlled surface use stipulations. Even with this 

amount of land available for leasing and development, only 39 wells and 374 acres of 

disturbance are anticipated over the next 15 years. Motorized travel would be limited to 348 

miles of designated routes on another 577,762 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. While limiting OHV use to designated routes would prevent further surface 

disturbance and loss of natural characteristics, the presence and noise of vehicles would diminish 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. Fire wood cutting 

would be permitted on 218,654 acres, resulting in surface and vegetation disturbance that would 

degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Again, 

the noise and presence of people, vehicles, and equipment would reduce opportunities for 

solitude and primitive forms of recreation. 

4.3.8.19. MITIGATION MEASURES

There are a number of actions proposed under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives that would 

limit surface disturbance, focus on primitive forms of recreation, and maintain or restore upland 

and riparian vegetation condition, all of which would maintain and enhance the wilderness 

characteristics of portions of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under the 

Proposed Plan and alternatives, withdrawals from entry under the mining laws would prevent 

surface disturbance in parts of some of the non-WSA lands, protecting the natural characteristics 

of these areas. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-290 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, actions to prohibit surface disturbance within 

floodplains and within 100 m of riparian zones would protect the natural condition of riparian 

portions of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of the natural condition of 

these areas would also enhance the setting needed to provide opportunities for both solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation. Further, managing riparian zones to achieve proper functioning 

condition would maintain and restore vegetation condition and water quality that would enhance 

the natural condition of riparian portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

and settings that support primitive forms of recreation like floating, hiking, and wildlife viewing. 

Under the Proposed Plan and alternatives, prescribed burning to restore fire-dependent and 

adapted vegetation communities would maintain and enhance the natural characteristics of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, enhance wildlife habitat for hunting, photography, 

and wildlife viewing, and enhance the visual appeal by introducing variety to the landscape. 

Under the Proposed Plan, all or parts of 20 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed to VRM Class I or Class II standards. Managing areas by these VRM 

objectives would limit surface disturbance and maintain the natural characteristics of portions of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative E, all of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to VRM Class I standards, providing 

even more protection of the natural characteristics of these areas, than Class II objectives. 

Under the Proposed Plan and alternatives, recreation management objectives for portions of 

proposed special recreation management areas would provide activities, settings, and experiences 

for primitive forms of recreation. These objectives would provide protection of the natural 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation in portions of 

some of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Management of ACECs and recommendations for wild and scenic river designation under the 

Proposed Plan and all alternatives would maintain and enhance wilderness characteristics in 

portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

And, restrictions on surface disturbance on steep slopes (21%–40%), and the requirement for 

erosion control plans would reduce disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics of 

some of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.20. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives except Alternative E, non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would not be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Although substantial development for locatable minerals is not anticipated, mining claimants 

would have the right to develop mining claims. It is possible that some unavoidable adverse 

impacts from mining operations could occur that would impact natural characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Under Alternative E, all 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be closed to oil and gas leasing. There are, however, currently 4,400 acres of lands in 10 of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics currently under lease. Because the leases have 

been issued, they may be explored and developed according to the terms and condition of each 

lease. The exercise of rights under a valid lease could result in surface disturbance (i.e., access 

road and well pad) that would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-291 

wilderness characteristics and the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation they 

provide. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all of the alternatives except Alternative E, vehicles would be 

permitted to drive on designated road and trails in some of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. While this action would limit further surface disturbance and loss of natural 

characteristics, the noise and presence of vehicles would reduce opportunities to find solitude 

and conflict with primitive forms of recreation. While this effect may not be permanent, it would 

diminish visitors’ experiences in varying degrees. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives except Alternative E, some minor livestock, 

wildlife, and recreation facilities would be permitted. While construction of these facilities may 

not eliminate the wilderness characteristics of entire non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, the surface disturbance and long-term presence of a human-made structure would 

reduce the natural characteristics to some degree. 

4.3.8.21. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, construction of oil and gas exploration access roads 

and well pads or mining roads and sites would produce surface disturbance that results in a longterm loss of natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in 

portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Similarly, under the Proposed 

Plan and alternatives, OHV driving and woodcutting would cause long-term losses of natural 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, the use of prescribed fire to restore fire-dependent 

and adapted ecosystems would, in the long term, enhance vegetation condition and the natural 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. A more natural landscape 

would improve opportunities for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation. Further, 

construction of riparian exclosure fences needed for restoration of riparian areas would degrade 

the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the short term but 

would enhance the riparian vegetation community in the long term, providing for a more natural 

landscape and settings for primitive recreational activities. Upon restoration, the exclosure fences 

could be removed. 

Protection of ACEC or recommended wild and scenic river values under the Proposed Plan and 

alternatives would maintain and enhance wilderness characteristics in portions of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics in the long term. 

4.3.8.22. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

A number of land uses are proposed under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives that would 

result in surface disturbances that would irretrievably impact the wilderness characteristics of 

portions of the non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics. Under the Proposed Plan and 

alternatives development of oil and gas wells, above-ground pipeline and power line corridors 

and communication sites, forest and woodland treatments by mechanical means (bull dozers, 

brush hogs, and chainsaws), construction of livestock and wildlife waters and fences, 

construction of roads and trails, allocation of open areas and designated routes for motorized 

vehicle use, and allocation of areas for the harvesting of forest and woodland products (e.g., fire 

wood) would all result in irretrievable degradation of the natural characteristics of non-WSA 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

 4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-292 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, implementation of these structures, land 

treatments, and uses would change the natural, undeveloped setting to a more developed 

landscape that is not conducive to primitive recreation activities and experiences of solitude. 

Land and vegetation disturbance, the presence of human-made structures on the land, and the 

noise and presence of people, equipment, and vehicles would not support an experience of 

solitude and would conflict with primitive recreational activities. No irreversible impacts are 

anticipated. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-293 

4.3.9. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The BLM Utah State paleontologist has classified all of the geologic units within the Monticello 

PA according to the Potential Fossil Yield Classification system (PFYC). The BLM is currently 

using this study in lieu of the current paleontological resource management classification system 

in the process of considering the use of the PFYC as policy. The PFYC system is described in 

Chapter 3 (Section 3.10, Paleontology), and the results of the PFYC classification for the 

Monticello PA form the basis for the analysis of impacts to paleontological resources. 

For this analysis, the 46 mapped geologic units that occur within the Monticello PA were 

classified according to the PFYC, and the results are shown in Table 4.100. Three units are Class 

1, eight are Class 2, nineteen are Class 3, fourteen are Class 4/5, and two are Class 5. Surficial 

exposures of Class 1 units comprise approximately 19 acres, Class 2 units encompass 

approximately 458,885 acres, Class 3 units are within approximately 901,335 acres, Class 4/5 are 

in approximately 277,556 acres, and Class 5 lie within approximately 146,960 acres. 

Table 4.100. Mapped Geologic Units within the BLM Monticello PA and their PFYC 

Classes, in Approximate Descending Stratigraphic Order 

Age Mapped Geologic Unit(s) PFYC Class

Quaternary 

(Holocene) 

Landslide deposits, alluvium, sand and gravel deposits, colluvium, talus 

deposits, slopewash, pediment deposits, eolian deposits, dune sand, 

terrace gravels, surficial material 

2 

Quaternary 

(Pleistocene) 

Landslide deposits, alluvium, sand and gravel deposits, colluvium, talus 

deposits, slopewash, pediment deposits, eolian deposits, dune sand, 

terrace gravels, surficial material 

2 

Tertiary Abajo Mountain Intrusives 1 

 Minette Intrusives 1 

 Explosion Breccia 1 

Cretaceous Mancos Shale 3 

Cedar Mountain Formation 5 

 Dakota Sandstone 3 

 Burro Canyon Formation 4/5 

Dakota and Burro Canyon formations 4/5 

Jurassic Morrison Formation – Brushy Basin Member 5 

Morrison Formation – Westwater Canyon Member 4/5 

Morrison Formation – Salt Wash Member 4/5 

Morrison Formation – Recapture Member 4/5 

 Bluff Sandstone 2 

 Summerville Formation 3 

Summerville and Curtis Formations 3 

 Entrada Sandstone 2 

Summerville Formation and Entrada Sandstone 3 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-294 

Table 4.100. Mapped Geologic Units within the BLM Monticello PA and their PFYC 

Classes, in Approximate Descending Stratigraphic Order 

Age Mapped Geologic Unit(s) PFYC Class

 Carmel Formation 2 

 Navajo Sandstone 2 

 Kayenta Formation 3 

Navajo Sandstone and Kayenta Formation 3 

 Wingate Sandstone 2 

Kayenta Formation and Wingate Sandstone 3 

Triassic Moenave Formation and Wingate Sandstone 3 

 Chinle Formation 4/5 

Chinle Formation – Moss Back Member 4/5 

Chinle Formation – Moss Back Member and lower part 4/5 

Chinle Formation – Church Rock and Owl Rock Members 4/5 

Chinle Formation – lower part 4/5 

Chinle Formation – Monitor Butte Member 4/5 

Chinle Formation – Petrified Forest and Moss Back Members 4/5 

Chinle Formation – Shinarump Member and Mottled Siltstone Member 4/5 

Chinle Formation – upper part 4/5 

 Moenkopi Formation 3 

Permian Cutler Formation 3 

Cutler Formation – White Rim Sandstone Member 2 

White Rim Sandstone Member and Organ Rock Tongue 3 

Cutler Formation – Organ Rock Tongue 3 

Cutler Formation – Halgaito Tongue 3 

Cutler Formation – Cedar Mesa Sandstone 3 

Cutler Formation – unnamed arkose 

Cutler Formation – transition zone with Cedar Mesa Sandstone Member 

Pennsylvanian Rico Formation 3 

 Hermosa Formation 3 

Hermosa Formation – upper part 3 

Hermosa Formation – Paradox Member 3 

Geologic mapping by: Hackman and Wyant, 1973 (Escalante 1° × 2° Quadrangle, scale 1:250,000); Haynes et al., 1972 (Cortez 1° 

× 2° Quadrangle, scale 1:250,000); Williams, 1964 (Moab 1° × 2° Quadrangle, scale 1:250,000); and Williams and Hackman, 1971 

(Salina 1° × 2° Quadrangle, scale 1:250,000). 

As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.10.4, Class 1 geologic units have no sensitivity (i.e., are not 

likely to contain recognizable fossil remains), thus none or negligible impacts to paleontological 

resources would be expected. Geologic units designated as Class 2 have a low sensitivity (not 

likely to contain scientifically valuable fossils), with likely negligible to minor impacts to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-295 

paleontological resources. Class 3 geologic units have moderate sensitivity (the fossil content 

varies in scientific significance, in abundance, and in predictable occurrence), and the risks of 

adverse impacts to paleontological resources within this unit would be moderate. Class 4/5 and 

Class 5 geologic units have been designated high-sensitivity units (highly fossiliferous geologic 

units that regularly and predictably produce vertebrate fossils and/or scientifically significant 

nonvertebrate fossils, and that are at risk of natural degradation and/or human-caused adverse 

impacts), and thus would have a high risk of being adversely impacted. Since the risks to 

paleontological resources in Class 1 and Class 2 units range from none to minor, only potential 

impacts to Class 3, Class 4/5, and Class 5 units are discussed in the following subsections. 

4.3.9.1. TYPES OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS

The loss or destruction of any identifiable fossil that could yield information important to 

prehistory, or that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type of organism, environment, 

period of time, or geographic region, would be a significantly adverse paleontological impact. 

Direct adverse impacts on paleontological resources would primarily concern the potential 

destruction of non-renewable paleontological resources and the loss of information associated 

with these resources, including the unlawful or unauthorized collection of fossil remains. If 

potentially fossiliferous bedrock or surficial sediments were disturbed, the disturbance could 

result in the adverse destruction of paleontological resources and subsequent loss of information. 

At the site-specific project level, direct, adverse impacts can typically be reduced to a level 

below significance through the implementation of paleontological mitigation. 

Surface disturbance may result in the exposure of fossils that would not likely have been 

unearthed via natural processes. If mitigation measures are implemented, these newly exposed 

fossils would become beneficially available for salvage, data recovery, scientific analysis, and 

permanent preservation at a public museum. The beneficial impacts resulting from mitigation 

would include advances in scientific knowledge by both permitted field researchers and 

paleontologists who study fossils in museum collections, contributions to public education and 

interpretation, and community involvement and partnerships. 

In general, in those areas that are underlain by paleontologically sensitive geologic units, the 

greater the amount of ground disturbance, the higher the potential for adverse impacts to 

paleontological resources. For areas that are directly underlain by geologic units with no 

paleontological sensitivity, there would be no potential for impacts on paleontological resources 

unless sensitive geologic units that underlie the non-sensitive unit were also impacted. Impacts 

analyzed in this section include direct (ground-disturbance-related), indirect (operations-related), 

and cumulative impacts of the proposed management decisions. 

4.3.9.1.1. DIRECT IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Direct impacts would result from activities planned or authorized by the BLM, and would occur 

at the same time and place as the surface-disturbing activity. The potential for direct impacts on 

scientifically important surface and sub-surface fossils in fossiliferous sedimentary deposits is 

controlled by two factors: 1) the depth and lateral extent of disturbance of fossiliferous bedrock 

and/or surficial sediments, and 2) the depth and lateral extent of occurrence of fossiliferous 

bedrock and/or surficial sediments beneath the surface. Ground disturbance has the potential to 

adversely impact an unknown quantity of fossils that may occur on or underneath the surface in 

areas containing paleontologically sensitive geologic units. Without mitigation, these fossils, as 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-296 

well as the paleontological data they could provide if properly salvaged and documented, could 

be adversely impacted, rendering them permanently unavailable for future scientific research. 

4.3.9.1.2. INDIRECT IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Indirect impacts would occur later in time or farther away in distance than direct impacts, but are 

still reasonably foreseeable. They would typically include those impacts that result from the 

continuing implementation of management decisions and associated activities, and/or the normal, 

ongoing operations of facilities constructed within a specific project area. For example, an 

indirect adverse impact on paleontological resources would be the construction of a new road 

that increases public access to a previously inaccessible area, and results in unauthorized fossil 

collecting and vandalism. Mitigation strategies could include surveys by permitted and qualified 

paleontologists to collect important surface fossils, transfer them to a public museum, and 

identify locations of fossil localities that have the potential to yield additional fossils as erosion 

occurs. Other mitigation strategies could include augmentation of law enforcement staff and 

increased patrols, and the construction of protective fencing or other barriers around known 

paleontological sites. 

4.3.9.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Management decisions related to fire management could have long-term direct and indirect 

adverse and beneficial impacts on paleontological resources. Surface-disturbing actions such as 

road construction, the building of fire lines, and prescribed burns could damage or destroy 

surface fossils in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units (Class 3, 4/5, and 5). In these 

areas, paleontological resource impacts mitigation would reduce potential direct, adverse impacts 

to below the level of significance. Surface fossils would be collected by a qualified and BLMpermitted paleontologist prior to surface disturbance, and paleontological monitoring of 

construction-related excavations would allow the salvage and recovery of important sub-surface 

paleontological resources. The recovered fossils would be transferred to a public museum for 

permanent storage. Potential long-term, adverse indirect impacts would result from the 

construction of new fire roads and fire breaks, which would increase OHV access into areas that 

were previously less accessible or inaccessible to the public, thus increasing the potential for 

unauthorized fossil collecting (poaching) and vandalism. The recovery and preservation of 

fossils as the result of paleontological mitigation would be a beneficial impact because it would 

permanently preserve paleontological resources that may have otherwise never been discovered, 

and make them available for scientific research, education, and display. 

Decisions related to paleontological resource decisions common to all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan could have both short- and long-term, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts on 

paleontological resources. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, management decisions 

would be designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to below the level of significance. All 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan would promote and facilitate scientific research by qualified 

and permitted paleontologists, encourage partnerships, manage access to scientifically significant 

fossils, reduce unauthorized use of known paleontological resources, and would provide for 

mitigation of adverse impacts on scientifically significant surface and sub-surface fossils where 

necessary to protect them and ensure their permanent storage and preservation in a public 

museum. Appropriate recreational use of common invertebrate and plant fossils would be 

encouraged, as would public education and interpretation of paleontological resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-297 

Paleontological Resource Use Permits administered by the BLM Utah State Office for scientific 

study would provide important information to the Monticello FO about the locations (both 

geographic and stratigraphic) and kinds of important paleontological resources in their 

jurisdiction. Providing Internet Web sites, local interpretive sites, and written information to the 

public about fossils and hobby collection would have the potential to directly and beneficially 

impact the resource by increasing the public's knowledge of the earth sciences and encouraging 

good stewardship, potentially reducing illegal collection, and increasing the likelihood that 

important paleontological discoveries would be reported to the BLM. 

Management decisions related to air quality, cultural resources, health and safety, vegetation, 

riparian areas, soils and watersheds, visual resources, wildlife, and special status species would 

have negligible impacts on paleontological resources, and therefore will not be further analyzed. 

No additional impact analysis is needed because maintaining air quality by ensuring that 

constituent pollutants do not exceed standard threshold levels; surveying sites, protecting cultural 

resources, and developing interpretive sites; maintaining public health by reclaiming AML sites 

and managing potentially hazard materials; applying vegetation treatments to improve ecosystem 

health; protecting riparian resources, sensitive soils, and watersheds from surface disturbances 

would neither inhibit nor enhance the scientific collection and analysis of important fossils, not 

affect recreational collection of fossils, nor alter the ability of the BLM to protect fossil 

resources. Also, neither would the protection of scenic quality nor protecting wildlife habitat and 

federally listed and sensitive species affect the preservation, collection and/or study of 

paleontologic resources. 

4.3.9.3. ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PLAN IMPACTS

This subsection discusses the impacts of the proposed alternative and Proposed Plan resource 

management decisions on paleontological resources. Because the analyses of the management 

decisions presented in this chapter do not reflect specific projects or actions, some impacts can 

only be expressed qualitatively. In most cases, subsequent site-specific analyses would be 

required in order to implement resource management decisions. These analyses would address 

potential site-specific impacts on a variety of resources, including paleontological resources. 

More detailed or locality-specific studies and appropriate environmental documents would be 

prepared in compliance with NEPA and its implementing regulations as well as BLM policy as 

required. 

Actions related to lands and realty management decisions would have long-term indirect, adverse 

and beneficial impacts on paleontological resources. Land acquisitions by the BLM would affect 

paleontological resources by increasing public access to areas that contain paleontologically 

sensitive geologic units and areas that contain fossil localities. Public access to these areas could 

result in an increased adverse risk of unauthorized collection or vandalism of paleontological 

resources. However, land acquisitions would also create the opportunity for the BLM to establish 

stewardship of paleontological resources on these newly acquired lands, which could result in 

associated educational benefits including interpretive opportunities and the permanent storage of 

scientifically significant fossils collected in public museums. Transfer of BLM lands to private 

ownership would have long-term, indirect, and cumulatively adverse impacts on paleontological 

resources by removing scientifically significant fossils from the public domain, thus rendering 

them permanently unavailable for scientific research and education. Commercial exploration and 

development, and associated access of BLM lands for energy resources would have direct and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-298 

indirect, adverse impacts on paleontological resources. Surface-disturbing activities associated 

with exploration and development could damage or destroy scientifically significant surface and 

sub-surface fossils. The ongoing operations of commercial energy facilities and associated 

infrastructure on BLM lands would have indirect, adverse impacts on paleontological resources 

by increasing access to lands that were previously inaccessible, and thus increasing the 

likelihood of unauthorized fossil collecting and vandalism. 

Management decisions related to livestock grazing decisions could have direct and indirect 

adverse impacts on paleontological resources from livestock grazing in areas containing 

occurrences of scientifically significant surface fossils. This is because damage to or destruction 

of surface fossils is known to occur as a result of trampling by livestock (similar to the impacts 

on cultural resources from livestock grazing, see Section 4.3.2.3.1). Generally, grazing areas 

would be evaluated for important paleontological resources if they occur in areas containing 

paleontologically sensitive units (Classes 3, 4/5, and 5). See Section 4.3.6.3, Livestock Grazing 

Alternatives Impacts, for the range of acreages unavailable to livestock grazing. 

Surface disturbance that results from mineral exploration and development (including 

geophysical surveys) could adversely affect paleontological resources by damaging or destroying 

them. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, management decisions related to minerals 

decisions would provide for a variety of mineral exploration and development activities for oil 

and gas, coal, tar sand, sand and gravel, potash, and geothermal resources. Because these 

activities typically involve surface disturbance, adverse impacts on paleontological resources 

would result under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, if mitigation was not applied. These 

impacts are most likely to occur in paleontologically sensitive units that are designated as Class 

3, 4/5, and 5. Therefore, the PFYC classes of geologic units and surface acreage eligible for 

minerals exploration and development are an important consideration to paleontological resource 

impacts. 

Management decisions related to recreation decisions would have both adverse and beneficial 

direct and indirect long-term impacts on paleontological resources. For example, allowing 

motorized vehicles into previously prohibited areas increases the likelihood that scientifically 

significant surface fossils could be accidentally damaged or destroyed, or intentionally 

vandalized. Management decisions such as implementing public education and environmental 

awareness programs, such as the BLM's "Tread Lightly!" and “Leave No Trace” programs would 

reduce illegal fossil collection, vandalism, or accidental destruction by educating the public on 

the need to preserve the resource. Developed recreation sites are closed to recreational fossil 

collection (see 43 CFR 8365.1-5[b]). This closure would thus reduce potentially adverse impacts 

on paleontological resources. Direct impacts on paleontological resources resulting from 

recreation decisions would be related to the level of surface disturbance associated with 

recreational development, such as the construction of recreational facilities including roads, and 

the degree of increased human activity in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. 

Potential long- and short-term indirect impacts would also result from increases in levels of 

unauthorized collecting and associated vandalism that could accompany increased human 

activity. It should be noted, however, that regulated recreational use of areas tends to provide 

better protection to paleontological resources than does unregulated use. Collecting common 

invertebrate and plant fossils for personal, noncommercial use is an accepted, low-impact use of 

public lands, and could foster a greater overall appreciation for paleontological resources and 

their scientific importance. In areas containing known fossil localities, mitigation could include 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-299 

surveys to collect exposed fossils and transfer them to a qualified public museum, or the 

installation of fencing or other barriers around the known fossil localities to protect the 

resources. 

Under each alternative, recreation decisions would continue existing ROWs for all existing 

developed recreation sites and facilities, and would provide similar protective ROWs for all new 

recreation facilities. The primary framework for recreation management in the Monticello PA is 

the Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). SRMAs are used to define components of 

the recreation program including OHV designations, recreation permitting, developed recreation 

facilities, campsite designation, tourism, and heritage tourism. All lands outside of the SRMAs 

are designated as part of the Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA), which is defined 

as the area where recreational opportunities and concerns do not require explicit recreation 

management. 

Impacts related to special designations decisions could have indirect, adverse and beneficial 

impacts on paleontological resources. For the purpose of this analysis, Special Designations fall 

into two categories: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (WSRs). FLPMA defines an ACEC as an area "within the public lands where special 

management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to 

protect life and safety from natural hazards." ACECs differ from some other special management 

designations in that designation by itself does not automatically prohibit or restrict other uses in 

the area. The 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act established legislation for a National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) to protect and preserve designated rivers throughout the nation 

in their free-flowing condition, as well as their immediate environments. The Act contains policy 

for managing designated rivers, and created processes for designating additional rivers into the 

National System. To the extent that Special Designations of BLM lands in paleontologically 

sensitive areas/geologic units (Class 3, 4/5, and 5) result in restricted public access and use, and 

prohibit surface-disturbing actions, paleontological resources would be less likely to be 

unlawfully collected or vandalized, or damaged or destroyed by livestock, vehicular traffic, or 

construction. Therefore, in this general sense, Special Designations represent a beneficial impact 

on paleontological resources because they lessen the probability of their permanent loss to 

science and education. If public access to special designations areas such as ACECs is 

encouraged or facilitated with trails, roads, or off-road use, and surface-disturbing actions are 

permitted, adverse direct and indirect impacts on paleontological resources could occur. These 

impacts could be reduced to below the level of significance with the implementation of 

paleontological mitigation measures designed to collect scientifically significant fossils prior to 

ground disturbance and transfer them to a public museum, or to protect resources in place with 

the installation of fencing or other protective barriers. Under each alternative, varying 

management decisions would apply to ACECs and WSRs. Decisions related to ACECs and 

WSRs include various levels of management prescriptions for the 12 ACECs and eligible WSRs 

segments managed by the Monticello FO. 

Impacts related to travel decisions are generally similar to those discussed under recreation in 

that they include potentially adverse, direct and indirect impacts on paleontological resources 

associated with surface-disturbing actions, and increased public access to BLM lands resulting in 

a greater potential for unauthorized fossil collecting or vandalism. The construction of travel 

infrastructure such as roads, trails, and trailheads would be associated with construction-related 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-300 

surface disturbance that could damage or destroy fossils in areas with paleontologically sensitive 

areas/geologic units (Class 3, 4/5, and 5). The overall increase in public access to BLM lands 

associated with travel decisions would increase the potential for unauthorized fossil collecting 

(poaching) and vandalism. As with other management decisions, the potentially adverse impacts 

to paleontological resources could be reduced to below the level of significance through 

mitigation. Mitigation in itself would be a beneficial impact because it would result in the 

authorized collection of fossils that may otherwise never have been discovered, along with their 

preservation in a public museum where they would be available for scientific research and 

education. Mitigation strategies would include surveys of paleontologically sensitive 

areas/geologic units by a qualified and permitted paleontologist in areas where surface-disturbing 

actions are planned, to collect surface occurrences of fossils and associated data. It would also 

include the installation of protective fencing or other barriers around known fossil localities. 

Interpretive signs and displays in paleontologically sensitive areas. Mitigation could include the 

encouragement of lawful collection of invertebrate and plant fossils, could foster a greater 

overall appreciation for paleontological resources and their scientific significance. 

Decisions related to woodlands decisions would have long-term direct adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources due to surface-disturbing actions from OHV access, road construction, 

and commercial and private woodland harvesting. Additionally, the increase in public access 

resulting from new roads would have indirect adverse impacts on paleontological resources 

because it could increase the potential for unauthorized fossil collecting and vandalism. The 

implementation of paleontological mitigation measures in paleontologically sensitive 

areas/geologic units prior to and during the construction of new roads and other surfacedisturbing activities related to woodlands management would reduce potential adverse direct and 

indirect impacts on paleontological resources to below the level of significance. Such measures 

provide for a qualified and BLM-permitted paleontologist to collect scientifically significant 

surface fossils and associated data, and transfer these resources to a public museum for 

permanent storage. 

Under all action alternatives, woodlands decisions would include the harvesting of woodlands in 

9 proposed harvesting zones. Woodlands resource management decisions would be guided by 

BLM Forest Health and Forest Management standards and guidelines, and the Healthy Forests 

Initiative. 

4.3.9.3.1. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The analysis of impacts of lands and realty decisions on paleontological resources under each 

alternative address rights-of-ways (ROWs) for land-use authorizations including access roads, 

pipelines, communication sites and many other types of land uses. 

4.3.9.3.1.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, there are no specified restrictions on the locations of land-use 

authorizations including access roads, pipelines, communication sites and many other types of 

land uses within the Monticello PA (except in WSAs). This alternative would have the highest 

potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources as it could result in the greatest 

amount of surface disturbance associated with land-use authorizations and development 

activities. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-301 

4.3.9.3.1.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, land-use ROWs would be permitted on all lands within the Monticello PA 

except WSAs, eligible Wild and Scenic River segments, ACECs, all areas managed as open to 

minerals leasing with major constraints (such as areas under NSO leasing stipulations), 

designated VRM Class I, II, and III areas, migratory bird habitats and raptor nesting complexes 

in riparian habitats and sagebrush and aspen, and special status species habitats. Of all the 

proposed alternatives, Alternative B would exclude the second largest area within the Monticello 

PA from land-use authorizations, primarily because of VRM constraints on surface disturbances 

that could impact scenic quality (see Table 4.240, VRM Class Designation Acreages by 

Alternative). Thus, this alternative has the second lowest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources as it would result in the second least amount of surface disturbance 

associated with land-use authorizations activities. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would have more beneficial impacts to the resource because more area would be protected from 

surface disturbances. 

4.3.9.3.1.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, Land-use authorizations would be permitted on all lands within the 

Monticello PA except WSAs, eligible Wild and Scenic River corridors, ACECs, all areas 

managed as open to oil and gas leasing with major constraints (such as areas under NSO 

stipulations), designated VRM Class I, II, and III areas, and migratory bird habitats and raptor 

nesting complexes in riparian habitats and sagebrush and aspen. Alternative C exempts the third 

largest area of the PA from land-use authorizations, primarily because of VRM management 

objective constraints on surface disturbances. The impacts of this alternative, when compared to 

Alternative A, would be the same as Alternative B. 

4.3.9.3.1.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, land-use authorizations permitted on all lands within the Monticello PA 

except WSAs, designated VRM Class I areas, threatened and endangered species habitats, and all 

areas managed as open to oil and gas leasing with major constraints (such as NSO areas). 

Alternative D exempts the fourth largest amount of BLM land from land-use authorizations 

(after Alternatives B, C, and E). As related to potential surface disturbance and increased access 

to public lands associated with land-use authorizations, potential adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources under Alternative D would be less than Alternative A for the same 

reasons as discussed under Alternative B. 

4.3.9.3.1.5. Alternative E 

Lands and realty management decisions under Alternative E would be the same as the impacts 

discussed under Alternative B, except that 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed as exclusion areas for ROWs. This would restrict or prohibit 

surface disturbances and would have additional long-term, beneficial, preservation-related 

impacts on paleontological resources. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have the 

lowest potential for adverse impacts to the resource because it would result in the least amount of 

surface disturbance associated with land-use authorizations. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-302 

4.3.9.3.1.6. Proposed Plan 

Lands and realty management decisions under the Proposed Plan would be the same as the 

impacts discussed under Alternative B, except 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed as avoidance areas for ROWs . The impacts of this alternative, 

when compared to Alternative A, would be the similar to Alternative B, but would protect more 

area from surface disturbances. 

4.3.9.3.2. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.9.3.2.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, no acres of Class 1 units, 1,501 acres of Class 2 units, 129,899 acres of 

Class 3 units, 5,151 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 724 acres of Class 5 units would be unavailable 

for livestock grazing. Alternative A would have the highest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in sensitive areas/geologic units because it would manage the least 

amount of land as unavailable to livestock grazing (128,098 unavailable acres under 

management actions common to all alternatives), and thus would have the greatest likelihood of 

livestock trampling of important surface fossils. 

4.3.9.3.2.2. Alternatives B and E 

Alternatives B and E would manage the same number of acres as unavailable for grazing 

(128,098 acres under management actions common to all alternatives, with an additional 13,062 

acres as unavailable to livestock grazing , including portions of Slickhorn Canyon (Perkins 

Brother's Allotment), Rone Bailey Mesa (Upper Mail Station Allotment), Dodge Canyon 

Allotment, Mule Canyon, Arch Canyon, Fish and Owl Canyons, Road Canyon, Roger Allotment, 

West Butler Wash Canyon, and Horsehead Canyon within the Montezuma Canyon Allotment. 

Under Alternatives B and E, no acres of Class 1 units, 4,034 acres of Class 2 units, 126,939 acres 

of Class 3 units, 7,552 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 2,053 acres of Class 5 units would be 

unavailable for livestock grazing. These alternatives would restrict other areas to livestock 

trailing only, with no grazing, and the BLM would develop seasonal restrictions, unavailable 

acreages, and/or forage utilization limits on grazing in riparian areas considered to be 

Functioning at Risk. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial 

impacts on paleontological resources because more area would be protected from the potential 

impacts of livestock trampling. 

Alternatives B and E would have the lowest potential for long-term adverse impacts to the 

resource because these alternatives would impose the most restrictions on livestock grazing, with 

reduced potential for adverse impacts to paleontological resources. Compared to Alternative A, 

these alternatives would be have less adverse impacts to the resource from livestock grazing 

because more area would be unavailable to livestock grazing disturbances of surface fossils. The 

impacts comparison of this alternative with Alternative A would be the same as discussed above 

for Alternative B. 

4.3.9.3.2.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C would have the third largest acreage managed as unavailable for livestock grazing 

(after Alternative E) by managing 128,098 acres as unavailable under management actions 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-303 

common to all alternatives, with an additional 8,163 acres managed as unavailable. The acreages 

and impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative B, except that Alternative C opens 

Mule Canyon below U-95 to livestock grazing. Under Alternative C, zero acres of Class 1 units, 

4,031 acres of Class 2 units, 134,159 acres of Class 3 units, 7,552 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 

2,053 acres of Class 5 units would be unavailable for livestock grazing. The impacts comparison 

with Alternative A would be the same as discussed under Alternatives B and E. 

4.3.9.3.2.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D livestock grazing decisions would manage the fourth most acreage as unavailable 

to livestock grazing (with slightly less unavailable acreages [128,098 acres as unavailable under 

management actions common to all alternatives, with an additional 4,010 acres managed as 

unavailable], when compared to Alternative A). Under Alternative D, Slickhorn Canyon (Perkins 

Brother's Allotment), Rone Bailey Mesa (Upper Mail Station Allotment), Mule Canyon below 

U-95, Arch Canyon, Fish and Owl Canyons, Road Canyon, Rogers Allotment, and portions of 

West Butler Wash Canyons would be unavailable for livestock grazing. Under Alternative D, 

zero acres of Class 1 units, 2,664 acres of Class 2 units, 130,032 acres of Class 3 units, 5,111 

acres of Class 4/5 units, and 724 acres of Class 5 units would be unavailable for livestock 

grazing. Alternative D would have a higher potential for adverse impacts on paleontological 

resources in sensitive areas/geologic units due to livestock trampling than Alternatives B, C, and 

E, but a lower potential for adverse impacts than Alternative A. 

4.3.9.3.2.5. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would have the fourth largest acreage managed as unavailable for livestock 

grazing by managing 128,098 acres as unavailable under management actions common to all 

alternatives, with an additional 13,718 acres managed as unavailable. The acreages and impacts 

would be the same as discussed under Alternative B. Under the Proposed Plan, zero acres of 

Class 1 units, 10,687 acres of Class 2 units, 109,484 acres of Class 3 units, 8,370 acres of Class 

4/5 units, and 5,106 acres of Class 5 units would be unavailable for livestock grazing. 

4.3.9.3.3. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Impacts to paleontological resources from oil and gas leasing are discussed by alternative below. 

Surface disturbance for mineral development other than oil and gas would be 851 acres over 15 

years for all alternatives and include Uranium and Vanadium, Placer Gold, Limestone, Sand and 

Gravel, Building Stone, and Clay. 

4.3.9.3.3.1. Alternative A 

The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing under both standard and special stipulations 

within each Monticello PA RFD area under Alternative A and corresponding paleontological 

sensitivities of geologic units is shown in Table 4.101. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-304 

Table 4.101. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative A for Each of the RFD Areas 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Blanding 19 78,268 36,241 163,403 120,136 

Monument 

Upwarp 

0 166,911 335,015 72,658 12,506 

Paradox Fold 

and Fault 

0 127,473 85,977 31,317 8,306 

Total 19 372,652 457,233 267,378 140,948 

Table 4.102 shows the oil and gas leasing stipulations applicable by RFD area for Alternative A. 

Table 4.102 Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Alternative A 

RFD Area 

Open with 

Standard 

Conditions 

Open with 

Special 

Stipulations 

Open with No 

Surface 

Occupancy 

Closed to Oil and 

Gas Leasing 

Blanding 270,410 127,657 9,059 15,547

Monument 

Upwarp 

144,241 442,848 147,249 359,337

Paradox Fold 

and Fault 

163,953 89,121 4,916 10,432

Alternative A has the second lowest potential for adverse, surface disturbance-related impacts on 

paleontological resources because it proposes opening the second least amount of land 

containing paleontologically sensitive (Class 3, 4/5, and 5) geologic units for minerals 

exploration and development (see Table 4.113 in Section 4.3.9.4, Summary of Impacts). 

4.3.9.3.3.2. Alternative B 

The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing under both standard and special stipulations 

within each RFD area under Alternative B and corresponding paleontological sensitivities of 

geologic units is provided in Table 4.103: 

Table 4.103. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative B for Each of the RFD Areas 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Blanding 19 56,593 30,408 159,113 120,217 

Monument 

Upwarp 

0 179,266 400,895 75,585 12,506 

Paradox Fold 

and Fault 

0 120,491 51,713 26,851 8,180 

Total 19 356,350 483,016 261,751 140,903 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-305 

Table 4.104 below shows the oil and gas leasing stipulations applicable by RFD area for 

Alternative B. 

Table 4.104. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Alternative B 

RFD Area 

Open with 

Standard 

Conditions 

Open with 

Special 

Stipulations 

Open with No 

Surface 

Occupancy 

Closed to Oil 

and Gas 

Leasing 

Blanding 148,521 214,212 39,805 15,000

Monument Upwarp 192,290 456,604 35,826 390,014

Paradox Fold and 

Fault 

24,359 182,876 49,473 11,597

Alternative B has the third lowest potential for surface disturbance-related adverse impacts on 

scientifically significant paleontological resources because it contains the third lowest number of 

acres of paleontologically sensitive (Class 3, 4/5, and 5) geologic units on acreage proposed for 

minerals exploration and development (see Table 4.113 in Section 4.3.9.4, Summary of Impacts). 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have potentially more adverse impacts on the 

resource because more acreage with sensitive paleontological fossils would be open to minerals 

development. 

4.3.9.3.3.3. Alternative C 

The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing under both standard and special stipulations on 

BLM-administered lands within each RFD area under Alternative C and corresponding 

paleontological sensitivities of geologic units is provided in Table 4.105: 

Table 4.105. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative C for Each of the RFD Areas 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Blanding 19 75,907 36,770 164,025 120,300 

Monument 

Upwarp 

0 192,183 419,889 76,607 12,507 

Paradox Fold 

and Fault 

0 127,397 83,470 31,722 8,180 

Total 19 395,487 540,129 272,354 140,987 

Table 4.106 shows the oil and gas leasing stipulations applicable by RFD area for Alternative C. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-306 

Table 4.106. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Alternative C 

RFD Area 

Open with 

Standard 

Conditions 

Open with 

Special 

Stipulations 

Open with No 

Surface 

Occupancy 

Closed to Oil 

and Gas 

Leasing 

Blanding 254,706 142,314 8,213 16,012

Monument Upwarp 293,201 407,984 25,171 367,720

Paradox Fold and 

Fault 

81,564 172,205 5,939 11,597

Alternative C has the fourth lowest potential for adverse impacts on scientifically significant 

paleontological resources because it contains the fourth lowest acreage of paleontologically 

sensitive (Class 3, 4/5, and 5) geologic units within areas proposed for minerals exploration and 

development (see Table 4.113 in Section 4.3.9.4, Summary of Impacts). Compared to Alternative 

A, this alternative would have potentially more adverse impacts because more acreage of 

sensitive resources would be open to minerals development. 

4.3.9.3.3.4. Alternative D 

The number of acres proposed as open to oil and gas leasing under both standard and special 

stipulations within the Monticello PA RFD areas under Alternative D and corresponding 

paleontological sensitivities of geologic units are provided in Table 4.107:

Table 4.107. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative D for Each of the RFD Areas 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Blanding 19 75,865 37,334 163,974 120,299 

Monument 

Upwarp 

0 193,556 445,074 76,775 12,506 

Paradox Fold 

and Fault 

0 127,526 90,342 31,823 8,179 

Total 19 396,957 572,750 272,572 140,984 

Table 4.108 shows the oil and gas leasing stipulations applicable by RFD area for Alternative D. 

Table 4.108. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Alternative D 

RFD Area 

Open with 

Standard 

Conditions 

Open with 

Special 

Stipulations 

Open with No 

Surface 

Occupancy 

Closed to Oil 

and Gas Leasing 

Blanding 303,258 118,675 8,936 15,506

Monument Upwarp 505,529 222,393 5,240 360,914

Paradox Fold and 

Fault 

153,496 104,374 0 10,433
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-307 

Alternative D would have the highest potential for adverse impacts on scientifically significant 

paleontological resources because it contains the largest amount of acreage of paleontologically 

sensitive (Class 3, 4/5, and 5) geologic units within acreage proposed for minerals exploration 

and development (see Table 4.113 in Section 4.3.9.4, Summary of Impacts). Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have potentially more adverse impacts because more 

acreage of sensitive resources would be open to minerals development. 

4.3.9.3.3.5. Alternative E 

The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing under both standard and special stipulations 

within each RFD area under Alternative E and corresponding paleontological sensitivities of 

geologic units are provided in Table 4.109: 

Table 4.109. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative E for Each of the RFD Areas 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Blanding 19 56,076 30,255 156,724 119,658 

Monument 

Upwarp 

0 163,911 324,905 71,702 12,506 

Paradox Fold 

and Fault 

0 95,645 24,600 18,750 8,160 

Total 19 315,632 379,760 247,176 140,324 

Table 4.110 shows the oil and gas leasing stipulations applicable by RFD area for Alternative E. 

Alternative E would have the lowest potential for adverse impacts on scientifically significant 

paleontological resources because it would manage the smallest acreage for minerals exploration 

and development in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units (Class 3, 4/5, and 5). 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have potentially less adverse impacts because 

fewer acres of sensitive resources would be open to minerals activities and surface disturbances. 

Table 4.110. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Alternative E 

RFD Area 

Open with 

Standard 

Conditions 

Open with 

Special 

Stipulations 

Open with No 

Surface 

Occupancy 

Closed to Oil 

and Gas 

Leasing 

Blanding 148,520 217,919 40,492 15,001

Monument Upwarp 170,523 433,456 35,826 454,270

Paradox Fold and 

Fault 

24,359 172,444 46,770 24,732

4.3.9.3.3.6. Proposed Plan 

The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing under both standard and special stipulations on 

BLM-administered lands within each RFD area under the Proposed Plan and corresponding 

paleontological sensitivities of geologic units is provided in Table 4.111: 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-308 

Table 4.111. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

The Proposed Plan for Each of the RFD Areas 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Blanding 19 80,301 48,437 167,527 125,649 

Monument 

Upwarp 

0 250,897 753,300 77,352 12,506 

Paradox Fold 

and Fault 

0 127,529 100,244 32,360 8,179 

Total 19 458,727 901,981 277,239 146,334 

Table 4.12 shows the oil and gas leasing stipulations applicable by RFD area for the Proposed 

Plan. 

Table 4.112. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) by RFD Area, Proposed Plan 

RFD Area 

Open with 

Standard 

Conditions 

Open with 

Special 

Stipulations 

Open with No 

Surface 

Occupancy 

Closed to Oil 

and Gas 

Leasing 

Blanding 215,202 152,531 38,123 16,076 

Monument Upwarp 228,783 377,588 22,001 465,683 

Paradox Fold and 

Fault 

40,228 210,475 5,984 11,626 

The Proposed Plan has the fifth lowest potential for adverse impacts on scientifically significant 

paleontological resources because it contains the fifth lowest acreage of paleontologically 

sensitive (Class 3, 4/5, and 5) geologic units within areas proposed for minerals exploration and 

development (see Table 4.113 in Section 4.3.9.4, Summary of Impacts). Compared to Alternative 

A, this alternative would have potentially more adverse impacts because more acreage of 

sensitive resources would be open to minerals development. 

4.3.9.3.4. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Management decisions related to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics decisions 

would have beneficial direct and indirect impacts on paleontological resources that occur within 

their boundaries. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect 

natural values; surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited. This decision would protect any 

paleontological resources that exist on non-WSA lands that are managed to protect their 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.9.3.4.1. Alternatives A through D 

No acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect 

wilderness values. Therefore, no beneficial impact to paleontological resources would occur. The 

potentially adverse impacts to the resource would be the same as discussed under the other 

resources within this section. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-309 

4.3.9.3.4.2. Alternative E 

Alternative E would manage 582,357 acres to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. These lands would be managed as 1) closed to oil and gas leasing, 2) designated 

as VRM Class I (allowing a very low degree of surface impacts), 3) closed to OHV travel, and 4) 

ROWs would not be permitted. These restrictions would protect paleontological resources by 

precluding surface-disturbing activities. Compared to Alternative A this alternative would have 

more beneficial impacts on the resource because more area would be protected from surface and 

subsurface disturbances. 

4.3.9.3.4.3. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would manage 88,871 acres to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. These lands would be managed as 1) closed to oil and gas leasing in Grand 

Gulch, Mancos Mesa, and Nokai Dome, and NSO in Dark Canyon, 2) designated as VRM Class 

II (allowing a low degree of surface impacts), 3) limited to designated roads and trails, and 4) 

ROWs avoidance areas. These restrictions would protect paleontological resources by precluding 

surface-disturbing activities. Compared to Alternative A this alternative would have more 

beneficial impacts on the resource because more area would be protected from surface and 

subsurface disturbances. 

4.3.9.3.5. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.9.3.5.1. Alternative A 

Alternative A would generally have the least restrictions to recreational activities within the 

SRMAs and the ERMA. However, since site surveys and resource mitigation would be 

conducted prior to surface disturbance, the impacts from recreational activities on 

paleontological resources would likely be minor. 

4.3.9.3.5.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B would generally be the second most restrictive on recreational activities within the 

Monticello PA SRMAs and the ERMA. To the extent that increased recreation results in greater 

public access and may require the installation of surface-disturbing infrastructure such as trails, 

and buildings, adverse impacts on important paleontological resources may result. Thus, 

Alternative B has the second lowest potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources 

(after Alternative E) related to recreation decisions. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would be more beneficial to the resource because more restrictions would be placed on 

recreational activities and facility construction. 

4.3.9.3.5.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C generally provides the third highest level of restrictions on recreational activities 

within the SRMAs and the ERMA. To the extent that increased recreation results in greater 

public access and may require the installation of surface-disturbing infrastructure such as roads, 

trails, and buildings, adverse impacts on important paleontological resources may result. Thus, 

Alternative C has a lower potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources related to 

recreation decisions than Alternatives A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-310 

4.3.9.3.5.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D would generally provide the fourth highest level of restrictions on recreational 

activities within the Monticello PA SRMAs and the ERMA. The impacts would be the same as 

those discussed under Alternative B and C, but to a potentially greater adverse degree, from 

fewer restrictions on recreational activities. Alternative D would a higher potential for adverse 

impacts on paleontological resources than Alternative A because of more restrictions on 

recreation-related surface disturbances and access than Alternative A. 

4.3.9.3.5.5. Alternative E 

The impacts on paleontological resources from recreation management decisions within the 

SRMAs, and the ERMA would be the same as discussed under Alternative B, except within 

lands with non-WSA wilderness characteristics, which would be managed with additional 

protective measures that would be beneficial to paleontological resources, as described above in 

Section 4.3.9.3.4. Approximately 165,831 acres of SRMAs would have inventoried wilderness 

characteristics, and would therefore be managed with prescriptions beneficial to paleontological 

resources. An additional 416,526 acres within the ERMA would also be managed under these 

beneficial prescriptions. Because of the large area managed to preclude surface disturbance and 

with reduced public access, Alternative E would be the most beneficial to paleontological 

resources. However, there would also be an adverse reduction of discovery and recovery of 

additional fossils and other resources due to reduced surface disturbance and access. Compared 

to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial to the resource because of the 

increased level of protection within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.9.3.5.6. Proposed Plan 

The impacts on paleontological resources from recreation management decisions within the 

SRMAs and the ERMA would be the same as discussed under Alternative B, except within lands 

with non-WSA wilderness characteristics, which would be managed with additional protective 

measures that would be beneficial to paleontological resources, as described above in Section 

4.3.9.3.4. Approximately 13,600 acres of SRMAs lie withinnon-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, and would therefore be managed with prescriptions beneficial to paleontological 

resources. To the extent that increased recreation results in greater public access and may require 

the installation of surface-disturbing infrastructure such as roads, trails, and buildings, adverse 

impacts on important paleontological resources may result. Thus, the Proposed Plan has a lower 

potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources related to recreation decisions than 

Alternatives A. 

4.3.9.3.6. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

4.3.9.3.6.1. Alternative A 

Alternative A would generally be the least restrictive in terms of commercial and recreational 

access uses of lands designated as ACECs and eligible WSR segments. Under Alternative A, no 

acres of Class 1 geologic units, 96,932 acres of Class 2 units, 171,736 acres of Class 3 units, 

141,790 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 93,985 acres of Class 5 units would lie within ACECs. 

Under Alternative A, 3,577 acres of ACECs would be open to minerals leasing under standard 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-311 

conditions, 122,335 acres would be open under controlled surface use and timing limitations, 

95,246 acres would be open with no surface occupancy, and 292,289 acres would be closed to 

minerals leasing. Of all the alternatives, Alternative A would permit the greatest commercial and 

recreational access to ACECs and WSRs, and is associated with the highest amount of potential 

surface disturbance. Therefore, Alternative A has the greatest potential for adverse impacts on 

important paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.3.6.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B would generally be the second most restrictive in terms of commercial and 

recreational access and uses of lands proposed as ACECs and eligible WSR segments (only 

Alternative E is more restrictive). Under Alternative B, no acres of Class 1 geologic units, 

43,954 acres of Class 2 units, 439,341 acres of Class 3 units, 21,793 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 

14,804 acres of Class 5 units would be designated as ACECs. Under Alternative B, 44,884 acres 

of ACECs would be open to minerals leasing under standard conditions, 102,825 acres would be 

open under controlled surface use and timing limitations, 62,698 acres would be open with no 

surface occupancy, and 310,651 acres would be closed to minerals leasing. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial to the resource because more restrictions 

would be placed on access to areas with sensitive paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.3.6.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, no acres of Class 1 geologic units, 11,141 acres of Class 2 units, 34,302 

acres of Class 3 units, 15,264 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 14,804 acres of Class 5 units would be 

designated as ACECs. Under Alternative C, 92,115 acres of ACECs would be open to minerals 

leasing under standard conditions, 101,572 acres would be open under controlled surface use and 

timing limitations, 35,822 acres would be open with no surface occupancy, and 291,605 acres 

would be closed to minerals leasing. Alternative C is less restrictive than Alternatives B and E, 

but more restrictive than Alternatives A and D. Therefore, Alternative C would be the third most 

limiting in terms of commercial and recreational access to ACECs and eligible WSR segments, 

and is associated with the second least degree of potential surface disturbance and resulting 

adverse impacts on important paleontological resources. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would be more beneficial to the resource because more restrictions would be placed 

on access to areas with sensitive paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.3.6.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, no new ACECs would be designated and no river segments would be 

managed as eligible for WSR status. Under this alternative, 152,809 acres of existing ACECs 

would be open to minerals leasing under standard conditions, 71,093 acres would be open under 

controlled surface use and timing limitations, 9,736 acres would be open with no surface 

occupancy, and 287,462 acres would be closed to minerals leasing. Alternative D would be the 

second least restrictive in terms of commercial and recreational access and uses of lands 

designated as ACECs and WSRs, and thus would potentially allow the second most degree of 

adverse impacts to paleontological resources of the proposed alternatives because it would allow 

the second highest level of commercial and recreational access to ACECs and river segments 

within the Monticello PA. This alternative would be more restrictive than Alternative A, so 

Alternative D would have potentially fewer adverse impacts to the resource than Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-312 

4.3.9.3.6.5. Alternative E 

The impacts of special designation decisions on the resource would be similar to those discussed 

under Alternative B because the proposed ACEC acreages and miles of eligible WSR segments 

would be the same. Under this alternative, the proposed ACECs would encompass approximately 

109,206 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and would therefore be 

managed with prescriptions that would prevent surface disturbances to paleontological resources. 

Because of the larger area managed to preclude surface disturbance and with reduced public 

access, Alternative E would be the most beneficial to paleontological resources. However, there 

would also be an adverse reduction of discovery and recovery of additional fossils and other 

resources due to reduced surface disturbance and access. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would be more beneficial to the resource because greater protection would be 

afforded the resource. 

4.3.9.3.6.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, no acres of Class 1 geologic units, 11,141 acres of Class 2 units, 

34,302 acres of Class 3 units, 15,264 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 14,804 acres of Class 5 units 

would be designated as ACECs. Under the Proposed Plan, 79,224 acres of ACECs would be 

open to minerals leasing under standard conditions, 109,823 acres would be open under 

controlled surface use and timing limitations, 19,216 acres would be open with no surface 

occupancy, and 312,853 acres would be closed to minerals leasing. The Proposed Plan is less 

restrictive than Alternatives B, C, and E, but more restrictive than Alternatives A, and D. 

Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial to the resource because 

more restrictions would be placed on access to areas with sensitive paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.3.7. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.9.3.7.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, 611,310 acres would be open to OHV use, 540,260 acres would be open to 

limited use with seasonal restrictions, 570,390 acres would be limited to existing roads and trails, 

218,780 acres would be limited to designated roads and trails, and 276,430 acres would be closed 

to OHV use. Of the proposed alternatives, Alternative A would have the highest potential for 

adverse impacts on paleontological resources in sensitive areas/geologic units because it opens 

the highest acreage of the Monticello PA to travel and access to the general public, thus 

increasing the potential for unauthorized fossil collection and vandalism of scientifically 

significant paleontological resources in sensitive areas/geologic units. The construction of new 

roads, routes or trails in sensitive areas/geologic units under Alternative A would also adversely 

impact paleontological resources if surface disturbances were not mitigated to protect the 

resource. 

4.3.9.3.7.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, no acres would be open to cross-country OHV travel, 1,359,417 acres 

would be limited to designated routes, and 423,698 acres would be closed to OHV use. Of the 

proposed alternatives, Alternative B would have the second lowest potential for adverse impacts 

on paleontological resources in sensitive areas/geologic units because it is the second most travel 

restrictive (after Alternative E). This would reduce the likelihood of unauthorized fossil 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-313 

collection and vandalism of scientifically significant paleontological resources resulting from 

increased access to public lands due to the construction of roads, routes, and trails. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial to the resource because all cross-country 

OHV travel (and potential impacts to surface fossils from this form of travel) would be 

eliminated. 

4.3.9.3.7.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, 2,311 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, 1,362,142 acres 

would be limited to designated routes, approximately 3.8 miles would be limited to designated 

routes with seasonal restrictions, and 418,667 acres would be closed to OHV use. Alternative C 

would have the third lowest potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources in 

sensitive areas/geologic units because it is the fourth-most travel restrictive. Alternatives B and E 

would have a lower potential for adverse impacts, and Alternatives A and D would have a higher 

potential for adverse impacts resulting from increased public access due to the construction of 

roads, routes, and trails. 

4.3.9.3.7.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, 2,311 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, 1,780,807 acres 

would be limited to designated routes, no acres would be limited to designated routes with 

seasonal restrictions, and zero acres would be closed to OHV use. Alternative D would have the 

second highest potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources in sensitive 

areas/geologic units because it is the second least travel restrictive. Alternatives B, C, and E 

would have a lower potential for adverse impacts, and Alternative A would have a higher 

potential for adverse impacts resulting from increased public access due to the construction of 

roads, routes, and trails. 

4.3.9.3.7.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, no acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, 812,683 acres would 

require travel along designated routes, and 970,435 acres would be closed to OHV use. Of all the 

alternatives, Alternative E would have the lowest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in sensitive areas/geologic units because it is the most travel 

restrictive. These restrictions would reduce the likelihood of unauthorized fossil collection and 

vandalism of scientifically significant paleontological resources resulting from increased public 

access due to the construction of roads, routes, and trails. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would be more beneficial to the resource because of the substantial reduction in travel 

opportunities, most notably on lands with non-WSA wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.9.3.7.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, zero acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, 1,388,191 acres 

would be limited to designated routes, approximately 6.9 miles would be limited to designated 

routes with seasonal restrictions, and 393,895 acres would be closed to OHV use. The Proposed 

Plan would have the third lowest potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources in 

sensitive areas/geologic units because it is the third-most travel restrictive. Alternatives B and E 

would have a lower potential for adverse impacts, and Alternatives A and D would have a higher 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-314 

potential for adverse impacts resulting from increased public access due to the construction of 

roads, routes, and trails. 

4.3.9.3.8. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.9.3.8.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, no restrictions would be placed on the harvesting and use of woodlands 

products outside WSAs and other designated exclusion areas (see Section 4.3.20.3.1.12, Impacts 

of Woodlands Decisions on Woodlands). Of the proposed alternatives, Alternative A would 

permit the most commercial and public access within the Monticello PA for woodlands product 

use (1,309,894 acres would be available for harvesting within the PA), including surface 

disturbance associated with the harvesting and access to harvesting areas. Under Alternative A, 

zero acres of Class 1 units, 194,783 acres of Class 2 units, 365,088 acres of Class 3 units, 

186,942 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 110,193 acres of Class 5 units would be open to woodland 

harvest. Alternative A would have the highest potential for adverse impacts on paleontological 

resources in sensitive areas/geologic units because it would result in greater surface disturbance 

that could damage or destroy important or valuable fossils. It would also facilitate greater 

commercial and public access to more areas within the PA, thus increasing the potential for 

unauthorized fossil collecting and vandalism. 

4.3.9.3.8.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B would place a high level of seasonal restrictions, limits, and closures of areas to 

woodlands harvesting. Under Alternative B, a total of 730,074 acres of BLM lands would be 

available for commercial and recreational use of woodlands products with harvesting limits and 

restrictions specific to each of the proposed nine harvesting zones. This alternative would 

potentially affect no acres of Class 1 geologic units, 96,932 acres of Class 2 units, 171,736 acres 

of Class 3 units, 141,790 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 93,985 acres of Class 5 units on land open 

to woodland harvesting. Because it would allow the second least amount of surface disturbance 

associated with woodlands harvesting and the least amount of commercial and public access to 

potentially sensitive areas/geologic units of all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, Alternative B 

would have the second lowest potential for adverse impacts on important paleontological 

resources. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial to the resource 

because more restrictions would be placed on woodland harvesting that would provide greater 

protection to paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.3.8.3. Alternative C 

Of the proposed alternatives, Alternative C would manage woodland resources with the third 

highest level of seasonal restrictions, limits and closures of areas to harvesting. Under 

Alternative C, 841,938 acres would be available for commercial and private harvesting, with 

specified harvesting limits and restrictions for each of the nine woodland zones. This alternative 

would manage woodland resources with zero acres of Class 1 geologic units, 98,838 acres of 

Class 2 units, 234,757 acres of Class 3 units, 153,168 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 106,909 acres 

of Class 5 units on land available for harvesting. Because it would allow the second lowest 

amount of surface disturbance associated with woodlands products harvesting and the second 

lowest amount of commercial and public access to potentially sensitive areas/geologic units, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-315 

Alternative C would have a lower potential for adverse impacts on important paleontological 

resources than Alternatives A. 

4.3.9.3.8.4. Alternative D 

Of the proposed alternatives, Alternative D would have the fourth highest level seasonal 

restrictions, limits, and closures of areas to woodland harvesting. The acreage available for 

woodlands harvesting would be the same as Alternative C. However, Alternative D places fewer 

restrictions on woodlands harvesting than Alternative C by removing the stipulation that OHV 

travel be restricted to 150 feet of designated routes in most woodland zones. As it would allow 

the second highest amount of surface disturbance associated with woodlands products harvesting 

and the second highest amount of commercial and public access to potentially sensitive 

areas/geologic units, Alternative D would have a higher potential for adverse impacts on 

important paleontological resources than Alternatives B, C, and E, but a lower potential for 

adverse impacts to paleontological resources than Alternative A. 

4.3.9.3.8.5. Alternative E 

The impacts of Alternative E woodland management decisions on paleontological resources 

would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B because the proposed management 

decisions would be the same, except that 1) approximately 6,197 acres within the proposed 

woodland harvesting zones would impose restrictions on surface disturbance to protect lands 

with non-WSA wilderness characteristics (these areas fall within the White Canyon, Harts Draw, 

and South Cottonwood zones), and 2) 548,477 acres would be available for harvesting within the 

PA. The impacts on paleontological resources would be beneficial in the long-term within these 

areas because the underlying resources would be protected. This alternative would have the 

lowest potential for adverse impacts on important paleontological resources because it would 

manage the smallest area for woodland harvesting. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would be more beneficial to paleontological resources because over 40% less of the Monticello 

PA would be available for harvesting. 

4.3.9.3.8.6. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would manage woodland resources with the third highest level of seasonal 

restrictions, limits and closures of areas to harvesting. Under the Proposed Plan, 841,938 acres 

would be available for commercial and private harvesting, with specified harvesting limits and 

restrictions for each of the nine woodland zones. This alternative would manage woodland 

resources with zero acres of Class 1 geologic units, 101,974 acres of Class 2 units, 234,759 acres 

of Class 3 units, 153,167 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 106,909 acres of Class 5 units on land 

available for harvesting. Because it would allow the third lowest amount of surface disturbance 

associated with woodlands products harvesting and the third lowest amount of commercial and 

public access to potentially sensitive areas/geologic units, the Proposed Plan would have a lower 

potential for adverse impacts on important paleontological resources than Alternatives A. 

4.3.9.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

In this section, the impacts of the five alternatives evaluated in this chapter are summarized. 

Table 4.113 summarizes the acreage available by PFYC class for mineral exploration and 

development. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-316 

Alternative E would have the lowest potential for adverse impacts on scientifically significant 

paleontological resources because it involves the least amount of acreage in paleontologically 

sensitive areas/geologic units (Class 3, 4/5, and 5). Alternative A would have the second lowest 

potential, followed by Alternative B. Alternative C would have the fourth lowest potential. 

Alternative D would have the highest potential for adverse impacts on scientifically significant 

paleontological resources. 

Table 4.113. Summary of Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Available for Mineral 

Exploration and Development within the Monticello PA 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Proposed 

Plan 

Class 1 19 19 19 19 19 19 

Class 2 372,652 356,350 395,487 396,957 214,747 341,533 

Class 3 457,233 483,016 540,129 572,750 168,343 481,981 

Class 4/5 267,378 261,751 272,354 272,572 237,698 263,473 

Class 5 140,948 140,903 140,987 140,984 138,121 140,903 

Total Class 

3–5 

865,559 885,670 953,470 986,306 544,162 886,357 

Total 1,238,230 1,242,039 1,348,976 1,383,282 758,928 1,227,909 

See Section 4.3.9, Paleontological Resources, for detailed PFYC class descriptions.

4.3.9.5. MITIGATION MEASURES 

As a nonrenewable resource, paleontological resources are unique. At the time fossils are 

discovered during paleontological surveys or mitigation monitoring of ground-disturbing 

activities, many have already been subjected to a variety of destructive processes. These include 

predation; scavenging; disarticulation of skeletal remains; transport; primary weathering; 

diagenesis (physical changes in rock that occur over time, such as compaction, cementation, and 

mineral replacement); erosion; secondary weathering; and, if discovered during monitoring, 

additional damage that may have occurred during the ground-disturbing action that led to fossil 

discovery. Unlike other resources, it is difficult to develop measurable performance standards for 

paleontological mitigation because 1) fossils may have been damaged by natural processes prior 

to their discovery during a paleontological survey or during paleontological monitoring; 2) subsurface fossils are often further damaged by construction activities that reveal their presence to 

paleontological monitors, and 3) there is no way to quantify how many fossils are preserved in 

the sedimentary deposits underlying a given site that were not exposed during the grounddisturbing action. Therefore, the absence of fossils would not indicate failure of the mitigation 

measures. Paleontological mitigation seeks to discover, via survey or monitoring, as many 

scientifically significant fossils as possible prior to their destruction during human-caused 

surface disturbance. Measurable performance standards in paleontology apply to survey- and 

mitigation-monitoring procedures, which ensure that fossil localities are documented thoroughly 

and accurately, and that fossils are collected according to professional paleontological standards. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources 

4-317 

4.3.9.6. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

With project-specific assessments and, if appropriate, paleontological mitigation, lands and 

realty decisions, minerals decisions, recreation decisions, woodlands decisions, livestock grazing 

decisions, travel decisions, and special-designations decisions under all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan would reduce adverse impacts on paleontological resources resulting from 

surface-disturbing actions to below the level of significance. However, the increased possibility 

of public access to previously inaccessible lands due to new commercial and recreational 

activities and infrastructure will increase loss risk of paleontological resources due to 

unauthorized fossil collecting (poaching). The loss of these resources represents an unavoidable 

adverse impact. The rate, extent, intensity, and duration of loss cannot be quantified at this time 

due to lack of data. 

4.3.9.7. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY IMPACTS 

Short-term uses of BLM lands for activities involving surface disturbance or increased public 

access would have long-term impacts on non-renewable paleontological resources. In 

paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units, surface-disturbing activities affecting 

paleontological resources would include mineral development (including oil and gas), trampling 

by livestock, and the construction of infrastructure such as roads, trails, reservoirs, buildings, and 

fire lines. Travel decisions involving maintenance, upgrade, and realignment of roads and OHV 

use would also have long-term adverse impacts on paleontological resources in sensitive 

areas/geologic units. Enhancing or restricting public access through Lands and Realty decisions 

and Special Designations would create the potential for long-term impacts, either adverse or 

beneficial. In most cases, implementation of paleontological mitigation measures would reduce 

adverse impacts to below the level of significance, and result in beneficial impacts by salvaging 

and preserving fossils that otherwise may have never been discovered. Such fossils would be 

permanently available in a public museum for scientific research, education, and public display. 

Accordingly, these long-term impacts would not result in a loss of the long-term productivity of 

this resource. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-318 

4.3.10. RECREATION

Recreational resources are defined for this impacts analysis as the natural elements (e.g., scenery, 

vegetation, geology, land forms, weather) within the environment that provide the physical basis 

for recreation. Recreational opportunities are defined as the combination of the natural elements 

and human-controlled conditions (e.g., roads and trails, developed sites, signs, route markers, 

facilities) that create the potential for recreation. Recreational expectations are those assumptions 

made by the recreation resource user (for example, an OHV rider, scenic driver, or hiker [see the 

description of user groups below]) that, having prepared for the desired recreational experience, 

he/she will have that desired experience (e.g., a challenging or scenic off-road trail, driving while 

enjoying high-quality scenery, or the natural sights and sounds of an undeveloped landscape 

along a hiking trail). Recreational user satisfaction can be defined as the mental state in which 

the resource user is able to successfully benefit from the available recreational opportunities and 

recognize that his/her recreational experiences meet or exceed those recreational expectations. 

The following assumptions were made and considered in the analysis of impacts of the proposed 

RMP management decisions on recreational opportunities and experiences, and on recreation 

resources within the Monticello PA: 

• The BLM assumed that resource users within the Monticello PA could be classified into 

specific user groups, each of which has its set of recreation expectations or objectives, 

recreational opportunities, and needs to achieve satisfying recreational experiences. We also 

assumed that, because each user group has its needs, opportunities, and expectations, each 

group also has specific recreational conditions and criteria that increase the likelihood of 

satisfying user experiences. The descriptions, expectations, and criteria of these groups were 

derived from Monticello FO resource specialist knowledge of visitor use of recreational 

resources and of what constitutes user group satisfaction, based on informal but long-term infield interviews with visitors recreating throughout the PA. For the action alternatives 

(Alternatives B, C, D, and E) and the Proposed Plan, the Monticello FO's benefits-based 

recreation management (BBM) goals and objectives (see Appendix E) for the proposed 

SRMAs were also used in analyzing the impacts of resource decisions on user groups and on 

the likelihood of users having satisfying recreational experiences in these areas. The 

recreation user groups and assumed conditions/criteria for satisfactory recreational user 

experiences are: 

o Scenic Drivers – This would include users of passenger cars and recreational vehicles 

(RVs) driving for pleasure while enjoying scenic attractions. 

 This user group prefers paved access to scenic vistas, cultural sites, and 

interpretive stations with turnoffs and/or temporary parking. 

 High traffic volumes, crowded kiosk parking areas, impacts to visual resources 

from paved viewpoints, and crowded developed campsites would adversely affect 

this user group's recreational experience. 

o Motorized (off-highway) – This group would include users of off-road motorcycles, all 

terrain vehicles (ATVs), and four wheel drive vehicles. 

 This group prefers a range of settings, from remote, natural-appearing 

environments with non-paved surfaces and few human disturbances through 

settings that include graded, dirt roads and challenging trails to settings that could 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-319 

include moderate evidence of human sights, sounds, and surface disturbances. A 

moderate concentration of users and the presence of human constructed structures 

are acceptable. Trails and facilities provided for group activities (including 

parking lots, trail information, trailheads, and toilet facilities) are generally 

beneficial for this group. 

 Overcrowding and overuse of trails, particularly by slower users (e.g., hikers or 

mountain bikers) and other OHV users, would have an adverse impact on their 

experiences. Moderate numbers of hikers, bikers, or equestrians are unlikely to 

adversely affect their recreational experiences. 

o Mountain bikers – Mountain bike users prefer a relatively natural or naturally appearing 

environment, with natural surface trails ranging from beginner to advanced where 

evidence of human disturbances, restrictions, and controls are present but are subtle or do 

not dominate the environment. Recreation facilities would be optional and would blend 

with the natural environment. Recreation management would encourage user dispersal. 

Preferred facilities include semi-primitive camping with basic facilities (i.e., parking lots, 

trailheads, and toilet facilities). 

 Overcrowding, noise (particularly from motorized users), dust/exhaust, and poor 

trail etiquette from other users can have an adverse impact on this group's 

recreational experiences. 

o Non-mechanized – This group would include hikers, backpackers, and equestrians. 

 This group prefers a natural appearing environment with little evidence of 

disturbance, few restrictions or visitor controls, no motorized users, and few 

mountain bikers. Trails, signs and active management that foster dispersal of 

users are the typical management decisions needed for this user group. 

 Adverse recreational experiences include those listed under mountain biking, but 

would also include the high speeds of mountain biking and motorized users. The 

speed and noise of motorized users is of particular concern to equestrian users. 

o River floating – This group would include those recreating in non-motorized boats 

(predominantly in canoes, kayaks, and rafts). 

 The needs of this group are similar to those of the non-mechanized user group, 

with a natural appearing environment that shows little evidence of human 

disturbances within the river corridor. Other than boat ramps and restroom 

facilities at put-in and take-out locations and designated primitive campsites, 

facilities needs are few. 

 Overcrowding, noise, and impacts to visual resources seen from the San Juan and 

Colorado Rivers would detract from the user experience. 

o Specialized Recreation – This group includes rock climbers, competitive motorized trail 

users, and Building-Antenna-Span-Earth (BASE) jumpers. 

 This diverse group prefers locations that provide the conditions for specialized 

recreation. Recreation BASE jumpers prefer high cliffs with favorable wind 

conditions and safe landing zones. Rock climbers prefer a range of challenging 

routes in sufficient numbers so that crowding and waiting is minimized. 

Competitive motorized trail users prefer challenging routes, often with enough 

distance and open area to allow for speed. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-320 

 Overcrowding of a given area or site may detract from the user or group 

experience for either BASE jumpers or rock climbers. Conflicts with slower 

moving vehicles, people, or livestock would detract from the user experience for 

competitive motorized trail users. 

While recognizing that some recreational resource users may not have expectations that include 

high scenic quality, recreational opportunities that are likely to provide satisfying experiences in 

general are related in some way to scenic quality and to visual resource management (VRM) 

because high quality scenery was assumed to be an important recreational expectation for all user 

groups. Thus, it was further assumed that those management decisions that protect visual 

resources/scenic quality or permit fewer surface disturbances (in areas designated as VRM Class 

I and II and managed under their resource objectives) would have more beneficial impacts to 

recreational experiences and opportunities than those management decisions that allow greater 

degrees of surface disturbance and less visual resource protection (those areas designated as 

VRM Class III and IV and managed under VRM Class III and Class IV objectives). 

4.3.10.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Management decisions common to all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan would include 

developing and/or improving campgrounds (e.g., Sand Island, Indian Creek, Comb Wash), 

improving developed cultural resource interpretive sites (i.e., Butler Wash Ruin, Mule Canyon 

Ruin, Three Kiva Pueblo), and improving the Kane Gulch Ranger Station. As discussed in 

Section 3.11.4.2, Resource Conflicts/Impacts, increasing recreational resource use and resource 

use conflicts are adversely impacting recreational resources and user experiences. 

Accommodating the increase in resource users through improvements to recreation facilities and 

sites would have long-term, direct, beneficial impacts for all user groups by potentially 

enhancing the recreational user experience. 

As discussed above, a fundamental component of the recreational experience in the Monticello 

PA is scenic quality, so those management decisions that diminish or degrade scenic quality 

through the effects of smoke, haze, or other air pollutants would have potentially adverse shortterm or long-term impacts on the recreational opportunities that include scenic quality as part of 

the experience. For all of the alternatives, air quality management decisions would comply with 

current interagency MOUs regarding smoke management. Fire management treatment (including 

prescribed burning) would be timed to minimize smoke impacts and mitigation would be applied 

in compliance with federal and state regulations to meet air quality standards and prevent 

deterioration of air quality within the Monticello PA airshed. All of these decisions would have 

long-term, direct, beneficial impacts on recreational opportunities for all recreation user groups 

that include scenic quality as a component of the recreational experience because smoke, haze, 

and other air pollutants produced within the Monticello PA would be mitigated or limited to 

levels that would not likely diminish or degrade scenic quality. 

Management decisions common to all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan include 

managing the Old Spanish National Historic Trail to beneficially protect its recreational and 

interpretive resource values in the long-term, with the exception that under the action alternatives 

(i.e., B, C, D, and E) and the Proposed Plan, SRPs would be authorized only for re-enactments 

and heritage tours. This would also have long-term, beneficial impacts on the resource by 

managing the potential impacts from recreational resource users. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-321 

None of the alternatives or the Proposed Plan propose specific areas or acreages for fire 

management. Fire management decision impacts to recreation resources and on all recreation 

user groups would be beneficial in the long-term: management decisions common to all of the 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan would use fuels treatments (e.g., prescribed fire) to restore 

ecosystems and to reduce hazards associated with fuel loading. Fire suppression would be a 

required consideration for all non-prescribed fires. The potential disturbances caused by these 

activities would be short-term, surface disturbance-related impacts on recreational activities and 

recreation resources that would include the closing of recreational facilities and the loss of 

recreational opportunities within burned areas for all user groups until recreation resources were 

rehabilitated or restored. Recreational scenic quality would be adversely impacted in the shortterm in burned areas until vegetation re-growth. The long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation 

resources and user experiences would be produced by the reduced risk or likelihood of wildland 

fires within treated areas (and the reduced risk of loss of remote and developed recreational areas 

and facilities from fire). The improvement of wildlife habitat (and enhancement of recreation 

opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting in the long-term) for all user groups by improving 

vegetation communities through fire management would have long-term, beneficial impacts to 

recreation. It should be noted that fuels treatments to reduce the risk of wildland fire would be 

similar to those used to improve vegetation communities and improve or restore ecosystem 

health. See Section 4.3.17.2.7, Impacts of Paleontological Resources Decisions on Vegetation, 

for related impacts on recreation from vegetation treatments. 

Under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, management decisions to identify and 

address hazardous materials within the Monticello PA that pose health or safety risks (e.g., AML 

sites, hazardous waste sites) would continue to pose potential short-term health and safety risks 

to all recreational users in those areas where hiking, OHV use, and target shooting are in close 

proximity to hazardous materials and AML sites. Once the health and safety concerns of AML 

sites, unauthorized waste dumps, and hazardous materials sites (e.g., lead contaminated shooting 

ranges) were addressed and/or the areas were reclaimed, these areas would be considered as 

beneficially in compliance with federal and state regulations and/or as possible recreation areas. 

If managed as such they would then be an additional recreation resource and potentially provide 

beneficial, long-term recreational opportunities to all user groups (e.g., mining interpretive sites; 

OHV, biking, or hiking destinations). 

For impacts common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, season-of-use changes in grazing 

allotments would beneficially affect wildlife by improving the functioning condition of grazed 

areas and also providing improved forage for wildlife, which would indirectly benefit long-term 

recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing and/or hunting for all user groups. 

There are no specific paleontological management decisions that are applicable to each 

alternative. However, the collection of invertebrate and plant fossils on BLM-administered 

public lands for personal, non-commercial use is an approved recreational activity. The impacts 

of paleontological management decisions common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan on 

recreation resources would be negligible in the short-term and long-term because fossil 

collection is a recognized recreational activity, and current and proposed management decisions 

would not constrain, limit, or enhance this activity beyond those limits already mandated in BLM 

regulations and policy. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-322 

Management decisions for SSS under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan would have 

impacts on special recreation users and commercial recreation groups requiring SRPs. 

Commercial groups would be seasonally restricted from recreating within SSS habitat to protect 

these species during breeding seasons, which would have adverse impacts on motorized 

recreational opportunities for commercial users. Private, non-commercial motorized users would 

not be affected by these restrictions. Specialized recreation user groups (i.e., rock climbers, 

BASE jumpers) would be restricted from using climbing routes within areas where raptor species 

would be nesting, which would have adverse impacts on specialized recreation opportunities 

during raptor nesting season. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, travel decisions would prohibit vehicle access 

within the San Juan River SRMA along a river segment from Comb Wash downstream to Lime 

Creek, and below Mexican Hat Bridge. This would have long, term, adverse impacts on 

recreation-related travel because opportunities would not be available for motorized OHV 

recreation within this area. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, non-mechanized travel 

would not be restricted except to protect specific resource values, preserve public safety, and 

maintain identified recreational opportunities. All alternatives and the Proposed Plan would 

identify routes and provide recreational opportunities for non-mechanized travel that are 

independent of motorized OHV and mountain biking routes. These management decisions would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts on non-mechanized recreational users because the 

recreational opportunities for this user group would be enhanced by relatively unrestricted access 

throughout the Monticello PA and by management decisions to spatially separate nonmechanized users from mountain biking and motorized OHV users. These decisions would 

increase the likelihood that non-mechanized users would have satisfying recreational experiences 

where the expectations include remoteness and a sense of solitude, an undeveloped, pristine 

natural environment, and natural sounds and sights. 

Under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the impacts of management decisions for 

woodlands would be adverse in the long-term on recreation user groups whose expectations 

include solitude and a sense of remoteness in an undisturbed landscape. Woodland harvesting 

would be allowed within some SRMAs and within the ERMA, and there would be adverse 

impacts on non-mechanized users from intrusive noise produced by chainsaws and by motorized 

OHVs used to access and collect harvested wood. Adverse visual impacts on non-mechanized, 

mountain biking, scenic driver, specialized, and some motorized OHV groups would result from 

wood collecting OHV surface disturbances, trash and litter, and the remnants of cut stands of 

pinyon and juniper. 

As the impacts for air quality, fire management, human health and safety, paleontology, SSS, 

and woodlands would have the same impacts on recreation under all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan; the impacts of these resource decisions on recreation will not be discussed 

further. 

4.3.10.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Management decisions common to all action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) and the 

Proposed Plan would: 

• Close the proposed San Juan River SRMA to woodland products use except for on-site 

collection of campfire wood and permitted collection of wood by Native Americans for 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-323 

ceremonial purposes. This would have long-term, direct, beneficial impacts on recreation 

resources and recreational experiences by preserving scenic quality along the SRMA river 

corridor. 

• Exclude backpackers from camping within one mile of Slickhorn Canyon and Grand Gulch 

along the San Juan River. This would have long-term, direct, beneficial impacts for river 

floating user groups by potentially reducing crowding by non-mechanized user groups along 

the river corridor. It was also have long-term, adverse impacts on non-mechanized groups by 

limiting recreational opportunities along the San Juan River corridor. 

• Limit camping within the proposed Cedar Mesa SRMA (under Grand Gulch Plateau MesaTop Camping) to 14 days within any period of 28 consecutive days. This would have longterm, beneficial impacts on recreation resources and experiences within the SRMA by 

limiting the potential impacts from commercial and private non-mechanized users. 

• Require that all garbage, refuse, and solid waste be packed out of the proposed Cedar Mesa 

SRMA (under Grand Gulch Plateau [In-Canyon Permitted Overnight Camping]). This would 

have substantially beneficial, long-term preservation-related impacts on recreation resources 

within this portion of the SRMA. The impacts to non-mechanized users would be negligible 

because packing out waste would not affect the recreational opportunities for experiencing 

solitude, cultural resources, and a natural environment. 

• Prohibit camping within the Indian Creek riparian corridor (within the proposed Indian Creek 

SRMA), from Newspaper Rock to south of the Dugout Ranch, with camping outside of the 

riparian corridor limited to designated camping areas and campsites. As funding permits, the 

designated campground at Newspaper Rock would be removed and rehabilitated, with new 

campgrounds and parking areas constructed within the proposed SRMA. These management 

decisions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources and on recreation 

user groups that frequent this area (i.e., scenic drivers, specialized, motorized, and nonmotorized) because recreation resources would be protected and adequate recreation facilities 

would be constructed to enhance the recreational experience. 

• Rock climbing routes in conflict with cultural sites would be closed. This management 

decision would have long-term, direct, adverse impacts on specialized recreational 

opportunities. However, it would have long-term, beneficial impacts on other user groups 

that consider scenic quality and regional cultural viewing and interpretation an important 

recreational experience. 

• Woodland harvesting would be prohibited within the Indian Creek SRMA and the White 

Canyon SRMA, including on-site collection of firewood for campsites. This would have 

long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources by preserving recreation-related scenic 

resources. The impacts on all user groups would be beneficial in the long-term because the 

recreational experience would be enhanced by the preservation of scenic quality. 

• Under all of the action alternatives and the Proposed Plan, BBM would be applied to the 

proposed SRMAs that include targeted outcomes to enhance personal, community, 

economic, and environmental goals (see Appendix E). This would have beneficial impacts on 

all user groups, as all SRMAs would be managed with prescriptions to increase the 

likelihood that resource users would have satisfying recreational experiences. 

The general management decisions of the action alternatives and the Proposed Plan would apply 

adaptive management to protect natural and cultural resources, and maintain and enhance 

recreational opportunities. Wildlife water sources would be protected and camping would be 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-324 

excluded within buffer zones around these areas to allow wildlife access to water. Dispersed 

camping within the Monticello PA would be assessed for its environmental impacts and would 

be seasonally closed, as conditions warrant, to protect recreational resources, and recreational 

OHV off-road retrieval of game would be prohibited. These management decisions would have 

long-term, resource protection-related, beneficial impacts on recreation resources, but there 

could be short-term, adverse impacts to specific recreation user groups to protect recreation 

resources (e.g., seasonal exclusion of non-mechanized users from dispersed camping areas to 

protect recreation resources, prohibitions on off-road game retrieval for motorized OHV users). 

4.3.10.3. ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PLAN IMPACTS

4.3.10.3.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL DECISIONS ON RECREATION

4.3.10.3.1.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, cultural management decisions that impact recreation resources are either 

unspecified or unrestricted within Comb Ridge, Tank Bench, and Beef Basin. Vehicle and OHV 

use decisions would designate these areas as either open, limited to designated routes, or closed. 

There are no management decisions that address dispersed camping, private and commercial 

group size limits, campfires, or pets. The impacts would be long-term, and substantially adverse 

to recreation-related cultural resources and to all recreation user groups because, as discussed in 

Section 3.11.4 Recreation Issues and Concerns, the current trend toward increasing recreational 

use within the Monticello PA is creating recreational resource use conflicts between user groups, 

and the potential for OHV-caused degradation of recreation resources. A lack of specific 

management decisions to address these concerns would perpetuate current conditions, exacerbate 

recreation-related cultural resource degradation, and allow resource user conflicts to intensify, 

resulting in a diminishing likelihood of recreation resource users having satisfactory recreational 

experiences. 

The McLoyd Canyon-Moon House and the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area/National 

Historic District lie within WSAs, and are subject to the management decisions required to 

protect the resources within WSAs. Under this alternative, public access to the McLoyd CanyonMoon House would be restricted, which would reduce and adversely impact, in the long-term, 

the recreational opportunities for motorized, mountain biking, and non-mechanized recreational 

user groups. 

The Grand Gulch National Historic District would be closed to OHV use, managed to restrict 

recreational activities if cultural or scenic values were degraded or damaged, and managed for 

primitive recreational opportunities. These management decisions would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on those user groups that seek solitude and dispersed and remote recreational 

opportunities (non-mechanized or specialized users) because the area would be managed for 

opportunities that they prefer, but would highly limit the recreational opportunities for 

mechanized user groups (scenic driver, motorized OHV, and mountain bikers). 

4.3.10.3.1.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, cultural sites within the Monticello PA would be closed to recreational use 

if the Monticello FO determines that recreational activities pose a risk to cultural resources. Also, 

in order to protect and preserve the planning area's cultural resources, climbing aids and ropes 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-325 

would be prohibited to access cultural sites/ruins except in emergencies or administrative needs. 

These management decisions would have long-term, beneficial, preservation-related impacts on 

recreation resources because cultural sites are a component of the recreational opportunities 

within the PA, and protecting these recreational resources would preserve cultural/interpretiverecreational opportunities. 

Under this alternative, specific management plans and SRMA status would be developed for 

culturally sensitive areas within Cedar Mesa that could potentially limit or restrict recreational 

activities to protect cultural resources. This would have long-term, preservation-related 

beneficial impacts on recreation resources that include a cultural resource component by 

reducing the likelihood of recreation-related degradation of or loss of recreational opportunities. 

To protect cultural resources, this alternative would create CSMAs in areas known to have a high 

density of cultural resource sites, and/or sites that may be eligible for NRHP designation and 

provide recreational opportunities for cultural resource interpretation. These management areas 

would include Comb Ridge CSMA (30,752 acres), the Tank Bench CSMA (2,646 acres), the 

Beef Basin CSMA (20,302 acres), and the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA (1,607 acres). 

Other special management areas for cultural resources would include the current Grand Gulch 

National Historic District (contained with the Cedar Mesa SRMA), the Hole in the Rock Trail, 

and the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. 

The proposed Comb Ridge CSMA would be managed for heritage tourism, OHV use would be 

limited to designated routes, the CSMA would be closed to dispersed camping (with camping 

only in designated areas), hiking would be allowed only on designated trails, and a campground 

would be developed in Comb Wash. These management decisions would be beneficial to 

recreation resources in the long-term by reducing the likelihood of recreation-related degradation 

or loss of recreational opportunities within the CSMA, and by enhancing the recreational 

experience from improved and/or expanded recreational facilities. The impacts on user groups 

would be variable; there would be beneficial recreational opportunities for scenic drivers, 

motorized, and mountain biking recreational user groups from a designated route/trail system 

and recreational facilities. The recreational opportunities for non-mechanized dispersed hiking, 

equestrian, backpacking, and specialized recreation would be few to none because of the 

prohibitions on dispersed camping; the low likelihood of satisfying recreational experiences that 

include solitude, a sense of remoteness and an undeveloped, natural environment; and the high 

likelihood of user conflicts between mechanized and non-mechanized user groups. Also under 

this alternative, recreation users would be required to obtain a permit to access Butler Wash east 

of Comb Ridge. The permit process would require viewing a video on low-impact recreation at 

Sand Island or the Kane Gulch Ranger Station. The impacts on the recreational experience 

caused by the additional travel time to and from these sites to watch a video would be adverse for 

all user groups (the Kane Gulch Station would be approximately 22 miles one-way from the 

entrance to Butler Wash), and there would be a potential for non-compliance with the permitting 

process for this area because of the perceived inconvenience, delay, and expense. 

The proposed Tank Bench CSMA management decisions would have impacts on recreation 

resources similar to those discussed for Comb Ridge above, but to a lesser degree, as no 

recreational facilities are proposed for the area. The impacts on recreational user groups would 

be beneficial in the long-term for scenic drivers and non-motorized users (day hikers). The area 

is proposed as closed to OHV use, so the recreational opportunities for motorized OHV and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-326 

mountain biking recreational users would be few to none, with long-term, adverse impacts to 

these user groups. Closing the area to OHV recreational opportunities would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts to non-mechanized and specialized user groups, as resource user conflicts 

with motorized users would be reduced and the opportunities for solitude, quiet, and a sense of 

remoteness would be enhanced. 

The proposed Beef Basin CSMA management decisions would have impacts on recreation 

resources similar to those discussed for Comb Ridge, as OHV use and hiking would be confined 

to designated routes, primitive car camping would be at designated sites only, and car camping 

facilities would be developed for primitive camping. The impacts on recreational user groups 

would be similar to that discussed for the Comb Ridge CSMA because this area would also be 

managed for heritage tourism, except that additional restrictions would be placed on specialized 

(rock climbing) user groups to protect rock art. 

The proposed McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA would have impacts on culturally related 

recreation resources similar to those discussed for Comb Ridge: camping would be restricted to 

designated areas, visitors would be prohibited from entering the Moon Room and adjoining 

rooms at Moon House and hiking would be allowed only on designated trails. These 

management decisions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on the recreation-related 

cultural resource by reducing the likelihood of recreation-related degradation or loss of 

recreational opportunities and experiences. There would be long-term, beneficial impacts on 

non-motorized users, and on non-mechanized users that do not require dispersed, remote 

recreational opportunities (i.e., day hikers) because the hiking and driving route restrictions 

would be more compatible with these user groups. The recreational opportunities for nonmechanized dispersed hiking and backpacking, motorized, scenic driver, and specialized 

recreation would be available within the surrounding Cedar Mesa SRMA with long-term, 

beneficial impacts on these users; however, management decisions to protect the cultural site 

would impose restrictions or controls on site visitation, pets, campfires, and waste management 

that could adversely reduce the level of satisfying recreational experiences within the CSMA. 

As the proposed Grand Gulch National Historic District lies within a WSA, the restrictions on 

surface disturbances and activities that could potentially affect the area would be greater to 

preserve the wilderness characteristics of the WSA, as required by the IMP. The historic district 

would be closed to OHV use, with trails and camping areas designated as necessary to protect 

cultural resources. These management decisions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

culturally related recreation resources similar to those discussed for Comb Ridge CSMA above. 

The impacts on scenic drivers, motorized, mountain biking, and specialized mechanized user 

groups experiences would be long-term, substantial reductions in recreational opportunities. 

Activities associated with these activities would be prohibited within the WSA because of their 

potential for surface disturbances and the potential degradation of wilderness values. Nonmechanized users would benefit in the long-term because of the recreational opportunities for 

remote and dispersed camping, hiking, and backpacking. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more long-term, beneficial impacts on 

recreation resources within the proposed Comb Ridge, McLoyd Canyon-Moon House, Tank 

Bench and Beef Basin CSMAs because recreation-related cultural resources would be protected 

and maintained and opportunities for education and interpretation would be preserved. Compared 

to Alternative A, the impacts to the proposed Grand Gulch Historic District under this alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-327 

would be negligible because the area would continue to receive protection under the area's WSA 

land status. Under this alternative, approximately 62,567 acres (including the current Grand 

Gulch Historic District) would be designated for protection of cultural resources. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have greater long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation 

resources because these areas would be managed for protection of their cultural/recreational 

resources under CSMA management plans. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would 

have fewer recreational opportunities for user groups because protection-related management 

decisions would limit or prohibit some activities that would be allowed under Alternative A. 

Thus, there would be more adverse, long-term impacts to recreational opportunities under 

Alternative B than under Alternative A. However, unlimited use by recreation user groups under 

Alternative A would potentially create resource use conflicts between user groups. Alternative B, 

by limiting or prohibiting recreational activities in specified areas, would beneficially reduce 

resource use conflicts. When compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would have more certain 

long-term, beneficial impacts because reducing resource use conflicts would increase the 

likelihood that scenic driver, motorized OHV, mountain biking, and non-mechanized user groups 

would have satisfying recreational experiences. 

4.3.10.3.1.3. Alternative C 

The cultural resource management decisions on recreation resources would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative B for the proposed Comb Ridge, McLoyd Canyon-Moon House, 

Tank Bench, and Beef Basin CSMAs because the management decisions would be similar. The 

Old Spanish National Historic Trail would have impacts similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B. 

4.3.10.3.1.4. Alternative D 

Under this alternative, Comb Ridge, Tank Bench and Beef Basin would not be managed as 

CSMAs. Comb Ridge would be managed for OHV use on designated routes. Beef Basin would 

prohibit climbing aids except as hiking route aids, develop a commercial campground in the 

Ruin Park area, and close campsites that degrade or adversely impact cultural sites. Management 

decisions under this alternative would be beneficial to recreation resources in the long-term, 

similar to those discussed under Alternative B, by reducing the likelihood of recreation-related 

degradation or loss of recreational opportunities within these areas, but to a lesser degree because 

these areas would be managed with fewer resource-protecting management decisions when 

compared to the other action alternatives. The impacts on user groups under this alternative 

would be more beneficial in the short-term because fewer restrictions and prohibitions on 

activities within these areas would create more opportunities for all user groups. In the longterm, the impacts on user groups would be adverse because of the potential for increased 

resource user conflicts and degraded recreational resources, as discussed under Alternative A. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial impacts on recreation 

resources in the short term because of the proposed resource protection measures, but in the 

long-term the increased likelihood of recreation user conflicts and the likely degradation of 

recreation resources would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative A. 

The impacts of management decisions under this alternative on the McLoyd Canyon-Moon 

House CSMA would be similar to those discussed under Alternative C because the management 

decisions are similar. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-328 

The impacts of management decisions on the Grand Gulch National Historic District would be 

similar to those discussed under Alternative C because the management decisions are similar. 

4.3.10.3.1.5. Alternative E 

Under this alternative, management decisions for the Beef Basin, Tank Bench, and the McLoyd 

Canyon-Moon House CSMAs, the Old Spanish National Historic Trail, and the Grand Gulch 

Historic District would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the 

management decisions are similar to Alternative B. Under this alternative there are no lands with 

non-WSA wilderness characteristics that lie within these cultural/recreational areas (that might 

otherwise limit the recreation opportunities within these areas). 

Within the Comb Ridge CSMA, 18,514 acres (49% of the area) would be managed to protect the 

wilderness values of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The impacts on 

recreation resources would be beneficial in the long-term, similar to the discussion under 

Alternative B. Within the protected non-WSA lands with wilderness areas, the beneficial impacts 

to culturally related recreation resources would be enhanced by the increased restrictions on 

surface disturbances imposed by VRM Class I management objectives and prohibitions of OHV 

use. The impacts on resource user groups would be the same as discussed under Alternative B 

because the area's proposed recreational management decisions emphasizing heritage tourism 

would be the same. The impacts on recreation users from the permitting process for Butler Wash 

would be the same as discussed under Alternative B. 

4.3.10.3.1.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,388 acres), Comb 

Ridge and Butler Wash (30,752 acres) and McLoyd Canyon-Moon House (1,607 acres) would 

be managed as a recreation management zones (RMZs) within the Cedar Mesa SRMA. Tank 

Bench (2,646 acres) and Beef Basin (20,302 acres) would be managed as SRMAs, with emphasis 

on cultural resource protection. The impacts would be beneficial in the long term for all resource 

users because of the protective and preservation prescriptions applied to cultural resources within 

these recreation management areas, and from preservation of recreational opportunities for 

resource interpretation. The proposed Grand Gulch Historic District would have impacts similar 

to those discussed under Alternative B, but to a greater beneficial degree, because while the area 

would continue to be managed under WSA surface disturbance restrictions and because the 

cultural resource management decisions would be similar, additional recreational opportunities 

for pack animal camping would be available. The Old Spanish National Historic Trail would 

have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B. 

4.3.10.3.2. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON RECREATION 

There are no specific lands and realty management decisions under the alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan that are applicable to recreation. Management decisions common to all of the 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan that would potentially impact recreation resources include 

those proposed to protect Monticello PA resources during commercial filming projects. 

Management decision stipulations that require protection of habitat, soils, and cultural resources 

and prohibit the use of explosives or pyrotechnics or the introduction of exotic species would 

have short-term and long-term, beneficial impacts to recreation by preserving recreation 

resources. Prohibitions on pyrotechnics and explosives would have short-term, beneficial 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-329 

impacts on opportunities for non-mechanized, river floating, specialized, and mountain biking 

user groups because the potential noise and light distractions caused by these devices would not 

be a source of disturbance to those who seek recreational opportunities that can provide solitude 

and/or minimal artificial distractions. Protection of soils, water, air, vegetation, and wildlife 

during filming projects would have long-term, beneficial impacts on all recreational users 

because maintaining recreational resources would increase the likelihood that they would have 

satisfactory recreational experiences. 

Management decisions common to all of the action alternatives and the Proposed Plan would 

establish avoidance and exclusion areas for proposed ROWs. These areas would include nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics (under Alternative E and the Proposed Plan), ACECs, 

WSAs, WSR segments, developed recreation sites, and special emphasis and hiking areas. The 

impacts on recreation would be similar to the above discussion: long-term, beneficial protection 

of resources from surface disturbances, which would benefit all user groups because 

opportunities would be maintained for satisfying recreational experiences. 

4.3.10.3.3. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON RECREATION

Under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, 128,098 acres would be unavailable for 

livestock grazing because of vegetation, wildlife, recreation, or other resource concerns. This 

would have long-term, beneficial impacts on all user groups, as high scenic quality and 

naturalness are generally common to all recreational user expectations. Cattle tend to disrupt the 

backcountry experience sought by hikers, mountain bikers, and backpackers because of the 

presence of manure along trails and at camp sites, the consumption of wildlife forage (that 

potentially reduces wildlife viewing opportunities), and surface disturbances that contribute to 

soil compaction and soil erosion and indirectly exacerbate the opportunities for exotic species 

establishment and spread. Proper grazing management through the livestock grazing standards 

and guidelines would reduce these impacts to all recreation user groups. 

4.3.10.3.3.1. Alternative A 

Alternative A would make 16,599 acres, which are included in the total 128,098 closed acres and 

discussed above, unavailable to livestock grazing within the 5 side canyons of Comb Wash 

(Mule (south of highway U-95), Arch, Fish, Owl, and Road canyons). The impacts on recreation 

resources and resource user groups in these areas would be beneficial in the long-term, for 

reasons as discussed above. 

4.3.10.3.3.2. Alternative B 

This alternative would make 13,062 additional acres unavailable for livestock grazing. 

Alternative B would also develop additional seasonal use restrictions and forage utilization limits 

on grazing in riparian areas found to be Functioning At Risk and Non-Functional, potentially 

closing land available for livestock grazing. These management decisions would have beneficial, 

long-term impacts on recreation resources and on recreational opportunities for resource users, as 

discussed under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-330 

4.3.10.3.3.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C would have impacts on recreation resources and users similar to those discussed 

under Alternative B because the proposed management decisions would be similar (except for 

altered areas unavailable for grazing in Mule Canyon (south of U-95 only). Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B 

for the same reasons. 

4.3.10.3.3.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D would make approximately 13,062 acres within the Monticello PA unavailable for 

livestock grazing, with impacts on recreation resources similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B because the proposed management decisions would be similar. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have similar impacts on recreation resources, but to a 

slightly more beneficial degree, because the number of acres unavailable for livestock grazing 

would be slightly higher (a 1% increase in exclusions compared to Alternative A). 

4.3.10.3.3.5. Alternative E 

The impacts of this alternative on recreation would be the same as discussed under Alternative B 

because the proposed grazing decisions are the same. 

4.3.10.3.3.6. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would have impacts on recreation resources and users similar to those 

discussed under Alternative B because the proposed management decisions would be similar 

(except for additional areas unavailable for grazing in south Mule Canyon). Compared to 

Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would have impacts similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B, for the same reasons. 

4.3.10.3.4. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON RECREATION 

4.3.10.3.4.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, approximately 1,238,230 acres would be available under standard 

stipulations and timing and controlled surface use leasing stipulations for oil and natural gas 

exploration and development (69% of the planning area). It should be noted, however, that the 

RFD predictions for minerals development are that an average total of 73 natural gas or oil wells 

would be drilled, with a total surface disturbance of approximately 699 acres within 15 year after 

approval of the proposed RMP. Under this alternative, the predicted surface disturbances on 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area from geophysical activities over the lifetime of 

the proposed RMP would be 886 acres. All of the geophysical surface disturbances would be 

reclaimed within 10 years. Also, locatable and salable minerals development (e.g., uranium, 

vanadium, and gold mining; sand, gravel, stone, limestone, and clay quarrying) would cause 

approximately 851 acres of surface disturbances within 15 years after approval of the proposed 

RMP. Thus, the expected potential disturbance from oil and natural gas exploration and 

development and related disturbances would be 2,436 acres or approximately 0.14% of the 

planning area. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-331 

The impacts on recreation resources from the drilling of approximately 73 oil or gas wells within 

the Monticello PA and other minerals activities would be minor because of the very small area of 

potential surface-disturbance impacts and the likelihood that this relatively small area would 

potentially impact visual/scenic quality to a minor degree. Additional long-term, beneficial 

motorized OHV recreational opportunities may be created along oil and gas well access roads if 

these roads were open for public access, but the impacts on these recreational opportunities 

would be minor, as the access roads would be short spur roads from existing roads within the 

planning area and the access roads would be reclaimed at the end of the well lifecycle. The 

impacts on recreational resource user groups that expect to experience naturalness, isolation, and 

high levels of scenic quality (non-mechanized, mountain biking, specialized, and river floating 

users) would be negligible to minor in the long-term because all wells located within high-scenic 

quality viewsheds (designated VRM Class I and Class II areas) would be required to meet visual 

resources objectives so that the visual intrusions are either hidden from or not noticeable to the 

casual viewer. 

4.3.10.3.4.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, approximately 1,241,909 acres would be available under standard 

stipulations and timing and controlled surface use leasing stipulations for oil and natural gas 

exploration and development. The potential impacts of mineral exploration and development on 

recreation resources and resource user groups would be the same as discussed above under 

Alternative A because the RFD forecast for minerals development within the planning area 

would be similar. Under this alternative, the RFD predicts that an average of 66 wells would be 

drilled during the next fifteen years causing surface disturbances on approximately 636 acres. 

The predicted surface disturbances within the planning area from geophysical activities over the 

next fifteen years would be 794 acres, and disturbances caused by salable and locatable minerals 

development would be 851 acres (the same as Alternative A). The expected total disturbance 

under this alternative would be approximately 2,281 acres, with total reclamation of geophysical 

disturbances within 10 years of the activity. Compared to Alternative A, the expected potential 

disturbance from oil and natural gas exploration and development and geophysical activities 

would be the same (approximately 0.13% of the planning area). The impacts to recreation 

resources and users would be the same as discussed under Alternative A. 

4.3.10.3.4.3. Alternative C 

Under this alternative, approximately 1,348,973 acres would be available under standard 

stipulations and timing and controlled surface use leasing stipulations for oil and natural gas. The 

potential impacts on recreation resources and recreation users would be similar to those 

discussed above under Alternative A because the RFD predicts that an average of 74 wells would 

be drilled during the next fifteen years, with total surface disturbances of approximately 710 

acres, 851 acres of disturbance from salable and locatable minerals development, and 

approximately 903 acres of surface disturbances from geophysical activities, totaling 2,464 acres 

(or 0.14% of the planning area). The expected potential disturbances from oil and natural gas 

exploration and development and other minerals activities would be similar to those discussed 

under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-332 

4.3.10.3.4.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, approximately 1,383,283 acres would be available under standard 

stipulations and timing and controlled surface use leasing stipulations for oil and natural gas. The 

expected potential disturbance from oil and natural gas exploration and development and 

geophysical activities would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A because the RFD 

predictions would be similar: an average of 75 wells drilled within 15 years after approval of the 

proposed RMP, with approximately 721 total acres of surface disturbances, 851 acres of 

disturbances from salable and locatable minerals development, and 924 acres of geophysicalrelated surface disturbances, totaling 2,496 acres (or 0.14% of the planning area). The impacts to 

recreation resources and user groups would be the same as discussed under Alternative A. 

4.3.10.3.4.5. Alternative E 

Under this alternative, approximately 582,360 acres of lands with non-WSA wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to minerals leasing and locatable and salable minerals disposal. 

This would reduce the area of potential surface disturbances from oil and gas development on 

lands leased under standard and timing and controlled surface use stipulations to 758,931 acres 

(a reduction of approximately 45% compared to Alternative A). The RFD prediction for oil, gas, 

and geophysical activities under this alternative would be a total of 54 wells drilled with 

expected surface disturbances on 519 acres, 851 acres of disturbances caused by salable and 

locatable minerals development, and 761 acres of disturbances caused by geophysical 

exploration, with a total surface disturbance of 2,131 acres. The adverse impacts on recreation 

from RFD-predicted activities would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, but to a 

lesser degree, because more area would be protected from potential surface disturbances within 

those lands with non-WSA wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.10.3.4.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 1,224,807 acres would be available under standard 

stipulations and timing and controlled surface use leasing stipulations for oil and natural gas. The 

potential impacts on recreation resources and recreation users would be similar to those 

discussed above under Alternative A because the RFD predicts that an average of 72 wells would 

be drilled during the next fifteen years, with total surface disturbances of approximately 692 

acres, 851 acres of disturbance from salable and locatable minerals development, and 

approximately 903 acres of surface disturbances from geophysical activities, totaling 2,446 acres 

(0.14% of the planning area). The expected potential disturbance from oil and natural gas 

exploration and development would be similar to Alternative A. 

4.3.10.3.5. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON RECREATION

4.3.10.3.5.1. Alternatives A – D 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are not managed to retain their wilderness values 

under these alternatives. The impacts on recreation resources and user groups would be 

negligible because there are no management decisions that affect recreation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-333 

4.3.10.3.5.2. Alternative E 

Areas with non-WSA wilderness characteristics would be managed under Alternative E and the 

Proposed Plan only, with a total of 165,831 acres of non-WSA areas with wilderness 

characteristics that lie within Alternative E-proposed SRMAs. Recreation resources within the 

proposed SRMAs that contain these areas would receive increased beneficial protection from 

surface disturbances through management decisions to preserve the wilderness values within the 

non-WSA wilderness areas. These protective decisions would include closing the areas to OHV 

travel, managing under VRM Class I objectives to preserve high scenic quality, closing the areas 

to mineral materials disposal, managing as ROW exclusion areas, and prohibiting private and 

commercial woodland harvesting. 

The impacts on primitive recreation users would be beneficial because naturalness, solitude, and 

outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation would be preserved and enhanced from 

closure/restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and other uses on a total of 582,360 acres of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under Alternative E. 

There could be adverse impacts to some specialized user groups because no competitive, 

motorized, or mountain biking events would be permitted in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Specialized recreational activities (e.g., rock climbing or BASE jumping) that 

would potentially degrade wilderness values could be restricted or prohibited. Prohibitions on 

OHV travel in these areas and on specialized activities that could degrade wilderness would have 

long term, adverse impacts on mechanized and specialized recreation user groups. 

Approximately 491,628 total acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas 

would be protected within the ERMA through the same decisions and with the same impacts on 

recreation resources and user groups as discussed above. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative 

E would be more beneficial to recreation resources and non-mechanized users because those 

areas protected as non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas would retain their wilderness 

values, and retain recreational resources for more non-mechanized recreational opportunities 

(where solitude, naturalness, and a sense of remoteness are desired experiences) in the long-term 

than under Alternative A. For mechanized users, this alternative would be more adverse than 

Alternative A because opportunities for OHV and mountain biking activities would be 

substantially reduced. 

4.3.10.3.5.3. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would manage a total of 13,600 acres of non-WSA lands managed for 

wilderness characteristics that lie within SRMAs. Recreation resources within the proposed 

SRMAs that contain these areas would receive increased beneficial protection from surface 

disturbances through management decisions to preserve the wilderness values within the nonWSA wilderness areas. These protective decisions would include managing under VRM Class II 

objectives to retain scenic quality, closing the areas to mineral materials disposal, limiting OHV 

travel to designated routes, prohibiting woodland harvesting, and managing as ROW avoidance 

areas. The impacts on primitive recreation users would be beneficial because naturalness, 

solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation would be preserved and enhanced 

from closure/restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and other uses on a total of 88,871 acres 

of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under the Proposed Plan. Compared to 

Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial to recreation resources and users 

because those areas protected as non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas would retain their 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-334 

wilderness values, and would manage these areas for more recreational opportunities in the longterm for most user groups than under Alternative A: a broader range of mechanized and nonmechanized recreational opportunities would be available in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics under the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.10.3.6. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON RECREATION 

General analysis assumptions on the impacts to recreation user groups are discussed above in 

Section 4.3.10. Additionally, it is assumed for analysis purposes that in order to reduce resource 

use conflicts and to preserve recreation resources, management decision restrictions or 

limitations on private and commercial recreational opportunities would have both beneficial as 

well as adverse impacts on recreation user groups. Restrictions on resource use would have longterm beneficial impacts on those recreational user groups that seek experiences associated with a 

natural, undeveloped, or pristine environment; remoteness; and solitude (in general, river 

floating, non-mechanized, and mountain biking groups) because restrictions would reduce the 

likelihood of crowding and resource use conflicts and increase the perception of solitude and 

remoteness, thus increasing the likelihood of satisfying recreational experiences for these groups. 

Related to this is the assumption that resource restrictions on commercial permits and 

commercial group sizes would create more long-term, beneficial recreational opportunities for 

private, non-commercial users for the same reasons as discussed above: less crowding within a 

river corridor or on a biking or hiking route would increase the perception of solitude and 

remoteness, which would increase the likelihood of a satisfying experience for users who seek 

these recreational qualities. 

It is assumed that the proposed restrictions on resource use would also cause short-term, adverse 

access-related impacts, as users would be denied the opportunity to recreate in a given area, as 

well as create competition for day use and camping permits for private and commercial uses. 

These potential reductions in commercial use would reduce recreational opportunities for those 

users who would rely on a commercial outfitter or a permitted activity for their recreational 

experiences. 

Analysis assumptions for recreation-related waste management and the use of fire pans include 

the following: by minimizing the amount of waste found around popular recreational areas, it is 

assumed that the short-term inconvenience of removing or burying waste would be outweighed 

by the long-term beneficial impacts to the recreational experience that include preservation of 

visual resources, human health benefits, and maintenance of unspoiled natural and cultural 

resources. The use of fire pans would have short-term and long-term beneficial impacts on 

recreation resource and opportunities because they would reduce the risk of recreation-caused 

wildland fire that could destroy recreation resources. Short-term beneficial impacts would 

include the safety of those recreating within an area, while the long-term beneficial impacts 

would include the preservation of the natural and cultural resources within the Monticello PA. A 

summary of the data contained within the proposed recreation management decisions (and used 

in the analysis), by alternative, is shown below in Tables 4.84, 4.85, and 4.86 and in Maps 36–

40. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-335 

4.3.10.3.6.1. San Juan River SRMA 

Alternative A

Under this alternative, recreation management decisions would continue under current 

conditions, and the 15,100-acre San Juan River SRMA would continue to be impacted by 

conditions and trends as discussed in the Chapter 3 Recreation Section 3.11.2.5. 

Current management decisions for river use include restrictions on motorized use, launch limits 

of 40,000 user days per year, limitations on group size, and a 50% commercial use limitation of 

total river use. Launch limits and commercial and group limits currently allow recreational 

opportunities for a large number of users. However, based on the recreational expectations of the 

river floating user group discussed in Section 4.3.10, the permitted use of motorized boating and 

the large number of permitted river floaters would reduce the likelihood of a satisfactory 

recreational experience for those users expecting to experience isolation, a pristine and nonmotorized environment, and remoteness. The large percentage of commercial use would also 

limit, in the short-term, the river recreational opportunities of private users because half the 

allocation for permitted river use would only be available to commercial users. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-336 

Table 4.114. Summary of Recreation Management Decision Analysis Data for Special Recreation Manage

(SRMAs)

Decision Type Alternative A Alternatives B and E Alternative C Alter

San Juan River SRMA

Launch limits (user days/year) 

40,000 30,000 40,000 4

Trip size (group #) 25 20 25 Commercial (% of total trips per day) 

50% 30% 40% 

Cedar Mesa SRMAMesa Top Day Use Trip size (group #) 

private and commercial 

No Limit 10 12 

Mesa Top Camping Trip size (group #) 

private and commercial 

No Limit 12 24 N

Dispersed vs. designated camping 

Dispersed Designated only Designated 12–

24 users 

Desig

In Canyon Day Use, People per day per 

trailhead 

No Limit 10 12 

Private Trip size (group #) 12 10 12 In Canyon Day Use, Trip size (group #) per 

day 

12 10 12 

Commercial Groups per day per 

trailhead 

No Limit 1 1 

In Canyon Permitted Trip size (group #) 12 10 12 Overnight Camping Dispersed vs. designated 

camping 

Designated only Designated up to 4–

10 users 

Designated 8–12 

users 

Desig

12 

Private Use Trip size (group #) per 

day 

12 6 8 

Trip size (group #) per day 

12 10 12 

Commercial Use 

Groups per day per trailhead 

1 1 1 

Kane 26 16 20 Bullet 22 16 20 

Trailhead Allocations, Overnight Visitors Per Day: 

Government 12 16 20 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-337 

Table 4.114. Summary of Recreation Management Decision Analysis Data for Special Recreation Manage

(SRMAs)

Decision Type Alternative A Alternatives B and E Alternative C Alter

Collins 22 16 20 Fish/Owl 26 16 20 Road Canyon 22 16 20 Lime Creek 22 16 20 Mule Canyons 22 16 20 Slickhorn Canyons 22 16 20 

Dark Canyon SRMA

Trip size (group #) private 

No limit 10 15 

Commercial No limit 12 15 Commercial trips per week 

No limit 1 3 

Total private users per day 

No limit 15 20 N

Table 4.115. Summary of Recreation Management Decision Analysis Data, Special Recreation Permits (S

Decision Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative 

Private UseDay use organized event in ERMAs N/A 25 people 50 people 75 people Overnight group or event in ERMA N/A 15 people 25 people 50 people Group OHVs on designated routes N/A 15 OHVs 25 OHVs No limit Mountain biking on designated routes N/A 15 25 No limit Group of riding/pack animals N/A 10 animals 15 animals 20 animalCar camping N/A 10 vehicles or 50 people 15 vehicles or 50 

people 

20 vehicles or 50 

Commercial UseGroups size limits for commercial motorized events 

Any commercial 

use 

2 groups of 12 vehicles/ 

day 

Same as Alternative B 2 groups of 

vehicles/da
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4-338 

Table 4.115. Summary of Recreation Management Decision Analysis Data, Special Recreation Permits (S

Decision Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative 

Balloon festivals limits Any commercial 

use 

35 balloons Same as Alternative B Same as Altern

Special OHV event limits Any commercial 

use 

350 total vehicles Same as Alternative B Same as Altern

Commercial hiking in Comb and Butler Wash 

Any commercial 

use 

10 individuals Same as Alternative B N/A 

Table 4.116 SRMA Acreages, Under All Alternative and the Proposed Plan 

SRMA Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Tank Bench 0 0 0 0 Beef Basin 0 0 0 0 San Juan River 15,100 10,203 9,859 6,365 9,8Cedar Mesa 385,000 375,739 375,739 375,739 375,7Dark Canyon 214,390 30,820 30,820 30,820 30,8Indian Creek 0 89,271 89,271 89,271 89,2White Canyon 0 2,828 2,828 2,828 2,8Total 614,490 508,861 508,517 505,023 508,5
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-339 

Under this alternative, vehicle access and camping would be restricted between Comb Wash and 

Lime Creek, and below Mexican Hat Bridge, which would have long-term, adverse impacts on 

non-river floating users by maintaining restrictions on recreation-related travel opportunities for 

access to and recreation within the SRMA. Other proposed management decisions would 

minimize resource use conflicts by designating certain reserved campsites along the river 

corridor, with timing stipulations that permit only one-night stays at each campsite. This would 

have beneficial, short-term impacts on the river recreational experience by dispersing users along 

the river corridor, which would reduce the perception of crowding and the impacts of human 

noise. Under this alternative, the permitted levels of visitation and the lack of resource protection 

management decisions would continue to have potentially long-term impacts to recreation 

resources because, as discussed in Section 3.11.2.5.1, intense river use and associated humancaused surface disturbances along the river corridor would continue to disturb riparian 

vegetation, create conditions for the spread of invasive species, impact special status species 

habitat, and degrade cultural resources. 

Alternative B

Alternative B would manage the San Juan River as a 10,203-acre SRMA for the purposes of 

providing opportunities to engage in backcountry private and commercial river running, 

backcountry hiking and camping, horseback riding, and cultural site visitation. This alternative 

would designate and manage motorized boating within the San Juan River corridor for 

emergency use only. Riparian resources would be protected and launch limits would be set at 

30,000 user days per year to improve the river running experience, with trip sizes limited to 20 

people. Under this alternative, commercial users would also be restricted to 30% of the total river 

use. The impacts of these management decisions on river floating users would be beneficial in 

the long-term because the river floating experience would potentially be enhanced by creating 

conditions that reduce river use crowding and motorized noise and increase the sense of 

remoteness, solitude, and a pristine, natural environment. The opportunities for private users of 

the river would be beneficially increased in the long-term, while commercial river user 

recreational opportunities would be proportionally reduced. The proposed reductions in 

commercial river permits would also create increased competition among outfitters and those 

who would rely on a commercial outfitter for their recreational river opportunities within the 

SRMA because the opportunities for a commercially based river experience would be limited by 

the available permits. Under this alternative, vehicle camping restrictions would be limited to 

areas upstream of Comb Wash, and the bench above Sand Island would be closed to vehicle 

camping, and all areas within one-half mile of designated campsites would exclude vehicle 

camping. This would have long-term, beneficial impacts on river floating users by increasing the 

recreational opportunities for solitude and a sense of remoteness, but would limit the river 

recreational opportunities for all other user groups. 

The land on the south bank of the San Juan River is owned by the Navajo Nation and camping is 

currently not permitted. Under this alternative, an MOU allowing camping on the south bank 

would be negotiated between the BLM, the NPS, and the Navajo Nation. If an MOU were agreed 

to, this management decision would potentially have long-term beneficial impacts on 

recreational opportunities for backcountry-river camping because the opportunities would be 

increased. The reduction in permits would have long-term, beneficial impacts on river floating 

recreational user groups because these conditions would increase the likelihood for a satisfactory 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-340 

river floating experience in which a sense of isolation and a primitive backcountry experience is 

an important recreational expectation. 

Under this alternative, vehicle camping would be allowed upstream of Comb Wash only, with 

exceptions along Lime Creek Road, the Mexican Hat Rock area, and the Mexican Hat Boat 

Ramp. Further restrictions under Alternative B would include closing the bench above Sand 

Island Recreation Area to vehicle camping and closing camping within one-half mile of 

designated campsites. Lime Creek Campground would be reserved for river runners only. 

Limiting the availability of camp sites and access along the river would potentially create a 

higher density of camping sites and a higher number of user impacts in areas where camping is 

allowed. This would potentially impact non-mechanized, specialized, and mountain biking users 

by degrading the overall recreational experience because the opportunities for isolation and a 

sense of remoteness would be marginally reduced. However, this would be offset somewhat by 

the designation of the Lime Creek campground (with designation contingent on project funding), 

which would decrease competition for campsites among river runners themselves, as well as 

between river runners and other recreationists. Livestock grazing restrictions and prohibitions on 

woodland harvesting under this alternative would have long-term, beneficial impacts on riparian 

resources and on the recreation resource components that lie along and within the riparian 

corridor, including wildlife habitat, vegetation, and scenic quality. 

When compared to Alternative A, this alternative would reduce the number of annual launch 

limits from the current 40,000 under Alternative A to 30,000 user days per year. This 25% 

reduction in permitted use would increase the likelihood of satisfactory river recreational 

experiences where the expectation includes a sense of remoteness and solitude, and would reduce 

potential user conflicts and impacts on the resource by allowing river users to be more widely 

dispersed along the river corridor. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would have 

potentially greater long-term beneficial impacts on river floating users because it reduces the 

number of annual river permits, which would create more of an experience of solitude and a 

sense of isolation for those floating the river. However, this alternative would have more shortterm, access-related recreational opportunity impacts on those potential river users who were 

unable to obtain permits to float the river. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would 

have more beneficial preservation-related impacts on riparian resources. The long-term outcome 

of increasing the likelihood for satisfying private and commercial river running, backcountry, 

and cultural visitation recreational experiences within the proposed SRMA would include an 

enhanced appreciation for the area's cultural heritage, mental health maintenance from 

experiencing a quiet and natural environment, an improved sense of well-being from physical 

exercise, personal growth and development, an enhanced appreciation of the natural 

environment, tourist revenue from permits, and stimulation and a sense of achievement from 

river running challenges and risks. 

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would reduce the size of the San Juan River SRMA to 

10,203 acres (a 30% reduction in area compared to the 15,000 acres under Alternative A); 

however management decisions under Alternative B would seek to purchase private property 

and/or land development rights along the river to expand recreational areas within the SRMA 

boundary. This would have beneficial impacts on river recreation, if land purchases or 

development rights were acquired. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-341 

Alternative C

General management decisions under Alternative C would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B, with similar impacts on recreation resources and resource users. 

Management decisions under this alternative would allow motorized boating on the river, with 

impacts as discussed under Alternative A. An MOU with the Navajo Nation and the NPS would 

be sought under this alternative, and proposed designated camping and camping restrictions 

along the river corridor would have impacts as discussed under Alternative B. Commercial river 

use would be allowed up to 40% of the total river use, with impacts to recreational river users 

similar to those discussed under Alternative B. Launch limits of 40,000 user days per year would 

have impacts to recreation similar to those discussed under Alternative A because the 

management decisions are similar. The vehicle camping restrictions under this alternative would 

be the same as Alternative B, with similar impacts to recreation user groups. The impacts of 

grazing restrictions and woodland harvesting prohibition under this alternative would be the 

same as discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions are the same. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would manage the SRMA as 9,859 acres (a 33% 

reduction in size), with more potentially adverse impacts to recreational resources under 

Alternative C because the area managed for recreational resource protection would be reduced. 

Restrictions on grazing and woodland harvesting would have more beneficial impacts on 

recreation than Alternative A because recreation resources would receive more protection, and 

more designated campsites (assuming a successful, mutually beneficial MOU with the Navajo 

Nation and the NPS) would have more beneficial impacts on recreation user groups than under 

Alternative A. Under this alternative, the SRMA would be managed to maintain opportunities for 

remoteness and isolation within the bounds imposed by the permit and patrol system, which 

would be more beneficial to river users than Alternative A because Alternative A would not 

address these recreation qualities. Alternative C would have similar motorized boating and 

launch limit impacts as Alternative A. 

Alternative D

General management decisions would be the same as discussed under Alternative B, with similar 

impacts on recreation resources and resource users. 

Specific management decisions under this alternative would establish launch limits at 45,000 

user days per year, motorized boating would be allowed, trip sizes would be limited to 35 

individuals per trip, and commercial/private permit allocations would be evenly split. The 

impacts of these management decisions on recreational river users would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative A. Management decisions to increase the number of designated 

campsites through an MOU with the Navajo Nation and the NPS with the purpose of reducing 

resource user conflicts along the river would have impacts similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B. Under this alternative, vehicle camping restrictions would be limited to the Sand 

Island area and all areas within one-half mile of designated campsites. This would have longterm, beneficial impacts on non-river floating recreation users by increasing the recreational 

opportunities for access to and recreation within the SRMA for scenic drivers, motorized, 

mountain biking, non-mechanized, and specialized recreation resource users. 

Compared to Alternative A, the boundary of the SRMA under Alternative D would be reduced to 

6,365 acres (a 58% reduction), thereby reducing the number of acres managed specifically for 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-342 

recreational opportunities and SRMA recreation resource protection. However, while the SRMA 

boundary would be reduced when compared to Alternative A, those areas remaining within the 

proposed SRMA would receive greater resource protection than under Alternative A because 

more management decisions would be proposed to beneficially reduce resource use conflicts, 

protect recreation resources, and apply adaptive management to the SRMA for the protection of 

recreational resources and maintain and/or enhance recreational opportunities than would occur 

under Alternative A. 

Alternative E

The impacts on recreation within the San Juan River SRMA would be the same as discussed 

under Alternative B for a portion of the SRMA (the area outside the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics). 

Approximately 4,124 acres (40% of the proposed San Juan River SRMA) of non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics lie within the San Juan River SRMA. Under Alternative E, the 

impacts to recreation for this SRMA would be that recreation resources would receive increased 

protection from surface disturbances through management decisions to preserve the wilderness 

values within the non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas. These protective decisions would 

include closing the areas to OHV travel, management under VRM Class I objectives to preserve 

high scenic quality, closure to firewood gathering, and closure to mineral leasing and mineral 

materials disposal. 

The impacts on primitive recreation users would be beneficial because naturalness, solitude, and 

outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation would be preserved and enhanced from 

closure/restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and other uses on 4,124 acres in non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Proposed Plan

The management decisions under the Proposed Plan would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative C, with very similar impacts on recreation resources and resource users. 

4.3.10.3.6.2. Cedar Mesa C-SRMA 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A the area proposed as Cedar Mesa C-SRMA (under the action alternatives) 

would continue to be managed as part of the current 385,000-acre Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA. 

Camping would be allowed only at designated campsites, campfires would be prohibited, pets 

would be under human control at all times and excluded from sensitive sites, stock animal use 

would require a permit, and specified areas within the SRMA would be open or closed to stock 

animal use and subject to length of stay restrictions. Group sizes would be limited and stock 

animal herding would be prohibited and excluded from water sources and other sensitive sites. 

Stock use would be limited to existing trails. All of these management decisions would have 

long-term, beneficial impacts within the SRMA because these decisions would maintain the 

cultural and natural resource recreational opportunities within the SRMA by reducing or 

minimizing recreation user group impacts. Recreation user groups most likely to benefit from 

these management decisions would be those seeking primitive, dispersed, and remote 

recreational opportunities (non-mechanized hikers, equestrian, and stock animal users). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-343 

Alternatives B

The management decisions under Alternative B would establish the current Grand Gulch SRMA 

as the 375,739-acre Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA (C-SRMA). The C-SRMA would be managed 

to provide cultural appreciation/interpretive related recreation, and backcountry to front country 

recreational opportunities. These opportunities would include rock art viewing, hiking, 

horseback riding, OHV riding, and camping. Pet and stock animal restrictions would be the same 

as discussed under Alternative A with additional stipulations that would exclude these animals 

from canyons requiring permits, which would have additional beneficial, preservation-related 

impacts on recreational resources. Woodland harvesting and collecting prohibitions and potential 

vegetation treatments and wildlife improvements within the proposed C-SRMA would also have 

long-term, beneficial protection-related impacts on recreation resources. There would be shortterm impacts on vegetation and scenic quality from surface disturbances caused by vegetation 

and range treatments, as discussed under Fire Management. Under this alternative, dispersed 

camping would be allowed except in cultural at-risk areas, but permits would be required for a 

limited number of overnight camping and day hiking groups to preserve sensitive cultural 

resources. This would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resource users by 

expanding the opportunities for remote, dispersed, backcountry recreational experiences by nonmechanized, mountain biking, and motorized user groups while still preserving sensitive 

recreational resources. The potential outcome of these recreational opportunities would be a 

greater likelihood for an appreciation and understanding of the natural environment and the 

area's cultural heritage, improved physical health and fitness from exercise, positive 

contributions to the local economy and increased revenues from tourist revenue, personal growth 

and development by confronting physical challenges in a remote setting, and maintenance of 

mental health from relaxation in an uncrowded, remote, and physically stimulating environment. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have impacts that are more beneficial to 

recreational opportunities by allowing dispersed camping within the C-SRMA. There would be 

more long-term beneficial impacts to recreational resources under this alternative when 

compared to Alternative A because permitted vegetation, range, and wildlife improvements 

would enhance the recreational experience (e.g., improved wildlife habitat that would potentially 

increase the likelihood of satisfying wildlife observation experiences, a healthy mosaic of 

vegetation that provides a natural wilderness-like experience and better sight-seeing, etc.). 

Alternative C

This alternative would have management decisions and impacts similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B (except for those decisions addressing pet and stock animal issues) because the 

management decisions are similar. Pet and stock animal-related management decisions would be 

similar to those discussed under Alternative A except that greater limitations would be applied to 

stock day use under Alternative C. Stock day use would be limited to one party per day per 

trailhead in all canyons requiring permits, which would have short-term, adverse, but minor, 

limitation-related impacts on stock use recreational opportunities for this user group, but longterm, beneficial impacts on the recreational resource through resource preservation. Also, greater 

limitations would be placed on pets and stock animals if resource monitoring and management 

determined that the presence of these animals was adversely affecting recreational resources. The 

impacts of this decision on recreational opportunities or resource user groups would be 

negligible to minor because pets are not an integral component of recreational resources or 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-344 

opportunities within the C-SRMA and alternative stock trails and recreational opportunities 

would be available within the C-SRMA. The benefits from the recreational opportunities 

provided under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B. 

This alternative would have more beneficial impacts on recreation and resource users than 

Alternative A for reasons similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the 

management decisions are similar: more opportunities would be available for dispersed 

recreation, and more resource protection-related management decisions would be applied than 

under Alternative A to ensure the maintenance and preservation of recreation resources. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would have management decisions and impacts similar to those proposed under 

Alternative C because the management decisions are the same, except for those decisions 

addressing pets and stock animals. Under this alternative, pets and stock would be prohibited or 

have limitations placed on their presence if monitoring determined they were causing adverse 

impacts to resources within the C-SRMA. Otherwise, stock and pet management decisions and 

impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative A. 

Compare to Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial impacts on recreational 

opportunities and resources for reasons similar to those discussed under Alternative B because 

the management decisions are similar. Pet and stock-animal management decisions would be 

more beneficial than Alternative A because greater limitations or prohibitions would potentially 

be placed on them under this alternative to protect recreation resources. 

Alternative E

Under this alternative, the impacts on recreation would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B, except that approximately 109,700 acres (29% of the proposed C-SRMA) would 

be protected from surface disturbances to preserve the wilderness values within non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. This would beneficially impact recreational resources within 

these areas through the application of greater restrictions and prohibitions on surface 

disturbances, including mineral leasing closure, no off-route OHV use, designation as VRM 

Class I, and closing these areas to firewood collection and woodland harvesting. The impacts on 

non-mechanized resource user groups would be the same as the discussion under Alternative B 

because the opportunities for remote, dispersed, backcountry experiences would remain. 

However, the exclusion of OHV motorized (and mountain biking) travel within the non-WSA 

wilderness characteristics areas would have adverse impacts on OHV recreational opportunities 

within these areas. In comparing this alternative with Alternative A, Alternative E would have 

more beneficial impacts on non-mechanized users, but more adverse impacts on mechanized 

users because of the restrictions placed on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within 

the C-SRMA. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan would manage Cedar Mesa as a SRMA, but would have management 

decisions and impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B (except for those decisions 

addressing pet and stock animal issues, emphasis zones, and non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics [see below]) because the management decisions are similar. Pet and stock animalrelated management decisions would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A except 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-345 

that greater limitations would be applied to stock day use under the Proposed Plan. Stock day use 

would be limited to one party per day per trailhead in all canyons requiring permits, which would 

have short-term, adverse, but minor, limitation-related impacts on stock use recreational 

opportunities for this user group, but long-term, beneficial impacts on the recreational resource 

through resource preservation. Also, greater limitations would be placed on pets and stock 

animals if resource monitoring and management determined that the presence of these animals 

was adversely affecting recreational resources. The impacts of this decision on recreational 

opportunities or resource user groups would be negligible to minor because pets are not an 

integral component of recreational resources or opportunities within the SRMA and alternative 

stock trails and recreational opportunities would be available within the SRMA. The benefits 

from the recreational opportunities provided under the Proposed Plan would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative B. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the 375,739-acre Cedar Mesa SRMA would include two emphasis 

zones: Comb Ridge (30,752 acres) and McLoyd Canyon-Moon House (1,607 acres), for a total 

SRMA acreage of 407,098 acres. The emphasis within these zones would be placed on cultural 

resource protection and recreational use, which would benefit scenic driving, OHV users, nonmotorized (mountain biking), and non-mechanized users that seek cultural resource interpretive 

experiences. 

Under the Proposed Plan, 13,600 acres (4% of the proposed Cedar Mesa SRMA) would be 

managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for the preservation of wilderness 

values. Beneficial, minor impacts to recreation resources and user groups would result from the 

additional restrictions or prohibitions on surface disturbances within these areas. The impacts 

would be minor because the proposed SRMA under this alternative would be managed to 

maintain the area's cultural resources and natural environment for a range of recreational 

opportunities (including OHV recreational use on designated routes, and non-mechanized 

activities throughout these areas) as discussed under Alternative B, which would be consistent 

with the management prescriptions to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

(prohibited commercial woodcutting, OHV use limited to designated routes, and ROW 

avoidance areas). 

This alternative would have more beneficial impacts on recreation and resource users than 

Alternative A for reasons similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the 

management decisions are similar: more opportunities would be available for dispersed 

recreation, and more resource protection-related management decisions would be applied than 

under Alternative A to ensure the maintenance and preservation of recreation resources. 

4.3.10.3.6.3. Grand Gulch 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 385,000 acres would continue to be managed as the Grand Gulch Plateau 

SRMA through the management decisions established in the 1991 RMP. As a continuation of 

current management, the SRMA would be impacted by conditions and trends discussed in 

Section 3.11.4.2. These include the potential for increased resource use conflicts, disturbance of 

cultural resources within the SRMA, and trampling of vegetation and disturbance to wildlife 

from recreationists. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-346 

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa Top Day Use and Camping 

Under this alternative, the Cedar Mesa mesa top would remain open to dispersed camping, no 

permits would be required, and there would be no limitations on the number and size of user 

groups. The beneficial impacts for all recreation user groups under Alternative A would be shortterm because current recreational management would provide unrestricted opportunities for nonmechanized recreational groups that seek remoteness, solitude, and primitive backcountry 

experiences. The long-term impacts of unrestricted resource use would include recreational 

resource degradation across the mesa top from an increasing number of unrestricted recreational 

resource users. Current trends and conditions (see Section 3.11.3) indicate that this type of 

unrestricted recreational use is likely to result in visitor overcrowding, resource use conflicts, and 

resource degradation, with potentially adverse impacts on all recreation user groups. 

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa In-Canyon Day Use 

Management decisions for in-canyon day use within the Grand Gulch SRMA limit commercial 

and private groups sizes by setting the group size limits at 12 individuals, but they do not limit 

the number of parties per day along trails. Permits are required for commercial groups. As 

discussed above, the impacts of these management decisions would have beneficial short-term 

impacts on non-mechanized users because the recreational opportunities for experiencing 

daytime in-canyon hiking and sightseeing are essentially unrestricted. As the popularity of the 

area increases, as is indicated by current trends, the long-term impacts would include resource 

use conflict and recreational experience degrading impacts for those seeking a recreational 

experience that includes solitude, quiet, and uncrowded trails because there are no private or 

commercial restrictions on access to any of the day use canyons. 

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa In-Canyon Camping 

Under Alternative A, current management limits group sizes (see Table 4.114 above) and no 

overnight camping party may spend more than two consecutive nights at a campsite near 

Junction Ruin, Turkey Pen Ruin, Jailhouse Ruin, or the mouth of Bullet Canyon. Camping would 

be permitted in all established campsites only, away from any cultural resources and riparian 

areas. No campfires would be allowed. 

In-canyon management decisions would restrict the number of people allowed to camp within 

the canyons, which would have protection-related beneficial impacts on both recreation-related 

cultural and natural resources while maintaining recreational opportunities for in-canyon 

isolation and a sense of solitude (recreational qualities that are sought by non-mechanized 

recreational user groups). Non-mechanized user groups may experience short-term impacts on 

the range of available in-canyon camping recreational opportunities because of the limitations 

placed on the number of users allowed to camp, where they may camp, and how long they may 

camp. In-canyon camping restrictions would have long-term preservation-related beneficial 

impacts on recreation resources by restricting the potential surface disturbances caused by 

camping to specific areas and requiring waste management and disposal at campsites. 

Restrictions on in-canyon length-of-stay would beneficially provide more recreational 

opportunity in the long-term for more non-mechanized user groups because more groups could 

potentially receive in-canyon camping permits during the camping season. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-347 

Alternatives B and E

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa-Top Day Use and Camping 

Under the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) and the Proposed Plan, the Grand 

Gulch area would be managed as the Cedar Mesa SRMA to provide cultural 

appreciation/interpretive-related recreation and backcountry to front country recreational 

opportunities. These managed opportunities would include rock art viewing, hiking and 

backpacking, horseback riding, OHV riding, and camping. 

Management decisions under Alternatives B and E would permit an unrestricted number of day 

use groups on the mesa top, but limit group size for commercial and private recreational use to 

10 individuals per group. Camping would be permitted in designated campsites with limitations 

on group size (12 individuals per group) for commercial and private groups. Waste removal 

would be required for overnight camping, and campsites would be closed if adaptivemanagement monitoring detected that recreation users were adversely impacting sensitive mesa 

top cultural sites. The impacts of these management decisions on mesa top recreational resources 

would be beneficial in the long-term because cultural resources would be protected, the intensity 

of surface disturbances caused by non-mechanized recreational user groups would be reduced by 

reducing group sizes and restricting campsites, and waste removal from campsites would reduce 

the impacts to natural resources. The impacts on resource users would also be beneficial in the 

long term: limiting both day use and camping group sizes would increase the likelihood of a 

satisfying recreational experience by limiting the noise, overcrowding, and use conflicts 

associated with large groups. Waste removal would have short-term and long-term, beneficial 

impacts on resource users by maintaining a satisfying recreational camping experience. Limiting 

group size would have negligible impacts on recreational opportunities for non-mechanized 

recreational users because there are no limits on the number of groups permitted on the mesa top. 

The potential outcome of increasing the likelihood of satisfying recreational experiences through 

the proposed management decisions would have beneficial impacts on resource users as 

discussed under Alternatives B and E, Cedar Mesa SRMA. 

Compared to Alternative A, these alternatives would have more beneficial impacts on mesa top 

day use and camping recreational opportunities because limitations on group size, waste removal 

requirements, the requirement for designated camping, and monitoring of cultural resources 

would provide more protection to recreational resources, reduce the potential for resource use 

conflicts, and reduce the intensity of recreation-caused surface disturbances to the recreation 

resource. 

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa In-Canyon Day Use 

In-canyon day use for commercial and private groups would have limitations on group size and 

group numbers per day (group size limits of 10 individuals for commercial and private; one 

commercial group every other day per trailhead, one private group per day per trailhead). Incanyon areas would be closed to commercial use, as needed to protect cultural and natural 

resources, and permits would be required for private and commercial groups. The impacts of 

these management decisions on recreational resources would be beneficial in the long-term 

because the intensity of recreation-caused surface disturbances within the canyons would be 

reduced and natural and cultural recreation resources would be protected. Under these 

alternatives, there would be potential impacts of 10 visitors per day per trailhead from private 

users, and five visitors per day per trailhead for commercial users (totaling 15 visitors per day 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-348 

per trailhead). The impacts on in-canyon recreation users would be short-term, but minor on 

those non-mechanized users who seek in-canyon recreational opportunities but do not 

immediately receive an in-canyon permit because of group size and number limitations. The 

long-term impacts on resource users seeking an in-canyon recreational opportunity would be 

beneficial because group size and number limits (i.e., a reduction in the density of in-canyon 

recreation users) would: (1) beneficially increase the likelihood of a satisfying experience in 

which remoteness, isolation, and quiet are expected; and (2) reduce the likelihood of resource use 

conflicts between in-canyon day use groups. 

Compared to Alternative A, these alternatives would have more beneficial, long-term impacts on 

recreation resources and on non-mechanized user groups because more resource protectionrelated management decisions would be applied to in-canyon day use. Alternatives B and E 

would have more long-term beneficial impacts on recreation resource users than Alternative A 

because more restrictions on group size and numbers would, in the long-term, create in-canyon 

group conditions that increase the likelihood for satisfying in-canyon recreational experiences. 

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa In-Canyon Camping 

The management decisions applicable to in-canyon camping would be the same as discussed 

under Alternative A except that designated campsites would be assigned based on group size and 

if stock animals are included in the group, limitations on group camping would be applied if 

monitoring determined that recreation activity was adversely impacting in-canyon cultural 

resources, limits on the size and number of private and commercial in-canyon camping groups 

would be applied, and requirements for waste removal would be enforced if monitoring 

determined that recreation-related waste was threatening public health and/or in-canyon 

resources. Under these alternatives, private group size would be limited to six individuals per day 

for each trailhead, and commercial groups would be limited to 10 individuals per day for each 

trailhead. Overnight camping use for the major trails in the proposed SRMA would be limited to 

16 visitor days per trail. The impacts of these management decisions on recreation resources 

would be similar to the impacts discussion for Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa top day use, in-canyon 

day use, and mesa top camping. 

Compared to Alternative A, these alternatives would have impacts that are more beneficial to 

recreation resources and on recreation resource users for the same reasons as discussed under 

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa top day use, in-canyon day use, and mesa top camping. 

Alternative C

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa Top Day Use and Camping 

Day use management decisions and impacts would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative B except there would be no group size limits, commercial or private, for groups 

using Kane Gulch Ranger Station, Mule Canyon Ruin, Salvation Knoll, and other sites as 

identified. Group size limits of 12 individuals for other private and commercial use on the mesa 

top would be applied, but there would be no limits on group numbers. The long-term impacts of 

unrestricted group size limits on recreation resources in the developed, day use areas would be 

negligible to minor because: (1) these sites have been managed and designed to accommodate 

large number of visitors and (2) adaptive management would be applied to these areas (as 

discussed under management decisions common to action alternatives) to ensure that resource 

degradation would not occur. The impacts on recreation resource users (primarily motorized 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-349 

scenic drivers and non-mechanized day hikers) would be negligible because site visitation has 

not required a permit. 

Mesa top camping management decisions and impacts would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B except group size limits would be doubled (to 24 individuals) for commercial and 

private groups, and large groups (12–24 individuals) would be assigned designated campsites to 

accommodate the large group size. Increasing the group size limits under this alternative (that is, 

potentially doubling the number of individuals permitted to camp on the mesa top when 

compared to Alternative B) could have impacts on recreational opportunities to experience 

remoteness, isolation, and an uncrowded backcountry experience if large groups were hiking 

and/or camping near each other. Permitting large-group size under this alternative could also 

increase the likelihood of resource use conflicts (e.g., competition for shade, water, scenic view 

points) if several large groups are using the same trail or route, but management decisions to 

designate campsites for large groups would mitigate this concern. The impacts to recreation 

resources from permitted large groups and designating campsites for large groups would be 

mixed: the impacts on trailside natural resources would be more intense in the long-term because 

of the larger number of individuals impacting an area at the same time, but designated campsites 

would have long-term beneficial impacts on natural resources because it is assumed that these 

sites would be designed to accommodate large group sizes, thereby concentrating camping 

impacts within the designated area. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial for reasons discussed 

under Alternative B, and because even though large groups would be permitted to camp on the 

mesa top, management decisions would accommodate camping impacts by designating 

campsites that could absorb these potential impacts.

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa In-Canyon Day Use 

The proposed management decisions and impacts for in-canyon day use under this alternative are 

similar to those proposed and discussed under Alternative B, except that a group size of 12 

individuals per group for private and commercial use would be applied. Private and commercial 

use would be limited to 12 individuals per day for each trailhead, with impacts of 12 visitors per 

day per trailhead from private users, and 12 visitors per day per trailhead from commercial users 

(totaling 24 visitors per day per trailhead), a 60% increase in use compared to Alternative B. The 

comparison of this alternative to Alternative A would be similar to the discussion under 

Alternative B. 

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa In-Canyon Camping 

The proposed management decisions and impacts for in-canyon camping under this alternative 

would be similar to those proposed under Alternative B, except that under this alternative, 

private group size would be limited to eight individuals per day for each trailhead, and 

commercial groups would be limited to 12 individuals per day for each trailhead. Overnight 

camping use for the major trails in the proposed SRMA would be limited to 20 visitors per day 

per trail, a 25% increase in recreational use when compared to Alternative B. The comparison of 

this alternative to Alternative A would be similar to the discussion under Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-350 

Alternative D

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa Top Day-Use and Camping 

The proposed management decisions for in-canyon day use and camping under this alternative 

would be similar to those proposed under Alternative C, with similar impacts. The comparison of 

this alternative for mesa top day use to Alternative A would be similar to the discussion under 

Alternative C. 

The proposed management decisions for mesa top camping would not establish designated 

campsites for large groups fewer than 24 individuals, would establish designated campsites for 

group sizes larger than 24 individuals, group size limits would not be set, campsite facilities 

would be developed as needed, and recreational activity at campsites that adversely impact 

cultural sites would be closed. These management decisions would have long-term impacts on 

recreational resources similar to those discussed under Alternative A because of the potential for 

resource use conflicts and overcrowding from unrestricted numbers of campers, the potential 

degradation of resources caused by the concentration of large camping groups at undesignated 

campsites, and the potential degradation of natural and cultural resources from concentrated 

surface disturbances caused by large camping and hiking groups. The proposed management 

decision to provide campsite facilities as needed to accommodate the large camping groups 

would have beneficial impacts on natural resources by providing for waste disposal, and it would 

have beneficial impacts on the recreation experience of those recreation users who expect a less 

primitive, less natural camping experience. However, based on the assumed recreational 

expectations (as described in Section 4.3.10) of non-mechanized recreational user groups, the 

development of mesa top campsites with toilets, fire grates, picnic tables, and other amenities 

would likely produce an unsatisfying recreational experience where there was an expectation of a 

primitive, undeveloped, natural, remote, and uncrowded backcountry experience that also 

provides opportunities for solitude. 

The impacts on recreational users would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A.

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa In-Canyon Day Use 

The proposed management decisions for in-canyon day use under this alternative would be 

similar to those proposed under Alternative C except that two commercial groups per day (with 

12 individuals per group) would be permitted to access the Grand Gulch trails (totaling 24 

commercial visitors per day per trail). Combined with proposed private trail use of 12 visitors per 

day per trail, this would have a total trail impact of 36 visitors per day per trail, an almost two 

and one-half times increase in permitted day trail use when compared to Alternative B and a one 

and one-half times increase when compared to Alternative C. The impacts would be similar to 

those discussed under Alternative A (e.g., resource degradation, potentially unsatisfying hiking 

experiences) because the number of individuals permitted to access trails under this alternative 

would likely create conditions that degrade, diminish, or reduce the opportunities for a sense of 

solitude, quiet, naturalness, and remoteness sought by this recreational user group. 

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa In-Canyon Camping 

The management decisions for this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative C except that dispersed camping would be permitted for groups of seven or fewer, 

groups of eight to 12 and those with stock animals would be permitted to camp in designated 

campsites, and adaptive-management limits on visitors would be modified to protect recreational 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-351 

resources. The impacts on recreational resources and on recreational users would be similar to 

those discussed under Alternative C because, while total overnight visitor limits would be higher 

(24 visitors per day per trail versus 20 for Alternative C, or a 20% increase over Alternative C), 

the impacts of dispersed in-canyon camping and the impacts of larger group designated camping 

would be similar. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have impacts similar to 

those discussed under Alternative C. 

Proposed Plan

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa Top Day-Use and Camping 

The impacts to recreation resources and users would be the same as discussed under Alternative 

C with one exception. The exception being that groups of 20-24 individuals would be require to 

camp in designated sites. 

 Increasing the minimum size for groups being required to camp in designated sites on the Mesa 

Top (an increase from 12 to 20) under this alternative could have impacts on recreational 

opportunities to experience remoteness, isolation, and an uncrowded backcountry experience if 

large groups were hiking and/or camping near each other. Permitting large-group size under this 

alternative could also increase the likelihood of resource use conflicts (e.g., competition for 

shade, water, scenic view points) if several large groups are using the same trail or route, but 

management decisions to designate campsites for large groups would mitigate this concern. The 

impacts to recreation resources from permitted large groups and designating campsites for large 

groups would be mixed: the impacts on trailside natural resources would be more intense in the 

long-term because of the larger number of individuals impacting an area at the same time, but 

designated campsites would have long-term beneficial impacts on natural resources because it is 

assumed that these sites would be designed to accommodate large group sizes, thereby 

concentrating camping impacts within the designated area. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial for reasons discussed 

under Alternative B, and because even though large groups would be permitted to camp on the 

mesa top, management decisions would accommodate camping impacts by designating 

campsites that could absorb these potential impacts.

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa In-Canyon Day Use 

The impacts to recreation resources and users would be the same as discussed under Alternative 

C because the management decisions are the same. 

Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa In-Canyon Camping 

The impacts to recreation resources and users would be the same as discussed under Alternative 

C because the management decisions are the same. 

4.3.10.3.6.4. Dark Canyon SRMA 

Under the action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) and the Proposed Plan, the 30,820-acre Dark 

Canyon SRMA would be established. Under these alternatives, the area would be managed under 

the BBM goals and objectives (see Appendix E) to provide recreational opportunities for 

backcountry, non-mechanized recreation, and cultural resource and heritage appreciation. The 

primary activities for which the area would be managed would include backcountry hiking and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-352 

backpacking, canyoneering, horseback riding, cultural site visiting, and wilderness therapy and 

education. 

Alternative A 

Under this alternative, Dark Canyon would continue to be managed under the stipulations of the 

214,390-acre Canyon Basin SRMA management plan (which would also continue to include 

Indian Creek [see below]). Management decisions under this plan would include no limitations 

on recreation group size or group numbers, open to dispersed camping, no permits for private 

use, no permit fees for commercial use, dogs and vehicles allowed, fires allowed, and a minimal 

ranger presence within the Canyon Basin SRMA. Current conditions and trends, discussed in 

Section 3.11.3, describe increasing demand for both private and commercial use of the area by 

non-mechanized user groups for primitive backcountry hiking; increasing popularity of the area 

combined with unlimited, unrestricted group size; minimal monitoring of potential recreationcaused surface disturbances from unrestricted camping and potential degradation of cultural 

resources; the unrestricted use of campfires; and the unrestricted presence of pets within the area, 

which would create conditions for substantial noise and surface disturbance. In the long-term, 

these conditions would intensify as demand for access to the area continues to grow. The impacts 

on recreation resource users would be beneficial in the short-term because the recreational 

opportunities for non-mechanized user groups to experience remote, primitive, backcountry 

hiking and sightseeing and a sense of solitude and isolation would be unrestricted. However, as 

private and commercial demand to experience this area increases, the long-term impacts on 

recreation users would include the potential for overcrowding, the potential for pet noise, the 

potential for resource use conflicts because of overcrowding, pet waste, pet-wildlife and pethuman conflicts, the increasing potential for surface disturbances that degrade cultural and 

natural resources, and the resulting degradation or diminishment of recreational opportunities for 

a satisfying primitive, backcountry recreational experience. 

Alternatives B and E

Similar management decisions for the proposed Dark Canyon SRMA under Alternatives B and E 

would include limits on group size (10 individuals for private use, 12 individuals for commercial 

use), limits on the total number of private users per day (15 individuals), the establishment of a 

permit and fee system, designated campsites, limits on campfire use (mesa tops only), waste 

management, prohibitions on pets, and prohibitions on firewood collection. Under this 

alternative, one commercial trip allowed per week (12 individuals), combined with a maximum 

15 private users per day would have a potential maximum use of 27 individuals per day within 

the SRMA. These management decisions would have short-term and long-term protectionrelated, beneficial impacts on recreation resources within the boundaries of the SRMA because: 

(1) limits on group size and number of users, removal of waste, and camping within designated 

campsites within the SRMA would reduce the intensity and area of natural resource surface 

disturbances; and (2) restricting campfire use would reduce surface disturbances and reduce the 

risk of wildland fire within the canyon. The impacts of limiting group size and numbers could 

cause short-term delayed entry into the SRMA for those recreation resource users seeking 

opportunities for a primitive, remote backcountry experience. However, these management 

decisions would have long-term beneficial impacts on those non-mechanized recreation resource 

users seeking a primitive, remote backcountry experience that includes a pristine natural 

environment, a sense of solitude and remoteness, and quiet. The potential beneficial outcome of 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-353 

the opportunities for backcountry recreational experiences would include physical rest and 

maintenance of mental health, improved physical fitness, increased tourist revenue, and an 

appreciation of the natural environment and the region's cultural heritage. The likelihood of a 

satisfying backcountry experience that includes the above attributes would be increased because: 

(1) limits on group size and group numbers would increase the likelihood of group dispersal 

within the SRMA; (2) designated camping, prohibitions on open fires, and requirement for waste 

removal would reduce natural resource impacts; and (3) and the prohibitions on pets would 

reduce pet-wildlife and pet-human conflicts and potentially reduce the level of intrusive noise. 

Note that under Alternative E, approximately 2,522 acres (8% of the proposed Dark Canyon 

SRMA) would be managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for the 

preservation of wilderness values. Beneficial, minor impacts to recreation resources and user 

groups would result from the additional restrictions or prohibitions on surface disturbances 

within these areas. The impacts would be minor because: (1) the proposed SRMA under this 

alternative would be managed to maintain the area's pristine environment for remote, dispersed, 

and primitive recreation, allowing only minor surface disturbance impacts, and (2) the size of the 

affected area would be relatively small in comparison to the size of the proposed SRMA, which 

would not likely affect the opportunities for primitive recreation within the proposed SRMA. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would preserve the recreation-related natural and 

cultural resources, have a greater potential to reduce or prevent resource use conflicts, and create 

the conditions and increase the likelihood for a satisfying recreational experience for nonmechanized recreational user groups. 

Alternative C

The management decisions under Alternative C would be same as those discussed under 

Alternative B except that adaptive-management would assess and then determine if waste 

management was required to preserve recreation resources, pets would be allowed in-canyon but 

on leash and under physical control, fire pans would be permitted, and groups size and numbers 

would be increased. The impacts on Dark Canyon recreation resources would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative B, but with a decrease in long-term beneficial impacts caused by an 

increase in permitted commercial groups (15 individuals per group for private and commercial 

use; an increase from one commercial group per week under Alternative B to three commercial 

groups per week under this alternative) and reduced restrictions on pets within the canyon. A 

total of 20 private users per day would be permitted. So, total permitted SRMA use per day could 

be 65 users per day (45 commercial users and 20 private users). This would potentially increase 

maximum users per day by almost two and one-half times when compared to Alternative B. An 

increase in commercial groups under this alternative would reduce the sense of in-canyon 

solitude and remoteness because commercially related users would potentially increase more 

than three times in comparison to Alternative B. The presence of pets within the canyon could 

create in-canyon intrusive noise and on-trail human-pet conflicts, but mandatory physical control 

of pets would mitigate pet-wildlife conflicts. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial resource preservation 

and recreation user impacts for the same reasons as discussed under Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-354 

Alternative D

Alternative D proposes management decisions for Dark Canyon that would allow seven 

commercial trips per week and group size limits of 15 individuals for both commercial and 

private recreational groups. Dispersed camping and campfires would be permitted throughout the 

proposed SRMA, as would on-site collection of campfire wood and physically controlled onleash pets in the canyon. Maximum potential commercial-type recreation within the SRMA 

would be limited to a total 105 individuals per day (seven groups of 15 individuals each) with no 

limits on the number of private groups. At least, this represents an almost four-fold increase in 

recreational impacts within the SRMA when compared to Alternative B. The impacts of these 

management decisions on recreation resources would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A because the combination of unrestricted dispersed camping, an unrestricted 

number of private groups, large and numerous commercial groups, unrestricted use of campfires, 

no designated campsites, and unrestricted collection of firewood would have substantial longterm impacts on recreation resources. As discussed under Alternative A, there would be shortterm beneficial impacts on unrestricted recreational opportunities for primitive, dispersed nonmechanized backcountry recreational experiences, but these opportunities would be diminished 

and/or degraded, and the likelihood of a satisfying backcountry experience that includes solitude, 

quiet, a sense of remoteness in a pristine environment, and the potential personal benefits derived 

from those experiences (as discussed under Alternative B) would be adversely impacted. This 

would be due to overcrowding, resource user conflicts indirectly caused by overcrowding, noise, 

and natural and cultural resource degradation caused by the intensity of recreational use and by 

the intensity of surface disturbances from dispersed camping, firewood collection, and human 

and pet waste. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have impacts similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A because, while Alternative A would manage the area with fewer restrictions than 

Alternative D, the differences between the two alternatives would be negligible. 

Proposed Plan

The impacts on recreation in Dark Canyon would be the same as discussed under Alternative C 

except that private and commercial group size limits would be increased from 15 to 18 

individuals. The impacts on Dark Canyon recreation resources would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative B, but with a decrease in long-term beneficial impacts caused by an 

increase in permitted commercial groups (18 individuals per group for private and commercial 

use). A total of 20 private users per day would be permitted. So, total permitted SRMA use per 

day could be 74 users per day (54 commercial users and 20 private users). This would potentially 

increase maximum users per day by almost two and one-half times when compared to 

Alternative B. An increase in commercial groups under this alternative would reduce the sense of 

in-canyon solitude and remoteness because commercially related users would potentially 

increase more than three times in comparison to Alternative B. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial resource preservation 

and recreation user impacts for the same reasons as discussed under Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-355 

4.3.10.3.6.5. Indian Creek SRMA 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, Indian Creek Corridor would continue to be managed under the stipulations 

of the 214,390-acre Canyon Basin SRMA management plan. The management decisions for this 

area would be the same as those discussed above under Dark Canyon, Alternative A (see Section 

4.3.10.3.6.4). The impacts of these management decisions on recreation resources within Indian 

Creek would be short-term and long-term, based on the current conditions and trends discussed 

in Section 3.11.3. Briefly, these current trends and conditions include: (1) the rapidly increasing 

popularity of the area for specialized (rock climbing), non-mechanized (hiking), motorized OHV 

use, and scenic driver user groups; (2) the demand for additional recreational services and 

facilities to meet the needs of these diverse recreational users; (3) an increase in the size and 

intensity of use of dispersed camping areas; (4) intensifying resource use conflicts (between 

recreation user groups and between livestock grazing and recreational uses) because of its 

increasing popularity; (5) waste management concerns; (6) inadequate and/or unsafe vehicle 

parking along the Indian Creek Corridor; and (7) the current impacts of recreational activities on 

the area's cultural resources. 

Continuing to manage Indian Creek under the above-mentioned conditions combined with 

proposed management decisions that permit unlimited, unrestricted group size, minimal 

monitoring of potential recreation-caused surface disturbances from unrestricted camping and 

potential degradation of cultural resources, the unrestricted use of campfires, and the unrestricted 

presence of pets within the area would create conditions for substantially intensifying surface 

disturbances to recreation-related natural and cultural resources. The proposed management 

decisions under this alternative would cause these impacts because the decisions neither address 

nor mitigate the current recreational trends and conditions that are affecting and are expected to 

continue to affect this area. 

Under Alternative A, the current impacts on recreation resource user groups would continue to 

intensify because the management decisions proposed under this alternative do not address these 

conditions. Specifically, the management decisions under this alternative would permit 

increasing resource user group conflicts, permit an increase in health and safety concerns, permit 

the potential degradation of recreation cultural and natural resources, permit a diminishment and 

degradation of recreational opportunities, and create a substantial decline in satisfactory 

recreational experiences for all resource user groups because none of the adversely causative 

issues described above would be addressed under the proposed management decisions. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B (and the other action alternatives), the 89,721-acre Indian Creek SRMA 

would be established and managed to provide BBM-based opportunities for backcountry to front 

country recreation, as well as opportunities for interpretation of cultural resources and 

appreciation of the region's cultural heritage. Managed recreational opportunities would include 

rock climbing, OHV riding, backcountry hiking and backpacking, viewing rock art, camping, 

wilderness education, and sight-seeing. 

Management decisions under Alternative B would include prohibitions on dispersed camping 

within the Indian Creek riparian corridor from Newspaper Rock to downstream of the Dugout 

Ranch, the Newspaper Rock campground would be closed and rehabilitated, designated-only 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-356 

camping would be allowed along Bridger Jack Mesa bench, a new campground would be 

constructed, prohibitions on woodcutting and collecting with restrictions on campfires would be 

applied, rock climbing routes that adversely impact cultural sites would be closed, funds from 

camping fees would be used to develop new facilities, parking areas would be developed, 

adaptive monitoring of the area would be applied to ensure resource protection, and new 

climbing routes would be established with designs to ensure raptor protection. Management 

decisions under this alternative would also prohibit dispersed camping in the Indian Creek 

Corridor. Other specific management decisions that address the need to protect and limit impacts 

to the area's natural and cultural resources, limit resource user conflicts, and meet the BLM's 

mandate for multiple use within the proposed SRMA boundary were analyzed in the Indian 

Creek Corridor Plan and Environmental Assessment (EA) (BLM 2005m). 

Alternative B management decisions and the management decisions contained within the Indian 

Creek Corridor Plan EA Decision Record would have short-term and long-term beneficial 

impacts on recreation resources within the proposed Indian Creek SRMA because recreationrelated cultural resources and natural resources would be protected from potential degradation or 

disturbances caused by rock climbing, OHV use, and hiking. Intensifying visitor use and 

camping near Newspaper Rock would be addressed, as would waste concerns. Designated 

camping, prohibitions on dispersed camping and wood collection for campfires, and adaptivemanagement and monitoring of recreation resources within the SRMA would have short-term 

and long-term beneficial impacts because surface disturbances would be restricted to designated 

areas. 

The impacts on recreational user groups that use the area would be beneficial in the short-term 

and long-term because building additional recreation facilities (parking lots, campgrounds, 

toilets, and day use picnic areas) would, respectively, reduce traffic safety concerns along the 

Indian Creek Corridor, relieve the demand for camping within the proposed SRMA, improve 

waste management conditions, and provide additional recreational opportunity areas for scenic 

driving users to enjoy the area. Recreation resource user groups that seek dispersed camping 

opportunities (e.g., rock climbers, backpackers) would be impacted by limitations that would be 

placed on dispersed camping (dispersed camping would not be allowed within the Indian Creek 

Corridor), which would reduce these opportunities and potentially diminish the recreational 

experiences that include dispersed camping. There would be long-term, beneficial impacts on all 

other recreation user groups that seek recreational opportunities in the proposed SRMA because, 

as the area's popularity continues to grow, the proposed management decisions would limit the 

number of users that are permitted to recreate and camp in the proposed SRMA, thereby 

reducing the potential for overcrowding and user conflicts. Management prescriptions contained 

within the EA, combined with the proposed management decisions under this alternative, would 

increase the likelihood that the current conditions and trends (as discussed under Alternative A) 

would be addressed, which in turn would increase the likelihood that recreational expectations 

would be met and that users would have satisfying recreation experiences and would maintain 

the range of recreational opportunities currently available in the area. The maintenance of 

recreational opportunities within the proposed SRMA would also increase the likelihood for 

beneficial experiences that include BBM objectives of challenging physical exercise and 

improved physical health, increased tourist revenues, education and personal development and 

growth, and maintenance of mental health (Table E.2.3, Appendix E). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-357 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial in the short-term and longterm because it would adequately address the resource use conflicts and recreational resource 

degradation concerns that are occurring within the area proposed as the Indian Creek SRMA. 

Alternative C

The management decisions under this alternative would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative B except that dispersed camping would be allowed within the Indian Creek Corridor 

(with designated, dispersed camping allowed within specific camping zones). The impacts of 

management decisions under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B, but with greater surface disturbance impacts caused by dispersed camping from 

the expected increasing use of the area by recreation user groups. The comparison of Alternative 

A to this alternative would be similar to those impacts discussed under Alternative B because the 

management decisions and the impacts of the management decisions are similar. 

Alternative D

The management decisions and impacts on recreation resources and recreation resource users 

would be similar under Alternative D to those discussed under Alternative C because the 

management decisions are similar. 

The comparison of Alternative A to this alternative would be similar to those impacts discussed 

under Alternative B because the management decisions and the impacts of the management 

decisions are similar. 

Alternative E

Under this alternative, the impacts on recreation resources and users would be the same as 

discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions are the same, except that 

approximately 47,393 acres (53% of the proposed SRMA) of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that lie within the proposed SRMA and would be managed to preserve their 

wilderness values. The impacts on recreation resources would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B because surface disturbances within the proposed SRMA would be limited to 

specific areas (i.e., parking lots, designated camping sites, hiking trails, rock climbing on 

designated routes, and OHV travel along designated routes) to preserve the area's recreation 

resources. The impacts on recreation user groups would also be similar to Alternative B for nonmechanized users because the management decisions applied to the non-WSA wilderness 

characteristics areas to preserve wilderness values under this alternative (e.g., no wood gathering, 

no OHV use, mineral leasing closures, no new road construction) would maintain opportunities 

for solitude and a sense of remoteness. Opportunities for motorized OHV use and mountain 

biking would be adversely impacted within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

portion of the SRMA because these activities would be prohibited. Compared to Alternative A, 

this alternative would have more long term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources and users 

because management decisions would address current concerns and user conflict trends briefly 

discussed under Alternative A. 

Proposed Plan

The impacts to recreation within the Indian Creek SRMA would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative C because the management decisions are the same. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-358 

4.3.10.3.6.6. White Canyon SRMA 

Alternative A

Under this alternative, White Canyon would not be managed as an SRMA. Management 

decisions under this alternative would not restrict private or commercial group size, would allow 

open camping and campfires, and would not require permits for private groups but would require 

permits for commercial groups. The impacts on recreation resources could be adverse in the 

long-term if campfires, camping wastes, and dispersed camping caused surface disturbances 

along the canyon rim were to degrade recreational resources. Increasing waste disposal within 

the canyon, which could degrade the in-canyon recreational experience for specialized recreation 

users (canyon climbers, slot canyoneers) and non-mechanized users (canyon hikers), would have 

short-term adverse impacts on these recreation users. 

Alternative B

Alternative B would create the White Canyon SRMA (2,828 acres) for the purposes of providing 

outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting the area's natural 

and cultural resource values The SRMA would be managed to provide opportunities for 

recreation that include backcountry hiking and backpacking, remote camping, canyoneering, 

cultural site visitation, and wilderness education. Management of the SRMA would include the 

establishment of a backcountry permit system if deemed necessary, the development of primitive 

campgrounds at Soldier and Grave Crossings, the use of fire pans on mesa tops, a ban on 

campfires in canyons, and the requirement that wastes be packed out. These management 

decisions would have short-term and long-term, resource preservation-related beneficial impacts 

in-canyon and on the canyon rim of the SRMA by reducing or mitigating surface disturbances to 

recreational resources. The implementation of a backcountry permit system (as necessary to 

protect resources) could have access-related impacts on recreational user groups in the short-term 

by limiting recreational opportunities, but it would also increase the likelihood for solitude, a 

sense of isolation, and a satisfying canyon experience by reducing the density of canyon 

recreation users. The beneficial outcome of managing the area under BBM goals and objectives 

for satisfying recreational experiences would include the likelihood for personal development 

and growth from physical challenges within the canyon, an appreciation for the region's cultural 

heritage and natural resources, improved physical health, mental health maintenance, and 

tourism revenue from backcountry permits (Table E.2.5, Appendix E). 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more long-term beneficial impacts on the 

SRMA natural recreational resources and on the recreational opportunities for a satisfying incanyon experience because the potential impacts caused by increasing use of the area would be 

less under this alternative than under Alternative A. 

Alternative C

The management decisions and impacts under this alternative would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions would be similar. Compared to 

Alternative A, the impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-359 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the White Canyon SRMA would be established with management 

decisions that include the development of primitive canyon-rim campsites, waste management 

options if waste becomes a concern, and requirements for fire pans for in-canyon and canyon rim 

campfires. Management decisions would not include the establishment of a backcountry permit 

system, The impacts of these management decisions would have beneficial long-term impacts on 

recreation resources by providing canyon rim camping sites and requiring fire pans for 

campfires. These decisions would reduce or limit surface-disturbances to recreation resources. 

Recreation resources could be impacted in the long-term by the lack of a backcountry permit 

system because the intensity of in-canyon and canyon rim recreational use (with the potential for 

surface disturbances) would not be limited. The impacts of unlimited visitation and recreation 

within the SRMA could be adverse in the long-term because potential overcrowding would 

reduce the opportunities for a satisfying in-canyon canyoneering or hiking experiences if incanyon recreational expectations include solitude, a sense of remoteness, and an unspoiled 

canyon environment. The potential beneficial outcomes of BBM management for satisfying 

recreational experiences (as discussed under Alternative B) would be unlikely because of the 

reduced opportunities for these experiences (see Table E.2.5, Appendix E). However, compared 

to Alternative A, this alternative would have impacts that are more beneficial on recreation 

resources and on recreational users because it proposes management decisions that would limit 

or mitigate surface disturbances caused by recreational resource use. 

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the management decisions and impacts on recreation would be the same as 

under Alternative B because the management decisions are the same, except that approximately 

2,092 acres (74% of the proposed SRMA) would be managed as non-WSA land with wilderness 

characteristics for the protection of wilderness values. The impacts on recreation resources 

would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because the proposed SRMA management 

decisions under this alternative would apply the same prescriptions to protect recreational 

resources from surface disturbances as those applied within non-WSA wilderness characteristics 

areas. The impacts on recreational users would be the same as discussed under Alternative B 

because both alternatives would have the same levels of resource protection with the same 

impacts on resource users. 

Proposed Plan

The management decisions and impacts under the Proposed Plan would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions would be similar. Compared to 

Alternative A, the Proposed Plan impacts would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative B. 

4.3.10.3.6.7. Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) 

Alternative A

Management decisions for managing the ERMA are not specified under this alternative. 

However, general management decisions under this alternative would apply adaptive 

management to the Monticello PA to monitor and assess resource uses to determine if more 

intensive management should be applied to the ERMA. If adaptive management were to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-360 

determine that an area was receiving intense use, then SRMA designation would be an option for 

that area, with SRMA designation assigned through the RMP amendment process. Construction 

of recreation facilities would be considered for areas within the ERMA, as needed, to ensure 

visitor health and safety, reduce user conflicts, and protect recreation resources. 

All of these proposed management decisions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

ERMA recreation resources because adaptive management would ensure that changes in 

recreation resource use would receive an appropriate management response to protect recreation 

resources. The impacts on recreational resource users would also be beneficial in the long-term 

because ERMA adaptive management would respond appropriately to potential resource use 

conflicts and resource user group needs for facilities, which would maintain the likelihood for 

satisfactory recreational experiences for all recreation user groups. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would also apply the general adaptive management decisions to the Monticello PA 

to monitor and assess resource uses, as discussed above under Alternative A, with the same 

impacts on recreation resources and resource user groups. Specific management decisions under 

this alternative would limit dispersed vehicle camping within the ERMA to previously disturbed 

areas along designated routes, limit camping to designated type camping along portions of the 

Bears Ears road and Deer Flat roads, and coordinate with the Glen Canyon Recreation Area on 

constructing a campground at Muley Point. These specific management decisions would also 

have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources within the ERMA by limiting 

potential recreation-related surface disturbances from camping. The impacts on recreation user 

groups that seek dispersed vehicle camping opportunities would be minor in the long-term 

because the recreational opportunities for this type of camping within the ERMA would be 

reduced. The potential construction of a campground at Muley Point would be beneficial in the 

long-term for scenic driver groups and other recreational user groups that seek remote but 

developed camping sites with high scenic quality because the campground would provide 

additional recreational opportunities for camping and sightseeing. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have impacts that are more beneficial to 

recreation resources by limiting vehicle camping-related surface disturbances to areas along 

designated routes. The impacts on dispersed vehicle camper recreation resource users would be 

minor because limitations on this form of camping would reduce vehicle camping recreational 

opportunities. The proposed construction of a campground would have impacts that are more 

beneficial to recreation than Alternative A because it would provide more recreational 

opportunities for vehicle camping with a sight-seeing and visual quality component. 

Alternative C

The management decisions and impacts on recreation resources and recreation users would be 

the same as discussed under Alternative B except that dispersed vehicle camping would be 

allowed within 150 feet of centerline on roads within the ERMA, with dispersed camping 

encouraged within previously disturbed areas. The impacts of these management decisions 

would have potential long-term, adverse, but minor, impacts on recreation resources because 

surface disturbances from dispersed vehicle camping would potentially degrade roadside 

recreation resources and expand the disturbed areas. The impacts would be minor because 

Monticello FO monitoring and management would assess resource impacts and close and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-361 

rehabilitate roadside camping areas if the level or intensity of the activity were determined to be 

excessive. Adaptive management would reduce the adverse impacts of roadside vehicle camping 

because impact mitigation would be applied. The comparison of impacts under Alternative A to 

this alternative would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the impacts 

discussed under Alternative C are similar to Alternative B. 

Alternative D

The management decisions and impacts on recreation resources and recreation users would be 

the same as discussed under Alternative C except that dispersed vehicle camping would be 

allowed within 300 feet of centerline on roads within the ERMA. The impacts of dispersed 

vehicle roadside camping would be similar to those impacts discussed under Alternative C 

because adaptive management mitigation would be applied to areas where surface disturbances 

were deemed excessive, including closing and rehabilitating disturbed roadside vehicle camping 

sites. The comparison of the impacts Alternative A with the impacts of this alternative would be 

similar to those discussed under Alternative C because the impacts of Alternative C would be 

similar to the Alternative D impacts. 

Alternative E

Under this alternative, a total of 416,526 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed within the ERMA. These areas would be closed to firewood gathering and 

woodland harvesting, closed to OHV travel and new road construction, designated as VRM 

Class I, and closed to mineral leasing. Surface disturbances within these areas would be 

minimized to preserve their wilderness characteristics, which would have long-term, beneficial 

impacts on recreation resources. The impacts on user groups within these areas would be the 

same for non-mechanized users as the discussion under Alternative B because the decisions are 

the same. However, the opportunities for motorized OHV travel, mountain biking, and scenic 

driving into these the non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas within the ERMA would be 

eliminated while opportunities for non-mechanized recreation and dispersed camping would 

remain. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have fewer beneficial impacts on 

recreation user groups because mechanized activities within non-WSA areas with wilderness 

characteristics in the ERMA would be prohibited. 

Proposed Plan

The management decisions and impacts on recreation resources and recreation users would be 

the same as discussed under Alternative B except that dispersed vehicle camping would be 

allowed within previously disturbed areas 150 feet of centerline of roads or routes within the 

ERMA. The impacts of these management decisions would be minor in the long-term on 

recreation resources because using existing disturbed areas for dispersed vehicle camping would 

not degrade roadside recreation resources; however, there is the potential for vehicle campers to 

adversely expand the boundaries of the existing roadside disturbed areas. This potential impact 

would be minor because FO monitoring and management would assess resource impacts and 

close and rehabilitate roadside camping areas if the level or intensity of the activity were 

determined to be excessive. Adaptive management would reduce the adverse impacts of roadside 

vehicle camping because impact mitigation would be applied. Under this alternative, 75,271 

acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed within the ERMA to 

preserve their wilderness values. These lands would be unavailable for woodland harvesting, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-362 

managed under VRM Class II objectives, and would limit OHV use to designated routes. The 

impacts to recreation would be beneficial in the long term for motorized, mountain biking, and 

non-mechanized users. Mechanized user groups would have travel opportunities within these 

areas along designated routes, but opportunities for also be available for solitude, remoteness, 

and the enjoyment of areas with high scenic quality and unspoiled landscapes. The comparison 

of impacts under Alternative A to this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B because the impacts discussed under Alternative C are similar to Alternative B. 

4.3.10.3.6.8. Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) 

Alternative A

Under this alternative, the proposed special recreation permit (SRP) management decision would 

require SRPs for any recreation-related commercial activity within the Monticello PA (e.g., river 

floating), with no specified limits on group size. Under this alternative, the issuing of SRPs 

would be a discretionary management decision containing standard stipulations and additional 

stipulations as needed to control visitor use (i.e., reduce or minimize resource use conflicts), help 

meet management objectives, protect cultural and natural resources, and provide for the health 

and safety of visitors. These SRP management decisions would have long-term, beneficial 

impacts on recreation resources and on recreation resource users because the special recreation 

permit process would review the proposed commercial activity and include stipulations to ensure 

that recreational resources would not be adversely impacted and that the resource use would 

minimize conflicts between other recreational user groups. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the proposed management decisions for SRPs would include those 

discussed under Alternative A with additional management decisions that would use SRPs to 

manage not only commercial activities and events but also competitive events, organized group 

events, vending, and special areas. Specific criteria for determining if an SRP would be required 

would be proposed under this alternative, including: (1) events, activities, or group sizes that 

involve a threshold number of individuals; (2) events with potential resource use conflicts and/or 

health and safety concerns; (3) events that could potentially conflict with management guidelines 

or prescriptions; and (4) commercial limitations on group size and time of use to protect natural 

and cultural resources. These SRP criteria would have impacts similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A because they would also ensure that natural and cultural recreation resources 

would be protected from special event/activity-related surface disturbances, and that recreational 

resource user conflicts would be minimized or prevented. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would have more beneficial, long-term impacts on recreation resources because it 

proposes specific SRP permit criteria, which Alternative A does not, that could be used to more 

finely manage and limit the adverse impacts of large recreational private and commercial groups 

or events. 

Alternative C

This alternative would have similar impacts as discussed under Alternative B because the 

management decisions are similar. The comparison of this alternative to Alternative A would be 

similar to the discussion under Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-363 

Alternative D

This alternative would have similar impacts as discussed under Alternative B because the 

management decisions are similar. The comparison of this alternative to Alternative A would be 

similar to the discussion under Alternative B. 

Alternative E

Alternative E would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B, except that no 

competitive motorized or mechanized events would be permitted within non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B, 

but to a lesser degree, because commercial-type specialized recreational opportunities would be 

reduced, with long-term, adverse impacts on this user group. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan would have similar impacts as discussed under Alternative B because the 

management decisions are similar. The comparison of this alternative to Alternative A would be 

similar to the discussion under Alternative B. 

4.3.10.3.7. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON RECREATION 

4.3.10.3.7.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, no specific management decisions would be applied to riparian areas that 

would affect recreational activities. However, as discussed in Section 3.12.4 Riparian Resource 

Demand and Forecast, current trends and conditions under this alternative would have indirect 

impacts on recreational opportunities in riparian areas. The current impacts on riparian resources 

from recreational use and exotic species encroachment from surface disturbances would continue 

to degrade riparian recreational resources, and would likely in time degrade scenic quality and 

recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing, hiking, equestrian, and other trail uses from the 

loss of native riparian vegetation and riparian habitat. Livestock grazing could degrade riparian 

areas and recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing, sightseeing, day hiking, and camping 

(see Section 3.12.4.1) if standards and guidelines are not followed. Consequently, mechanized 

and non-mechanized user group conflicts would likely intensify as increasing numbers of users 

compete for use of this diminishing resource, thus reducing the opportunities for and likelihood 

of satisfying recreational experiences in riparian areas for all users. 

4.3.10.3.7.2. Alternative B 

Management decisions under this alternative would limit, seasonally restrict, or make 

unavailable livestock grazing in selected riparian areas determined to be Functioning At Risk. 

Selected riparian areas Functioning At Risk would also be closed to motorized OHV and 

mountain biking use if riparian assessments determined that these activities were contributing to 

riparian degradation. Functioning At Risk riparian areas would be temporarily closed to 

dispersed, motorized camping until riparian proper functioning conditions were restored. These 

management decisions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources by 

reducing or removing the causes of surface disturbance-related impacts to riparian recreational 

resources. These management decisions would have short-term, adverse impacts on recreational 

opportunities within those riparian areas determined to be Functioning At Risk (approximately 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-364 

431 miles within the planning area, see Section 3.12.2) because recreational opportunities for 

some motorized user groups (e.g., OHV, dispersed vehicle campers) would be reduced. There 

would be long-term, beneficial impacts for all resource user groups because the restoration of 

functioning riparian areas would increase the likelihood for a satisfying recreational experience 

in riparian areas where the recreational expectation includes an available water source, protection 

from summer heat, absence of livestock, scenic quality, and wildlife viewing. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have long-term impacts that are more 

beneficial to recreational resources and to riparian recreational use because the proposed 

management decisions would specifically address the causes of recreational/riparian degradation, 

apply site-specific adaptive management to assess the level of riparian restoration, and 

eventually increase the recreational opportunities in these areas to a greater degree than proposed 

under Alternative A. 

4.3.10.3.7.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the management decision impacts on riparian recreational resources would 

be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions are the 

same. The comparison of Alternative A to this alternative would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B above. 

4.3.10.3.7.4. Alternative D 

The management decision impacts on riparian recreational resources under this alternative would 

be similar to those discussed under Alternative A because the management decisions are the 

same. 

4.3.10.3.7.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the management decision impacts on riparian recreational resources would 

be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions are the 

same: Functioning At Risk riparian areas would be closed to cross-country motorized OHV and 

mountain biking use, and closed to dispersed camping. Opportunities for these recreational 

activities would be reduced, with long-term, adverse impacts on motorized and mountain biking 

groups and those seeking dispersed, motorized camping. 

4.3.10.3.7.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the management decision impacts on riparian recreational resources 

would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions are 

the same. The comparison of Alternative A to this alternative would be the same as discussed 

under Alternative B above. 

4.3.10.3.8. IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED RESOURCES DECISIONS ON RECREATION 

4.3.10.3.8.1. Alternative A 

The soil and watershed management decisions under this alternative are unspecified for 

recreation resources and activities. The impacts on recreation would be negligible. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-365 

4.3.10.3.8.2. Alternatives B–E, and the Proposed Plan 

Soils and watershed management decisions under these alternatives and under the Proposed Plan 

do not specifically address recreation resources and/or recreational users because the 

management decisions address soil productivity, soil erosion, sedimentation, and watershed 

health. However, these alternatives have proposed management decisions for erosion control 

plans for steep slopes that would include steep slope erosion control strategies, and would 

require BLM-approved survey and design plans for surface-disturbing activities on these slopes. 

These proposed decisions would have long-term, beneficial, indirect impacts on recreation 

resources and recreation resource users by mitigating soil erosion that could potentially degrade 

recreation-related scenic quality. Compared to Alternative A, these alternatives would be more 

beneficial to recreation resources because Alternative A does not include specific management 

decisions to control, prevent, or mitigate soil erosion. 

4.3.10.3.9. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION–ACEC DECISIONS ON RECREATION 

4.3.10.3.9.1. Alkali Ridge ACEC 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the 39,202-acre Alkali Ridge ACEC would be managed to preserve the 

cultural resources contained within it. Preservation-related management decisions would include 

surrounding buffer areas for permanent protection of all NRHP-eligible cultural resource sites. In 

those areas where cultural resources or their buffer areas could not be avoided, then appropriate 

mitigation would be applied to those cultural sites. These management decisions would have 

beneficial, long-term impacts on recreation-related cultural resources because the resource would 

be preserved or potential impacts mitigated, and sightseeing/interpretive recreational 

opportunities would be maintained. 

The 2,340-acre Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark would be managed under the same 

management decisions as discussed above, with additional protection of all cultural resources by 

stipulating a 100-foot avoidance area around these resources, with the same impacts as discussed 

above. 

Alternatives B and E

Under these alternatives, the 39,196-acre Alkali Ridge ACEC would be designated as a cultural 

ACEC, a RMP-consistent cultural resource management plan would be written for the area, onsite collection of campfire wood collecting would be permitted, and surface-disturbing activities 

that would potentially impact ACEC cultural resources would be prohibited. These management 

decisions would have long-term, beneficial impacts as discussed above under Alternative A. The 

impacts on recreation user groups would be similar to the impacts discussed under Alternative A. 

Under these alternatives, the 2,146-acre Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark would be 

managed to preserve cultural-recreational resources by prohibiting surface-disturbing activities 

that could adversely affect those resources. The beneficial impacts on the resource and on 

recreational users would be similar to the impacts discussed under Alternative A but to a greater 

degree, because more limitations would be placed on activities that could potentially threaten the 

landmark's cultural-recreational resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-366 

Alternative C

The management decisions under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A, except that an RMP-consistent cultural resource management plan would be 

written for the area and some limits would be placed on surface-disturbing activities (livestock 

grazing, woodland harvesting, and vegetation treatments) to protect cultural resources. The 

impacts on cultural-recreation resources and recreation user groups would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative A because the management decisions are similar. 

The impacts on the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark would be similar to those discussed 

under Alternative B because the proposed management decisions are similar. 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the area would not be designated as a cultural ACEC, but an RMPconsistent cultural resource management plan would be written for the area. The impacts on 

cultural recreation resources would be adverse in the long-term because the management 

decisions under this alternative do not limit potential surface-disturbing activities that could 

adversely impact cultural resources, particularly livestock grazing impacts and watershed 

improvement projects. The impacts on sight-seeing recreation resource user groups would be 

adverse in the long-term because the potential degradation of cultural resources under this 

alternative would reduce the recreational opportunities for viewing cultural recreational 

resources. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more adverse in the long-term 

for recreational resources because, until a management plan was approved for managing the 

area's cultural resources, this alternative provides fewer resource protection management 

decisions than Alternative A. 

The impacts on the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark would be similar to those discussed 

under Alternative B because the proposed management decisions would be similar. 

Proposed Plan

The impacts to recreation would be the same as discussed under Alternative C, except that 

controlled surface use leasing would be allowed within the ACEC. Management decisions that 

emphasis the protection of prehistoric and historic cultural resources within the ACEC from 

direct and indirect impacts from minerals development would ensure that these resources were 

permanently maintained for recreational enjoyment and interpretation. The location of minerals 

development infrastructure within the vicinity of known cultural sites would have a long term, 

adverse impact on the recreational use of cultural sites from a loss or degradation of context. 

However, management decisions under the Proposed Plan would emphasis maintenance of the 

relevant and important cultural values, so mitigation would ensure that the adverse impacts 

would be minimized. Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would have more beneficial 

impacts on recreation because more management would be applied to protect known cultural 

sites within the ACEC. 

The impacts of management decisions on recreation within the Alkali Ridge National Historic 

Landmark would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because the management 

decisions would be similar. Geophysical exploration would be allowed under the Proposed Plan, 

but this activity would be short term and limited to casual use. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-367 

4.3.10.3.9.2. Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC (6,260 acres) lies entirely within a WSA, with 

management decisions that are consistent with the preservation of wilderness values, including 

ACEC near relict vegetation values. The impacts of this alternative's management decisions on 

recreation resources would continue to be beneficial in the long-term because the resource would 

be protected under IMP stipulations. Non-mechanized user groups would continue to benefit 

from opportunities for dispersed camping and hiking, backpacking, and equestrian activities 

within the WSA's pristine and undeveloped landscape. Motorized OHV, mountain biking, 

specialized, and scenic driving user groups would continue to be adversely impacted by the lack 

of recreational opportunities within the WSA because of IMP-imposed restrictions on surface 

disturbances. 

Alternatives B–E, and the Proposed Plan 

The impacts on recreation resources and on resource users would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative A because the area lies within a WSA, except that the ACEC would be slightly 

reduced in size and would encompass 6,225 acres. Note that under Alternatives C and D and 

under the Proposed Plan, Bridger Jack Mesa would not be managed as an ACEC; however, there 

would be affects to recreation from these decisions because the area would be managed under 

IMP stipulations to preserve WSA wilderness values. 

4.3.10.3.9.3. Butler Wash North ACEC 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the 17,464-acre Butler Wash ACEC lies entirely within a WSA, with 

management decisions that would be consistent with the preservation of wilderness values under 

the IMP, including ACEC scenic values. The impacts of this alternative's management decisions 

on recreation resources and user groups would be negligible because the area is and would 

continue to be protected to preserve wilderness and scenic values. 

Alternatives B–E, and the Proposed Plan 

The impacts on recreation resources and on resource users would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative A because the area lies within a WSA. Note that under Alternatives C and D and 

under the Proposed Plan, Butler Wash North would not be managed as an ACEC; however, there 

would be affects to recreation from these decisions because the area would be managed under 

IMP stipulations to preserve WSA wilderness values. 

4.3.10.3.9.4. Cedar Mesa ACEC 

Alternative A

Alternative A would continue to manage the 295,336-acre Cedar Mesa ACEC for cultural, 

recreational, and primitive/natural area values. Management decisions under this alternative 

would permit short-term impacts to recreational resources from surface disturbances that include 

rangeland and wildlife habitat improvements, as well as fire suppression to protect life and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-368 

property. Areas open to mineral entry and disposal of mineral materials could have long-term 

surface disturbance-related impacts on recreation within the ACEC by reducing the recreational 

opportunities for sight-seeing in areas of high scenic quality. Management decisions that limit 

OHV use to designated trails that limit or prevent impacts to cultural resources, manage areas for 

primitive or non-motorized use, and manage the scenic highway corridor would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on mechanized and non-mechanized recreational resource users because the 

recreational opportunities for scenic driver, motorized, and non-mechanized resource users 

would be maintained. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the 306,742-acre Cedar Mesa ACEC would be managed for its cultural 

resources as a cultural-ACEC. Management decisions under this alternative would close the area 

to dispersed camping, require camping waste be packed out, and limit day use and overnight 

camping permits to protect cultural resources. The impacts on recreational resources would be 

beneficial in the long-term because the resources would be protected from surface disturbances. 

Short-term impacts to recreational resources would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A. The impacts on recreational resource user groups would be a long-term reduction 

in the recreational opportunities for motorized and non-motorized resource users because of the 

restrictions placed on motorized use and the prohibitions on dispersed camping. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have more long-term beneficial protection-related impacts 

on recreational resources. This alternative would also have long-term impacts that are more 

adverse to recreational resource users because of the reduced opportunities for motorized and 

non-mechanized recreational experiences within the ACEC. 

Alternative C

Under this alternative, the long-term beneficial impacts to recreational resources would be 

similar to those discussed under Alternative B because, though the area would not be designated 

as a cultural-ACEC, the management decisions applied to the area through the proposed 

designation as a 375,739-acre SRMA would be similar. The long-term impacts to recreational 

users would be similar to Alternative B, but to a lesser degree because the area would be open to 

dispersed camping. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more long-term, 

beneficial protection-related impacts on recreational resources, but it would also have more longterm, adverse impacts on recreational resource users because of the reduced opportunities for 

motorized recreational experiences. 

Alternative D

The impacts of this alternative would be similar to those discussed under Alternative C because 

the management decisions are the same as proposed for Alternative C: the area would not be 

designated as a cultural ACEC, but would instead be managed under proposed designation as a 

375,734-acre SRMA, with similar management decisions to those proposed under Alternative B. 

Alternative E

Under this alternative, the management decisions would be similar to Alternative B, except that 

approximately 60,049 acres (19% of the proposed ACEC) would be managed for protection of 

wilderness characteristics within the proposed ACEC. The impacts to recreational resources 

would be similar to Alternative B, but to a greater degree, from the additional surface protection 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-369 

of wilderness characteristics areas under VRM Class I management objectives that would 

preserve scenic quality, soils, vegetation, and cultural values for all user groups. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial impacts on recreational resources and 

users by maintaining more area for non-mechanized opportunities. 

Proposed Plan

The impacts to recreation for the Cedar Mesa area would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative C because the special designation management decisions would be the same: the area 

would not be managed as an ACEC, those portions of the area outside of the WSAs would be 

managed under an SRMA management plan. 

4.3.10.3.9.5. Dark Canyon ACEC 

Under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the area proposed as the Dark Canyon ACEC 

lies partially within a WSA, with management decisions that are consistent with the IMP that 

stipulates preservation of wilderness values. The impacts of this alternative's management 

decisions on recreational resources and recreational resource users would be beneficial in the 

long-term because the area is and would continue to be protected and managed to preserve 

wilderness values. Low-impact, non-mechanized recreational activities, (as discussed in Section 

4.3.10.3.10) would continue to be permitted, with continued long-term, beneficial impacts to 

these users. That portion of Dark Canyon that does not lie within the WSA would be impacted by 

special designation decisions as discussed below. 

Alternative A

The currently designated 61,660-acre Dark Canyon ACEC would continue to be managed as an 

ACEC for recreation, scenic, and natural area values. The impacts on recreation resources would 

be beneficial to non-mechanized users in the long term because the area would continue to be 

unavailable for livestock grazing and mineral leasing, excluded from woodland harvesting, 

closed to OHV use, and managed for minimal surface disturbances under VRM Class I 

objectives. These decisions would continue to provide beneficial opportunities for solitude, quiet, 

remoteness, and a pristine, undisturbed landscape sought by non-mechanized recreation users. 

The impacts to mechanized and motorized users would continue to be adverse in the long term 

because the opportunities for these user groups would be either highly limited or prohibited 

within the ACEC. 

Alternative B

The management decisions under this alternative would be the same as discussed above under 

Alternative A because the decisions are very similar: OHV use would be prohibited within the 

61,600-acre ACEC; surface-disturbing activities would be very limited or prohibited; the area 

would be managed as VRM I for minimal surface disturbances. 

Alternative C

Under this alternative, Dark Canyon would not be managed as an ACEC. However, as discussed 

above, the portion that lies within a WSA would continue to be managed under IMP stipulations 

to preserve the area's wilderness values, with impacts on recreation as discussed under 

Alternative A. Under this alternative, the non-WSA portion of Dark Canyon would be managed 

under SRMA prescriptions that would impose limitations or prohibitions on surface disturbances 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-370 

within the canyon that are similar to those described under Alternative A above. So, the impacts 

to recreation resources and users would be the same as discussed under that alternative. 

Alternative D

This alternative would apply the same management decisions as Alternative C. The impacts to 

recreation would be the same as that alternative. 

Alternative E

This alternative would apply the same management decisions as Alternative B. The impacts to 

recreation would be the same as that alternative. 

Proposed Plan

The Dark Canyon ACEC would not be designated under the Proposed Plan. The impacts of the 

Proposed Plan decisions on recreation in Dark Canyon would be the same as discussed for 

Alternative C because the decisions are the same. 

4.3.10.3.9.6. Hovenweep ACEC 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the impacts on recreational resource and recreational resource users within 

the 1,798-acre ACEC would be similar to the analysis discussed under the Cedar Mesa ACEC 

for Alternative A because the management decisions applicable to recreation are similar. Mineral 

leasing, geophysical activities, mineral entry, and mineral disposal would have short term and 

long term, adverse impacts on opportunities for sightseeing, but allowed OHV use would 

maintain opportunities for motorized OHV and mountain biking recreation. The protection of 

riparian and aquatic areas, and floodplains would provide opportunities for wildlife viewing, and 

cultural resource protection would provide opportunities for interpretive viewing. However, the 

impacts to recreational users seeking opportunities for cultural resource viewing and wildlife 

viewing would be adverse in the long term. This is because minerals development would likely 

affect the cultural context of cultural resource interpretive viewing and sightseeing, and wildlife 

viewing would likely be adversely affected by the noise, movement, and surface disturbances 

associated with minerals development. 

Alternatives B

 Under Alternative B, the area would be designated as an ACEC and expanded to include an 

additional 620 acres (totaling 2,439 acres), the area would be managed under VRM Class III 

objectives, available for mineral leasing under standard stipulations, and available for mineral 

entry. The impacts to recreational users seeking opportunities for cultural resource viewing and 

wildlife viewing would be adverse in the long term. This is because minerals development would 

likely affect the cultural context of cultural resource interpretive viewing and sightseeing, and 

wildlife viewing would likely be adversely affected by the noise, movement, and surface 

disturbances associated with minerals development. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would be more adverse for recreation because of management decisions that would allow more 

surface disturbances within the ACEC that would detract from the expected recreational 

experience associated with cultural resource viewing and interpretation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-371 

Alternative C

The impacts on recreation under this alternative would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B because the management decisions to expand the ACEC boundaries, to allow 

standard stipulation minerals leasing and designate the area as VRM Class III would be the same. 

Alternative D

Under this alternative, the Hovenweep ACEC would not be established and management of the 

area would be identical with surrounding lands. The area would be available for minerals 

development and open to watershed and vegetation treatments that would not impact sensitive 

cultural sites. The impacts of management decisions on recreational resources would be shortterm and long-term. Short-term impacts to recreational resources would be produced by surface 

disturbances from vegetation and watershed treatments that would temporarily degrade scenic 

quality and reduce the recreational opportunities for sight-seeing. Long-term impacts to 

recreational resources would be produced by the paucity of management decisions to protect the 

area's cultural resources from surface disturbances while permitting minerals development, 

livestock grazing, and campfires. The impacts on recreational resource users would be beneficial 

in the long-term for recreational user groups that seek opportunities for OHV and non-motorized 

trail use because there would be few limitations on trail development. The impacts on 

recreational users who seek opportunities for solitude, undisturbed and undeveloped natural 

landscapes, and remoteness would be adverse in the long-term because under this alternative the 

area would not be managed to preserve these recreational qualities. Compared to Alternative A, 

this alternative would have more adverse impacts because fewer resource protection-related 

management decisions would be specified. The impacts on recreational resource users would be 

similar to Alternative A. 

Alternative E

The impacts of management decisions on recreation would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B because the decisions are the same. 

Proposed Plan

The impacts of the Proposed Plan on recreation would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A because the management decisions are similar, except that the 880 acre visual 

emphasis zone would be managed as VRM II under the Proposed Plan. Compared to Alternative 

A, the Proposed Plan would have somewhat more beneficial impacts for recreational experiences 

because of management for VRM Class II for part of the area and the increased emphasis on 

maintaining the important cultural and historical values of the area through more stringent 

surface management stipulations. 

4.3.10.3.9.7. Indian Creek ACEC 

Alternative A

Under this alternative, the 8,510-acre Indian Creek ACEC would be managed to protect visual 

quality. Management decisions would permit minimal surface disturbances within the area (e.g., 

fire suppression to protect life and property, livestock grazing, geophysical activities). The area 

would be closed to OHV use. Recreational activities would be restricted if adaptive management 

determined that scenic values were being degraded. These management decisions would have 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-372 

long-term, protection-related beneficial impacts on recreational resources. The impacts on 

recreational user groups would be variable: there would be long-term, beneficial impacts on nonmechanized groups because the area's management would be consistent with the recreational 

expectations of these groups (i.e., scenic quality, a pristine environment, natural sights and 

sounds, solitude); the impacts on OHV and mountain biking recreational users would be adverse 

in the long-term because the recreational opportunities for these groups would be limited. 

Alternative B

The impacts on recreation under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A because the management decisions to preserve scenic quality would be similar. 

Alternative C

This alternative would have similar impacts as Alternative A on recreational resources because 

the management decisions are similar. The impacts on non-mechanized recreational users would 

be beneficial in the long-term because dispersed camping would be permitted within the Indian 

Creek Corridor. The impacts on mechanized recreational users would be similar to Alternative 

A. Compared to Alternative A this alternative would have fewer beneficial impacts because less 

area would be protected for recreation-related scenic quality in the 3,908-acre ACEC (a 46% 

reduction when compared to Alternative A). There would also be more adverse impacts to all 

recreation users from the substantially reduced size of the ACEC from 8,510 acres to 3,908 acres 

under this alternative that would reduce the area available for recreating. The reduced size of the 

ACEC would likely create use conflicts between mechanized and non-mechanized user groups. 

Alternative D

Under this Alternative, the Indian Creek ACEC would not be established. The area would not be 

managed to maintain scenic quality, but would be managed for consistency with the surrounding 

lands. Those areas that lie within WSAs would have recreation impacts similar to the impacts 

discussed under Alternative B because WSA resource protection stipulations would preserve 

scenic quality and non-mechanized recreational resources. Recreational resources in those areas 

within the Indian Creek corridor that lie outside of WSAs would not be managed for their 

protection, which would be an adverse long-term impact. The affects on recreational user groups 

would be variable: non-mechanized user groups would be adversely impacted in the long-term 

because management of non-WSA areas would be inconsistent with this group's recreational 

expectations that include an undeveloped and natural landscape, high scenic quality, natural 

sights and sounds, and a sense of remoteness and solitude; motorized, mountain biking, and 

specialized recreational user groups would be beneficially impacted in the short-term because the 

reduced restrictions on recreational activities within non-WSA areas would create more 

recreational opportunities for these users. However, the long-term impacts on all resource user 

groups would include an increased likelihood for resource use conflicts from expected increasing 

numbers of users combined with the reduced limitations on recreational resource use.. Compared 

to Alternative A, this alternative would be more adverse in the long-term because there would be 

less protection of recreational resources and an increased likelihood in the long-term for 

unsatisfying recreational experiences for all recreational resource users. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-373 

Alternative E

The impacts of this alternative on recreational resources and users would be the same as 

discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions are the same, except that 

approximately 3,887 acres (30% of the proposed ACEC) would be managed to preserve 

wilderness values within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that lie within the 

proposed 8,510-acre ACEC. The impacts on recreational resources and users of these areas 

would be the same as discussed under Alternative A because management to maintain a high 

level of visual quality and to preserve a pristine environment would be applied under both 

alternatives. 

Proposed Plan

This alternative would have similar impacts as Alternative A on recreational resources and on 

non-mechanized recreation because the management decisions are similar. The impacts on nonmechanized recreational users would be beneficial in the long-term because dispersed camping 

would be permitted within the Indian Creek ACEC. The impacts on OHV and mountain biking 

recreational users be adverse for OHV opportunities because the ACEC would be closed to OHV 

use. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial impacts because a 

greater range of recreational opportunities would be available. Lockhart Basin ACEC 

Alternative A

Under this alternative Lockhart Basin would not be managed as an ACEC. However, the existing 

Indian Creek ACEC (designated to maintain scenic quality) and the Indian Creek WSA 

(managed under IMP stipulations) lie partially within the Lockhart Basin area. The current 

management decisions for Indian Creek ACEC in the basin would limit recreational use if 

adaptive management determined that visual resource values were being degraded. The area 

would be open for mineral leasing (subject to NSO leasing stipulations), closed to OHV use, 

woodland harvesting would be prohibited, and the area would continue to be managed under 

VRM Class I objectives. This would have long term, beneficial impacts on non-mechanized 

users and scenic drivers, but would continue to have adverse impacts on OHV and mountain 

bikers from limited opportunities. Those areas within the basin, but outside of the current ACEC 

and WSA boundaries are managed under VRM Class III objectives (see section 4.3.18 Visual). 

In these areas the impacts to resource users would be reversed: OHV and mechanized users 

would benefit from travel opportunities, while non-mechanized users would be adversely 

affected by a lack of solitude, quiet, seclusion, naturalness, and remoteness. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B Lockhart Basin would be designated as a 47,783-acre ACEC and as VRM 

Class I for management and preservation of scenic quality. All surface-disturbing activities 

would be prohibited, but the area would be open for campfires. The impacts to recreational 

resources and user groups would be beneficial in the long-term because management under the 

VRM Class I objectives would restrict surface-disturbing activities or actions that would impair 

visual resources and scenic quality to very low levels of impact. The impacts on user groups that 

seek quiet, solitude, and remoteness in undisturbed landscapes (i.e., hikers, mountain bikers, 

scenic drivers) would benefit in the long-term because opportunities would be available that 

would likely meet their expectations. There would be few opportunities for other mechanized or 

specialized user groups, so the impacts on these users would be adverse in the long-term from 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-374 

limited recreational opportunities. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more 

beneficial for those groups seeking quiet and solitude, with impacts to other user groups similar 

to those discussed under Alternative A. 

Alternative C

Under this alternative, Lockhart Basin would not be designated as a scenic ACEC. The area 

would be designated as VRM Class II and Class III, available for livestock use, and open for 

mineral leasing (subject to standard and timing and controlled surface use leasing stipulations). 

The impacts to recreation resources would be adverse in the long-term for all recreational 

resource user groups in the designated VRM Class III area because visual objectives would 

permit surface disturbances throughout the area from recreational and non-recreational activities 

that would impact visual/scenic quality both from within the basin and from recreational areas 

that overlook the basin (see Visual Resources Section 4.3.18). 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more adverse in the long-term for 

recreational resources and for all recreational resource users in the VRM Class III-designated 

area because the visual resource objectives under this alternative would permit more surface 

disturbance-related impacts to recreation resources that would likely diminish the quality of 

recreational experiences in the area. 

Alternative D

The impacts under this alternative would be the same as discussed under Alternative C because 

the management decisions are the same. 

Alternative E

Under this alternative, management decisions would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative B, except that approximately 21,298 acres (45% of the proposed ACEC) with nonWSA wilderness characteristics that lie within the ACEC boundary would be protected from 

surface disturbances through VRM Class I designation and under minerals leasing prohibitions. 

The impacts on recreation would be the same as Alternative B because the management 

decisions under Alternative E would also protect the proposed ACEC under VRM Class I 

management objectives and through prohibitions on surface disturbances. 

Proposed Plan

The impacts to recreation in Lockhart Basin from Proposed Plan decisions would be the same as 

discussed under Alternative C because the management decisions are the same. 

4.3.10.3.9.8. Lavender Mesa ACEC 

Alternative A

Under this alternative, the 649-acre Lavender Mesa ACEC would continue to be maintained to 

manage the relict vegetation on the mesa top and managed for primitive, non-motorized 

recreation. The management decisions would minimize surface-disturbing activities within the 

ACEC; would exclude OHV, pack animal, and saddle stock use; and would limit recreational 

activities that would potentially degrade scenic or cultural resource values. These decisions 

would have long-term beneficial preservation-related impacts on recreational resources because 

scenic quality, cultural resources, and an undisturbed environment are valued components of the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-375 

recreational experience. The impacts on scenic driver, mountain biking, motorized OHV, and 

most specialized recreational user groups would be negligible in the long-term because, though 

mountain biking and motorized OHV recreational opportunities and activities would be excluded 

from the ACEC, the ACEC is physically inaccessible to mechanized use. The impacts on nonmechanized recreational users and specialized recreation climbing users would be beneficial in 

the long-term because the management decisions would maintain the recreational opportunities 

and expectations that are preferred by this group: natural sights and sounds, remoteness, 

isolation, and a pristine, undeveloped environment. 

Alternative B

The impacts of management decision on recreational users under this alternative would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative A because the size of the ACEC and the management 

decisions are similar. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would permit a greater degree 

of recreational resource degradation: recreational activities would be restricted or limited only if 

vegetation communities were being adversely affected. 

Alternative C

The impacts of management decision on recreational users under this alternative would be 

similar to those discussed for Alternative A because the size of the ACEC and the management 

decisions are similar. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have long-term impacts 

on recreational resources as discussed under Alternative B above. 

Alternative D

Under this Alternative, the ACEC would not be established and would be managed consistent 

with the surrounding area. Mountain biking and motorized recreation on designated routes would 

be permitted on the mesa top but, as noted above, the mesa top is inaccessible to these 

recreational activities. The impacts on recreational resources under this alternative would be 

potentially adverse in the long-term because there would be very few limitations or restrictions 

on potential surface-disturbing activities (e.g., unlimited dispersed camping; lack of waste 

management) and these surface disturbances would potentially degrade recreational resources. 

Management decisions under this alternative would also not limit surface disturbance-related 

resource degradation by those users who access the mesa top (climbers, non-mechanized users), 

which could further exacerbate surface disturbances on the mesa top. In the long-term, potential 

recreational resource degradation and the lack of resource protection would likely degrade the 

recreational experience for those accessing the mesa top. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would have long-term impacts that are more adverse to recreation resources because 

management decisions would not preserve the recreational resources on Lavender Mesa. 

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the proposed 649-acre ACEC would be protected as an area with non-WSA 

wilderness characteristics. The impacts to recreation resources would be beneficial in the longterm because surface disturbance restrictions to preserve wilderness values on the mesa would be 

either prohibited or greatly limited. The impacts to resource users would be comparable to the 

discussion under Alternative A because the level of resource preservation and allowed 

recreational activities would be the same. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-376 

Proposed Plan

The impacts to recreation in Lavender Mesa (mesa top) from Proposed Plan decisions would be 

the same as discussed under Alternative C because the management decisions are the same. 

4.3.10.3.9.9. Scenic Highway Corridor 

Alternative A

Under this alternative, the current 70,017-acre Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC would be 

managed to preserve scenic values. Restrictions to recreational use within the ACEC would be 

applied within the 21,380-acre area of the ACEC that overlaps with the Cedar Mesa ACEC. 

Restrictions would be applied to preserve scenic quality along the corridor, with potential long 

term, adverse impacts on mechanized and non-mechanized recreational opportunities to prevent 

surface disturbances or visual intrusions within the ACEC viewshed. 

Alternatives B – E, and Proposed Plan

Under the action alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the scenic highway corridor would not be 

designated as an ACEC, with beneficial impacts on recreational opportunities from reduced 

restrictions on activities along the former ACEC corridor. Compared to Alternative A, these 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan would have more beneficial impacts on recreation because 

fewer restrictions would potentially be placed on recreational activities. 

4.3.10.3.9.10. Shay Canyon ACEC 

Alternative A

This alternative would continue to manage the 3,561-acre Shay Canyon ACEC for conservation 

of cultural resources. The area would permit limited OHV use (along designated routes) and 

would manage the canyon for permanent protection of sensitive cultural sites, but would have no 

other specified limits or restrictions on recreational activities. The impacts of this alternative's 

management decisions on recreational resources would be minor because: (1) the area would be 

managed under VRM Class I objectives, so long-term degradation of scenic quality from surface 

disturbances would be minimal; (2) OHV-related surface disturbances would be limited; and (3) 

recreation-related cultural resources would be protected. The impacts on recreational resource 

users would also be minor because recreational opportunities for mechanized and nonmechanized groups would be available within the ACEC. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 119 acres would be designated as the Shay Canyon ACEC to manage the 

cultural resources within the canyon. The area would be closed to camping, motorized OHV and 

mountain biking recreational use would be limited to designated routes, hiking would be limited 

to designated trails, and recreation would be limited if cultural resources were adversely 

impacted by these activities. The impacts on recreational resources would be beneficial in the 

long-term because management decisions under this alternative would prohibit surface 

disturbances within the proposed ACEC (e.g., NSO for oil and gas development, no campfires, 

restricted grazing, no surface-disturbing vegetation or wildlife treatments). The impacts on 

recreational use within the ACEC would be adverse in the long-term because management 

decisions to protect cultural resources would limit the recreational opportunities for mechanized 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-377 

and non-mechanized recreation within the proposed ACEC. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would have greater long-term, adverse impacts on recreational resources and on 

recreational opportunities within the ACEC because it would: (1) reduce the size of the ACEC to 

approximately 2% of the acreage managed under Alternative A, so specific ACEC-related 

management prescriptions for the protection of recreational resources would be reduced; and (2) 

reduce the recreational opportunities within the ACEC because the 119-acre proposed ACEC 

would be too small to accommodate the range of recreational activities presently permitted under 

Alternative A. 

Alternative C

The impacts of this alternative would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B 

because the management decisions are the same. 

Alternative D

Under this alternative, the Shay Canyon ACEC would not be established but would be managed 

consistent with the surrounding lands. Management decisions would limit OHV use to 

designated trails, but management of the area under VRM Class III objectives would allow 

surface disturbances from other land-use activities. In the long-term, recreational resources 

would potentially become degraded through surface-disturbing minerals exploration and 

development, livestock grazing, watershed treatments, and fuels treatments. The impacts on 

recreational resource users would be beneficial in the short-term because opportunities would 

become available for a range of mechanized and non-mechanized recreational activities. In the 

long-term, the lack of management prescriptions to protect recreational resources would allow 

those resources (i.e., cultural, wildlife, vegetation, and scenic quality) to become degraded, 

which would reduce the likelihood of satisfying recreational experiences for all resource user 

groups. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have impacts that are more adverse 

because management decisions would not preserve the recreational resources or recreational 

opportunities within the Shay Canyon area. 

Alternative E

The management decisions under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B, except that approximately 99 acres (83% of the proposed ACEC) would be 

managed to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the proposed ACEC. 

The impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because management 

decisions that prohibit surface disturbances within the canyon would be similar, except that OHV 

use would be prohibited within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The adverse 

impacts on recreation and user groups would be the same as Alternative B, but to a reduced 

degree, because mechanized activities (OHV and mountain biking activities) would not be 

allowed. As discussed under Alternative B, the adverse impacts to recreation would be caused by 

designating an area too small to accommodate the range of allowed recreational opportunities. 

Proposed Plan

The impacts of this alternative would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because 

the management decisions are the same. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-378 

4.3.10.3.9.11. San Juan River ACEC 

Alternative A

Under this alternative, the San Juan River would not be designated as an ACEC; however, the 

15,100-acre area would continue to be managed under the current prescriptions and management 

decisions for the San Juan River SRMA. Analyses of the impacts of those management decisions 

on recreation and on recreation user groups are discussed under San Juan SRMA, Alternative A 

above. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the San Juan ACEC would be managed as a 7,590-acre area for the 

protection of scenic, cultural, wildlife, and natural system values. Management decisions would 

limit surface disturbances within the proposed ACEC boundaries: vehicle access and motorized 

OHV and mountain biking activities would be restricted to designated routes, and trails to 

cultural sites would be designated, as needed, to protect resource values; recreational activities 

would be limited or restricted if those activities were determined to adversely impact wildlife; 

camping sites would be closed or restricted, as necessary, to protect resource values; and 

climbing aids to access cultural and raptor nesting sites would be prohibited. The management 

decisions under this alternative would have long-term beneficial impacts on recreational 

resources because recreational resource values that include scenic quality, wildlife, and cultural 

resource components would be preserved or managed to ensure minimal impacts. 

The impacts on motorized OHV, mountain biking, non-mechanized, and specialized recreational 

user groups would be a long-term reduction or limitation of recreational opportunities within the 

proposed ACEC if recreational activities were determined to have adverse impacts on cultural, 

scenic, and wildlife resource values. The impacts of ACEC management decisions on river users 

would be minor to negligible because the recreational opportunities for this group would not 

likely be affected by ACEC resource use restrictions: river use would be limited by group size 

and group numbers under the proposed SRMA (see Section 4.3.10.3.10), with overnight camping 

at designated campsites. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would manage 50% fewer acres along the San Juan 

River corridor for the preservation of recreational values and place more limitations on San Juan 

River corridor recreational use. However, this alternative would manage the acreage within the 

proposed ACEC with greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities than Alternative A, 

which would provide more long-term protection to those resources that would beneficially 

contribute to the river user's recreational experience. 

Alternative C

The impacts of proposed management decisions on recreation under this alternative would be the 

same as discussed under Alternative B because the proposed decisions would be the same. 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the San Juan River ACEC would not be designated. However, the 

management decisions under this alternative would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B, with similar impacts to recreational resources and user groups. Compared to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-379 

Alternative A, this alternative would have impacts that are similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B. 

Alternative E

The impacts on recreational resources and users would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B because the management decisions are the same, except that 2,155 acres (28% of 

the proposed ACEC) of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that lie within the ACEC 

would prohibit any surface disturbances that could potentially degrade the existing wilderness 

values within these areas. The impacts of non-WSA wilderness characteristics area protection on 

recreational resources and users would be the same as the discussion under Alternative B 

because the ACEC would be managed under alternative decisions to ensure that there would be 

minimal impacts to visual, cultural, wildlife, and natural values within the ACEC. 

Proposed Plan

Under this alternative, the 4,321-acre San Juan ACEC would be managed with the same 

prescriptions as discussed under Alternative B. Therefore, the impacts would be same as 

discussed for that alternative, but reduced in scope, because of the reduced size of the ACEC 

(under this alternative San Juan River segment #5 [2,768 acres] would be managed under the 

NWSRS). 

4.3.10.3.9.12. Valley of the Gods ACEC 

Alternative A

This alternative would manage the 31,387-acre Valley of the Gods (within the current Cedar 

Mesa ACEC) for scenic quality preservation through VRM Class I designation with surface 

disturbances compatible with this visual resource objective. The impacts on recreational 

resources would continue to be beneficial in the long-term because the VRM Class I limitations 

on surface disturbances would continue to preserve recreational resources (e.g., OHV use would 

be limited to designated routes, potential scenic quality-degrading minerals activities would 

require visual mitigation and/or approved plans of operation). The impacts on scenic driver, 

mechanized and non-mechanized recreational resource user groups would continue to be 

beneficial in the long-term because recreational opportunities would continue to be available for 

these groups, with the likelihood of satisfying scenic quality-related recreational experiences 

because management decisions would continue to preserve the high scenic quality of the area. 

Alternative B

This alternative would manage the Valley of the Gods as a 22,863-acre ACEC for the 

preservation of scenic quality. The impacts on recreational resources would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative A because the area would continue to be protected under VRM Class I 

management objectives with a similar level of potential surface disturbances to recreational 

resources. The impacts on recreational user groups would be similar to the discussion under 

Alternative A because the recreational opportunities for scenic driving, motorized OHV, 

mountain biking, and non-mechanized users would be similar. This alternative would provide 

recreation-related scenic quality protection to 73% of the area that would be protected under 

Alternative A. Consequently, the amount of recreational opportunities described would be 

proportionally less than those provided under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-380 

Alternative C

This alternative would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the 

management decisions are the same. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would not designate the 22,863-acre Valley of the Gods as an ACEC for the 

protection of scenic quality and the area would be managed under VRM Class III objectives. The 

area would be managed for a lower level of visual/scenic quality (i.e., more surface disturbances 

would be permitted), with potentially adverse impacts on those recreational opportunities that 

include a high scenic quality component. The likelihood of satisfying recreational experiences 

for scenic driver, mountain biking, motorized, and non-mechanized user groups within this area 

would be diminished in comparison with Alternative A. 

Alternative E

This alternative would manage the proposed ACEC under decisions similar to Alternative B, 

except that approximately 20,743 acres (91% of the proposed ACEC) within the ACEC would be 

managed to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The impacts would be the 

same as discussed under Alternative B because management decisions to protect wilderness 

characteristics (designation as VRM Class I, closed to mineral leasing and minerals disposal, 

closed to woodland harvesting) would also be applied to the entire ACEC under that alternative. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B because 

the management decisions are the same. 

4.3.10.3.10. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION–WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS DECISIONS ON 

RECREATION

4.3.10.3.10.1. Colorado River Segments 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, Segment #1 (a 2.2-mile segment) was not evaluated for eligibility under the 

NWSRS. However, the river segment would continue to be managed according to floodplains 

and riparian/aquatic areas guidelines described in the current RMP, which includes limiting 

OHV use to designated trails, NSO minerals leasing, and prohibitions on surface disturbances 

caused by mountain biking and motorized OHV equipment (except for fire management or 

geophysical work). The impacts on recreational resources would be beneficial in the long-term 

because recreation-related restrictions or limitations would continue to be imposed on the river 

segment to protect any ORVs that the river segment may possess. The impacts on mountain 

biking, motorized, river floating, and non-mechanized resource users would be beneficial in the 

long-term because recreational opportunities for these user groups would continue to be available 

under current management decisions. 

Colorado River Segments #2 and #3 (5.5 and 6.5 miles, respectively) were determined to be 

eligible, and would be managed to preserve any ORVs that the segments might possess. The 

impacts on recreation resources would be beneficial in the long-term because recreation 

resources (e.g., scenic, wildlife, cultural resources) would be preserved. The impacts on 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-381 

motorized, mountain biking, river floating, and specialized recreational user groups would be 

negligible in the long-term because, though river segment eligibility would continue to prohibit 

surface disturbances that could potentially degrade the ORVs for these river segments, 

recreational opportunities would continue to be available for these user groups. The impacts on 

non-mechanized and river floating recreational use would continue to be beneficial in the longterm because protection of the river corridor from surface disturbances along these segments 

would be compatible with the recreational expectations of these users, which includes a naturalappearing environment and little evidence of human surface disturbances along the river 

corridor. The impacts on mountain biking and motorized users would also be beneficial in the 

long-term because use of designated trails along the river corridor would continue. 

Alternatives B and E

Under Alternatives B and E, Colorado River Segment #1 would be recommended as suitable for 

classification as recreational and would be managed under VRM Class III objectives. The 

impacts on recreational resources would be beneficial in the long-term because recreational 

ORVs that include cultural, wildlife, fishery, scenic, and ecological resources (see Section 

3.15.2.2) would be preserved. The impacts on recreational resource users would be variable. 

Management decisions under these similar alternatives would have long-term beneficial impacts 

on specialized, mountain biking and motorized OHV users because recreational opportunities 

would be available along the river corridor for trail use, and surface disturbances would be 

managed under VRM Class III objectives (development and roads already exist on the northern 

side of the segment in the Moab FO [see Appendix H, Special Designations]). The impacts on 

non-mechanized and river floating user groups would beneficial in the long-term because the 

recreational opportunities for experiencing solitude, remoteness, natural sights and sounds, and 

an undeveloped and pristine, natural-looking environment would be partially preserved under the 

Recreation category; however, the proximity of mechanized and non-mechanized users within 

the 352-acre, 6.2-mile segment would create the potential for resource user conflicts. Compared 

to Alternative A, these alternatives would permit a greater degree of surface disturbance under 

VRM Class III management objectives that would potentially degrade recreation resources, but 

would also provide more opportunities for recreational resource users. 

Colorado River segment #2 would be recommended as suitable for classification as scenic and 

would be managed under VRM Class II objectives. The impacts would be beneficial because 

river ORVs would be preserved. Increased mountain biking and motorized OHV recreational 

opportunities would have long-term, beneficial impacts on user groups that seek those 

opportunities because some surface disturbances along the river corridor would be permitted. 

The increased recreational opportunities for solitude, isolation, and naturalness would have 

beneficial impacts on recreational users who seek these experiences; however, the potential 

exists for adverse resource use conflicts between mechanized and non-mechanized users within 

the relatively narrow, 880-acre, 6.8-mile river segment. Compared to Alternative A, these 

alternatives would have impacts that are more beneficial to recreation resources because river 

corridor ORVs would be protected. 

Segment #3 would be recommended as suitable for classification as scenic, would be managed 

under VRM Class I objectives, and would be closed to OHV use. The impacts of these 

management decisions would be beneficial in the long-term for recreational resources because 

surface disturbances within the river corridor would be minimized. Under these alternatives, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-382 

there would be a long-term, adverse reduction in recreational opportunities for mountain biking 

and motorized OHV user groups. The impacts on non-mechanized and river floating users would 

be an increased likelihood of satisfying recreational experiences from the elimination of OHV 

travel (and reduced resource use conflicts with this activity) within the river corridor. Compared 

to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial for non-mechanized and river floating 

users and more adverse for mountain biking and motorized users. 

Alternative C

Under this alternative, Segment #1 would be recommended as not suitable under the NWSRS. 

The impacts on recreational resources and on recreational resource users would be adverse in the 

long-term because the river corridor would be managed under minerals timing and controlled 

surface use leasing stipulations that could have long-term, adverse surface disturbance-related 

impacts on recreational scenic quality within the river corridor from potential minerals 

development. 

Under this alternative, the impacts on Colorado River Segment #2 would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions are similar. There would be 

long-term, adverse impacts to river floating users and on-shore non-mechanized users from 

resource use conflicts with permitted motorized boat use within the river corridor, which would 

diminish the recreational experience for those river floaters, hikers, equestrians, and backpackers 

who seek non-mechanized, natural sights and sounds. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would be less beneficial for recreational users because of the increased likelihood of 

recreational use conflicts. 

The impacts on Colorado River Segment #3 would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B because the management decisions are similar. There would be impacts to river 

floating users and on-shore non-mechanized users, as discussed under Segment #2 above, 

because motorized boat use would be allowed. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would 

have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would have similar impacts on recreational river use. 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the Colorado River segments #1 – #3 would be recommended as not 

suitable under the NWSRS, which would have long-term impacts on recreational river use as 

discussed for Segment #1 under Alternative C because the segments would be managed under 

controlled surface use mineral leasing stipulations. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would be more adverse in the long-term on recreational river opportunities because management 

decisions would provide fewer protections to recreational resources, and the likelihood of 

recreational resource degradation and unsatisfying recreational experiences for river floaters and 

non-mechanized users along the river corridor would be increased. 

Proposed Plan

The impacts to recreation would be the same as discussed under Alternative C, except that 

segment 3 of the Colorado River would be managed as VRM Class II, otherwise the 

management decisions are the same. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-383 

4.3.10.3.10.2. Indian Creek 

Alternative A

Under this alternative Indian Creek was not evaluated for eligibility under the NWSRS, but still 

would be managed according to the floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas guidelines described in 

the current RMP. The impacts on recreational use would continue to be beneficial because 

recreational resources would continue to be protected under current RMP management decisions 

and because a range of recreational opportunities for mountain biking, motorized, and nonmechanized groups would continue to be available within the creek corridor. 

Alternative B

Alternative B would manage the proposed 4.8-mile segment of Indian Creek as recommended 

suitable for classification as recreational. The segment would be managed as VRM Class III 

objectives, with OHV travel limited to designated routes. The impacts on recreational resources 

would beneficial in the long-term because recreation-related ORVs (i.e., cultural resources) 

would be protected. The impacts on recreational resource users would also be beneficial in the 

long-term because more recreational opportunities for motorized OHV, mountain biking, and 

non-mechanized resource users would become available within the creek corridor under VRM 

Class III class objectives management, while continuing to protect the creek riparian and 

floodplain area; however, it is likely that user conflicts will develop and intensify with increased 

use of the area by mechanized and non-mechanized users within the narrow, 1,536-acre, 6.5-mile 

long river segment. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial for 

recreation because the creek would be managed with more protection of recreational resources. 

Alternative C

Alternative C would manage Indian Creek as recommended not suitable. This alternative would 

have long-term, adverse impacts on recreational resources because the Monticello FO eligibility 

study determined that the creek possesses recreation ORVs, and a non-suitability 

recommendation would increase the likelihood that the creek's ORVs would be degraded and 

diminished by surface-disturbing activities. Under this alternative, the area beyond the creek 

riparian and floodplain would be managed under standard stipulations and timing and controlled 

surface use mineral leasing stipulations, which would likely decrease the quality of recreational 

resource users' experience, as well as potentially resulting in long-term surface disturbancerelated degraded or diminished recreational resources. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would be less beneficial because it would manage the creek segment with fewer 

recreational resource protection measures. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would manage Indian Creek as recommended not suitable. This alternative would 

have similar long-term impacts on recreational resources and users as discussed under 

Alternative C because the segment would be managed under standard mineral leasing 

stipulations. 

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the impacts on recreation would be similar those discussed under 

Alternative B, except that 0.6 miles of the Indian Creek river corridor would be managed under 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-384 

VRM Class I objectives to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protecting 

the 0.6-mile segment of river would provide additional protection to recreational resources and 

enhance opportunities for non-mechanized users by prohibiting surface disturbances that could 

degrade the area's wilderness values. The impacts to motorized, mountain biking, and specialized 

user groups would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because these activities would 

still be limited to designated routes within the river corridor. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would have more beneficial impacts to recreational resources and users, as discussed 

under Alternative B. 

Proposed Plan

The impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative C because the Proposed Plan 

would also recommend the creek segment as unsuitable. 

4.3.10.3.10.3. Fable Valley 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, Fable Valley was not evaluated for eligibility under the NWSRS. The 

impacts on recreational resources and on non-mechanized users would continue to be beneficial 

because the area lies within the Dark Canyon WSA and has been and would continue to be 

managed under the IMP for protection of its wilderness characteristics. The impacts on 

recreation resources and non-mechanized recreational opportunities would continue to be 

beneficial in the long-term, with opportunities for satisfying hiking, backpacking, and equestrian 

experiences within a pristine, undeveloped landscape. The opportunities for motorized OHV, 

mountain biking, specialized, and scenic driving groups would continue to be adverse in the 

long-term because IMP-imposed stipulations would continue to prohibit mechanized use and 

limit surface disturbances in these areas. 

Alternatives B–E, and the Proposed Plan

The action alternatives and Proposed Plan impacts would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative A because of the valley's stream segment location within a WSA. 

4.3.10.3.10.4. Dark Canyon 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, Dark Canyon was not evaluated for eligibility under the NWSRS. The 

impacts on recreation would be the same as discussed under Fable Canyon above: the proposed 

wild stream segment lies within the Dark Canyon WSA and recreation resources have been and 

would continue to receive protection under the IMP. 

Alternatives B, C, and E, and the Proposed Plan

Under these alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the Dark Canyon stream segment was 

recommended suitable for designation as wild. The segment would be managed under VRM 

Class I objectives, closed to OHV use, and unavailable for mineral leasing. This impacts would 

be beneficial to non-mechanized recreation users as opportunities for solitude, naturalness, and a 

sense of remoteness would be preserved. The impacts to mechanized users would be adverse, as 

opportunities for these activities would be prohibited or very limited. Compared to Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-385 

A, the impacts would be the same because the area is currently managed for preservation of 

wilderness values as a WSA under IMP stipulations. 

Alternative D

Management decisions under this alternative would recommend the Dark Canyon stream 

segment as not suitable for consideration under the NWSRS. However, the impacts of this 

alternative would be the same as discussed under Alternative A because the stream segment 

would continue to be managed under IMP stipulations to preserve wilderness values within the 

WSA. 

4.3.10.3.10.5. San Juan River Segments 

Alternative A

Under this alternative the 8.5-mile San Juan River Segment #1 was not evaluated for eligibility 

under the NWSRS, with impacts similar to those described under Colorado River Segment #1 for 

Alternative A. 

Segment #2. This 10-mile segment was determined to be eligible and would be managed under 

VRM Class I objectives with minimal surface disturbances, OHV use limited to designated trails, 

and withdrawn from mineral entry. The impacts on recreational resources and users would 

continue to be beneficial in the long-term because recreational resources within this segment of 

the river corridor would be protected. The impacts on recreational user groups would beneficial 

in the long-term because recreational opportunities would continue to be available to mountain 

biking, OHV users, river floating, and non-mechanized users. 

Segments #3 – #5. The impacts for these segments (totaling 34.8 miles) would be the same as 

described for Segment #2 because the management decisions would be the same. 

Alternatives B and E

Segment #1. Under Alternatives B and E, this segment would be recommended as suitable for 

recreational classification, managed under VRM Class III objectives, and subject to NSO 

minerals leasing within the floodplain and riparian corridor. River ORVs (i.e., historic, fish, and 

wildlife) would be beneficially protected in the long-term under this classification, but it should 

be noted that, though these similar alternatives propose to manage the segment as suitable for 

classification as recreational, the eligibility study conducted by the BLM Monticello FO 

found that "recreation and ecological values are not ORVs found in new Segment #1" because of 

current uses and development along this river segment (see Appendix H for a discussion of the 

evaluation process for segment #1). Thus, the impact on recreational resources would be 

negligible to minor because this segment possesses few recreation or ecological ORVs. A 

comparison of this alternative to Alternative A shows that the impacts to recreation would be 

similar because recreational resources have not been well preserved along this segment. 

Segment #2. This segment would be recommended as suitable for recreational classification, 

managed under VRM Class III objectives, and subject to NSO leasing within the riparian areas 

and floodplain. The impacts of these management decisions on recreation resources would be 

beneficial in the long-term because recreation-related ORVs would be protected and recreational 

opportunities for river floating, mountain biking, motorized OHV, and non-mechanized activities 

would be maintained. However, increased recreational use of the segment would likely create 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-386 

resource use conflicts because of proximity between mechanized and non-mechanized users 

within the relatively narrow, 1,600-acre, 10-mile long river segment. Compared to Alternative A, 

this alternative would be less beneficial because Alternative A provided a greater degree of 

protection to recreational resources than this alternative. 

Segment #3. This 13.3-mile segment would be recommended as suitable for wild classification, 

managed under VRM Class I objectives, closed to OHV use, and proposed for mineral 

withdrawal. These impacts on recreational resources would be beneficial in the long-term 

because of the high degree of protection proposed for this river segment. The impacts on user 

groups would be variable: closing the segment to motorized OHV use would reduce the 

recreational opportunities for this user group; river floaters and non-mechanized users would 

benefit from the proposed management decisions because removing OHVs from the river 

corridor would likely enhance the recreational experience where solitude, a sense of remoteness, 

natural sights and sounds, and a pristine river corridor environment is expected. Compared to 

Alternative A, these alternatives would be more beneficial for non-mechanized user and less 

beneficial for motorized OHV users. The impacts of these alternatives on recreational resources 

would be similar to Alternative A. 

Segment #4. This 4.2-mile segment would be recommended as suitable for recreation 

classification, managed under VRM Class III objectives, and subject to NSO leasing within the 

riparian areas and floodplain. The impacts to recreation would be similar to those discussed 

under Segment #2 because the management decisions are the same. 

Segment #5. The impacts to recreation along this 17.3-mile segment would be similar to those 

discussed under Segment #3 because the management decisions are the same. 

Alternative C

Segment #1. Under this alternative, Segment #1 would be recommended as not suitable for 

classification under the NWSRS. The impacts on recreational resources and users would be 

negligible because, as mentioned above under Alternative B, this river segment was not 

considered eligible by the Monticello FO and it did not possess sufficient ecological or 

recreational ORVs. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have similar impacts. 

Segment #2. This segment would be recommended as not suitable. The impacts on recreational 

resources would be adverse in the long-term because the Monticello FO eligibility study 

determined that this segment does possess recreational ORVs, so a status of non-suitability 

would deny NWSRS protection to these recreation-related resource values. A lack of recreational 

resource protection would increase the likelihood of surface disturbance-related degradation of 

recreational ORVs with an associated diminishing of recreational experiences and opportunities 

on all recreational resource users within the river corridor. The floodplain and riparian areas 

along the river segment would be protected under executive orders and BLM riparian 

management policy, but beyond these areas, the river corridor would be open to mineral 

development under standard leasing stipulations. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would be more adverse to recreation resources in the long-term because it would provide less 

protection to these resources. 

Segment #3. The impacts to recreation would be similar to those discussed under Segment #2 

because the river segment was determined to possess Wild ORVs and the management decision 

is the same as Segment #2 (not suitable for recommendation). A status of non-suitability would 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-387 

deny NWSRS protection to the recreation-related resource values along the river segment, with 

adverse degradation and/or loss of recreational opportunities. 

Segment #4-#5. Same as Segment #2. 

Alternative D

Segment #1. Under this alternative, recreational resource within this river segment would have 

impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative C because the management decision is the 

same. 

Segment #2. The impacts on recreation within this segment would be similar to those discussed 

under Segment #2 for Alternative C because the management decision is the same. 

Segment #3–#5. Same as Segment #2, Alternative C. 

Proposed Plan

Segment #1-#4. The impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative C because the 

river segment recommendations are the same. 

 Segment #5. This 17.3-mile, 2,768-acre river segment would have the same management 

prescriptions as discussed under Alternative B, with the same impacts on recreation user groups 

and recreation resources. 

4.3.10.3.10.6. Arch Canyon 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, a 6.9-mile segment of Arch Canyon was not evaluated for eligibility under 

the NWSRS, but would still be managed according to the floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas 

guidelines described in the current RMP. The impacts on recreational use would continue to be 

the same as those discussed under Indian Creek Alternative A because the management decisions 

are the same. 

Alternatives B and E

Under these alternatives, the impacts would be similar to those discussed for Indian Creek 

Alternative B (recommended as suitable, recreational) because the management decisions are the 

same. 

Alternative C

Under this alternative, the impacts would be similar to those discussed for Indian Creek 

(recommended not suitable) because the management decisions are the same, except that the area 

beyond the creek riparian areas and floodplain would be managed under standard mineral leasing 

stipulations. 

Alternative D

The impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those discussed for Indian Creek 

(recommended not suitable) because the management decisions are the same. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-388 

Proposed Plan

The impacts would be the same as Alternative C because the river segment recommendation is 

the same. 

4.3.10.3.10.7. White Canyon 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, White Canyon was determined to be eligible under the NWSRS, and would 

be managed to preserve any ORVs that the segment might possess. The impacts on recreation 

would be beneficial in the long-term because recreational resources would be preserved. The 

impacts on specialized recreation and non-mechanized recreational user groups would continue 

to be beneficial because recreational opportunities would continue to be available for these users. 

Alternatives B – E, and Proposed Plan

Under these alternatives and the Proposed Plan, White Canyon would be managed as not suitable 

for classification under the NWSRS because the canyon is not a free-flowing water system. 

Thus, White Canyon is ineligible for inclusion under the NWSRS. The impacts on recreational 

resources would be negligible because the action alternatives and the Proposed Plan would 

designate the area as a SRMA to protect the canyon's recreational resources and continue to 

provide recreational opportunities for specialized and non-mechanized recreation within the 

canyon. Compared with Alternative A the impacts would be similar: these alternatives would 

provide protection to recreational resources and provide recreational opportunities for nonmechanized and specialized user groups along the canyon rim and within the canyon. 

4.3.10.3.11. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION–WILDERNESS DECISIONS ON RECREATION

Under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, WSAs would be managed consistent with the 

IMP until Congress makes wilderness designations or releases the WSAs from wilderness review 

(see Section 3.15.3.2). The Monticello FO currently manages 13 WSAs to preserve their 

wilderness values under VRM Class I objectives. The impacts on recreation resources and nonmechanized recreational opportunities of managing these areas under the IMP would continue to 

be beneficial in the long term, with opportunities for satisfying hiking, backpacking, equestrian, 

and dispersed camping experiences within a pristine, undeveloped landscape. The opportunities 

for motorized OHV, mountain biking, specialized, and scenic driving groups would continue to 

be adverse in the long term, as IMP-imposed stipulations would continue to prohibit mechanized 

use and limit surface disturbances in these areas under all of the alternatives and under the 

Proposed Plan because the areas have been and would continue to be managed so that their 

wilderness suitability would not be impaired. 

4.3.10.3.12. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON RECREATION

4.3.10.3.12.1. OHV Areas 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, 611,310 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, and 1,329,430 

acres would be limited to designated routes. Approximately 276,430 acres would be designated 

as closed to OHV use. Managing OHV use under current "open" designations would be 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-389 

beneficial for motorized OHV users because few restrictions on cross-country OHV use would 

continue to provide long-term recreational opportunities for this resource user group. However, 

the resource degradation-related impacts to soils, water quality, scenic quality, cultural resources, 

wildlife, and vegetation (all of which are components of the recreational experience), and the 

impacts associated with OHV noise and other resource user groups would continue to impact 

other resource users within the 611,310 acres designated as open to OHV use because this area 

would continue to remain open to OHV-caused cross-country surface disturbances. The impacts 

of designated limited routes would continue to provide beneficial, long-term recreational/travel 

opportunities for motorized OHV and mountain biking user groups, with negligible impacts on 

recreational resources, as these routes would not increase surface disturbance impacts to 

recreational resources. WSAs would be closed to OHV travel except within designated "ways"; 

thus the impacts to recreation would provide opportunities for backcountry experiences to nonmechanized users, but would have adverse impacts on motorized OHV users from a lack of 

access to WSAs. However, the long-term impacts of OHV management decisions under this 

alternative on natural and cultural resources and on other recreational resource users would be 

substantially adverse because, as discussed in Sections 3.11.3 and 3.11.4, OHV use within the 

Monticello PA is increasing, with the likelihood that OHV-related resource use conflicts with 

other resources would continue to intensify in the long-term. 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, no acres would be designated as open to cross-country OHV use, with all 

OHV routes (1,359,417 acres) designated as limited to designated routes. Approximately 

423,698 acres would be designated as closed to OHV use. Management decisions under this 

alternative would designate OHV travel routes for mountain bikes, single track motorized 

(motorcycles), or two-track motorized OHV use (four-wheelers, jeeps, ATV). Site-specific route 

adjustments would be permitted based on recreational opportunities, access needs, and resource 

constraints. The short-term and long-term impacts on recreational resources would be beneficial 

because: (1) the adverse impacts to natural and recreation-related (interpretive) cultural resources 

from cross-country OHV use would be eliminated, and (2) surface disturbance-related impacts 

from OHV use would be restricted to designated routes (which are, in effect, areas that have 

already been impacted by surface disturbances). 

The impacts on motorized OHV users would be adverse in the long-term because a substantial 

area would not be managed for cross-country OHV travel, with the elimination of opportunities 

for this form of recreation. The impacts on mountain biking user groups would be beneficial in 

the short- and long-term because management decisions would permit the spatial separation of 

potentially conflicting resource users, which would reduce user conflicts and increase the 

likelihood of a satisfying recreational experience for all OHV route users. The impacts of this 

alternative on other resource users would be variable: the impacts on scenic drivers and 

specialized recreation users would be negligible because these user groups are not likely to have 

resource use conflicts with OHV users; and the impacts on river floating users would be 

beneficial in the long-term if non-motorized routes were designated along river corridors, 

otherwise noise-related impacts from motorized OHV use would have potentially adverse 

impacts on the recreational expectations of solitude, quiet, and remoteness for this group. 

Similarly, the potential impacts of this alternative on non-mechanized users (i.e., hikers, 

equestrians) would be an adverse reduction in recreational opportunities for solitude and a sense 

of backcountry remoteness from noise-related OHV use if designated OHV routes were to lie 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-390 

near hiking trails. Otherwise, the elimination of cross-country OHV travel within the planning 

area would have long-term, beneficial impacts on non-mechanized users because of the reduced 

likelihood for encountering OHV noise and users, with a loss of a sense of remoteness, quiet, and 

solitude. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have long-term impacts on those recreational 

opportunities associated with cross-country OHV use because these opportunities would be 

eliminated. This alternative would have more long-term beneficial impacts on recreational 

resources and on recreational user groups than Alternative A because: (1) resource use conflicts 

would be reduced through adaptive management of OHV route designation and use, and (2) 

surface disturbance-related impacts to natural and cultural resources from OHV use (which 

would affect all recreation user groups) would be reduced. 

Alternative C

This alternative would designate 2,311 acres as open to cross-country OHV use, with 1,362,142 

acres limited to designated routes for OHV use, and 418,667 acres designated as closed to OHV 

use. The open OHV play areas would lie within (1) the proposed Indian Creek SRMA in 

contiguous parcels (totaling 2,214 acres) along Indian Creek, and be managed under the SRMA 

plan prescriptions, and (2) on 97 acres within Butler Wash, managed under the Comb Ridge 

CSMA. Management decisions would also designate route-limited OHV use to access trailheads 

within WSAs, and approximately 3.8 miles would be designated as a limited OHV route within 

Arch Canyon. The impacts on recreation of OHV designations under this alternative would be 

similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions would be 

similar. Long-term surface disturbance-related impacts would occur within the 2,311 acres 

designated as open to cross-country OHV use, but the impacts would be relatively minor 

because: (1) the area of potential impacts is less than 1% of the Monticello PA, (2) the open 

OHV play areas would be managed under the proposed SRMA and CSMA to ensure that open 

OHV use would be contained, and (3) past recreational OHV use has already caused OHVrelated surface disturbances in both areas. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have impacts similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B because more than 99% of the area designated as open to OHV cross-country use 

under Alternative A would be limited to designated routes or closed to OHV use under this 

alternative. The comparative impacts on recreational resource user groups would be similar to 

those impacts discussed under Alternative B because the adaptive management decisions to 

respond to recreational user needs, conflicts, and opportunities would be the same as those 

discussed under Alternative B. 

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 2,311 acres would be designated as open to cross-country OHV use, 

approximately 1,780,807 acres would be available for travel on limited designated routes, and no 

acreage would be designated as closed to OHV travel. The impacts of this alternative on 

recreation resources would be similar to those impacts discussed under Alternative C because a 

relatively small area would be affected by open OHV recreation. The impacts on nonmechanized and mountain biking recreational user groups would be adverse in the long-term, 

because no areas would be closed to motorized OHV use. This would increase the potential for 

resource use conflicts because of the increased likelihood for encounters between non-
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-391 

mechanized, mountain biking, and motorized OHV users throughout the planning area. Under 

this alternative, the opportunities for unlimited, cross-country OHV recreation would be 

adversely impacted in the long-term when compared to Alternative A because approximately 

609,000 acres (99% of the area designated as open under Alternative A) would have prohibitions 

on cross-country OHV travel, a substantial reduction in opportunities for this type of motorized 

OHV recreation. However, when compared to Alternative A, there would be increased 

opportunities for motorized and specialized (motorized) OHV recreation throughout the planning 

area for recreation along designated routes, which would have long-term, beneficial impacts to 

motorized OHV because no area would be closed to this recreational user group. 

Alternative E

Under this alternative, management decisions would be the same as Alternative B, except all 

travel routes (approximately 179 miles of D-Class roads [see Section 4.3.16, Travel 

Management]) within lands with non-WSA wilderness characteristics would be closed to OHV 

use. The impacts on recreational use would be to reduce the opportunities for motorized OHV 

use and experiences on approximately 582,360 acres, which would have a substantially adverse 

impact to motorized OHV user groups. However, non-mechanized user groups would benefit 

from the increased opportunities for solitude, a sense of remoteness, and reduced user conflicts 

with mechanized groups. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial 

impacts to non-mechanized users from increased opportunities for satisfying experiences within 

more areas closed to motorized users. Conversely, this alternative would have greater adverse 

impacts to motorized OHV and mountain biking user groups from closure of travel routes within 

the non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas because opportunities for motorized and mountain 

biking recreational experiences would be reduced. 

Proposed Plan 

This alternative would designate no acres as open to cross-country OHV use, with 1,388,191 

acres limited to designated routes for OHV use, and 393,895 acres designated as closed to OHV 

use. Management decisions would also designate route-limited OHV use to access trailheads 

within WSAs, and the entire length of Arch Canyon (from the canyon mouth to the USFS 

boundary, approximately 8 miles) would be designated as a limited OHV route. The impacts on 

recreation of OHV designations under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B because the management decisions would be similar. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have impacts similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B because all of the area designated as open to OHV cross-country use under 

Alternative A would be limited to designated routes or closed to OHV use under this alternative. 

The comparative impacts on recreational resource user groups would be similar to those impacts 

discussed under Alternative B because the adaptive management decisions to respond to 

recreational user needs, conflicts, and opportunities would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative B. 

4.3.10.3.12.2. OHV Special Stipulation Areas 

Alternative A

Management decisions for special stipulation areas would include OHV exclusions within the 

McLoyd Canyon-Moon House cultural site (no public travel allowed along 500 feet of BLM-
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-392 

administered access road) to protect cultural resources, with impacts as discussed under Section 

4.3.10.3.1. 

Travel and access within Arch Canyon would be limited to designated routes to protect special 

status species and habitat within the canyon. The impacts on recreational resources within Arch 

Canyon would be beneficial in the long-term because wildlife habitat would be preserved from 

potential OHV-caused surface disturbances, and recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing, 

sight-seeing, and camping would be maintained. As recreation increases within the canyon, there 

is the likelihood for adverse resource use conflicts between mechanized and non-mechanized 

users from the proximity of these users along canyon trails and routes. 

Alternatives B and E

Under these alternatives, the access route to McLoyd Canyon-Moon House would be closed to 

motorized use (approximately one mile of D-Class road D4798), which would reduce or 

eliminate the recreational opportunities for some visitors to experience the site because it would 

be likely that a portion of recreational users now able to visit the site would not be able to walk 

there. However, reducing the level and intensity of recreational sight-seeing within the site 

would have long-term, beneficial impacts on the recreational/cultural resource by reducing 

recreation-caused impacts to the site. 

Arch Canyon would be closed to OHV use, access permits for non-mechanized users (i.e., 

hikers, equestrians) would be required, and group sizes would be limited to two groups per day 

of 10 individuals per group (or 20 visitors per day). Permitted groups or individuals would be 

allowed to camp within the canyon. The management decisions that exclude motorized OHV and 

mountain biking recreation groups from the canyon would have long-term, adverse impacts on 

these user groups by eliminating the opportunities for these user groups to experience Arch 

Canyon, but long term, beneficial impacts on non-mechanized users from increased opportunities 

for solitude, naturalness, and reduce user conflicts. The impacts to recreational resources within 

the canyon would be beneficial in the long-term because potential surface disturbance impacts 

caused by OHV use would be eliminated. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would reduce the recreational opportunities within 

Arch Canyon and McLoyd Canyon-Moon House. The impacts to recreational resources within 

McLoyd Canyon-Moon House and Arch Canyon under this alternative would be more beneficial 

in the long-term when compared to Alternative A because the access exclusions, permit 

limitations on group size and group number for overnight camping, and limitations on 

recreational use would have more preservation-related impacts on recreational resources. 

Alternative C

Management decisions for the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House site would have similar impacts on 

recreational use and on the recreation resource as discussed under Alternative B because a 

portion of the route (approximately 500 feet of D-Class road D4798) would be closed to 

motorized traffic. 

Management decisions for Arch Canyon would have similar impacts on recreational use and on 

recreational resources as discussed under Alternative A because the management decisions are 

similar: OHV use would be restricted to designated routes (totaling approximately 3.8 miles) 

with some portions closed to protect special status species. Under this alternative, an OHV 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-393 

permit system and limits on the size of OHV groups and number of groups allowed to access the 

canyon would be applied (totaling 24 OHVs per day), which would have short-term impacts on 

those motorized recreation users seeking recreational experiences within the canyon because of 

limitations on OHV use in the canyon. There would be no limits on the number of nonmechanized recreational users within the canyon and no overnight camping limits for permitted 

OHV users and non-mechanized users, which would maintain this recreational opportunity for 

both user groups. As discussed under Alternative A, there is the likelihood for adverse resource 

user conflicts within the canyon between mechanized and non-mechanized users from the 

proximity of these users to each other within the canyon. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have similar impacts as discussed under 

Alternative B for the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House cultural/recreational site. 

The impacts on Arch Canyon, when compared to Alternative A, would be similar for recreational 

resources, but this alternative would have greater short-term impacts on motorized recreational 

users because of limitations caused by the maximum number of users permitted per day (24 

OHVs per day) under this alternative with no specified limits on access under Alternative A. 

Alternative D

Under this alternative, the management decision impacts on the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House 

site and on recreational users of the site would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A 

because motorized access to the site along D4798 would be permitted under this alternative. 

The management decision impacts on recreational users in Arch Canyon would be similar to 

those discussed under Alternative C, but to a lesser degree, because only commercial motorized 

recreational users would require permits and be subject to access limitations (12 individuals per 

group with two groups per day). The limitations on motorized and non-mechanized camping 

would similar to the discussion under Alternative A because only commercial OHV users would 

be subject to short-term access and camping restrictions. The impacts on recreational resources 

within the canyon would be similar to Alternative A because motorized users would be allowed 

year-round, but would be limited to designated routes. 

Compared to Alternative A, the impacts of Alternative D decisions for Arch Canyon would be 

similar because the management decisions affecting recreational resources and recreational users 

would be similar: few restrictions on motorized, mountain biking, and non-motorized 

recreational opportunities, and preservation of wildlife habitat by limiting OHV use to 

designated trails. 

Proposed Plan

Management decisions for the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House site would have similar impacts on 

recreational use and on the recreation resource as discussed under Alternative B because a 

portion of the route (approximately 500 feet of D-Class road D4798) would be closed to 

motorized traffic. 

Management decisions for Arch Canyon would limit OHV travel to designated routes along the 

entire length of the canyon (up to the USFS boundary, approximately 8 miles), which would 

provide opportunities for OHV recreation within the canyon. There would be seasonal 

commercial and organized use restrictions along 7.5 miles of the designated route from March 1 

through August 31 to protect sensitive species, which would have adverse impacts on OHV 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-394 

opportunities for commercial users; this restriction would not impact private OHV users. There 

would be no limits on the number of non-mechanized recreational users within the canyon and 

no overnight camping limits for permitted OHV users and non-mechanized users, which would 

beneficially maintain this recreational opportunity for both user groups. However, it is likely that 

the proximity of non-mechanized and mechanized users would create adverse user conflicts as 

recreational use of the canyon increases. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have similar impacts as discussed under 

Alternative B for the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House cultural/recreational site. 

The impacts on Arch Canyon, when compared to Alternative A, would be similar for recreational 

resources, but this alternative would have fewer restrictions on motorized recreational users than 

Alternative A. 

4.3.10.3.13. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON RECREATION 

4.3.10.3.13.1. Alternative A 

The short-term and long-term impacts of management decisions for vegetation on recreation 

resources and users would be similar to those discussed under Fire Management, Section 4.3.3 

because the vegetation management decisions would be similar. Under this alternative, 

treatments would be applied to approximately 232,130 acres within vegetation communities to 

control exotic and invasive species and improve ecosystem health using methods similar to those 

for fire management, re-seeding, and restoration. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas would use 

techniques similar to those used for areas affected by prescribed and wildland fire. 

4.3.10.3.13.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under these alternatives, approximately 7,600 acres per year of a range of vegetation cover types 

would be treated (or approximately 114,000 acres during the next 15 years), with impacts similar 

to those discussed in Section 4.3.3 Fire Management. Compared to Alternative A, these similar 

alternatives would treat approximately 49% of the area proposed under Alternative A, with fewer 

short-term, adverse impacts on recreational opportunities and resources. 

4.3.10.3.13.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C would treat approximately 9,300 acres per year (or approximately 139,500 acres 

over the next 15 years) of various vegetation cover types to improve or restore ecosystem health, 

with impacts as discussed in Section 4.3.3 Fire Management. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would treat approximately 60% of the area proposed under Alternative A, with 

impacts on recreation as discussed in Alternative B. 

4.3.10.3.13.4. Alternative D 

This alternative would treat approximately 11,300 acres per year (or approximately 169,500 

acres over the next 15 years) of various vegetation cover types to improve or restore ecosystem 

health, with impacts as discussed in Section 4.3.3 Fire Management. This alternative would treat 

approximately 73% of the area proposed under Alternative A, with impacts as discussed in 

Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-395 

4.3.10.3.13.5. Proposed Plan 

The impacts of vegetation decisions under the Proposed Plan would be the same as discussed 

under Alternative C because the decisions are the same. 

4.3.10.3.14. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON RECREATION 

4.3.10.3.14.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, approximately 371,575 acres would be managed for higher levels of visual 

resource protection under VRM Class I objectives, and 355,112 acres would be managed for 

visual resource protection under VRM Class II objectives, with approximately 41% of the 

planning area managed for high scenic quality. There would be lower levels of visual resource 

and scenic quality protection under VRM Class III and Class IV on 1,054,681 acres. The VRM 

Class I and II resource objectives would have long-term, protection-related, beneficial impacts 

on recreational resources and all recreational resource users because recreation-related scenic 

quality would be preserved or impacted to a minor degree. As discussed in Section 4.3.18, Visual 

Resources, the visual resource inventory conducted for the Monticello FO determined that the 

visual inventory classes (which are a measure of visual values [scenic quality, public concern for 

scenic quality]) were the same as the VRM classes assigned under the 1991 RMP. 

4.3.10.3.14.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 497,668 acres would be managed under VRM Class I (33% more than 

Alternative A), with 250,641 acres managed under VRM Class II visual quality objectives (42% 

of the planning area would be managed for high scenic quality). Approximately 1,034,813 acres 

would be managed under the visual resource objectives of VRM Class III and Class IV. 

Compared to the current VRM inventory and Alternative A, this alternative would manage 

21,622 more acres under higher levels of VRM Class I and Class II scenic quality protection. 

This would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources and users because more 

acres would be managed to prevent or mitigate surface disturbances to visual and scenic quality 

under VRM Class I and Class II objectives, with associated long-term, beneficial impacts on 

recreation-related scenic quality. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more 

beneficial because more acres would be protected from potential scenic quality degradation. 

4.3.10.3.14.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, VRM Class I would be designated on 425,179 acres (14% more than 

Alternative A), and VRM Class II would be designated on 132,001 acres. This alternative would 

manage 31% of the planning area for high scenic quality. The combined acreage designated as 

VRM Class III and Class IV would be approximately 1,225,915 acres. Compared to the current 

VRM inventory/Alternative A, this alternative would reduce the area of higher levels of resource 

protection under VRM Class I and II by 169,507 acres (a 10% reduction) to 31% of the planning 

area. This would have long-term, adverse impacts on recreational resources and users because 

fewer acres would be managed for high-level protection of visual and scenic quality and more 

area would be managed for potential surface disturbance-related scenic quality degradation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-396 

4.3.10.3.14.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, 390,424 acres would be managed as VRM Class I. The VRM Class IIdesignated area would comprise 8,838 acres, while the combined VRM Class III and Class IV 

areas would include 1,386,860 acres. Compared to the current VRM inventory and Alternative 

A, this alternative would reduce the number of acres for higher levels of visual resource 

protection under VRM Class I and II designation by 327,425 (a reduction of 19%), with 

approximately 22% of the planning area managed for high scenic quality. This would have longterm, adverse impacts on recreational resources and users because fewer acres would be 

managed to prevent or mitigate surface disturbances to visual and scenic quality, and would 

allow for more scenic quality degradation under VRM Class III and IV. 

4.3.10.3.14.5. Alternative E 

Alternative E would manage all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under VRM 

Class I designation, which would result in 998,370 acres within the planning area being 

designated for management under this VRM class objective (269% more VRM Class I acreage 

than Alternative A). Approximately 111,478 acres would be managed under VRM Class II 

objectives, and approximately 671,828 acres would be managed under VRM Class III and IV 

objectives. Compared to the total VRM Class I and II acreages designated under Alternative A, 

this alternative would have more long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation-related visual 

resources because 383,161 more acres would be designated to preserve high quality scenic 

values under VRM Class I and II objectives (see Section 4.3.18, Visual Resources). 

4.3.10.3.14.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, VRM Class I would be designated on 422,989 acres (3% more than 

Alternative A), and VRM Class II would be designated on 228,041 acres (totaling 651,030 

acres). This alternative would manage 37% of the planning area for high scenic quality under 

VRM Class I and II objectives. The combined acreage designated as VRM Class III and Class IV 

would be approximately 1,130,585 acres. Compared to the current VRM inventory/Alternative 

A, this alternative would reduce the area of higher levels of resource protection under VRM 

Class I and II by 75,657 acres (a 5% reduction). This would have long-term, adverse impacts on 

recreational resources and users because fewer acres would be managed for high-level protection 

of visual and scenic quality and more area would be managed for potential surface disturbancerelated scenic quality degradation. 

4.3.10.3.15. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES DECISIONS ON RECREATION

4.3.10.3.15.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, current wildlife management decisions in the 1991 RMP would seasonally 

close crucial bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and deer habitat in the ERMA to OHV use to protect 

lambing, rutting, and winter habitat. These wildlife habitat closures would have short-term, 

adverse, seasonal impacts on opportunities for motorized OHV recreational opportunities 

because open OHV use would be prohibited in these areas. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-397 

There are no specified management decisions under any of the SRMAs that would restrict or 

prohibit motorized OHV use or other recreational activities because of wildlife seasonal habitat 

closures. 

4.3.10.3.15.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under these alternatives, commercial-type motorized or mountain biking tours and events would 

be seasonally prohibited (i.e., special recreation permits [SRPs] would not be issued) for OHV 

routes within pronghorn, bighorn sheep, deer, and elk crucial habitat and lambing and rutting 

areas (consistent with UDWR-identified crucial habitat). This would impact commercial-type 

OHV recreation in the short-term by decreasing the opportunities for motorized recreation along 

designated routes in crucial habitat areas (see Section 4.3.16, Travel Management). Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternatives B and E would have more restrictions on permitted and/or 

commercial OHV recreational opportunities within the ERMA area because 512 miles of travel 

routes would be seasonally closed to commercial recreational travel, with decreased 

opportunities for recreational access and movement through the planning area. 

4.3.10.3.15.3. Alternative C 

The impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those as discussed under Alternative B 

because the management decisions are similar, except that elk crucial habitat (in UDWRidentified habitat) would also be seasonally closed to commercial OHV use and approximately 

135 miles of travel routes (26% of the routes closed under Alternative B) would be closed in the 

short-term to some permitted or commercial OHV use or mountain biking tours and events. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more restriction-related impacts to 

commercial-type recreational OHV opportunities because these opportunities would be more 

limited. 

4.3.10.3.15.4. Alternative D 

The impacts on OHV recreational user groups from wildlife management decisions under this 

alternative would be similar to those discussed under Alternatives B, C, and E because the 

management decisions are similar: while commercial and private recreational OHV use would be 

permitted, though limited to designated routes within the ERMA seasonal wildlife restrictions 

would be applied to protect crucial UDWR-identified wildlife habitat. 

4.3.10.3.15.5. Proposed Plan 

The impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative B (closed to permitted or 

commercial OHV use seasonally in UDWR-identified wildlife habitat) because the management 

decisions are the same. 

4.3.10.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

See Table 2.2 for a full summary of the impacts to recreation. In general, Alternatives B and E 

would be more beneficial in the long-term to non-mechanized users because under these 

alternatives mountain biking and motorized OHV user groups would be more restricted (through 

travel closures, access limitation, and/or travel access prohibitions to protect wilderness values 

within non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics) than under the other alternatives. Under 

these alternatives, more opportunities would be available for non-mechanized users to experience 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-398 

solitude and a sense of remoteness, with reduced user conflicts from mechanized users. 

Alternative D would have more beneficial impacts on mountain biking and motorized OHV 

users because this alternative proposes fewer recreation-related travel restrictions for these 

groups. Alternative C would balance the benefits to non-mechanized and mechanized user 

groups by managing for mountain biking and motorized OHV use while also providing 

opportunities for non-mechanized user groups. 

4.3.10.5. MITIGATION MEASURES

In addition to the Management Common to All described in Chapter 2, Appendix A, and 

Appendix I, other measures to reduce or mitigate the impacts to recreational resources and 

recreational resource users would include: 

• Apply fugitive dust control along scenic backways, historic trails, and heavily used travel 

routes to preserve recreation-related scenic quality; 

• During and after prescribed burning, vegetation treatments, and fire suppression when areas 

are being reclaimed, encourage and educate recreational users to use alternate areas with 

similar recreational opportunities to permit affected recreational areas to re-vegetate; 

• Educate recreational resource users regarding protection of recreation-related cultural and 

natural resources. 

4.3.10.6. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Minerals exploration and development (e.g., seismic exploration along existing routes, spur road 

construction, well pad drilling) and OHV use would likely have short-term and long-term, 

unavoidable, adverse impacts on recreational user groups whose recreational expectations 

include solitude, naturalness, and a sense of remoteness (i.e., non-mechanized, river floating, and 

some specialized recreational user groups). 

4.3.10.7. SHORT-TERM USE VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

In general, short-term uses (e.g., prescribed fire treatments, geophysical minerals activities, 

vegetation treatments) would have long-term impacts on recreational opportunities (productivity) 

where scenic quality is a component of recreational expectations. While disturbances to 

vegetation would be in the short-term, vegetation establishment and re-growth is typically longterm in the Monticello PA. Thus, the scenic quality contrasts from surface and vegetation 

disturbances would have potentially long-term impacts on recreational opportunities and 

experiences. 

4.3.10.8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There are no unavoidable impacts that would cause irreversible, unrestorable losses of 

recreational resources because vegetation communities can be restored, and recreation-related 

cultural resources can be protected. Irretrievable impacts to recreational resources would be 

caused by: (1) the loss or degradation of recreation-related scenic quality from vegetation 

treatments, fuel reductions, or invasive weed control until vegetation re-growth; (2) the 

irretrievable loss of scenic recreational opportunities due to mineral development until 

production well sites are shutdown, the wellpads are reclaimed, and production infrastructure is 

removed. As discussed above in the Summary, the impacts from vegetation and surface 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-399 

disturbances would have long-term, irretrievable impacts on recreational opportunities to 

experience scenic quality until vegetation re-growth. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-400 

4.3.11. RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Within the Monticello PA, riparian areas are typically associated with perennial, intermittent, 

and ephemeral streams, as well as isolated springs and other water sources. The area of potential 

effect for riparian resources would include all riparian areas identified in the preliminary riparian 

inventory for the Monticello FO. Management decisions with the potential to impact riparian 

resource health, the proper functioning condition (PFC) of streams, water resources necessary to 

riparian zone establishment and survival, or the physical environment on which riparian 

vegetation depends (e.g., stream stability) were evaluated in this analysis. 

Analysis of impacts to the riparian resources within the Monticello PA were conducted primarily 

by overlaying proposed management decisions (e.g., surface disturbances due to grazing, OHV 

travel, camping and other recreational use, and woodland harvest) on the 28,994 acres of riparian 

areas in the PA, as identified in the GIS-based Utah GAP database (Lowry et al. 2005) of 

vegetation types. In assessing the level of surface-disturbing and vegetation-modifying impacts 

on riparian resources, the total acreage of surface disturbance, visitor and livestock use, and loss 

or degradation of riparian habitat were considered. All alternatives would include riparian 

management actions with the potential to affect riparian resources. Where GIS or other 

quantitative data were unavailable, potential impacts to riparian resources were analyzed 

qualitatively, based on these same criteria. 

Under all alternatives, management decisions for the following resources would result in 

negligible impacts to riparian resources: air quality, cultural resources, health and safety, and 

paleontological resources. The impacts would be negligible because protecting air quality, 

protecting cultural resources under Section 106, maintaining safety around AML sites and 

reducing the risks of hazardous materials spills and spill-site cleanup, and protecting known 

fossil areas for scientific study and recreational collection of fossils would neither degrade nor 

improve the water, soil, and vegetation components of riparian resources. Accordingly, the 

impacts of management actions for these resource categories are not analyzed further in this 

section. 

4.3.11.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.3.11.1.1. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL 

ALTERNATIVES

Impacts to riparian areas in the Monticello PA would be a result of vegetation disturbance and 

surface-disturbing activities within the riparian zones, and are subject to restrictions to ensure 

that conditions are improved or at least not degraded. The Proposed Plan and all alternatives 

must adhere to Standard 2 of the Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health, which apply to 

riparian resources in the Monticello PA. Standard 2 states that "[r]riparian and wetland areas 

[must be] in properly functioning condition (PFC). Stream channel morphology and functions 

are appropriate to soil type, climate, and function" (BLM 1997). The BLM would develop 

monitoring and management strategies and restrictions as necessary to meet or maintain PFC. 

Meeting or maintaining PFC would improve the physical and biological condition of those 

riparian zones that do not currently meet PFC standards, and would therefore constitute a 

beneficial impact to riparian zones in the Monticello PA. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-401 

Pipeline crossings of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream channels would be 

constructed to withstand 100-year floods to prevent breakage and subsequent accidental 

contamination of runoff during high-flow events. Surface crossings would be constructed high 

enough to remain above stream flows at each crossing, and subsurface crossings would be buried 

deep enough to remain undisturbed by scour throughout passage of the peak flow. Hydraulic 

analysis would be completed in the design phase (by the project proponent) to eliminate potential 

environmental degradation associated with pipeline breaks at stream crossings to avoid repeated 

maintenance of such crossings. Specific recommendations regarding surface and subsurface 

crossings are found in Guidance for Pipeline Crossings (see Appendix F). These stipulations 

would minimize the chances of a pipeline break and the subsequent adverse impacts associated 

with the release of unrefined petroleum or other hazardous substances and or flood flow 

obstruction. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, oil and gas development would be managed with 

NSO minerals leasing stipulations in riparian areas. No new surface-disturbing activities would 

be allowed within active floodplains or within 100 m of riparian areas. The Monticello FO would 

follow BLM guidelines for managing riparian areas (see Technical Reference 1737-6: Riparian 

Area Management, as amended). All floodplains and riparian/wetlands would be managed in 

accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, Sections 303 and 404 of the Clean Water 

Act, and the ESA. These orders would protect riparian resources and floodplains from surface 

disturbance and vegetation removal. 

Management of public lands by the Monticello FO would be consistent with the Colorado River 

Salinity Control Act and comply with Utah's state water-quality standards. Uses would be 

managed to minimize and mitigate damage to soils and to maintain and/or restore overall 

watershed health and reduce erosion, stream sedimentation, and salinization of water. These 

management actions would limit short- and long-term adverse impacts to riparian resources by 

reducing water quality degradation, salinization, and sedimentation that would impact the 

biological and physical structure of riparian areas. 

Floodplains and riparian areas would generally be excluded from private commercial use of 

woodland products (but would be accessible to Native Americans for ceremonial purposes), thus 

limiting adverse impacts to resources due to vegetation disturbance, streambank trampling, and 

noxious weed spread. Habitat, range, and watershed improvements would be allowed and have 

been evaluated in the 1991 Vegetation EIS (BLM 1991b). Riparian areas would be excluded 

from surface disturbance by mechanized or motorized equipment and from structural 

development under all alternatives, thereby beneficially protecting riparian resources from 

disturbance. 

The Proposed Plan and all alternatives would close social trails in Road Canyon, Fish Creek, and 

Mule Canyon and restrict camping within 200 feet of isolated springs and water sources to 

protect riparian resources by limiting trampling of vegetation, disturbance of streambanks, and 

noxious weed spread. Implementation of the Southwest Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan would 

potentially benefit riparian resources through habitat enhancement and water management. 

The Proposed Plan and all alternatives would require the control of invasive and non-native weed 

species, as identified in Table 3.59, and prevention of the infestation and spread of new invasive 

species through cooperative agreements and implementation of BLM weed-management policies 

and action plans. Pack stock and riding stock users on BLM-administered land would be required 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-402 

to use certified weed-free feed. Use of certified weed-free seed mixes, mulch, and fill would be 

required in restoration/rehabilitation activities. To help control noxious weeds, power washing of 

equipment may be required for permitted uses. The Monticello FO would reduce tamarisk and 

Russian olive where appropriate using allowable vegetation treatments (refer to Section 4.3.17, 

Vegetation Resources, for treatment acreages). These actions would reduce adverse impacts to 

riparian resources from noxious weeds. 

4.3.11.1.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL 

ALTERNATIVES

Fire management actions under all alternatives would have the same impacts on riparian 

resources. The impacts would generally be adverse in the short-term due to increased 

sedimentation and increased runoff from areas where prescribed burns are implemented. Longterm beneficial impacts would occur under all alternatives from reduction of the risk of and 

severity of wildland fires, and from the establishment of a more natural fire return interval. 

Estimated fuels reduction treatments of 5,000 to 10,000 acres per year would be designed to limit 

potential impacts to riparian habitat under all alternatives, which would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on riparian resources. 

4.3.11.1.3. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN 

AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, land tenure adjustments (LTAs) could acquire riparian areas, and LTA 

criteria call for the retention of those riparian areas already in public ownership. LTAs would 

beneficially impact riparian resources under all action alternatives, as the resources would be 

protected by the stipulations placed on their use. 

4.3.11.1.4. IMPACTS OF SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES DECISIONS COMMON TO THE 

PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, management of all floodplains and riparian/wetland areas in accordance 

with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, the Clean Water Act, the ESA, and Utah's Rangeland 

Health Standards would have a beneficial impact on riparian resources in the Monticello PA. 

Management under the terms of these directives would reduce the disturbance of riparian 

vegetation and soils and the introduction and establishment of weeds on floodplains. Prohibition 

of surface disturbances in active floodplains or within 100 m of riparian areas would also protect 

riparian systems under all alternatives. 

4.3.11.1.5. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL 

ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, vegetation treatment decisions would reduce the prevalence of invasive 

Russian olive and tamarisk throughout the Monticello PA and replace them with native willow 

and cottonwood stands. These actions would have a beneficial impact on riparian areas through 

the restoration of their native ecosystem characteristics. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-403 

4.3.11.1.6. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL 

ALTERNATIVES

Wildlife management decisions would have the same impacts under all alternatives. The 

management of wildlife would potentially affect resources in riparian areas where elk are 

allowed to graze. Some loss of riparian vegetation would occur from browsing. 

4.3.11.1.7. IMPACTS OF WOODLAND DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL 

ALTERNATIVES

Woodland management in riparian areas would allow collection of willows and cottonwoods for 

Native American ceremonial purposes through a permit system. Wood-collection and harvesting 

practices in riparian areas would be required to maintain PFC in riparian areas, so that, although 

impacts to riparian productivity and health would be adverse, they would be negligible. 

4.3.11.2. ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

4.3.11.2.1. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.3.11.2.1.1. Alternative A 

Right-of-way (ROW) exclusions on 120,800 acres would benefit riparian areas by limiting the 

possibility of surface disturbances, vegetation removal, and changes in hydrology and 

sedimentation that might result from an expanded road network. 

4.3.11.2.1.2. The Proposed Plan and Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

Avoiding issuance of ROWs fin NSO areas and exclusion of ROWs in defined areas (including 

WSAs, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and some ACECs and WSRs C) would 

beneficially limit both surface disturbance and vegetation removal in riparian zones within the 

Monticello PA and changes in hydrology and sedimentation that might result from an expanded 

road network. 

4.3.11.2.2. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.3.11.2.2.1. Alternative A 

Proper herd management would provide long-term protection and enhancement of riparian areas 

through stimulation of growth of riparian vegetation. Grazing regulations would ensure proper 

grazing practices through implementation of seasonal closures or closure of allotments when 

degradation occurs. Proper grazing practices would ensure protection of riparian areas through 

maintenance of vegetative cover leading to riparian area health. Drought conditions, however, 

could worsen adversely impacted riparian plant growth and streambank stability. Proper 

livestock grazing would benefit riparian systems by ensuring recruitment of riparian plant 

species. 

Impacts on riparian vegetation vary with season of use. For example, grazing riparian areas in 

late spring allows vegetation to grow through summer and into the fall and protect banks during 

critical spring runoff and late summer thunderstorms. Changes in season of use or AUMs would 

ensure compliance with all standards of the Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-404 

particularly Standard 2. Compliance with Standard 2 would minimize adverse impacts to riparian 

areas by requiring changes in grazing management wherever monitoring shows degradation of 

riparian areas when PFC is not achieved. 

The use of riparian exclosures within grazing allotments would protect and enhance riparian 

resources within the Monticello PA. The following areas would be unavailable for grazing under 

Alternative A: Comb Wash side canyons, including Mule Canyon below U-95, and Arch, Fish, 

Owl, and Road Canyons. The closure of these 2,400 riparian acres to grazing would eliminate 

adverse impacts to riparian resources on approximately 12% of the available riparian habitat in 

the planning area. The total riparian area open to grazing under Alternative A would be 17,600 

acres. Table 4.117 shows the riparian acreage open to and unavailable for grazing under each 

alternative. 

Table 4.117. Livestock Grazing in Riparian Areas, by Alternative 

 Alternative A Alternatives B C, and E; 

and the Proposed Plan Alternative D 

Open 17,600 17,200 18,020 

Unavailable 2,400 2,800 2,380 

4.3.11.2.2.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the closure of riparian areas to grazing would protect riparian vegetation 

(as described above under Alternative A) on approximately 2,800 acres within the Monticello 

PA. Grazing would still be allowed on approximately 17,200 acres of riparian area. These 

management actions would close approximately 14% of the grazed riparian areas within the 

Monticello PA, compared to closure of approximately 12% of riparian areas under Alternative A 

(see Table 4.116). 

4.3.11.2.2.3. Alternative C 

Management of livestock grazing under Alternative C with respect to riparian areas would be the 

same as under Alternative B, and the impacts would thus be the same as well. 

4.3.11.2.2.4. Alternative D 

The total acreage of riparian area open for livestock grazing under Alternative D would be 

approximately the same as proposed under Alternative A. The closure of riparian areas to 

grazing would protect and enhance riparian vegetation (described above under Alternative A) on 

approximately 2,380 acres within the Monticello PA. Grazing would still be allowed on 

approximately 18,000 acres of riparian area. These management actions would close slightly less 

riparian area than under Alternative A (see Table 4.116). 

4.3.11.2.2.5. Alternative E 

The impacts to riparian resources under Alternative E would be the same as those described for 

Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-405 

4.3.11.2.2.6. Proposed Plan 

The impacts to riparian resources under the Proposed Plan would be the same as those described 

for Alternative B. 

4.3.11.2.3. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS ON 

RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.3.11.2.3.1. Alternatives A, B, C and D 

Under Alternatives A, B, C and D, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not 

have any special management prescriptions to protect their wilderness values. Riparian resources 

within these areas would therefore be unaffected by management to protect the wilderness 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.11.2.3.2. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, riparian areas within 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be beneficially protected from surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and 

other impacts (as described elsewhere in Section 4.3.11) by closure of this acreage to mineral 

leasing and entry, all OHV use, all ROWs permitting, mineral disposal, and woodland 

harvesting. 

4.3.11.2.3.3. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, riparian areas within 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be beneficially protected from surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and 

other impacts (as described elsewhere in Section 4.3.11) by limiting OHV use to designated 

roads and trails; closure to mineral leasing in Grand Gulch, Mancos Mesa Nokai Dome West and 

Nokai Dome East, and NSO for mineral leasing in Dark Canyon; designation as ROW avoidance 

and exclusion areas; and closure of this acreage to mineral disposal, and commercial or personal 

woodland harvesting. 

4.3.11.2.4. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

The Proposed Plan and all alternatives would require that recreation be managed to meet Utah's 

Rangeland Health Standards, guided by the Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for 

Recreation Management for BLM Lands in Utah (see Appendix E for Standards and Guides).

These guidelines describe the procedures that should be applied to achieve standards for 

rangeland health within the recreation program. Where long-term damage to riparian resources 

by recreational uses is observed or anticipated, the Monticello FO would limit or control 

activities through specialized management tools such as designated campsites, management of 

human and pet waste, permits, area closures, and limitations on number of users and duration of 

use. The FO would consider and, where appropriate, implement management methods to protect 

natural resources. Limitation on visitor numbers would reduce direct adverse impacts to riparian 

resources by limiting bank trampling and noxious weed spread. Dispersed camping where 

allowed may be closed seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions warrant. This action 

would protect riparian resources in areas where degradation of riparian habitat is occurring. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-406 

The designation of SRMAs would have both adverse and beneficial impacts on riparian 

resources. Allowing visitation to SRMAs would result in impacts to riparian resources, such as 

trampling of streambank vegetation and the potential spread of exotic, invasive, or noxious 

weeds. Indirect impacts, including changes in timing and amount of runoff, would occur as a 

result of vegetation trampling and weed infestation. Limits on visitor use through 

implementation of a permit system in high-traffic areas would reduce long-term user impacts and 

related effects. 

4.3.11.2.4.1. Alternative A 

The San Juan River SRMA would be designated under Alternative A, and river trips on the San 

Juan would require a special use permit. Alternative A would continue management of the San 

Juan River SRMA under current launch limits, which allow approximately 40,000 user-days per 

year, private and commercial trips combined. Trip size would be limited to 25 people on private 

trips and 25 passengers plus 8 crewmembers on commercial trips. These levels of visitor 

activities would directly and indirectly impact riparian resources, as discussed above. 

The Grand Gulch Plateau (Cedar Mesa) would have no user allocation limits for day use, would 

be open to dispersed camping, and would have no limits on in-canyon numbers of parties per 

day. Group size would be limited to 12 for in-canyon day and overnight use; no limits on 

commercial use would be instituted. Trailhead allocations would range from 22 to 26 visitors for 

in-canyon overnight use, except the Government trailhead, which would have a limit of 12 

visitors. 

There would be no limits on camping and access in the Dark Canyon SRMA, and dispersed 

camping would be allowed in the Indian Creek Corridor SRMA, which would be designated 

under Alternative A. These management prescriptions would result in more direct impacts to 

riparian resources from visitor use under Alternative A than under any other alternative. 

Backpackers in Slickhorn Canyon and Grand Gulch would not be allowed to camp within 1 mile 

of the river, protecting riparian resources in these areas from visitor use impacts. The designated 

campground would be removed from the Newspaper Rock area and rehabilitated. This action 

would limit direct visitor use impacts to riparian resources adjacent to this campground under all 

alternatives. 

OHV use would potentially impact riparian resources through disturbance of riparian vegetation, 

streambank destruction, and a subsequent increase in sedimentation. Under Alternative A, OHV 

use within riparian areas would be open on 10,871 acres, closed on 3,524 acres, and limited to 

designated routes on 6,302 acres, providing a total of 61 miles of travel routes in the Monticello 

FO. The percentage of riparian area open, closed, and limited to designated routes under 

Alternative A would be 53%, 17%, and 30% of total riparian acreage, respectively, the largest 

amount of riparian area open to cross-country OHV travel or with designated routes for OHV 

travel under all alternatives (Table 4.118). Thus, under Alternative A there would be the highest 

risk for potential impacts to riparian resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-407 

Table 4.118. OHV Use in Riparian Areas by Alternative (Acres) 

OHV 

Category Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Proposed Plan 

Open 10,871 

(53%) 0 135(1%)

135 

(1%) 0 0(0%)

Closed 3,524 (17%) 3,977 (19%) 3,676 (18%) 0 8,779 (43%) 3,539 (17%)

Limited to 

Designated 

Routes 

6,302 (30%) 16,458 (81%) 16,624 (81%) 20,300 (99%) 11,656 (57%) 16,894 

(83%)

Travel routes 

(miles) 61 43 52 56 43 60

4.3.11.2.4.2. Alternative B 

Many of the impacts of recreation management on riparian resources discussed under Alternative 

A apply to this and other alternatives as well. User numbers under Alternative B (and under 

Alternative E) would generally be lower than under Alternative A and all other action 

alternatives. Restrictions on camping, pets, and user-group sizes under Alternative B (and 

Alternative E) would also be more stringent than under other alternatives. 

Alternative B would designate the San Juan River SRMA, where no motorized boating would be 

allowed. Launch schedules would allow approximately 30,000 user-days per year, 10,000 fewer 

user-days than under Alternatives A and C, and 15,000 fewer user-days than under Alternative 

D. Trip size would be limited to 20 people (including crew) for both private and commercial use, 

fewer persons than under any other alternative. These restrictions would result in approximately 

30% less potential disturbance to riparian habitat than under Alternative A. 

Visitor use of the Grand Gulch Plateau (Cedar Mesa) would limit group size to 10 people for day 

use. Primitive sites would be designated, group sizes would be limited to 12 people, and 

overnight visitors would be required to remove all human waste. These management actions 

would reduce impacts to riparian resources, whereas Alternative A would place no such limits on 

use of the mesa top. 

In-canyon riparian resources would be protected from visitor-use impacts where use is restricted. 

Restrictions on use would include limits on in-canyon visitor numbers. Group size would be 2 

people fewer than under Alternative A, and permits would be required for high-season use. 

Limits of 10 people per trailhead and one commercial trip every other day would provide more 

protection for riparian resources than under Alternative A, which would not designate daily 

visitor numbers. 

In-canyon overnight use would be the same as under Alternative A, with some exceptions. Some 

campsites would be designated, and if human waste became a problem, a policy to carry out 

waste could [or might] be implemented. Private-group size would be limited to 6 people per day 

per trailhead, 50% less visitation than allowed under Alternative A. Total caps for trailheads 

would be 16 people per day, 30%–40% less visitation than under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-408 

Fewer commercial permits would be issued for the Dark Canyon SRMA under Alternative B 

than under any other alternative. Camping would be allowed only in designated sites, with no 

dispersed camping. Group size would be limited to 10–12 and the number of private users in the 

canyon per day to 15, whereas Alternative A would not have any visitor use limits. These 

restrictions would decrease surface disturbance, the risk of trampling of riparian vegetation, and 

the potential for loss of shade and increased sedimentation. 

Dispersed camping would not be allowed in the Indian Creek Corridor. Camping would be 

allowed only in designated sites, resulting in fewer adverse impacts to riparian resources than 

under any other alternative. 

Alternative B would designate OHV travel in riparian areas, with 3,977 acres closed, 16,458 

acres limited to designated routes, no acres open to cross-country travel, and a total of 43 miles 

of travel routes available. Closing or limiting travel in riparian areas would protect riparian 

resources and limit impacts from OHV use, as discussed under Alternative A. Only Alternative E 

would provide a higher level of protection of riparian resources 

The percentage of riparian area open, closed, and limited to designated routes under Alternative 

B would be approximately 0%, 19%, and 81%, respectively. Compared to Alternative A, these 

limits on OHV use in riparian areas would result in 10,871 fewer acres open to OHVs, 453 more 

acres closed, 10,156 more acres with OHVs limited to designated routes in riparian areas, and 18 

fewer miles of travel routes. Alternative B (along with Alternative E) would thus have the lowest 

recreation-related riparian use levels and the lowest level of potential impacts of the proposed 

alternatives. 

4.3.11.2.4.3. Alternative C 

The discussion of Alternative A provided a general description of the impacts of recreation 

management on riparian resources. User numbers under Alternative C would be similar to those 

under Alternative A. However, restrictions on camping, pets, and user-group sizes under 

Alternative C would be more stringent than those under Alternative A. 

The San Juan SRMA would be designated with management decisions similar to those under 

Alternative A. Launch limits would allow approximately 40,000 user-days per year, the same as 

under Alternative A. Trip size would be limited to 25 people, including crew on commercial 

trips. For commercial trips, the total would be 8 fewer than under Alternative A. These 

management actions would therefore result in slightly less adverse impact than would occur 

under Alternative A. 

Visitor day use of the Grand Gulch Plateau (Cedar Mesa) would be limited to a group size of 12 

people in most areas. Primitive sites would be designated, group size would be limited to 24 

people, and overnight visitors would be required to remove human waste. These management 

actions would substantially reduce impacts to riparian resources on the mesa top over Alternative 

A, which would have no such limits. 

In-canyon riparian resources would be protected from visitor-use impacts where use is restricted. 

Restrictions on use would include limits on in-canyon visitor numbers. Group size would be 

limited to 12, the same as under Alternative A, and a limited permit system would be 

implemented. Limits of 12 people per trailhead and one commercial trip per day per trailhead 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-409 

would provide more protection for riparian resources than under Alternative A, which would not 

limit commercial use. 

In-canyon overnight use would be the same as under Alternative A, with some exceptions. Some 

campsites would be designated for large groups (8–12 people), and if human waste should 

become a problem, a requirement to carry out waste might be implemented. Private group size 

would be limited to 8 people per day per trailhead, 33% less visitation than allowed under 

Alternative A. Total caps for trailheads would be 20 people per day, resulting in approximately 

10% less visitation than under Alternative A. 

The Dark Canyon SRMA would be designated with three commercial permits, fewer than under 

Alternative A. Camping would be allowed in designated sites only, with no dispersed camping. 

Group size would be limited to 15 people and the number of private users in the canyon to 20 per 

day, resulting in a reduction of surface and vegetation disturbance in comparison with 

Alternative A, which would not have any visitor use limits. These restrictions would decrease 

surface disturbance, the risk of trampling of riparian vegetation, and the potential for loss of 

shade and increased sedimentation. 

Dispersed camping would be allowed in the Indian Creek Corridor except within certain zones 

where camping is limited to designated sites, resulting in fewer impacts to riparian resources 

than under Alternative A. 

Alternative C would manage OHV travel in riparian areas, with 3,676 acres closed, 16,624 acres 

limited to designated routes, and 135 acres of designated open areas. Closing or limiting OHV 

travel in riparian areas would protect riparian resources and limit impacts from OHV use, as 

discussed under Alternative A. These limits on OHV use would provide a higher level of 

protection of riparian resources than Alternatives A and D, but less protection than Alternatives 

B and E. 

The percentage of riparian area that would be open, closed, and limited to designated routes for 

OHV use under Alternative C would be approximately 1%, 18%, and 81%, respectively. These 

limits on OHV use in riparian areas would result in 10,736 fewer acres open to OHVs, 152 more 

acres closed to OHVs, and 10,322 more acres with designated route limitations for OHVs in 

riparian areas than under Alternative A. Designated routes in riparians would total 52 linear 

miles, 9 fewer miles, or approximately 15% less, than under Alternative A. 

Overall, management actions for recreation under Alternative C would provide more protection 

of riparian resources than would Alternatives A and D, and less protection than management 

actions under Alternatives B and E. 

4.3.11.2.4.4. Alternative D 

Impacts of recreation management on riparian resources that apply to all alternatives were 

discussed under Alternative A. User numbers under Alternative D would generally be lower than 

under Alternative A and all other action alternatives. 

Alternative D would designate the San Juan River SRMA, where no motorized boating would be 

allowed. Launch schedules would allow approximately 45,000 user-days per year, 5,000 more 

user days than under Alternative A. Trip size would be increased to 35 people (including crew) 

for both private and commercial use, more than under any other alternative, with approximately 

5% more potential for disturbance to riparian habitat than under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-410 

Visitor use of the Grand Gulch Plateau (Cedar Mesa) would limit group size to 12 people for day 

use within the WSA and 25 people outside the WSA. There would be no site designation for 

groups under 24 and no group size limit. These management actions would have the same 

impacts on riparian resources as those under Alternative A, which would also impose no 

camping limits on the mesa top. 

Grand Gulch in-canyon riparian resources would be protected from visitor-use impacts where 

use is restricted. Restrictions on use would be the same as under Alternative C, except that two 

commercial trips per trailhead would be allowed, with a slightly greater risk of adverse visitor 

impacts. 

In-canyon overnight use would generally be the same as under Alternative A, with some 

exceptions. Some campsites would be designated, and if human waste should become a problem, 

carrying out waste might be required. Private group size would be limited to 12 people per day 

per trailhead, the same as under Alternative A. Total caps for trailheads would be 24 people per 

day, also the same as under Alternative A. 

The Dark Canyon SRMA would be designated, with fewer commercial permits than under any 

other alternative. Dispersed camping would be allowed. Visitation would be limited to 15 users 

per day in the canyon. Surface and vegetation disturbance would be reduced in comparison with 

Alternative A, which would not have any visitor use limits. These restrictions would decrease 

surface disturbance, the risk of trampling of riparian vegetation, and the potential for loss of 

shade and increased sedimentation. 

Dispersed camping would be allowed in the Indian Creek Corridor, with the same exceptions as 

under Alternative C. Alternative D would thus result in slightly fewer adverse visitor-related 

impacts than Alternative A. 

Alternative D would designate OHV travel in riparian areas, with no riparian areas closed to 

OHV use, 20,300 acres in areas limited to designated routes, and 135 acres open to cross-country 

OHV travel. Closing or limiting OHV travel areas in riparian areas would protect riparian 

resources and limit impacts from OHV use, as discussed under Alternative A. The limits on 

OHV use under Alternative D would provide more protection of riparian resources than those 

under Alternative A, as all of the riparian area within the Monticello FO would be limited to 

designated routes under this alternative. Under Alternative D, approximately 10,736 fewer 

riparian acres would be open to OHVs in riparian areas, 3,524 fewer acres would be closed, and 

13,998 more acres would be limited to designated routes than under Alternative A. A total of 56 

linear miles of travel routes would be designated in riparian areas, 5 fewer miles than under 

Alternative A. 

Alternative D would have similar use levels in designated recreation areas. Impacts to riparian 

areas would be similar under Alternative D and Alternative A. 

4.3.11.2.4.5. Alternative E 

Impacts to riparian resources under Alternative E would be the same as under Alternative B, 

except that restrictions on OHV use would be more stringent and fewer impacts to riparian areas 

from OHV use would occur. Overall, impacts under Alternative E would be less adverse than 

under any other alternative. Alternative E would designate OHV travel in riparian areas, with 

3,977 acres closed, 16,458 acres limited to designated routes, and no acres open to cross-country 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-411 

OHV travel. These limits on OHV use would provide the highest level of protection of riparian 

resources of any alternative. 

The percentages of riparian areas open, closed, and limited to designated routes under 

Alternative E would be approximately 0%, 43%, and 57%, respectively. As a result, 10,871 

fewer acres would be open to OHVs, 5,255 more acres would be closed, and 5,354 more acres 

would be limited to designated travel routes in riparian areas than under Alternative A. The total 

number of linear miles limited to designated routes in riparian areas would be 43, 18 fewer miles 

than under Alternative A. 

4.3.11.2.4.6. Proposed Plan 

Recreation management and its impact on riparian resources would the same under the Proposed 

Plan as described under Alternative C, except for the management of OHV travel. The Proposed 

Plan would manage OHV travel in riparian areas, with 3,539 acres closed, 16,894 acres limited 

to designated routes, and 0 acres of designated open areas. Closing or limiting OHV travel in 

riparian areas would protect riparian resources and limit impacts from OHV use, as discussed 

under Alternative A. These limits on OHV use would provide a higher level of protection of 

riparian resources than Alternatives A and D, but less protection than Alternatives B and E. 

The percentage of riparian area that would be open, closed, and limited to designated routes for 

OHV use under the Proposed Plan would be approximately 0%, 17%, and 83%, respectively. 

These limits on OHV use in riparian areas would result in 10,871 fewer acres open to OHVs, 15 

more acres closed to OHVs, and 10,592 more acres with designated route limitations for OHVs 

in riparian areas than under Alternative A. Designated routes in riparians would total 60 linear 

miles, 1 fewer mile, or approximately 2% less, than under Alternative A. 

Overall, management actions for recreation under Alternative C would provide more protection 

of riparian resources than would Alternatives A and D, and less protection than management 

actions under Alternatives B and E. 

4.3.11.2.5. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.3.11.2.5.1. Alternative A 

Areas designated as WSAs would restrict motorized use to existing routes. This management 

decision would protect riparian resources from new direct impacts from motorized use, as 

described under Section 4.3.10, Recreation. Under Alternative A, management of WSAs would 

continue to retain wilderness values, thus protecting riparian values through limitations on 

motorized use on a total of 2,400 acres of riparian area within the Monticello PA. 

ACECs would have different management prescriptions based on resources of concern. Under 

Alternative A, a total of 5,700 riparian acres would have limitations on motorized use within 

ACECs. Motorized use would be limited to existing roads and trails within the Alkali Ridge 

ACEC and the Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC (900 riparian acres). Motorized use would be 

limited to designated roads and trails within the Cedar Mesa ACEC (partial), Hovenweep ACEC, 

and Shay Canyon ACEC (1,300 acres). Areas would be closed to motorized use within the Butler 

Wash ACEC, Cedar Mesa ACEC (partial), Dark Canyon ACEC, and Indian Creek corridor 

ACEC (3,600 acres). ACEC designation would not generally limit livestock use. All livestock 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-412 

exclosures were analyzed in Section 4.3.6.1, Impacts Common to All Alternatives, in relation to 

potential riparian impacts. 

Management of ACECs under Alternative A would not limit geophysical work within these 

areas. Geophysical work would potentially impact riparian resources through vegetation 

trampling and removal, habitat fragmentation, and possible noxious plant infestation. Any 

geophysical work within riparian areas would require site-specific NEPA analysis. 

Some overlap of ACECs and WSAs would occur under all alternatives. Six ACECs would 

overlap with WSAs: Bridger Jack Mesa, Butler Wash, Cedar Mesa, Dark Canyon, Indian Creek 

Corridor, and Lockhart Basin (see Maps 87-90). 

4.3.11.2.5.2. Alternative B 

The designation of WSAs under Alternative B would be the same as under Alternative A and as 

discussed above, except that no travel would be allowed within WSAs under Alternative B. The 

limitation on travel would slightly reduce the risk of impacts to riparian areas from boundary 

road maintenance, erosion, or changes in hydrology or sediment yield from roads. 

Management of ACECs under Alternative B would not preclude OHV limits to designated routes 

or closure of areas to OHV use. Analysis of impacts of OHV use on riparian resources appears 

above in Section 4.3.11.2.4, Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Riparian Resources. Surfacedisturbing vegetation treatments would not be allowed in the Alkali Ridge and Shay Canyon 

ACECs, protecting approximately 400 more riparian acres than Alternative A, which would 

allow surface-disturbing vegetation treatments. Indirect impacts of surface disturbance were 

discussed under Section 4.3.17, Vegetation. In the Shay Canyon ACEC, Alternative B would 

limit livestock use on 20 more riparian acres than Alternative A. Designation of the Bridger Jack 

Mesa, Butler Wash, Cedar Mesa, Dark Canyon, Hovenweep, Indian Creek Corridor, Lockhart 

Basin, Lavender Mesa, San Juan River, and Valley of the Gods ACECs would have the same 

impacts as under Alternative A. 

4.3.11.2.5.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, special designation would generally result in very similar impacts to 

riparian resources as under Alternative B, except that ACECs would generally be managed with 

slightly less protective prescriptions (such as VRM Class, mineral stipulations, livestock 

management, camping restrictions, and woodland harvest). Like Alternative B, Alternative C 

would be more protective of riparian resources than Alternative A. 

4.3.11.2.5.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D would manage WSAs according to the IMP, resulting in the same impacts to 

riparian resources as would occur under Alternative A. No ACECs would be designated under 

Alternative D, thus there would be no impacts to riparian resources, as discussed under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.11.2.5.5. Alternative E 

The impacts to riparian resources under Alternative E would be the same as those described 

under Alternative B, except that riparian areas in 109,206 acres of ACECs in non-WSA lands 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-413 

with wilderness characteristics would be managed with additional limitations on woodland 

harvest, mineral entry, surface disturbance, and ROWs that would protect riparian areas. Because 

many of these activities are already prohibited in riparian areas and many ACECs, these further 

restrictions would have a minor beneficial impact on riparian resources. 

4.3.11.2.5.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, special designation would generally result in very similar impacts to 

riparian resources as under Alternative B, except that ACECs would generally be managed with 

slightly less protective prescriptions (such as VRM Class, mineral stipulations, livestock 

management, camping restrictions, and woodland harvest). Like Alternative B, the Proposed 

Plan would be more protective of riparian resources than Alternative A. Additionally, riparian 

areas in 25,410 acres of ACECs in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed with additional limitations on woodland harvest, mineral entry, surface disturbance, 

and ROWs that would protect riparian areas. Because many of these activities are already 

prohibited in riparian areas and many ACECs, these further restrictions would have a minor 

beneficial impact on riparian resources. 

4.3.11.2.6. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.3.11.2.6.1. Alternative A 

The implementation of management decisions related to special status species would generally 

protect and/or enhance riparian resources. Recovery plans for the Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher, Colorado River fishes, Bald Eagle, and Yellow-billed Cuckoo would benefit riparian 

resources through habitat enhancement and potential reductions in riparian habitat degradation. 

Removal of tamarisk and Russian olive for restoration or enhancement of special status species 

habitat would generally benefit riparian resources. 

All alternatives, including Alternative A, would avoid loss of cottonwood gallery riparian 

habitats and limit surface disturbance in riparian areas to protect Bald Eagle roosting areas. Any 

disturbance of riparian vegetation would be replaced with native species or ecological 

equivalents for all special status species. These actions would help maintain existing riparian 

resources. 

All alternatives, including Alternative A, would also restrict surface-disturbing activities within 

300 feet of suitable Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yellow-billed Cuckoo habitat yearlong 

and would require 0.25-mile buffers for permanent noise-producing facilities. These obligate 

riparian species preferentially use riparian areas for all life phases. Restrictions on surface 

disturbance would reduce potential impacts to riparian resources, as discussed under Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives. The eradication of tamarisk and Russian olive would cause shortterm surface disturbance but would result in long-term enhancement of riparian resources. The 

BLM would ensure that water extraction or disposal activities do not result in changes to 

hydrologic regimes that would result in loss or degradation of riparian habitat. Alternative A 

would avoid loss of riparian habitats in designated critical habitat to protect the endangered 

Colorado River fishes. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-414 

4.3.11.2.6.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B would propose the same management decisions and result in the same impacts as 

described under Alternative A. Group size for non-motorized recreation uses would be limited to 

10 individuals and 2 groups per day in Arch Canyon, and a permit system would be 

implemented. These decisions would protect riparian resources and reduce impacts to riparian 

resources in Arch Canyon more than the actions taken under Alternative A, which would not 

limit use in Arch Canyon. 

4.3.11.2.6.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C would propose the same management decisions and result in the same impacts as 

those described under Alternative A. OHV use would be limited to the designated route to the 

end of the State Section (T37S, R20E, Section 16) and to the end of the route at the National 

Forest boundary. Group size for non-motorized recreation users would be limited to 12 

individuals and 2 groups per day, and a permit system would be implemented. 

4.3.11.2.6.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D would result in the same management and impacts as described under Alternative 

A. In addition, Alternative D would protect habitat for Mexican Spotted Owl and flannelmouth 

sucker in Arch Canyon, where OHV use limited to designated routes would be allowed yearround. The number of commercial motorized uses would be limited to 12 people and 2 trips a 

day. These management actions to protect special status species would result in fewer adverse 

impacts to riparian resources than under Alternative A and more adverse impacts than under the 

other action alternatives. 

4.3.11.2.6.5. Alternative E 

The impacts to riparian resources under Alternative E would be the same as those described for 

Alternative B because the proposed management decisions would be the same. 

4.3.11.2.6.6. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would utilize the same management decisions and result in the same impacts 

as those described under Alternative A. OHV use would be limited to the designated route in 

Arch Canyon to the end at the National Forest boundary, a total of 8 miles one way. Organized 

and commercial groups are required to obtain a Special Recreation Use Permit. This permit 

would allow access on the designated route up to the National Forest boundary except from 

March 1 through August 31. During this period, access would be 7.5 miles of the designated 

route. Motorized access would not be allowed within 0.5 miles of the National Forest boundary. 

4.3.11.2.7. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.3.11.2.7.1. Alternative A 

Alternative A would not propose any riparian vegetation treatments and would involve no 

vegetation management decisions that would affect riparian resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-415 

4.3.11.2.7.2. Alternative B 

The Monticello FO would conduct vegetation treatments in riparian areas under all action 

alternatives. Potential impacts related to vegetation treatments include increased runoff and 

sedimentation due to loss of vegetative cover in the short term. Improvement of riparian 

condition (PFC) would occur over the long term, after treatment areas have recovered. 

Under Alternative B, 500 acres of riparian vegetation treatments would be completed each year, 

resulting in long-term improvement of riparian condition. This would be 500 more acres of 

riparian treatment than under Alternative A. 

4.3.11.2.7.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C proposes to implement 100 acres of riparian vegetation treatments each year to 

restore ecosystem health and PFC of riparian areas. These decisions would result in 400 fewer 

acres treated in riparian areas than under Alternatives B and E, 100 more acres treated than under 

Alternative A, and the same acreage treated as under Alternative D. Overall, the management of 

vegetation resources under Alternative C would result in more beneficial impacts than under 

Alternative A or Alternative D, and fewer beneficial impacts than under Alternatives B and E. 

4.3.11.2.7.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the management of and impacts to riparian resources would be the same as 

under Alternative C. 

4.3.11.2.7.5. Alternative E 

The impacts to riparian resources under Alternative E would be the same as those described for 

Alternative B because the proposed management decisions would be the same. 

4.3.11.2.7.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the management of and impacts to riparian resources would be the 

same as under Alternative C. 

4.3.11.2.8. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

In general, VRM designation of Class I and Class II would limit any surface disturbance and 

corresponding indirect adverse impacts to riparian resources from erosion and sedimentation due 

to vegetation clearing and/or soil disturbance. Conversely, areas that are designated as VRM 

Class III and Class IV would allow surface-disturbing actions, with the associated risk of 

sedimentation impacts to adjacent riparian areas. 

4.3.11.2.8.1. Alternative A 

Management decisions under Alternative A would designate as VRM Class I and Class II 12,200 

acres of riparian habitat, approximately 60% of the total riparian resources within the Monticello 

PA. Table 4.119 compares the number of acres designated as VRM Class I and Class II for each 

of the alternatives. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-416 

Table 4.119. VRM Class I and Class II Designation in Riparian Areas by Alternative 

(Acres) 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

VRM I and 

II 

12,200 11,200 8,600 5,300 13,704 10,835 

4.3.11.2.8.2. Alternative B 

Management of visual resources under Alternative B would result in reduction of surface 

disturbance through requirement of NSO leasing stipulations and limits on construction in areas 

adjacent to 11,200 acres of riparian areas within the Monticello PA. Indirect impacts to riparian 

resources would be reduced in these areas. Under Alternative B, 1,000 fewer riparian acres 

would be protected through visual resource management than under Alternative A, resulting in 

an increased risk of surface disturbance from human-construction on 56% of riparian areas 

within the Monticello PA, compared to 60% under Alternative A. 

4.3.11.2.8.3. Alternative C 

Management of visual resources under Alternative C would result in reduction of surface 

disturbance through requirement of NSO and limits on construction in areas adjacent to 8,600 

acres of riparian areas within the Monticello PA. Under Alternative C, 3,600 fewer riparian acres 

would be protected through visual resource management than under Alternative A, resulting in 

an increased risk of surface disturbance from human-construction on 70% of riparian areas 

within the Monticello FO, compared to 60% under Alternative A. 

4.3.11.2.8.4. Alternative D 

Management of visual resources under Alternative D would result in reduction of surface 

disturbance on areas adjacent to 5,300 acres of riparian areas within the Monticello PA. 

Alternative D would protect 6,900 fewer riparian acres than visual resource management under 

Alternative A, resulting in an increase of impacts on approximately 25% of riparian areas within 

the Monticello PA, compared to 60% under Alternative A. 

4.3.11.2.8.5. Alternative E 

Impacts to riparian resources under Alternative E would be the same as those described under 

Alternative B, except that more area would be designated as VRM Classes I and II. Under 

Alternative E, 1,504 more riparian acres would be protected through visual resource management 

than under Alternative A, resulting in a decreased risk of surface disturbance from humanconstruction on 67% of riparian areas within the Monticello FO, compared to 60% under 

Alternative A and 56% under Alternative B. 

4.3.11.2.8.6. Proposed Plan 

Management of visual resources under the Proposed Plan would result in reduction of surface 

disturbance through requirement of NSO and limits on construction in areas adjacent to 10,835 

acres of riparian areas within the Monticello PA. Under the Proposed Plan, 1,365 fewer riparian 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-417 

acres would be protected through visual resource management than under Alternative A, 

resulting in an increased risk of surface disturbance from human-construction on 63% of riparian 

areas within the Monticello FO, compared to 60% under Alternative A. 

4.3.11.3. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Resource management decisions would generally allow or limit direct and indirect adverse 

impacts to riparian resources. All alternatives would have similar impacts on riparian resources 

from fire, soils, and watershed management. The alternatives differ in their impacts in 

management of livestock grazing, recreation management, special designations, and visual 

resource management. 

Proper levels of livestock grazing would not result in adverse impacts to riparian resources, as 

discussed above. The highest level of riparian resource protection would occur under 

Alternatives B and E, under which fewer riparian acres would be grazed by livestock. The 

Proposed Plan and Alternative C would provide more protection of riparian resources than 

Alternatives A and D, both of which would impose similar restrictions on livestock grazing in 

riparian areas. 

Recreation decisions would generally impact riparian resources in areas where increased visitor 

use would result in riparian habitat degradation. Alternatives B and E would have the lowest 

levels of user numbers of the proposed alternatives. Alternative D would have the highest user 

numbers; followed by Alternative A. The Proposed Plan and Alternative C would provide a level 

of use between Alternative B and Alternative A. 

Special designations would protect riparian resources in areas where management prescriptions 

reduce OHV use. These limits on use would result in ranking of impacts between alternatives, as 

described under Recreation. 

Visual resource protection would generally limit surface disturbance, resulting in reduced 

indirect adverse impacts to riparian resources that could result from changes in watershed 

hydrology and stream sedimentation. Alternative E would provide the highest level of riparian 

resource protection from visual resource management, followed by Alternative A, Alternative B, 

the Proposed Plan, Alternative C, and Alternative D, in that order. 

4.3.11.4. MITIGATION MEASURES

The management decisions common to all proposed alternatives, as described in Chapter 2 and 

in Appendixes A and I, outline the mitigation measures that would serve to avoid and/or 

minimize impacts to riparian resources resulting from management actions. 

4.3.11.5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Any pipeline crossings of stream channels could result in the temporary loss of riparian habitat. 

OHV use and presence of livestock in riparian areas have the potential for the loss or degradation 

of riparian habitat, but changes in management based on monitoring would limit these impacts. 

4.3.11.6. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The short-term use of vegetation treatments in specific riparian resource areas would affect the 

long-term productivity of the treated areas by increasing the likelihood of achieving riparian PFC 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-418 

in degraded riparian habitat. Long-term productivity would be beneficially impacted, since the 

goals of the short-term treatments in riparian areas would be to improve ecosystem health, 

reduce invasive and exotic species, and restore PFC. 

4.3.11.7. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Irretrievable loss of riparian habitat could occur due to grazing, visitor trampling, and 

construction-related removal of riparian habitat. However, that habitat could eventually be 

restored, so those impacts would not be irreversible. However, it is possible that noxious-weed 

infestation of disturbed riparian areas could become an irreversible impact, given the difficulties 

observed in the past in controlling invasive species such as tamarisk and Russian olive. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-419 

4.3.12. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

Impacts to social and economic conditions could result from the implementation of any of the 

alternatives. While the range of socioeconomic impacts may vary depending on the alternative 

implemented, some management actions would have a measurable impact on socioeconomics 

and are disclosed in the following analysis. 

Potential economic impacts include changes in employment and income, changes in tax revenue 

for local, state, and federal government entities, and changes in the demand for housing and 

public service. Where available, quantitative data are used to analyze impacts. Where 

quantitative data are not available, a qualitative analysis is performed based on best available 

information. 

Social impacts to communities cannot be measured in economic terms. These human impacts 

include enhancements or detractions from existing lifestyles, sense of place, community values, 

and unfair or unjust impacts or burdens on low income or minority populations. Accordingly, 

these impacts are assessed qualitatively. 

Impacts to socioeconomic resources from implementation of alternatives would be considered 

significant if one or more of the following occurs: 

• Substantial gains or losses in population/employment. 

• Activities or operations substantially altering the lifestyles or quality of life of individuals 

utilizing or living near the Monticello FO. 

• Disproportionately high and adverse environmental or human health impacts to an identified 

minority or low income population that appreciably exceed those to the general population 

around the project area. 

4.3.12.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.12.1.1. IMPACTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order (EO) 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations," requires identifying and addressing 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts of federal 

programs, policies, and activities on minority or low income populations. To evaluate potential 

environmental justice impacts, the following federal agency guidance documents were reviewed: 

• EO 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations," February 11, 1994, Federal Register at 7630. 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Interim Final Guidance for Incorporating 

Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's Compliance Analysis, Office of Federal 

Activities," September 30, 1997. 

• Council on Environmental Quality, "Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)," Executive Office of the President, December 1997. 

The following five step method was used to evaluate potential environmental justice impacts 

associated with land management actions proposed by the BLM: 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-420 

1. Identify potential minority or low income populations within the study area. 

2. Identify a broad range of potential environmental and human health effects that could affect 

minority or low income populations including safety, traffic, air quality, noise, cultural 

resources, hazardous waste sites and hazardous materials transport, natural resources, land 

use, and socioeconomics. 

3. Assess whether the potential impacts on minority and low income populations would be high 

and adverse. 

4. Conduct extended outreach to minority and low income populations that would experience 

potential high and adverse effects. 

5. Evaluate mitigation measures that would be used to minimize adverse impacts to minority 

and low income populations. 

Census data for San Juan County, as well as Utah, were used for this analysis. These baseline 

data are summarized in Section 3.12.4.2. It includes: 

• Total population. 

• Percent of population of minority status (e.g., Black or African American, Hispanic or 

Latino, Asian American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian and other 

Pacific Islanders). 

• Percent of population of low income status using annual statistical thresholds from the 

Bureau of Census Current Population Reports. 

• Percent of population of minority status for the entire state of Utah. 

• Percent of population of low income status in the entire state of Utah using annual statistical 

thresholds from the Bureau of Census Population Reports. 

The data listed above were then used to determine whether the populations residing within the 

counties in the study area constitute an "environmental justice population" that meets any of the 

following criteria: 

• At least one-half of the population is of minority status. 

• At least one-half of the population is of low income status. 

• The percentage of population of minority status is a least 10 percentage points higher than for 

the entire state of Utah. 

• The percentage of population of low income status is at least 10 percentage points higher 

than for the entire state of Utah. 

San Juan County is home to 27% of the state's Native American population and 55.7% of the 

county's total population; therefore Native Americans are not the minority in San Juan County. 

However, in Utah, 93.8% of the entire population identify themselves as white and 1.3% of the 

population identify themselves as Native American/Alaskan Native (GOPB 2002). Therefore, 

when considered state or region-wide, Native Americans are considered a minority. Despite the 

population data that indicates non-minority status within San Juan County, Native Americans are 

considered a minority group for the purposes of analyzing and ensuring environmental justice 

during this RMP process. 

In 2003, the number of people in San Juan County living below the poverty line was higher than 

the state average (22.6% versus. 10%). While San Juan County poverty trends show a decrease 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-421 

over time, they remain higher than the state average. In terms of race, the Native American 

population has the highest poverty level in the county at 48%, or 3,809 individuals. 

Under each alternative, it has been determined that BLM resource management actions would 

not result in disproportionate effects to "environmental justice populations" defined in Executive 

Order 12898. Minority and low income populations do exist in the planning area, but no BLM 

action proposed across all alternatives or the Proposed Plan would cause disproportionate 

adverse impacts to these populations. 

Two issues identified in Section 3.13.4.3 related to Native American concerns with BLM 

management decisions have been addressed to meet the group's needs and would not adversely 

impact their traditional practices. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, wood gathering 

in designated areas would be allowed, with the exception of Cedar Mesa (outside of Cedar Mesa 

WSA) under Alternative B. Also under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the collection of 

cottonwoods and willows along riparian areas for ceremonial purposes would be permitted. 

4.3.12.1.2. IMPACTS TO PILT PAYMENTS

None of the alternatives would result in significant changes in federal ownership in the planning 

area. Any future land exchanges or sales would be assessed to determine specific impacts, but in 

general, actions proposed with the PRMP/FEIS would not change payments to San Juan County 

made under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program according to established formulas. 

4.3.12.1.3. IMPACTS TO POPULATION

Population changes in San Juan County that could be associated with the implementation of 

alternatives under consideration of this EIS would likely be linked to employment changes. 

Activities such as livestock grazing and mineral development within the Monticello FO that 

support jobs in the area are not expected in increase or decrease substantially under any of the 

alternatives (see impacts analysis below for further details). Therefore, it is not likely the BLMrelated management decisions would result in significant changes in current population trends 

(see Section 3.13.4.2.1 for local population data). 

4.3.12.2. ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PLAN IMPACTS

The following resource management decisions would have negligible to minor impacts on 

woodland resources and will not be analyzed further in this section: 

Air Quality

None of the decisions concerning air quality are expected to adversely affect the social or 

economic conditions of San Juan County. 

Health and Safety

Health and safety management actions for all of the alternatives that would identify and address 

abandoned mine lands safety concerns, respond to hazardous waste releases, and protect public 

health and safety would have negligible adverse impacts to social and economic conditions of 

San Juan County. The health and safety management restrictions would not interfere or restrict 

the local economy or government revenue or the local social character of San Juan County. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-422 

Paleontology

Management actions for paleontological resources would have negligible impacts on 

socioeconomic resources because the recreational and scientific collection of fossils, as well as 

the protection of these resources, would be similar to current conditions and are the same across 

alternatives. Personal collection of invertebrate and plant fossils would be allowed throughout 

the Monticello PA. The recreational collection of vertebrate fossils, as well as of noteworthy 

invertebrate and plant fossils, is already prohibited within the Monticello PA. Therefore, the 

recreational collection of fossils from BLM-administered lands would have minimal impacts on 

the local economy. The permit-required scientific gathering of fossils within the planning area 

occurs rarely; approximately 1–2 permits are issued annually (see Section 3.10.2). The economic 

contributions, including sales and hotel tax revenue, from scientific collection would also be 

negligible under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Riparian

Management decisions common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan for riparian resources 

would have negligible impacts to the social and economic conditions of communities in San Juan 

County. The impacts would be negligible because all floodplains and riparian/wetlands would be 

managed in accordance with Executive Orders, the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts, 

and Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health, and because there is opportunity for mineral leasing 

across all alternatives and the Proposed Plan outside of riparian areas. These mandates and 

management actions would not allow great variation in the management of the resource that 

would have a substantial impact on the local economy or social character of communities. 

Soils and Watershed

Soils and watershed actions common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan would have 

negligible impacts on socioeconomics. Approximately 76% of BLM lands available for surfacedisturbing activities are overlain with medium-risk and high-risk sensitive soils. Any surface 

disturbance projects (i.e., minerals development) initiated on these sensitive soils would require 

the use of Best Management Practices and mitigation measures such as those in Appendix A and 

Appendix I. The large percentage of lands available for surface disturbance and the relatively 

small amount of wells anticipated to be developed over the next 15 years (75 wells according to 

the BLM's RFD) would not result in an adverse impact on potential oil and gas exploration and 

development locations, so there would be no economic loss to the county. Under all alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan developers would be able to extract oil and gas from more than threequarters of medium- and high-risk soils and as a result generate revenues for federal and local 

governments. 

Development on slopes greater than 20% would require a BLM-approved plan by developers and 

may require additional costs and time to relocate well pads and pipelines. This may result in a 

decrease in revenue for the developer. However, impacts to local economic conditions would be 

negligible given that the developers would still be permitted to produce on slopes ranging from 

21%–40% and generate revenue accordingly. 

Special Status Species

The impacts of special status species management actions common to all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan on socioeconomics would be minor because temporary seasonal or spatial buffers 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-423 

and restrictions for roosting or nesting birds and habitat enhancement to protect special status 

species would not specifically restrict economic growth or social well-being. Restriction on 

mineral development within special status species habitat could adversely impact developers 

during specific times of year (see Section 4.3.7.4.8, Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions 

on Minerals). This could slow production due to timing limitations. However, due to the large 

amount of acres open to oil and gas development across alternatives (more than one million 

acres) and the small number of wells predicted within the Monticello FO, an adverse economic 

impact is unlikely because drilling would commence during periods without seasonal restrictions 

or year-round in areas without restrictions. 

Vegetation

Vegetation management actions across all alternatives and the Proposed Plan could have minor 

beneficial impacts to the local economy if labor, seed, and equipment maintenance come from 

local communities. 

4.3.12.2.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, cultural resource management decisions could have 

potential impacts to socioeconomics. Given that San Juan County has more than 25,000 cultural 

sites, 60%–65% of which are on BLM lands, the area is well known for its cultural resources and 

draws many visitors to the area. With approximately 4,000 self-identified registered visitors to 

cultural resource sites in the early 2000s, public interest in cultural sites appears to be increasing. 

Cultural resource management for recreational use draws hikers and OHV users to the area to 

visit sites. Increases or decreases in access to sites and the quality of the sites have the potential 

to socially impact the visitor and local communities and economically impact revenues. 

Cultural resource management decisions could increase or decrease recreational visits to the sites 

and influence the overall visitor experience. The level of impacts is related to several factors, 

including the importance of the sites to the Native American communities in the area (the 

historic cultural sites in the area serve as a connection between the landscape and the local tribes' 

heritage), any links between local residents and cultural resources, and the degree to which 

specific sites draw visitors to the area. 

Potential economic impacts resulting from cultural resource management decisions could include 

an increase or decrease in visitor spending. Increasing access could increase visitor spending in 

the area in the short-term, but degradation to sites could lead to long-term adverse economic 

impacts, as visitors may choose not to continue to come to the area. 

4.3.12.2.1.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, 37,433 acres of land is designated for special management related to 

cultural resources. All of this land is located in the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area/Grand 

Gulch National Historic District. The restrictions proposed under this alternative (see Section 

4.3.2, Cultural Resources, for details) reduce the risk of damage to cultural resources. The 

preservation of the resources in this area would have long-term beneficial social impacts to 

visitors and Native American communities. However, under this alternative there are minimal 

restrictions on other special recreation management areas (SRMAs), so the potential for loss of 

cultural integrity would be greater in these areas. Access to the SRMAs is not restricted under 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-424 

this alternative, so there is greater opportunity for access and recreation than if the sites were 

managed for special protections of cultural resources. Sites could be directly or indirectly 

impacted by increased visitor traffic (with resulting looting and vandalism). Other activities, such 

as oil and gas development, livestock grazing, and collection and harvesting of woodland 

resources would also create opportunities for direct and indirect, adverse impacts to cultural 

resources. These impacts could potentially degrade the visitor experience and therefore reduce 

the number of visitors to the area. Although difficult to quantify, a decrease in visitors to cultural 

sites could adversely impact the local economy through decreased traveler spending. 

4.3.12.2.1.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 98,348 acres of land would be subject to special management consideration 

for the purpose of protecting important cultural resource values. With a 162% increase in the 

amount of SRMAs and more use restrictions compared to Alternative A, this alternative provides 

the second greatest amount of cultural resource protection after Alternative E. Management 

actions under this alternative would have short- and long-term, direct and indirect, beneficial 

social impacts. Visitor experience would be positive over the short and long-term because sites 

would maintain their historic and cultural integrity. Both directly and indirectly, Native 

American tribes would maintain a connection and the unique sense of place developed around 

preservation of the cultural sites in the area. 

Alternative B would enact private and commercial group size limits and a permitting system in 

high-density cultural resource site areas. The limitations of group sizes could theoretically reduce 

visitation to the area. However, long-term visitation to these sites would likely continue to 

increase because site integrity would be maintained, providing a higher quality experience and 

thus potentially encouraging more people to visit the area. This in turn, would likely have longterm positive benefits to the local economy. 

4.3.12.2.1.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, 98,348 acres of land would be subject to special management consideration 

to protect cultural resource values. The acreage and location would be identical to Alternative B. 

Restrictions are also similar to Alternative B, with the exception of the Tank Bench SRMA, 

which would be open to geophysical work, locatable mineral entry, mineral disposal, and oil and 

gas development under standard lease terms. Minor adverse social and economic impacts could 

occur as a result of mineral extraction if operations detract from recreational visits to cultural 

sites. In addition, the potential inadvertent damage to sites as a result of mineral extraction could 

have an adverse impact on local tribes and their connection to their cultural heritage. However, 

mineral development at the implementation level would be required to comply with Section 106 

of the NHPA, which would require that development avoid, minimize, or mitigate such potential 

impacts. Other social and economic impacts would be identical to those described for Alternative 

B. 

4.3.12.2.1.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, 38,995 acres of land would be subject to special management consideration 

for the purpose of protecting cultural resource values. This is a 5% increase from Alternative A 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-425 

and a 156% decrease in acres proposed under Alternatives B, C, and E. Impacts to social and 

economic conditions from cultural resource management decisions under this alternative would 

be similar to impacts described under Alternative A. 

4.3.12.2.1.5. Alternative E 

Impacts under Alternative E would be similar to those described in Alternative B, with the 

exception that lands in the Comb Ridge SRMA that were open to oil and gas leasing subject to 

NSO stipulations would be closed to oil and gas leasing under Alternative E. This would provide 

greater restrictions for development than under Alternative B and provide a higher quality 

experience and encourage more people to visit the area. This in turn, would likely have longterm positive benefits to the local economy. 

4.3.12.2.1.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 98,348 acres of land would be subject to special management 

consideration to protect cultural resource values. The acreage and location would be identical to 

Alternative B. Restrictions are also similar to Alternative B, with the exception of the Tank 

Bench SRMA, which would be open to geophysical work, locatable mineral entry, mineral 

disposal, and oil and gas development under standard lease terms. Minor adverse social and 

economic impacts could occur as a result of mineral extraction if operations detract from 

recreational visits to cultural sites. In addition, the potential inadvertent damage to sites as a 

result of mineral extraction could have an adverse impact on local tribes and their connection to 

their cultural heritage. However, mineral development at the implementation level would be 

required to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, which would require that development avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate such potential impacts. Other social and economic impacts would be 

identical to those described for Alternative B. 

4.3.12.2.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS 

During a normal fire year the Moab Fire District averages 100 wildfires, resulting in 10,000 to 

16,000 acres each year of disturbed and potentially damaged land. The Moab Fire District 

encompasses the Monticello, Moab, and Price FOs. Most fire activity occurs in the eastern half 

of the district, although fires can occur in almost all areas of each FO. In the 25-year period 

between 1980 and 2005, approximately 74% of wildland fires occurring in the Moab Fire 

District were caused by lightning. Prior to 1995, an average of 100 fires per year burned an 

average of 10,000 acres per year. The past decade has shown a trend of increasing wildland fire, 

with an average of 130 fires each year burning an average of 16,000 acres. With specific regard 

to the Monticello PA, over a 10-year period an average of 2,000 acres are burned each year 

(personal communication between Dave Engleman, FMO Moab FO, and Laura Burch Vernon, 

SWCA, September 5, 2006). See Section 3.4 for further fire management details. 

In the upper Snake River Plain, which has similar vegetation types as the Moab Fire District, the 

average cost of wildland fire treatment was estimated to be approximately $105 per acre. The 

average cost for wildland fire suppression was estimated to be approximately $140 per acre 

(BLM 2006a). Based on an average of 2,000 acres burned per year in within the Monticello FO, 

the annual cost to suppress fires would be estimated to be $280,000. The cost of fighting fires, 

including supplies and labor, has the potential to impact the local economies. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-426 

Of the total expenditures for the fire management program, the following are estimates of 

approximate percentages spent in each category: 

• 45% variable costs 

• 30% fixed labor costs 

• 25% other suppression costs (BLM 2006a) 

Increased fire treatment and suppression activity could lead to more seasonal jobs in the region, 

as more firefighters would be needed during fire season. The fixed labor costs for suppression 

(see above) would be funneled back into the community since the firefighters are generally 

employed at a local level and thus contribute to the local economy. Areas of the economy that 

are boosted by the variable costs (50% of fire management expenditures) for treatment and 

suppression include fuel, food, lodging, maintenance, vehicles, administration, aviation, 

warehousing, and seeding. Assuming that 70% of the variable costs are spent in local 

communities (BLM 2006a), an estimated $98,000 would be funneled into the local economy 

annually. These contributions to the local economies would be distributed throughout the four 

counties comprising the Moab Fire District, including San Juan, Grand, Carbon, and Emery. 

Full suppression of increasingly larger fires could potentially result in adverse fiscal impacts to 

affected agencies and local volunteer fire departments. If future demands for firefighting services 

cannot be met by current staffing levels and budgets, the Monticello FO and other agencies that 

help fight fires on BLM lands would be adversely impacted. 

It should be noted that wildfire treatment, such as actively managing lands to reduce fuel loads, 

is less costly to agencies than fire suppression ($105 per acre versus $140 per acre). Expenditures 

for fuels treatments in the Moab Fire District (MFD), however, are currently paid almost 

exclusively to out-of-area contractors, providing only marginal direct economic benefits to the 

local economy (personal communication between Bill Stevens, MFO, and Brain Keating, MFD 

fuels specialist, June 27, 2007). Actively managing BLM lands to reduce fuel loads would 

potentially provide economic benefits associated with the reduced risk of large-scale fires that 

could damage personal property (e.g., homes) and would result in lower expenditures for fire 

suppression treatments. 

Homes and structures that are located within areas faced with wildfire threats are becoming 

increasingly susceptible to wildland fire, with an accompanying risk to lives and property. 

Communities in need of management action to reduce the threat from wildland fire on adjacent 

public lands are identified as WUIs. WUIs presently recognized within the Monticello PA 

include the communities of Blue Mountain Ranch, Natural Bridges, Bug Point, Cedar Point, 

Canyon Terrace, Boulder Point, Eastland, Ucolo, Summit Point, Montezuma Canyon, Bluff, 

Peter's Canyon, Blanding, and Monticello. Fuels treatments to reduce fuel loads in these areas 

would potentially have long-term beneficial impacts on these communities because of the 

decrease in the risk of damage to property. If there is a reduced risk of large-scale fires in WUI 

areas, people may be more likely to remain in these areas and individuals interested in remote 

locations for primary or secondary homes could be more likely to build in these areas, thus 

maintaining or increasing the populations of local communities. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-427 

4.3.12.2.3. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS 

Management decisions common to Alternatives A–D and the Proposed Plan for lands and realty 

for access, permits, transfer, acquisition, or exchanges of lands within the PA would have 

negligible impacts on socioeconomics in the county. The impacts would be negligible because 

specific lands and realty management actions would be determined to be in the interest of the 

public and would accommodate the needs of local and state governments, including the needs for 

the economy, public purposes, and community growth. 

Alternative E would prohibit land disposals and new ROWs on non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The prohibition of land transfers, exchanges, or ROW authorizations on the 

proposed 582,357 acres are not anticipated to have major impacts on socioeconomics although 

infrastructure development for revenue-generating activities such as mineral development, 

recreation, and timber harvesting would be limited to a greater extent than under Alternatives A 

– D. 

Under all Alternatives and the Proposed Plan existing leases with valid existing rights will be 

granted ROW regardless of alternative selected. Once the alternative has been implemented, new 

leases would not be entitled to ROW access. However, the ROW avoidance and exclusion areas 

tend to be closed to oil and gas leasing or No Surface Occupancy (NSO). 

Applications for filming permits limited to existing highways, roads, and pullouts throughout the 

Monticello FO would be granted under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan without further 

NEPA analysis provided they meet the criteria outlined in Table 2.1, Lands and Realty–Actions 

Common to All. Film permits that do not meet this criteria would be analyzed through the NEPA 

process. Film permits have contributed minimally to the Monticello FO in recent years. In 2005, 

six permits were issued out of the Monticello FO totaling approximately $1,050. The costs of the 

film permits were $250 per day for moving shots and $100 per day for still shots. In addition to 

the fees collected from the BLM, filming crews contribute to the local economies via sales and 

hotel taxes. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan contributions from film permits and 

expenditures by film crews while in the community would likely be similar to those currently 

experienced. 

4.3.12.2.4. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS 

A decrease in the number of acres open to grazing has the potential to negatively impact the 

lifestyle of ranchers in the community. Losses in grazing opportunities could result in lost 

income and consequently a decline in social well-being for affected ranchers and their families. 

The inability of ranchers to continue with traditional practices could potentially impact overall 

character and the way of life for residents of San Juan County. The preservation of the 

agricultural way of life is very important to members of the rural communities according to 

comments made by San Juan County residents at a workshop held by the Sonoran Institute prior 

to the development of the San Juan County Social and Economic Baseline Study in 2004. 

Reductions in ranching-based income would make it difficult for families to earn a living on 

ranching alone. Family members may have to get second jobs or work off the farm to bring in 

additional income. If ranchers are unable to continue operations, impacts to local communities 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-428 

could include loss of business activity and/or the businesses themselves and a decline in 

population if individuals have to relocate to earn a living. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the term "AUM" is used to indicate a change in available 

forage, not a change in the legally allotted grazing. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, portions of 

allotments would be unavailable for grazing. To get a sense of impacts to the permittees, the 

percentage of allotments closed was applied to the total number of AUMs under Alternative A 

(78,459 AUMs). 

4.3.12.2.4.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, all livestock grazing actions would be the same as those laid out in the 

1991 RMP, with the exceptions of new laws and regulatory policies that affect management of 

the resources under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. The forage availability and number of 

AUMs would likely continue at current levels and the economic contributions to the local 

communities would also continue at current levels. The total area open to livestock forage would 

continue to be 1,633,253 acres and the number of AUMs under Alternative A would be 78,459 

(see Table 4.120). 

Table 4.120. Grazing Impacts by Alternative 

Acres Available for 

Livestock Grazing 

% Difference from 

Alternative A 

AUMs Available for 

Livestock Grazing 

% Difference from 

Alternative A 

Alternative A 1,633,253 78,459 

Alternative B 1,620,191 -0.70 77,856 -0.08

Alternative C 1,736,589 6.30 77,898 -0.07

Alternative D 1,629,240 -0.20 78,046 -0.05

Alternative E 1,620,191 -0.70 77,856 -0.08

Proposed 

Plan 

1,621,515 -0.70 77,898 -0.08

This alternative would most closely maintain current livestock grazing conditions for permittees. 

Best professional judgment of the Monticello FO indicates that the acres open to grazing meet 

the demand of permittees. Income, jobs, sales, and tax revenue related to grazing within the 

Monticello PA would remain similar to current levels. Expenditures from ranchers contributing 

to the local economy (e.g., feed, grazing fees, veterinary costs, fuel, repairs, and labor) would be 

similar to current conditions. 

4.3.12.2.4.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, there would be a 13,062-acre reduction (0.7% decrease) in the amount of 

acreage open to livestock foraging. There would be a 0.08% decrease or 603 less AUMs than 

Alternative A (see Table 4.120). See Section 4.3.6, Livestock Grazing, for details on closures to 

livestock. 

It is not likely that 0.7% decrease in available forage would have an adverse, substantial, long- or 

short-term impact on the ranching community. Overall, the 1,620,191 acres of total forage open 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-429 

under this alternative would meet the needs of grazing permittees, similar to Alternative A. It is 

possible that a slight decrease in forage acreage may require the supplementation of feed, which 

would come at a cost to the rancher. However, the slight decrease in acres open to forage is not 

likely to impact the social conditions related to agriculture. A 0.7% decrease in the amount of 

acres open to forage would not likely result in a loss of agricultural related jobs and income; 

therefore the quality of ranching life in and around the Monticello FO would likely be unaffected 

by this resource decision under this alternative. 

4.3.12.2.4.3. Alternative C 

Compared to the other alternatives and the Proposed Plan, Alternative C has the greatest amount 

of acres open for livestock grazing with a 6.3% increase compared to the No Action Alternative - 

Alternative A. However, the amount of AUMs available under Alternative C is similar to the No 

Action Alternative with only a 0.70% decrease under the action alternative. With a 6.3% increase 

in acres available for grazing and a nearly identical amount of AUMs under Alternative C, 

compared to Alternative A, impacts to social and economic conditions would be similar to 

current conditions. 

4.3.12.2.4.4. Alternative D 

With a 0.20% decrease in the number of acres open to forage and a 0.05% decrease (or 20 

AUMs) in the number of AUMs under Alternative D, impacts to the social and economic 

conditions in San Juan County resulting from grazing would be similar to Alternative A. 

4.3.12.2.4.5. Alternative E 

Impacts to the social and economic conditions from grazing would be the same under Alternative 

E and Alternative B because the acres of forage available for livestock grazing are the same. 

4.3.12.2.4.6. Proposed Plan 

Impacts to the social and economic conditions from grazing would be similar to Alternative B as 

the amount of AUMs available are identical and the acres available for grazing increases by only 

1,324 acres (0.08%) under the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.12.2.5. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

4.3.12.2.5.1. Locatable Minerals 

Uranium-Vanadium

The number of acres open to uranium and vanadium extraction is similar under all alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan (varying less than 8%) with more than 1,520,000 acres available to 

exploration and development. Therefore, potential adverse impacts (i.e., restricting the number of 

acres open to extraction) would be negligible under Alternatives A–E and the Proposed Plan. 

Recent increases in the price of uranium have led to a substantial increase in the filing of 

uranium claims within the Monticello FO. Between FY 2004 and FY 2006, 1,972 mining claims 

were filed on BLM lands. While the exact percentage of uranium claims versus other locatable 

mineral claims is not known, it is likely that the majority of the claims filed were for uranium. In 

addition, the Mineral Potential Report indicates a high potential for the occurrence of uranium 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-430 

and vanadium in historic mining areas. While the increase in the filing of mining claims does not 

necessarily predict future development, any extraction activities would have beneficial impacts 

on local economic conditions because developers would require goods and services in nearby 

towns. 

Potential adverse effects from a dramatic increase in uranium exploration and extraction could 

include increased amount of stress on the local communities that have primarily identified 

themselves through the ranching and agriculture industries. Increases in health risks to the local 

communities could also have adverse impacts. Past uranium mining activities are currently 

suspected of increased health problems in the Monticello community. While this claim is 

currently under investigation by the Utah Department of Health, a resurgence of uranium mining 

activities could have similar adverse health impacts on the miners and members of the 

community. However, since BLM has no discretion regarding locatable mineral exploration and 

development, short of recommending areas for withdrawals, impacts resulting from this 

PRMP/FEIS would have negligible impacts on the resource. 

Other Locatables

As in the case of uranium, the extraction of other locatables such as copper, placer gold, and 

limestone would not be adversely impacted regardless of the alternative selected. This is due to 

the large number of acres open to extraction and the small amount of mining that is likely to take 

place. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the number of acres open to extraction 

exceeds 1,520,000 and varies less than 8% between alternatives (see Section 4.3.7.3, Summary 

of Locatable RFD and Salable RFD, for exact acreages). 

4.3.12.2.5.2. Salable Minerals 

Sand, gravel, building stone, and clay have a high potential for occurrence, and extraction of 

these minerals would likely occur throughout the next 15 years regardless of the alternative 

selected. Minor—or even negligible—impacts to socioeconomics would be likely because the 

operations are typically small, and the number of acres open to extraction would likely be 

adequate to accommodate demand. Alternative E has 1,167,224 acres open to development of 

salable minerals, while the other four alternatives have more than 1.2 million acres available. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, these acreages should be sufficient to meet demand 

for salable minerals (see Section 4.3.7.3, Summary of Locatable RFD and Salable RFD, for exact 

acreages). 

4.3.12.2.5.3. Leasable Minerals 

Potash and Salt

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the same minimum amount of potash and salt 

development would be expected. Given the large amount of acreage open for leasable mineral 

development (Table 4.121) it is anticipated that the number of acres open would accommodate 

the demand for potash and salt extraction. The expected level of development would not 

appreciably contribute to the economy of San Juan County. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-431 

Table 4.121. Summary of Well Potential and Acres Open to Leasing on BLM Land Per 

Alternative 

 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Potential Wells 

Acreage Open 1,238,230 1,241,910 1,348,973 1,383,283 758,930 1,227,909

% Of Total Acreage 

Open Compared to 

Alternative A 

-- 0.30 8.20 10.50 -38.70 -0.08

Total Number of 

Wells/LOP 

73 66 74 75 54 72

Total Annual Well 

Potential 

4.86 4.4 4.93 5 3.6 4.8

Oil and Gas Development

The greatest socioeconomic impacts from minerals decisions would result from changes to the 

oil and gas leasing program that currently exists in the planning area. Because of undefined 

market and non-market factors, the following analysis is based on simplified assumptions used to 

quantify general estimates of development costs, employment, production, and production 

revenue. This analysis is based on the assumptions included in Table 4.121 pertaining to the 

number of wells drilled per year, employment, production, and fiscal impacts. 

Wells Drilled per Year

This analysis is based on an estimate of potential wells drilled annually over the next 15 years. 

Given the limited range in the number of wells drilled per alternative, under Alternatives A–D 

and the Proposed Plan, on BLM land (66–75 wells over the next 15 years), a maximum of 5 

wells annually (75 wells divided by 15 years = 5) was assumed. The range between alternatives 

is 9 total wells, which would produce little overall variation between alternative impacts in terms 

of socioeconomic impacts. Alternative E proposes substantially fewer wells over the next 15 

years (54 wells or 3.6 wells drilled annually), in comparison to Alternatives A–D and the 

Proposed Plan. Given the reduced number of wells under Alternative E, the following analysis 

also considers the impacts of 3 wells per year in addition to the 5 wells per year under 

Alternatives A – D and the Proposed Plan. See Table 4.121 for average number of wells 

predicted per alternative. 

Although there are more acres open for development under Alternative B, compared to 

Alternative A the well potential is slightly lower. This is because the percentage of acres open to 

development within specific RFD areas is greater under Alternative A than Alternative B. For 

example, 98% of the Paradox Sub-basin is open to development under Alternative A and 81% is 

open to development under Alternative B. The percentage open to development impacts the total 

number of wells predicted for each RFD area throughout the next 15 years. Within the Paradox 

Sub-basin the total number of wells predicted is 25 and, because of the reduction in percentage 

open to development under Alternative B, 20 wells are predicted. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-432 

Under Alternative E there would be a 38% reduction in acres open for oil and gas leasing and a 

26% percent decrease in the predicted oil and gas wells compared to the No Action Alternative. 

This disproportionate decline can be explained by the substantial decrease in acres open for 

development in the Monument Upwarp RFD area, which has a large portion of lands with 

wilderness characteristics and a lower overall development potential when compared to the other 

alternatives. In contrast to the decline in acres open for leasing, the number of wells drilled per 

year varies slightly between Alternative E (3.6 wells) and the No Action Alternative (4.8 wells). 

Employment

The drilling and completion of an oil well requires a crew of approximately seven full-time 

employees (FTE). In addition to the crew members, there are several service and supply 

companies that contribute to well development. One oil well could involve the services of up to 

25 employees from drilling to completion. Of the total number of persons involved in the well 

production, approximately four to five live on site. The other service employees are in the area 

only temporarily and typically stay in nearby hotels on a short-term basis. It is not likely that the 

employees related to the oil and gas exploration and completion of wells within the Monticello 

FO are residents of San Juan County (personal communication between Jeff Brown, Monticello 

FO, and Laura Burch Vernon, SWCA, on August 11, 2006). 

Given the small number of wells predicted annually per alternative (five wells in Alternatives A–

D and three in Alternative E) it is reasonable to assume that the same crew and service 

professionals (or equivalent in the amount of employees) would be responsible for all three to 

five wells throughout production. This suggests that the overall contribution to San Juan County 

employment from oil well development is minimal, regardless of alternative. It is not likely that 

the employment derived from the drilling and completion of wells in the area would positively 

impact poverty or unemployment rates in San Juan County. 

The production of a single well can last up to 20 years and it is during this time that local citizens 

are employed by oil and gas companies. These oil and gas production jobs pay well (relative to 

other jobs within the county) and could employ up to 20 to 30 people throughout the life of the 

well. However, employment related to mining activities, including oil and gas development, only 

contributed 5.6% to the total employment in San Juan County in 2000 (see Section 3.13.4.2.6). 

Production

While the majority of mineral development activity currently occurring within the Monticello FO 

is oil production (493 producing oil wells versus 15 producing gas wells, per Section 3.8.2.1.1, 

Table 3.16), there is a potential for the number of gas wells to increase in demand for domestic 

production of non-renewable resources. Therefore, this analysis will look at the production of 

both oil and natural gas wells. It assumes that five wells would be drilled annually under 

Alternatives A–D and three wells under Alternative E; these wells may be any combination of oil 

or gas. 

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in January 2007 current-day oil 

price was $56.29 per 42-gallon barrel (EIA 2007). In 2004, the average yearly production per oil 

well in Utah was 7,141 barrels of oil. Potential annual revenue per oil well is $401,967, assuming 

that 7,141 barrels are recovered (7,141 × 56.29). The life of each well is estimated to be 15–20 

years. The rate of production per oil well declines approximately 10% per year after the initial 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-433 

year. Therefore, annual revenue per well would begin at $401,967 and decrease 10% per year 

throughout the life of the well. 

As of December 2006, the current natural gas price according to the EIA was $6.65 per thousand 

cubic feet (MCF) for natural gas (EIA 2007). In 2004, the average yearly production per gas well 

in the state of Utah was 75,153 MCF (EIA 2007). For analysis purposes, potential annual 

revenue per natural gas well is assumed to be at the state-wide average of $499,767 (75,153 × 

$6.65). The life of each well is estimated to be 20 years. The rate of production declines 

approximately 10% per year after the initial year, according to the Utah Department of Natural 

Resources (UDNR 2004). Therefore, the recovery value would begin at $499,767 and decline 

10% per year throughout the life of the well. 

Fiscal Impacts

The drilling and completion of wells in the Monticello FO would have an impact on local and 

state governments resulting from services provided, tax, and other revenue received. Tax and 

royalty revenue would be realized for the life of the well, with diminishing returns after 

maximum production is reached. The severance tax and royalty revenue generated from natural 

resource development depends on the amount of the commodity produced. Given the uncertainty 

of the geology and the market, the quantification of revenue is somewhat speculative. 

The severance taxes collected on mineral production are distributed within the state according to 

a formula published in state statutes. Severance tax revenues are distributed to a variety of state 

and local entities, including the state's general fund, the state highway fund, counties, cities, and 

towns. Local government entities within the Monticello FO will only benefit from a percentage 

of severance taxes collected on production within the study area. However, these entities will 

also benefit from severance taxes collected on mineral production occurring in other parts of the 

state (BLM 2003g). 

In 2002 the severance tax rate for oil and gas development on Utah lands was 3% of the value up 

to and including the first $13 per barrel for oil and $1.50 per MCF of natural gas; and 5% of the 

value above these prices. The estimated ad valorem taxes for each mineral type are based on 

production and assessed values and current tax rates. Ad valorem taxes assessed on property 

associated with oil and gas operations generate tax revenue for the counties and with respect to 

this PRMP/FEIS, the greater the number of producing wells in the Monticello FO, the greater the 

generation of property taxes associated with oil and gas extraction assets. 

Royalty revenue to the federal, state, and county governments equals approximately 12.5% of 

production revenue. The federal government returns 50% of the total royalties to the state where 

the mineral production occurs. The royalties are then distributed between the state and counties 

where the production takes place. Assuming the recovery value for one oil well is $401,967 per 

year, royalty revenues would be $50,246 per well at maximum production (401,967 × 0.125). If 

the recovery value for one natural gas well were $499,767 per year, royalty revenues would be 

$62,471 per well at maximum production (499,767 × 0.125). 

San Juan County receives a portion of federal mineral lease monies returned to the State of Utah 

by the federal government through the Permanent Community Impact Fund Board (CIB). The 

funds received by the county for infrastructure projects would likely continue in amounts similar 

to recent contributions regardless of the BLM alternative selected because CIB funding is not 

directly correlated with production by county but rather by applicant eligibility. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-434 

4.3.12.2.5.4. Alternatives A–E and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternatives A–D and the Proposed Plan impacts from oil and gas development would be 

virtually the same regardless of alternative selected because the acreage open for development 

varies by less than 11% and the estimated total wells drilled over the next 15 years varies by nine 

(see Table 4.121). Alternative E allows for less development, with 19 fewer wells than 

Alternative A and a 38.7% reduction in acres open for development. 

4.3.12.2.5.5. Alternative A 

Trends related to employment would remain unchanged as long as the wells continued to be 

drilled and produced. Throughout the next 15 years, it is assumed the FTE required to drill and 

complete the well would remain at seven, and that the approximately 25 well service employees 

would remain unchanged. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the employees 

responsible for long-term production of the oil and gas wells (approximately 30–40 employees) 

would remain the same as current conditions. Because there are so few wells anticipated per 

year, hiring additional employees to drill and produce wells probably would not be necessary as 

the current number of employees would likely be sufficient to meet the demand. Poverty and 

unemployment rates would not be positively or adversely impacted. Under all alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan, local employment resulting from oil and gas activities would continue to have 

a negligible impact on the job base in San Juan County. 

The annual estimated royalty revenue from five oil wells would be $251,225. The annual 

estimated royalty revenue from five natural gas wells would be $312,350 (Table 4.122). The 

range of economic contributions would vary depending on the combination of oil and gas wells 

that are producing annually. 

Table 4.122. Annual Estimated Royalty Revenue from Oil and Gas Development Per 

Alternative 

Royalty Revenue–Oil * Royalty Revenue–Natural Gas* 

Alternatives A–D and 

Proposed Plan: 5 wells $251,225 $312,350 

Alternative E: 3 wells $150,735 $187,410 

*Revenue at maximum production, decreasing 10% annually. 

Assuming that producing wells occur on public lands, 50% of the royalties revenues listed in 

Table 4.122 would go to the state, 10% of the royalties would go to the General Fund of the US 

Treasury, and 40% of the of royalties would go to the special purpose accounts of the 

reclamation fund (BLM 2005n). 

Production taxes, such as severance taxes and ad valorem taxes resulting from oil and gas 

development would increase or decrease in proportion to the amount of production occurring 

within San Juan County. Overall, the contributions to the local economy from production taxes 

would be similar to current contributions. Annual oil and gas lease rental would also continue to 

contribute to the economy in a similar fashion under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-435 

4.3.12.2.5.6. Alternative B 

Government revenues in the form of royalties from oil and gas production under Alternative B 

would be similar to those under Alternative A, given that the total well potential between the 

alternatives is similar (73 under Alternative A and 66 under Alternative B). Although the number 

of wells under Alternative B is slightly lower, the number of acres open for oil and gas 

development is slightly greater under Alternative B by 0.3% (see Table 4.121). Employment 

levels would remain similar to Alternative A. 

4.3.12.2.5.7. Alternative C 

Government revenues in the form of royalties from oil and gas production under Alternative C 

would be similar to those under Alternative A, given that the total well potential between the 

alternatives is similar (73 under Alternative A and 74 under Alternative C). The number of acres 

open for oil and gas development is slightly greater under Alternative C by 8.2% (see Table 

4.121). Employment levels would remain similar to Alternative A. 

4.3.12.2.5.8. Alternative D 

Government revenues in the form of royalties from oil and gas production under Alternative D 

would be similar to those under Alternative A, given that the total well potential between the 

alternatives is similar (73 under Alternative A and 75 under Alternative D). The number of acres 

open for oil and gas development is greater under Alternative D by 10.5% (see Table 4.121). 

Employment levels would remain similar to Alternative A. 

4.3.12.2.5.9. Alternative E 

Alternative E would have the greatest potential for adverse economic impacts when compared to 

the other alternatives. Government revenues in the form of royalties from oil and gas production 

under Alternative E would be less than those under Alternative A, given that the total well 

potential between the alternatives varies by 19 wells (73 under Alternative A and 54 under 

Alternative E). Compared to Alternative A, the number of acres open for oil and gas 

development is 38.7% less under Alternative E (see Table 4.121). Annual estimated royalty 

revenue generated under Alternative E would be $100,490 less for oil and $124,940 less for gas 

than Alternative A (see Table 4.122). Employment levels are unlikely to be adversely impacted 

by Alternative E because it is probable that the same number of employees would be required to 

service three wells under Alternative E as would be required to service the five wells under 

Alternatives A–D. Further, given that oil and gas development is not a major contributor to the 

local workforce and the annual reduction under Alternative E is 1.4 wells annually, it is not 

likely that local employment levels will be adversely impacted by Alternative E in comparison to 

Alternatives A–D. 

An additional potential impact to state revenues is the potential loss to SITLA from not being 

able to lease or develop lands bordered all or in part by non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The value of these lands for oil and gas leasing and/or development may be 

reduced if all or portions of BLM lands are closed to new oil and gas leasing. This in turn could 

reduce the monies collected by the state (through SITLA), including royalties and severance 

taxes. These impacts can be estimated using current data, and incorporating several assumptions. 

If one assumes that SITLA lands whose perimeter is more than fifty per cent bounded by acreage 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-436 

closed to new oil and gas leasing as a result of implementing the Alternative E would be 

unavailable for development, and using the projections of the RFD, one can project that less than 

one well (0.05) would not be drilled over the next 15 years. Using data provided by the State of 

Utah, royalty payments to wells on SITLA lands averaged $57,065 as of early 2008. Severance 

taxes averaged $9,335 for all wells, regardless of land ownership. Multiplying these figures by 

the wells assumed to not be drilled, the fiscal loss to the state would total $3,003 in royalties and 

$491 in severance taxes in any year in which all 0.05 wells would have been in operation. . This 

amount could increase over the next 15 years, as it is likely that some fraction of these wells 

would be in operation in several (or even all) years of the plan. The potential loss in jobs and 

income, given the assumptions of this section, could total 0.37 jobs and $12,678 in earnings over 

the next 15 years. 

4.3.12.2.5.10. The Proposed Plan 

Government revenues in the form of royalties from oil and gas production under the Proposed 

Plan would be similar to those under Alternative A, given that the total well potential between 

the alternatives is similar (73 under Alternative A and 72 under the Proposed Plan). The number 

of acres open for oil and gas development is slightly less under the Proposed Plan by 0.08% (see 

Table 4.121). Employment levels would remain similar to Alternative A. 

4.3.12.2.6. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

4.3.12.2.6.1. Alternatives A–D 

No actions to maintain wilderness characteristics on lands outside of WSAs are proposed under 

Alternatives A–D, resulting in no additional impacts on socioeconomics. 

4.3.12.2.6.2. Alternative E 

Alternative E manages 582,357 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to 

provide maximum protection for the qualities of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined recreation or solitude, and supplemental values where present. As with 

VRM, this resource itself is not a management tool, but relies on restrictions on other resources 

to achieve its management goals. The tools used include restrictions on vegetative and fuels 

treatments, travel management, minerals and energy, lands and realty, and recreation. These 

restrictions are identical to the restrictions discussed in Chapter 4 for each of these resources 

under Alternative D, and the socioeconomic impacts are similar for each of these resources so 

restricted. 

As with VRM management, the restrictions on development under this alternative have the 

greatest potential to restrict economic opportunities for those whose livelihood depends all or in 

part on the restricted activities. This would be particularly true in the case of minerals 

development and motorized recreation. Conversely, those whose livelihood or even sense of 

well-being depends on values associated with wilderness characteristics and primitive recreation 

would receive the greatest benefit under Alternative E. As with VRM, this alternative could 

benefit those businesses that rely on those recreational visitors who value wilderness qualities. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-437 

It is difficult to predict whether the potential socioeconomic gains described above will outweigh 

the socioeconomic losses which could result from this alternative. Managing lands for wilderness 

characteristics may have some positive benefits to the local economy, above and beyond benefits 

to individual users of these areas. There is extensive literature that argues that protecting lands as 

wilderness provides local, regional, and even national economic benefits. An example is a recent 

study published by the USFS that summarizes much of the relevant research on this topic, with a 

special emphasis on recreation. While most published research emphasizes designated 

wilderness, some of these arguments may be applicable to non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (Bowker et al. 2005). 

4.3.12.2.6.3. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness 

characteristics. Managing the 4 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to maintain their 

wilderness characteristics could have potential beneficial or adverse impacts on socioeconomics 

depending on the resource impacted. However, given the small percentage of acres to be 

managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (0.04%) it is not likely that impacts 

on resources such as minerals, livestock grazing, and recreation would have negligible impacts 

on socioeconomics. 

As mentioned in Section 4.3.8.5, Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, 79% of all 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would remain open to mineral leasing and 

development under standard or conditional surface use (CSU) or timing limitations (TL) and 

given the low number of wells projected annually (up to 5 wells) and over the next 15 years (72 

wells) based on the low RFD, it is unlikely that the restrictions would adversely impact those 

whose livelihood depends on mineral development in the area. 

Similarly, adverse impacts to OHV users are unlikely under the Proposed Plan, as 88,825 of the 

88,871 acres would be managed for OHV designated-route travel under the Proposed Plan. The 

impact on OHV users would be minor as OHV use would be allowed within 99% of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The impacts on primitive recreation users would be beneficial under the Proposed Plan, when 

compared to the No Action Alternative – Alternative A, because naturalness, solitude, and 

outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation would be preserved and enhanced from 

closure/restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and other uses on the 88,871 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, given the small amount of acreage of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics when compared to the entire planning area as well as 

the fact that OHV travel is permitted in 99% area, it is not likely that benefits to primitive 

recreation users would be minor. Those whose livelihood or even sense of well-being depends on 

values associated with wilderness characteristics and primitive recreation would receive a slight 

benefit under the Proposed Plan, but much less that under Alternative E. As with VRM, this 

alternative could benefit those businesses that rely on those recreational visitors who value 

wilderness qualities. Benefits to those businesses that rely on primitive use recreational visitors 

would be negligible to minor as a result of the designation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-438 

4.3.12.2.7. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

Proposed recreation management decisions for the Monticello FO have the potential to impact 

local and regional socioeconomic conditions. The socioeconomic impacts would primarily be in 

the form of income and employment effects in the economies that serve the recreational user. 

Future recreational uses could also affect the fiscal resources and services by the BLM and other 

government agencies. 

However, the relationship between changes in land-use decisions pertaining to recreational use 

and the associated social and economic impacts are difficult to quantify. Therefore, some 

assumptions have been made: 

• Increasing recreational opportunities could positively affect visitation, which could also 

benefit local businesses and overall traveler spending in the region. 

• Improving the recreational experience would have a positive effect on the social component 

of recreation, potentially increasing visitation. 

• Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) are intended to reduce user conflict as the 

BLM manages them more broadly for a specific recreational experience in comparison to 

focus areas. Each SRMA has been previously identified as an area where recreation issues or 

management concerns occur. SRMAs would still allow for other recreational uses within 

their boundaries but emphasize particular recreation opportunities that lie within the SRMA. 

• With increased recreational use, local businesses would benefit economically. According to a 

state-commissioned study by D.K. Shifflet & Associates, non-resident travel within Utah has 

consistently been about double that of resident tourism, measured in terms of visitor-days 

(D.F.Shifflet & Associates 2006). For 2005, for example, the study found that non-resident 

visitor days accounted for 66.2% of state-wide visitor days. Not all visitors, of course, are 

recreational visitors (e.g., business, visiting family), nor are all recreational visitors using 

BLM lands. Given the lack of other data sources, this figure seems reasonable for purpose of 

estimating visitor spending, in that non-resident visitors typically spend more per day than 

resident visitors. It is likely that this figure (66.2%) is too high for some activities and too 

low for others. 

Data on expenditures per local (defined as Utah resident) and non-local visitor day were 

obtained from the above source. That study estimated non-resident visitor spending statewide at $103 per day, with resident spending state-wide averaging $61 per day. A large part 

of the difference was due to spending on lodging, implying that many resident visitors are not 

on overnight trips, which may be representative of the planning area. 

With the trend toward increased recreation within the Monticello FO, user conflicts are likely to 

remain an issue regardless of the alternative selected. User groups, as defined in Section 4.3.8, 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, include motorized (on-road), motorized (offroad), non-motorized, non-mechanized, river floating, and specialized recreation. Increases in 

conflicts between user groups have the potential to adversely impact visitor experience in the 

area. The adverse impact to the visitor regarding their recreation experience would likely be 

short-term. However, long-term adverse impacts to the county's economy could be possible 

because users would choose to recreate in other areas where they feel they are more likely to 

have a positive recreational experience. This would contribute to a loss in traveler spending in 

the area. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-439 

4.3.12.2.7.1. Alternative A 

As stated in Section 3.13.4.2.7, tourist spending has grown slowly and consistently since the 

1990s. Under current management actions recreational use is projected to continue to follow 

existing trends. Local and regional social and economic impacts from recreation and tourism 

would be similar to those experienced currently. Visitation to local attractions would be 

anticipated to follow the existing continual growth trend. 

Employment in the travel and tourism-related industries would remain around 1,083, the number 

of tourism-related jobs reported by the Utah Division of Travel Development in 2003. Tourismrelated spending in San Juan County would total approximately $35.5 million dollars (adjusted 

for inflation), as it did in 2003. Travel and tourism-related employment would continue to 

account for approximately 15% of San Juan County's total job base. Expenditures for leisure and 

hospitality services are taxed at the local and state level and are a benefit to counties. Under 

Alternative A, tax revenue from visitor spending (i.e. hotel, restaurant, and sales tax) would 

similarly contribute to the local government's fiscal resource base. 

The number of activities impacted by launch limits and trip sizes within SRMAs would be least 

restrictive and most similar to current conditions under Alternative A. Economic contributions 

from these groups would also be similar since reductions in permits would not change under 

Alternative A. 

Under the No Action Alternative, 611,310 acres would be open to OHV use and 1,329,430 acres 

would be designated as limited. As evidenced in the Monticello FO AMS, OHV ownership has 

increased substantially throughout the last five years within San Juan County and throughout the 

state. OHV use has increased from 1,833 riders reported in 2002 to 12,060 riders in 2005, as 

discussed in Section 3.11.4.1. Despite the increase in OHV uses within the Monticello FO, the 

majority of riders stay on existing roads. The best professional judgment from BLM Monticello 

FO indicates that acres currently designated as limited, and acres designated as limited across all 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan, are sufficient in meeting the current demand and foreseeable 

future demand (personal communication between Gary Torres, Monticello FO, and Laura Burch 

Vernon, SWCA, on Sept. 7, 2006). 

This alternative would allow for OHV users to access the largest number of areas open to OHV 

compared to other alternatives and more than 1.3 million acres of routes designated as limited. 

This alternative most closely represents the current conditions for OHV access and as such it is 

likely that the economic contributions from the user group would be similar to current 

contributions. Because this alternative has the lowest number of acres designated as limited, it is 

possible that densities in OHV users on existing roads could increase, but an adverse impact to 

users and indirectly the local economies is not anticipated. Socioeconomic contributions from 

OHV use would remain similar to current conditions because the number of riders using the area 

would be similar to 2005 visitation numbers (12,060 OHV users). Contributions to the local 

economy from hotel taxes, retail, maintenance, and restaurant sales would continue along the 

current path. 

Recreational users who require or prefer motorized access would enjoy the most short-term 

benefits under Alternative A. Individuals or groups who value solitude would have fewer places 

to enjoy that did not allow motorized access, potentially decreasing their recreational experience 

and/or social well-being. Resource degradation-related impacts to soil, water quality, cultural 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-440 

resources, wildlife and scenic quality and other impacts associated with OHV use and crosscountry travel would adversely impact recreational opportunities and visitation in the long-term. 

4.3.12.2.7.2. Alternative B 

Decreases in group and trip sizes and boat launches per day or visit within SRMAs could 

decrease the number of visitors to the planning area and patrons to San Juan County 

communities. However, decreases in visitors to the area would only occur if use within the 

SRMA is at capacity. For example, during the high-water season a reduction in launch limits for 

the San Juan River may limit the number of visitors likely to run the river and patronize local 

businesses. Limits to group numbers and trip sizes in SRMAs such as Grand Gulch, where 

permit use is not currently at capacity, would not adversely impact the local economy because 

visitors would not be turned away. 

In recreation areas where use is at capacity, the decreases in group and trip sizes could result in 

lower recreation-based income and jobs and thus, adversely affect the local economy. The fiscal 

resources of the local county government would also be indirectly impacted by a decrease in 

recreational visits to the county. Expenditures for leisure and hospitability services are taxed at 

the local and state level and are a benefit to counties. It is possible that local government revenue 

from hotel, restaurant, and sales tax on goods purchased would be reduced under Alternatives B 

and E. However, because the proportion of total recreation expenditures versus expenditures 

from local residents and/or non-recreational visitors is not possible to quantify, it is generally 

concluded that a decrease in recreational use in the area would lead to a decrease in tax revenues 

for the local government. 

The 25% reduction in launch limits per year on the San Juan River would equate to a 25% 

reduction in revenues for the BLM's fee demonstration program (if the program is operating at 

capacity), thus adversely impacting services to the public. It is likely that the reduction in launch 

limits would only prohibit river users during peak season, thus limiting the amount of revenue 

generated for the fee demonstration program and local retailers. The temporary reduction in 

launch limits could have a long-term, indirect, adverse impact on local businesses because 25% 

fewer people would contribute to the local economies prior to or after river trips. However, these 

impacts would be short-term as peak flows would likely last less than one month's time. During 

low-water years and non-peak seasons when river use is not at capacity, the reduction in launch 

limits would have a negligible impact on the local economy. 

Under Alternative B, zero acres would be designated as open to OHV use, with all OHV routes 

(1,397,417) designated as limited. The number of acres designated as limited under Alternatives 

B and E are not anticipated to reduce the level of OHV travel in the planning area because the 

number of acres designated as limited would be greater than the No Action Alternative, which 

appears to meet the demand of OHV users. 

Groups or individuals who value solitude and non-motorized activities would have the most 

places to enjoy under Alternatives B and E, perhaps enhancing the visitor experience. Alternative 

B is minimally responsive to the desires of individuals and groups who feel public lands should 

remain open to motorized vehicle access, potentially detracting from their social well-being. The 

potential for adverse impacts as a result of resource degradation-related OHV use would be 

considerably less under this alternative compared to Alternatives A, C, D, and the Proposed Plan, 

thus having a long-term beneficial impact on visitation to the area. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-441 

4.3.12.2.7.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C impacts to socioeconomics from recreation would be similar to Alternative 

A given similar group and trip sizes and launch limits. Alternative C would provide more 

potential for increased visitation and economic contribution to regional economies than 

Alternative B. 

This alternative would designate 2,311 acres as open to OHV use, with 1,362,142 acres 

designated as limited for OHV use. The reduction in acres open to cross-country travel would 

have potentially adverse social impacts on those OHV users desiring an unrestricted motorized 

experience. Economic contributions to the local economy could decrease as visitors desiring 

unrestricted access choose to stop coming to the area. 

4.3.12.2.7.4. Alternative D 

Impacts to socioeconomics from recreation would greatest under Alternative D. Recreational 

opportunities would be greatest under this alternative, with a 29% increase in trip size and 11% 

increase in launch limits on the San Juan River, increased group and trip sizes throughout the 

planning area, and unlimited OHV group sizes on designated routes. Increasing access to 

recreational opportunities may increase visitation to the area and potentially increase overall 

tourist spending. The greater the number of visitors to the area, the greater the demand for goods 

and services; thus an increase in employment and spending in the tourism-based industry is 

likely. Under Alternative D, impacts to the local and regional economy would have long-term 

beneficial impacts. 

Under Alternative D, 2,311 acres would be designated as open to OHV use, with 1,780,807 acres 

limited to designated routes. The reduction in acres open to cross-country travel would have 

potentially adverse social impacts on those OHV users desiring an unrestricted motorized 

experience. Economic contributions to the local economy could decrease as visitors desiring 

unrestricted access choose to stop coming to the area. 

From a social perspective, impacts from recreation could have positive short-term effects 

because various user groups have the greatest amount of access under Alternative D. However, 

the long-term impacts of increased recreation use could be adverse, as crowding, user conflicts, 

and the degradation of the environment could detract from the visitor experience. 

4.3.12.2.7.5. Alternative E 

Alternative E includes management prescriptions to protect wilderness characteristics on 

582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The overall management 

prescriptions associated with this alternative would have a stronger emphasis on primitive, semiprimitive, and non-motorized uses than any of the other alternatives. Fewer recreational facilities 

would be developed. Expenditures by individuals who either desire increased OHV access or 

developed recreational facilities might decline relative to the other alternatives. These 

expenditure reductions could cause a loss of income and jobs in the socioeconomic study area. 

For individuals seeking more primitive and non-motorized recreational experiences, visitation 

and resulting expenditures and related economic activity, as well as satisfaction, would likely be 

greatest under this alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-442 

As discussed earlier under non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, some have argued 

that the very existence of wilderness characteristics within an area can provide economic benefits 

to the local economy. To the extent that managing additional lands to preserve wilderness 

characteristics attracts clients and employees to the planning area, there could be corresponding 

positive economic benefits to local communities. Local businesses that benefit from the 

preservation of non-WSA lands, such as Wilderness Quest, would benefit the most from 

Alternative E. 

In a recent comprehensive study completed by the USFS National Use Visitor Monitoring 

Program for the Moab FO (USFS 2007), the top four activities on BLM lands in Moab 

mentioned by respondents were (1) hiking/walking/trail running, (2) bicycling/mountain biking, 

(3) driving a passenger vehicle for pleasure, and (4) viewing natural features. Taken together, 

this accounted for more than half the responses. Given that the driving answer was in reference 

to paved roads, these results strongly suggest that OHV use is not necessarily what pushes the 

recreation economy. The described activities all could benefit from Alternative E and all these 

groups could be spending in the local economies. Although this study was done for the Moab 

FO, it does border Monticello and arguably Moab is a better known destination for OHV 

enthusiasts. The study included both resident and non-resident recreationists. 

Under Alternative E, impacts to socioeconomics from recreation would be similar to Alternative 

B, given similar group and trip sizes and launch limits. Identical to Alternative B, this alternative 

would result in the closure of 423,698 acres to cross-country OHV use and 1,359,417 would be 

designated as limited for OHV use. Whether potential economic losses resulting from restrictions 

on some recreationists would be offset or surpassed by economic gains from other types of 

recreationists cannot be predicted in this document. 

4.3.12.2.7.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan there is a 10% decrease in the amount of acres managed as SRMAs 

compared to Alternative A. This slight reduction in specific areas managed for a type and range 

of recreational activities is not likely to have an adverse or beneficial impact when compared to 

Alternative A and current socioeconomic conditions. Group sizes, trailhead allocations, and 

launch limits within SRMAs are also similar to Alternative A. See Section 4.3.10.3 for details on 

SRMA management emphases. 

Under the Proposed Plan there are considerably less acres designated as “Open” for crosscountry motorized travel in comparison to Alternative A (0 under the Proposed Plan and 611,310 

under Alternative A). The impacts of limiting the number of open-designated acres would be 

long-term direct and indirect, adverse and beneficial on recreation. Long-term, direct adverse 

effects would include the reduction in opportunities for OHV cross-country recreation-related 

travel. However, this loss would be offset by the 1,947 miles of trails proposed for OHV use in 

the Proposed Plan. The decrease in acres designated as “open” leads to fewer opportunities for 

OHV travel, as such these recreationists may reduce their visitation to the area. Reduction in 

OHV users could have an adverse impact on motorized-recreation-related outfitters and 

associated businesses. 

Long-term beneficial impacts from reducing the amount of acres open for cross-country travel 

could be realized as a reduction in OHV-related disturbances to soil, water, and wildlife habitats 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-443 

may improve long-term recreation opportunities for those who prefer non-motorized forms of 

recreation. 

4.3.12.2.8. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS 

4.3.12.2.8.1. ACECs 

Protecting the specific, identified relevance and importance values of ACECs limits activities 

that are considered incompatible with specific values and resources of concern. Specifically, 

mineral development and extraction would be limited as a result of ACEC designations. It is 

important to note the ACEC designation does not completely restrict development. Standard 

stipulations and controlled surface use are permitted in areas that do not compromise the values 

or resources of concern. Mineral development with NSO (i.e., directional drilling) is also 

permitted within ACECs. See Table 4.123 for total amount of acreage proposed per alternative. 

Table 4.123. Proposed Total Acreage of Potential ACECs by Alternative and Percentage 

Difference Compared to Alternative A 

 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Proposed 

Plan 

Acres 488,616 521,141 76,764 0 521,141 74,403

Percent -- 7% -84% -- 7% -85%

The designations of ACECs would have minor to substantial, negative impacts on minerals 

resource extraction and development across all alternatives and the Proposed Plan because they 

would exclude lands from minerals development and lower the number of locations where 

potential wells could be drilled. The lower number of locations could indirectly lead to a lower 

yield and commercial supply of oil and natural gas and fewer royalties paid to the federal 

government and/or the State of Utah. An approximate monetary impact would be difficult to 

estimate because desired future locations of development in proposed ACEC sites are unknown. 

However, the development area with the greatest number of wells projected to be drilled 

annually is the Blanding Sub-basin, with 3–13 wells drilled per year, according to the Monticello 

FO RFD. Therefore, if a proposed ACEC was within the Blanding Sub-basin there would be 

greater potential for adverse economic impacts to potential oil and gas developers and 

subsequently local and federal governments in comparison to the other development areas. The 

Paradox Fold is the development area with the second highest projected number of wells per 

year, with 1–6 wells. The Monument Upwarp is predicted to have 1–2 wells drilled per year, and 

consequently the smallest chance to be adversely impacted by the ACEC designation with 

respect to oil and gas development. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan OHV use would be allowed in ACECs on 

designated routes, although the miles of Class D roads would vary slightly between alternatives 

(see Table 4.179). Allowing OHV access within ACEC designations may be beneficial in the 

long-term for socioeconomics because opportunities would remain available for recreational 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-444 

access. Revenue generated in local communities by OHV users would be similar to current 

conditions. 

Commercial-type travel (including motorized/mechanized recreational vehicle use) within the 

planning area would be allowed under Alternatives A, B, and E, but the impacts on travel would 

be negligible because no restrictions or prohibitions are specified under these alternatives. 

Under Alternatives B, C and E and the Proposed Plan commercial-type motorized or mechanized 

tours and events would be seasonally prohibited (i.e., SRPs would not be issued) for routes 

within pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and elk crucial habitat and lambing and rutting areas; thus 

having minor short-term adverse impacts on travel. However, private motorized or mechanized 

use within ACECs would be allowed throughout the year and not subject to the seasonal 

commercial restrictions (see Section 4.3.16, Travel Management, for the proposed times when 

travel routes would be closed or limited to designated routes in order to protect these wildlife 

species). Under Alternative D there would be no private or commercial recreational travel 

restrictions through crucial wildlife habitat. 

4.3.12.2.8.2. WSAs 

The Monticello FO contains 13 WSAs totaling 386,027 acres (or approximately 21% of BLM 

lands). WSA designations would continue to apply across all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, 

including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), and would be managed in a manner that 

does not impair their suitability for congressional designation (BLM 1991c). These designations 

are non-discretionary and, thus, are beyond the scope of this EIS's analysis. 

4.3.12.2.8.3. WSR Designations 

Alternatives A and D do not recommend WSR designations. Alternatives B and E recommends 

92.4 BLM river miles be designated as WSRs including Segments #1–3 of the Colorado River, 

Indian Creek, Fable Valley, Dark Canyon, San Juan River Segments #1–5, and Arch Canyon. 

Alternative C recommends that 18.4 BLM river miles be designated as WSRs including 

Segments #2–3 of the Colorado River and Dark Canyon (see Section 4.3.14.4.3, WSRs – 

Alternative C). The Proposed Plan recommends 35 BLM river miles be designated as 

WSRincluding Segments 2 and 3 of the Colorado River, Dark Canyon and segment 5 of the San 

Juan River. 

Management prescriptions for mineral activities in riparian and floodplains within WSR 

designations do not allow surface occupancy. Therefore, Alternatives B and E would adversely 

impact mineral resource extraction and development because they propose the greatest amount of 

river miles as WSR and lower number of locations where wells could be drilled. This lower 

number of locations could potentially lead to a lower yield of oil and natural gas and fewer 

royalties paid to the federal government and/or the State of Utah. 

The designation of WSRs under Alternatives B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan could 

potentially lead to an increase in tourism revenue to the BLM and local communities, thus 

having a long-term, beneficial impact on the local economies. The designation of rivers and/or 

river segments could attract more people to the area who enjoy the type of recreation that often 

accompanies these designations (including high scenic qualities and opportunities for solitude). 

The increase in tourism based on river recreation could lead to increased revenue to local river 

running companies, increased permit revenue, and increase in tourist dollars spent within nearby 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-445 

communities. The greatest potential for an increase in tourism-related revenue would occur 

under Alternatives B and E (same amount of river miles designated) and secondly under the 

Proposed Plan. 

4.3.12.2.9. EFFECTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Socioeconomic impacts from travel-related decisions would likely result from the recreational 

use of OHVs. Impacts resulting from the closure and designation of OHV routes are discussed in 

Section 4.3.12.2.7, Effects of Recreation Decisions on Social and Economic Conditions. 

4.3.12.2.10. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS 

4.3.12.2.10.1. Alternatives A–E and the Proposed Plan 

The demand for a range of recreation opportunities would not be limited as a result of VRM 

classifications, so impacts to socioeconomics from recreational visitation would be minor under 

all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. Opportunities for recreation with high levels of scenic 

quality (in VRM Class I and II designated areas) will remain throughout WSAs, ACECs, 

SRMAs, and along WSRs. See Section 4.3.12.2.7 for more details on recreation impacts to 

socioeconomics. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan areas available for oil and gas leasing subject to 

standard or special stipulations would be managed under VRM Class III or IV objectives 

(depending on inventory), and areas that inventory as VRM Class II but are in areas open to 

leasing subject to standard or special stipulations would be managed under VRM Class III 

objectives, unless otherwise specified in the management prescriptions. Mineral activities in 

designated VRM Class I and II areas, if allowed, would be subject to at least NSO stipulations. It 

is difficult to accomplish oil and gas activities of any kind (directional or otherwise) under VRM 

Class I and II objectives. Table 4.124 illustrates the percentage and acres of land open to mineral 

development based on VRM classification. 

Alternative D would have the least amount of lands under VRM Class I and II objectives, and 

thus the most acres open for oil and gas exploration and development. Beneficial impacts to 

socioeconomics would be greatest under this alternative because developers would have the 

greatest number of acres open to standard and special stipulation leasing and the greatest amount 

of revenue potential. Impacts to socioeconomics would be slightly less under Alternative C with 

7.8% less land under VRM Class III and IV. This decrease could result in a decrease in potential 

revenue. 

Table 4.124. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative 

Class 

Alternative A/ 

VRM 

Inventory 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

VRM I 371,575 497,668 425,179 390,424 998,370 422,989

VRM II 355,112 250,641 132,001 8,838 111,478 228,041

VRM III 416,806 426,350 531,920 692,741 264,369 507,583
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-446 

Table 4.124. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative 

Class 

Alternative A/ 

VRM 

Inventory 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

VRM IV 637,875 608,463 693,995 691,119 407,459 623,002

Subtotal III and 

IV 

1,054,681 1,034,813 1,225,915 1,383,860 671,828 1,130,585

Total* 1,781,368 1,783,122 1,783,095 1,783,122 1,781,676 1,781,615

Source: BLM 2007d. 

*

Acreage figures may vary by alternative due to the changes in GIS technology and variances in shapefiles.

Compared to Alternative D, revenues from oil and gas development could be adversely 

impacted, as 17.4% fewer land would be open to leasing in designated VRM Class III and IV 

areas. Economic impacts from Alternatives B would be similar to Alternative A because there is 

only a 1.2% decrease in VRM Class III and IV areas under Alternative B. 

When compared to Alternative A, Alternative E places the greatest restrictions on development 

to protect VRM with a 21% decrease in VRM Class III and IV lands. As discussed earlier, the 

restrictions to protect visual resources are decisions within other resources that can impact visual 

quality. Restrictions under this alternative to protect scenic qualities include restrictions on 

vegetative treatments and fuels management, travel management, minerals and energy, lands and 

realty, and recreation. The restrictions on development under VRM Classes I and II under this 

alternative have the greatest potential to restrict economic opportunities for those whose 

livelihood depends all or in part on the restricted activities. This would be particularly true in the 

case of minerals development and motorized recreation. Conversely, the scenic qualities of the 

planning area that attract visitation would receive the greatest degree of protection under 

Alternative E. This could positively impact those businesses that rely on that type of recreation 

visitation, including lodging, restaurants, and outfitting. 

The exact number of oil and gas activities that would be restricted as a result of VRM Class I and 

II designation is difficult to speculate given that future proposed well locations are unknown at 

this time. Impacts to oil and gas development would occur in locations where drilling would 

have occurred absent the VRM restrictions. To the extent that VRM precludes development, 

there would be an adverse economic impact. Because such a large number of acres are open to 

development (over one million under Alternatives A–D and 671,828 under Alternative E) and 

the relatively small number of wells proposed over the next fifteen years (75 wells maximum), 

restrictions on economic opportunities would be minor to moderate depending on desired well 

locations. 

4.3.12.2.11. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

4.3.12.2.11.1. Alternative A 

In 2006 the Monticello FO issued 556 wood gathering permits. Approximately 80%–90% of the 

permits issued in a given year are to Navajos who live on the Navajo Reservation. The high 

percentage of Native American permittees is due to the fact that many use the wood for 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-447 

subsistence living. The wood is used for heating their homes and other domestic needs. The 

Navajos harvest wood on BLM lands because wood gathering is not permitted on the 

reservation. 

Management decisions under Alternative A would allow commercial and private woodland 

products harvesting within the entire planning area, except for 386,027 acres within WSAs, 

developed recreation areas, and other areas designated as excluded from harvesting. 

Accordingly, approximately 1,309,894 acres (73% of the PA) would be open to woodland 

harvest and the remaining 27% would be closed because of WSA-protection constraints under 

the IMP. There would be few restrictions on harvesting woodland resources under this 

alternative. 

Wood gathering on Cedar Mesa would continue under the No Action Alternative. Current 

conditions on Cedar Mesa illustrate the damage that unpermitted wood gathering has caused in 

the area. Cross-travel has the potential to damage to cultural sites and impair the WSA. Under 

this alternative damage to the area would likely continue. 

Identified as a tribal trust issue in the RMP scoping process, cottonwood and willow harvesting 

in riparian areas for ceremonial purposes would be allowed under all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan. 

4.3.12.2.11.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B would allow commercial and private woodland products harvesting (with 

permitted off-road travel to collect wood) on a total of 730,074 acres within designated 

woodlands harvesting zones. This would permit woodland harvesting on approximately 41% of 

the planning area, with 59% of the planning area (1,055,053 acres) closed to woodland 

harvesting for products use. The closure of 38% more of the PA, compared to Alternative A, 

could have moderate social and economic impacts on the groups that depend on wood gathering 

in area for subsistence. 

Under this alternative permitted harvesting of woodlands on a substantial portion of the planning 

area would be required. Restrictions on cross-country OHV use to gather wood could potential 

minor adverse impacts on the groups who use the vehicles gather wood in the planning area. 

Cedar Mesa would be closed to wood gathering under this alternative. Impacts to individuals 

who gather wood in this area would be adverse because current harvesting practices in the area 

would cease. Private and commercial harvesting would be accessible on Montezuma Ridge, 

approximately 40 miles away from Cedar Mesa. This would likely result in an economic 

hardship for individuals who gather wood in this area because traveling to an area 40 miles away 

would be costly (in terms of gas for vehicle and vehicle maintenance) for a population that is 

highly impoverished. 

4.3.12.2.11.3. Alternatives C and D 

Under Alternatives C and D there would be fewer number of acres (841,938) potentially 

available for woodland harvesting compared to Alternative A (47% of the planning area 

compared to 73% under Alternative A). 

Restrictions on cross-country OHV use to gather wood could have potential minor, adverse 

impacts on the groups who use the vehicles to gather wood in the planning area. Under 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-448 

Alternatives C and D 2,311 acres would be designated as open to cross-country travel (0.1% of 

the planning area). The remaining acres open to OHV use would be designated as limited to 

existing roads. 

Cedar Mesa would remain open to woodland harvesting under these alternatives. Thus, groups 

who use this area to gather wood for subsistence living would be able to continue to do so with 

restrictions on cross-country travel. 

4.3.12.2.11.4. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts to socioeconomics from woodland resources would be similar 

to the impacts discussed under Alternative B because the management actions would be similar. 

However, under Alternative E 31% (548,477 acres) of the Monticello PA would be open for 

woodland harvesting versus 41% (730,074 acres) under Alternative B. Under Alternative E, 

approximately 582,357 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the 

planning area would be protected from surface disturbances, including disturbances caused by 

woodland harvesting. 

Because Alternative E closes the greatest amount of acreage to woodland harvest, long-term, 

adverse impacts to private and commercial woodland harvesting individuals and groups would 

be greatest. Cross-country OHV restrictions would be greatest under Alternative E, with 580,772 

acres closed. Current harvesting practices would no longer be permitted on Cedar Mesa. While 

the resource would still be available under Alternative E, permittees would have to modify 

collection practices and travel longer distances to obtain wood. 

4.3.12.2.11.5. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 837,939 acres would be open to woodland harvesting (encompassing 

approximately 47% of the Monticello PA). Under this alternative, approximately 4,000 acres of 

woodlands would be unavailable for private and commercial harvesting within non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Approximately 53% of the PA (947,188 acres) would be closed 

to woodland harvesting. Opportunities for wood collection would be similar to Alternatives C 

and D. 

Restrictions on cross-country OHV use to gather wood could have potential minor, adverse 

impacts on the groups who use the vehicles to gather wood in the planning area. Under the 

Proposed Plan zero acres would be designated as open to cross-country travel. The remaining 

acres open to OHV use would be designated as limited to existing roads. 

Cedar Mesa, excluding WSA lands, would remain open to woodland harvesting under the 

Proposed Plan. Thus, groups who use this area to gather wood for subsistence living would be 

able to continue to do so with restrictions on cross-country travel. 

4.3.12.3. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Overall, the local socioeconomic conditions would not experience substantial adverse impacts 

from BLM resource management decisions under Alternatives A–D or the Proposed Plan. With 

significantly more acres closed to surface-disturbing activities under Alternative E, the potential 

for revenue generating activities, such as mineral development or OHV use, would likely result 

in decreases in contributions to the local economy. However, tourism-based revenue from 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-449 

individuals who prefer hiking, backpacking, and sight-seeing in a wilderness-like setting would 

potentially be greater under Alternative E. Many management decisions for resources such as air 

quality, fire management, health and safety, lands and realty, paleontology, soils and watersheds, 

special status species, and woodlands would have minor impacts on social and economic 

conditions. Resource management decisions for cultural resources, livestock grazing, minerals, 

non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics, recreation, special designations, travel, and visual 

resource management would have greater impact than those listed above. Population, 

employment, and local revenue would remain relatively unchanged with the implementation of 

Alternatives A–D or the Proposed Plan and may decrease slightly under Alternative E. The 

influence of proposed resource management decisions would not contribute to a substantial 

change in the economic diversity of San Juan County. See Table 2.2 for a full summary of the 

impacts to socioeconomic conditions. 

4.3.12.4. MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation measures have been identified for impacts to social, economic, and environmental 

justice conditions. 

4.3.12.5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

No unavoidable adverse impacts to social, economic, and environmental justice conditions 

resulting from resource management decisions were identified. 

4.3.12.6. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short-term use of resources in the planning area would have negligible impacts on the long-term 

social and economic health and stability in San Juan County. 

4.3.12.7. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There are no irreversible and irretrievable impacts to social, economic, and environmental justice 

conditions. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-450 

4.3.13. SOILS AND WATER RESOURCES

This section discusses impacts to soils and water resources from management actions and 

resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. The existing conditions of soils and water resources are 

described in Chapter 3. 

The Proposed Plan and all of the alternatives would impact soil and water resources within the 

Monticello PA, because all include actions that would result in surface disturbance of some kind. 

Surface disturbance would impact soils and water resources to varying degrees, depending on the 

amount, location, and type of surface disturbance; the soil type; the time of year; and the surface 

hydrology. Surface-disturbing activities that currently occur and that are expected to continue 

include grazing, oil and gas and mineral exploration and development and associated access 

routes, recreation and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and woodland harvest and other forms of 

vegetation removal and treatments. 

For the purposes of this broad scale analysis, the primary indicator of impacts to soils and water 

resources is the amount of surface disturbance caused by management decisions made for other 

resources, particularly surface disturbance that occurs in highly erodible, reclamation-limited, or 

other sensitive soils. Another important indicator of impacts to water resources is a decrease in 

water quality conditions in perennial streams, including levels of suspended sediments, sediment 

bedload, dissolved solids, nutrient loads, bacteria counts, and water temperatures. Once these 

parameters exceed the state water quality standards at a site, the perennial stream is listed on the 

303d list, which is the final indicator of poor water quality conditions. The soil limitations with 

the highest potential to impact soils and water resources are wind erodibility, water erodibility, 

and shallow root depth. All factors were analyzed and varying degrees of risk were evaluated 

with regards to these limitations. 

All soils in the Monticello PA are susceptible to accelerated erosion, but sensitive soils are more 

susceptible to impacts. Surface-disturbing activities could result in any of the following impacts 

under the Proposed Plan or any alternative: increased soil erosion and sedimentation, decreased 

soil productivity, changes to quantity and quality (e.g., salinity) of surface water and 

groundwater, loss of vegetation or prevention of revegetation, or introduction of noxious weeds 

and the attendant increases in water use (e.g., tamarisk uses large quantities of groundwater), 

and/or changes in soil chemistry and productivity. Analyses of impacts to soil and water 

resources in this section are based upon the factors contributing to site degradation and their 

inherent risks (Table 4.125), according to SSURGO soils mapping for the Monticello PA. 

Some sites are at risk of degradation because surface layer wind and/or water erodibility factors 

are high. Kw refers to the relative ease of water erosion. The slope factor accounts for the 

tendency of steeper slopes to erode more easily. The wind erodibility group refers to the relative 

ease of wind transport of surface materials. 

Other sites are at risk of degradation due to reclamation-limiting factors (i.e., factors that prevent 

soils from being fully reclaimed following surface disturbance). See Table 4.125 for a list of 

these factors. In reclamation-limited soils, one or more factors make site reclamation difficult in 

semi-arid environments, including alkalinity, droughty soils, soil rooting depth, salinity, 

available water capacity, and sodium adsorption. Available water capacity refers to the amount 

of water available for plant uptake. Salinity refers to the amount of salt within soils that can be 

dissolved in surface waters. The sodium adsorption ratio refers to the amount of sodium that can 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-451 

be held by the soils and influence nutrient uptake. Rooting depth refers to the depth of soil, 

which influences how far plant roots can grow. Finally, alkalinity refers to soil pH, which 

generally limits plants' ability to establish when it is higher (i.e., more basic). 

An important soil component often affected by surface disturbance is the biological soil crust, 

comprised of cyanobacteria, lichens and mosses. These crusts help to stabilize soils, reducing 

erosion and increasing soil productivity. Biological soil crusts have not been mapped and occur 

in a portion of the soils within the Monticello PA. 

Table 4.125. Factors Contributing to Site Degradation and Their Inherent Risks* 

Factors High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Restrictive 

Feature 

Erodibility 

Kw Factor (surface 

layer) and Slope (sl)1 

K ≥ .37, sl ≥ 10%; or

K = .20-.36, sl > 30% 

K = .20-.36, sl 10-30%; 

or K < .20, sl > 30% 

K < .20, sl 10-

30%; or sl < 10% 

Water erosion 

hazard 

Wind Erodibility Group 

(surface layer) 

1, 2 3, 4, 4L 5–8 Wind erosion hazard

Limits on Reclamation 

Available Water 

Capacity (average to 

40 inches; in/in)2 

< 0.05 0.05–0.10 0.10 < Droughty soils 

Salinity3 (mmhos/cm; 

surface layer) 

16 < 8–16 < 8 Excess salt 

Sodium Adsorption 

Ratio4 (surface layer) 

13 < 4–13 < 4 Excess sodium 

Depth to Bedrock or 

Hardpan (inches) 

< 10 10–20 20 < Rooting depth 

Alkalinity (pH of 

surface layer) 

9.0 ≤ 7.8–8.9 < 7.8 Excess alkalinity 

* Draft parameters developed by the BLM's National Science and Technology Center, SSURGO soils mapping. 

1 K Factor of surface layer adjusted for the effect of rock fragments. Slope is the maximum value for the range of slope of a soil 

component within a map unit. 

2 Maximum value for the range of available water capacity for the soil layer; inches of water per inches of soil. 

3 Maximum value for the range in soil salinity. 

4

 Maximum value for the range in sodium adsorption ratio. 

Throughout this analysis, highly erodible soils, reclamation-limited soils, and biological soil 

crusts are collectively referred to as sensitive soils. Biological soil crusts are discussed only 

qualitatively and are not included in the tables. However, any of the other soil parameters may 

overlap in any area, and so acreages presented in this analysis are not additive. For example, a 

particular acreage may have soils with shallow rooting depth as well as high wind erodibility. 

Acreages are also only approximate, due to limitations in soil mapping techniques and the 

planning area-wide scale of analysis. 

Decisions regarding the management of resources other than soil and water in the Monticello PA 

may affect soil and water resources either directly or indirectly. Those impacts may be beneficial 

or adverse, and are described below. Management decisions regarding air quality, lands and 

realty, paleontology, socioeconomics, or wildlife resources would result in negligible impacts to 

soils and water resources. The impacts would be negligible because protecting air quality, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-452 

making lands and realty decisions, allowing recreational fossil collection and scientific study of 

fossils, improving the local and regional economy, and maintaining habitat for non-listed wildlife 

species would not have surface-disturbance impacts on sensitive soils and soil crusts. Therefore, 

impacts from these management decisions were not analyzed. 

4.3.13.1. ASSUMPTIONS

For the purposes of this programmatic-level analysis, the acreages disclosed in Table 4.126 to 

4.130 are assumed to be evenly distributed across the smallest nominal geographic area 

represented in each table. The limitations of this type of broad-scale analysis are best seen in 

cases when surface disturbance is concentrated in areas that are highly sensitive. Site-specific 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of impacts to soils and water resources 

would be required before individual project implementation for projects proposed in sensitive 

soils. Refer to Table 4.125 for factors that determine inherent risk of site degradation. Areas 

where surface disturbance would occur in critical watersheds, priority sub-basins, 100-year 

floodplains, within 100 m of a natural spring, and public water reserves would need to be 

analyzed on a site-specific basis. 

The analysis of cultural resource decisions on soils and water resources was based upon acreage 

of watershed treatment allowed or not allowed due to the presence or absence of cultural 

resources. Watershed treatments would generally provide long-term beneficial impacts to soils 

and water resources. Restrictions on dogs and human waste disposal associated with cultural 

resource decisions were also considered, where dogs and human waste would adversely impact 

soils and water resources. The analysis of the impacts of fire management decisions on soils and 

water resources was based upon the acres of treatment by soil type. Due to the lack of specific 

areas designated for treatment each year under thePRMP/FEIS, the actual acreage of treatment in 

areas with soil limitations is difficult to quantify; therefore, a qualitative assessment of long-term 

impacts was made. Individual fire management projects will be analyzed at the implementation 

level with site-specific NEPA. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, all BLM-administered lands in the Monticello PA 

would be placed in one of the following oil and gas leasing stipulations categories developed in 

the RMP: standard lease terms (SLT), timing limitations (TL), controlled surface use (CSU), no 

surface occupancy (NSO), and unavailable for oil and gas leasing. Impacts related to these 

categories and conditions would depend upon surface disturbance in areas with soil limitations. 

Generally, where areas are closed to disposal of mineral materials or NSO, there would be no 

surface disturbance and thus negligible or no adverse impacts to soils and water resources. Areas 

open to mineral use under standard lease terms or timing limitations would potentially have 

short-term adverse impacts to soils and water resources where surface disturbance would occur 

in limited soils. However, under all alternatives, the relative amount of potential mineral-related 

soil disturbance and groundwater withdrawal in the planning area is minimal and, consequently, 

would likely have negligible impacts to soils and water resources. Refer to Tables 4.1 – 4.3 for 

the estimated acreages of surface disturbance related to mineral development. 

All alternatives would be subject to limits on surface disturbance related to paleontological 

resources. Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common 

invertebrate and plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use. Surface disturbance must be 

negligible, and mechanized tools may not be used; therefore, the adverse impacts to soils and 

water resources from paleontological management decisions would be negligible. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-453 

Analysis of impacts of vegetation treatments was based upon total acres of treatment and a 

qualitative assessment of how that treatment would impact watershed condition. Total acres of 

treatment by water and/or wind erodibility risk and reclamation potential are included. Direct 

impacts to soils and water resources in critical watersheds, priority sub-basins, 100-year 

floodplains, or within 100 m of a spring would require finer scale watershed hydrology data. 

Qualitative analysis of soils and watershed resource impacts was completed where these 

resources would be impacted. 

4.3.13.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES 

4.3.13.2.1. IMPACTS FROM SOILS AND WATER DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN 

AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

The BLM would manage soils and water resources to maintain watershed health and provide 

favorable conditions for water flow and maintain stable and efficient stream channels as required 

to provide for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and livestock use. All floodplains and 

riparian/wetlands would be managed in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, 

sections 303 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Maintenance of 

satisfactory watershed conditions would be required as indicated by maintenance of riparian 

proper functioning condition (PFC) and Utah's Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for 

Grazing and Recreation. Impacts Common to All Alternatives for riparian PFC were analyzed in 

Section 4.3.11.1, Riparian Resources. These management decisions would result in beneficial 

impacts to soils and water resources by protecting and restoring watershed health, healthy soils 

and good water quality conditions. 

Surface-disturbing activities that are currently occurring and are expected to continue include 

grazing, oil and gas exploration, development and production, recreation and OHV use, and 

woodland harvest/vegetation removal. As a result of surface-disturbing activities in areas having 

soils prone to wind erosion, water erosion, or with limitations on reclamation, impacts common 

to all alternatives include soil erosion, sedimentation, and impacts to surface and ground water 

quantity and quality. Surface disturbance can result in loss of vegetation or prevention of 

revegetation, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, and increased salinity in surface waters. 

Erosion control practices for slopes greater than 20% would be the same for all alternatives, as 

per Utah's Non-Point Source Management Plan (UDEQ 2000b). Careful planning of 

development to minimize impacts to soil and water is important in protecting water quality and 

soil productivity. Part of this planning includes compliance with the Utah BLM Standards for 

Rangeland Health (Appendix D). All alternatives must adhere to Rangeland Health Standards 1 

and 4: 

• Upland soils [must] exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site 

productivity, considering the soil type, climate, and landform. 

• BLM will apply and comply with water quality standards established by the State of Utah 

(R317.2) and the federal clean water and safe drinking water acts. Activities on BLM lands 

will fully support the designated beneficial uses described in the Utah Water Quality 

Standards (R317.2) for surface and groundwater. 

Surface-disturbing actions would require site-specific NEPA analysis. Actions that would not 

comply with standards 1 and 4 in the short-term would require mitigation in the form of 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-454 

reclamation and rehabilitation. This mitigation would reduce accelerated erosion; ensure water 

quality, soil productivity, and sustainability; and would result in a relative beneficial impact to 

soil and water resources. 

The BLM would manage public lands consistent with the Colorado River Salinity Control Act, 

comply with Utah's state water quality standards, and collaborate with San Juan County and local 

municipalities on management of municipal watersheds to meet local needs. Maintenance or 

improvement of soil quality and long-term soil productivity would be achieved through the 

implementation of Standards for Rangeland Health and other soil protection measures. Uses 

would be managed to minimize and mitigate damage to soils. Modification of BMPs and 

vegetation would be managed to meet water quality standards and maintain watershed function 

in Montezuma Creek, Indian Creek (Forest Service boundary to Newspaper Rock), Johnson 

Creek (and tributaries from confluence with Recapture Creek to headwaters), and Recapture 

Reservoir to achieve water quality standards and watershed function. Watershed function would 

be assessed using Utah's Rangeland Health Standards, riparian PFC, and state water quality 

standards. These actions would result in the maintenance and restoration of overall watershed 

health, including reduction of erosion, stream sedimentation, and salinization of water. 

Any surface-disturbing activity located in reclamation-limited soils (shown as high-risk in Table 

4.125) will be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis and will incorporate mitigating measures to 

minimize accelerated soil erosion and improve soil stability. 

4.3.13.2.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN 

AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Fire management under all alternatives would follow the guidelines in Utah Land-use plan 

Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management (LUP Amendment), and is incorporated by 

reference into the PRMP/FEIS (BLM 2005g). The document can be found at 

www.ut.blm.gov/fireplanning/index.htm. The impacts of fire management on soil and water 

resources would be adverse in the short-term due to increased sedimentation and increased 

runoff from areas where vegetation is removed from prescribed burns or other fuel reduction 

treatments. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur under all alternatives due to the potential 

reduction of fire severity and impacts, as well as improving the ability to control fire in and 

around treated areas. Please refer to the environmental assessment of the LUP Amendment 

(BLM 2005g) for analysis of impacts to soils and water resources related to plan implementation. 

Under all alternatives, estimated fuels reduction treatments of 5,000 to 10,000 acres per year 

would be targeted subject to budgetary constraints. Fuels reduction treatments would be designed 

to limit potential short-term adverse impacts to areas with soil limitations and limit changes in 

surface hydrology under all alternatives. The return of a more natural fire return interval would 

result in long-term beneficial impacts to soils and water resources through reduced fire severity, 

which would lower the potential for long-term loss of vegetative cover and resulting stream 

sedimentation and changes in surface hydrology due to increased runoff. The actual location of 

treatment areas will be determined based on need and individual treatments will be analyzed with 

site-specific NEPA. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-455 

4.3.13.2.3. IMPACTS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN 

AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

The management of hazardous materials under all alternatives would affect soils and water 

resources in the short-term, where Abandoned Mine Lands (AMLs) are rehabilitated. Waterquality-based AML program priority watersheds have been identified by the state based on (a) 

one or more water laws or regulations; (b) threat to public health or safety; and (c) threat to the 

environment. The rehabilitation of watersheds impacted by AMLs would result in long-term 

beneficial impacts on soils and water resources by reducing the detrimental impacts of AML 

water drainage. The impacts of these decisions would be the same under all alternatives; 

therefore, no impacts analysis was completed by alternative. 

4.3.13.2.4. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL 

ALTERNATIVES

Managing recreation to meet Utah's Rangeland Health Standards would ensure that standards for 

rangeland health are met within the recreation program, thereby beneficially impacting soil 

productivity. Limiting or controlling activities through specialized management tools, where 

long-term damage to soils or water resources by recreational uses is observed or anticipated, 

would reduce the area of existing long-term impacts to soils and water resources in the 

Monticello PA. Long-term impacts would also be reduced through revisions to recreation 

management plans and management framework plans when they prove to be inadequate to 

maintain public land health. 

OHV access for game retrieval would follow all area and route designations. (There would be no 

off-road retrieval). The public would be notified of these restrictions in the Federal Register. 

These limits on OHVs would reduce long-term adverse impacts that would otherwise result from 

motorized recreation. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, dispersed camping, while allowed where not 

specifically restricted, may be closed seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions 

warrant. The BLM would emphasize "Leave No Trace" camping and travel techniques 

throughout the Monticello PA. BLM would consider and, where appropriate, implement 

management methods to protect soils and water resources. 

4.3.13.2.5. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED 

PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Wildlife and fisheries decisions under the Proposed Plan and all of the alternatives would 

prioritize the maintenance and/or improvement of lowland riparian, wetlands, and low and high 

desert scrub communities, which are the four most important and used habitat types by migratory 

birds in the Monticello PA. It is likely that the maintenance and/or improvement of these habitats 

would have indirect benefits to soils and water resources by ensuring the ecological functions of 

these systems. Beneficial impacts to soils and water resources due to wildlife and fisheries 

management would correspond to improvement of vegetative conditions and was evaluated in 

Sections 4.3.17, Vegetation Resources, and 4.3.11, Riparian Resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-456 

4.3.13.2.6. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL 

ALTERNATIVES

Floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas would be excluded from woodland product use except for 

limited on-site collection of driftwood for campfires, and uses for Native American ceremonial 

purposes as determined on site-specific basis. Cottonwood and willow harvest would be allowed 

in areas with proper functioning condition for Native American ceremonial uses only, which 

would minimize potential adverse increases in surface water temperature due to loss of 

vegetation cover immediately adjacent to streams. Harvest would be administered under a permit 

system, where restrictions on harvest would be implemented as necessary to achieve or maintain 

PFC, and maintain or improve Threatened or Endangered Species/Special Status Species 

(TES/SSS) habitat. These actions would limit adverse impacts to soils and water resources 

resulting from vegetation disturbance in riparian areas. 

4.3.13.3. ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

4.3.13.3.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

4.3.13.3.1.1. Alternative A 

Management actions under Alternative A would not designate any CSMAs. This alternative 

would not place limitations on watershed treatments, so soils may be subject to surfacedisturbing treatments but would not experience the potential long-term beneficial impacts of 

those treatments. The disposal of human and pet waste would not be controlled within any 

CSMAs under Alternative A. Potential impacts including e-coli contamination of water and 

small amounts of soil disturbance with subsequent sedimentation would continue to occur. 

Cultural resource management under Alternative A would not limit vegetative treatments, so 

some soils would be subject to surface-disturbing treatments. Long-term adverse impacts from 

cultural resource decisions would be partially mitigated by the closure of the Grand Gulch 

Special Emphasis Area and Grand Gulch National Historic District to surface-disturbing 

activities. 

4.3.13.3.1.2. Alternative B 

Cultural Resource decision impacts on soil and water resources would be identical to those under 

Alternative A with the following exceptions: 

1) Alternative B would designate Comb Ridge (38,012 acres) and Tank Bench (2,600 acres) as 

CSMAs, and has prescriptions for Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,400 acres). 

These designations/prescriptions would prohibit surface-disturbing vegetation treatments in 

these areas. This would prevent potential short-term increases in erosion and subsequent 

potential for sedimentation in perennial watercourses. However, these limitations would also 

result in some potential long-term increases in erosion and/or sedimentation in areas where 

the restrictions prevent effective fuels management or post-fire rehabilitation. Limits on 

vegetative treatment would also reduce long-term improvement of soil productivity and 

stability that can result from vegetation management. 

2) In the Comb Ridge, Tank Bench, Beef Basin (20,300 acres), McLoyd Canyon-Moon House 

(1,600 acres) CSMA’s, and Grand Gulch NHD, human waste would be packed out, thus 

reducing the potential adverse impacts to soils and water resources from e-coli 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-457 

contamination. McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA and Grand Gulch NHD would not 

allow pack animals or pets, further limiting adverse impacts to soils and water resources 

from streambank trampling and animal waste. 

In summary, Alternative B would place limits on watershed treatments within 40,700 acres. 

These limits on watershed treatments would reduce the potential for increased erosion and 

sedimentation in the short-term, but would also prevent potential long-term benefits to watershed 

health in comparison with Alternative A. However, human waste, pets, and livestock would be 

managed with greater restrictions in CSMAs under Alternative B than under any other 

alternative, resulting in the lowest level of adverse impacts to soils and water resources from 

these sources. 

4.3.13.3.1.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C would allow surface-disturbing land treatments in Comb Ridge, Tank Bench, Beef 

Basin, and Grand Gulch (non-motorized only) (refer to Section 4.3.17, Vegetation Resources). 

This would have short- and long-term impacts identical to those described under Alternative A. 

Additionally, under Alternative C, groups larger than 20 would be required to pack out human 

waste in the Beef Basin CSMA. All human waste would be required to be packed out of the 

McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA. Qualitative analysis of impacts related to these limits was 

discussed under Alternative A. These limits would generally reduce adverse impacts to soils and 

water resources, as compared to Alternative A. 

Overall, Alternative C would limit the beneficial impacts of watershed treatments less than 

Alternative A. Human waste disposal and group size would be controlled more than under 

Alternative A, with corresponding benefits to soils and water resources. 

4.3.13.3.1.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D proposes to manage McLoyd Canyon-Moon House (1,607 acres) as a CSMA, 

where visitors would be required to pack out human waste resulting in lower adverse impacts to 

water resources in this area than under Alternative A. Grand Gulch National Historic District 

(37,388 acres) would be managed with the same prescriptions as under Alternative C. Comb 

Ridge, Tank Bench, and Beef Basin would not be managed as CSMAs, and would therefore be at 

greater risk of adverse impacts to soil and water resources due to improper human waste 

disposal. 

Overall, Alternative D would provide the fewest beneficial impacts to soils and water resources 

due to cultural resources decisions, as compared to the other action alternatives. Alternative D 

would provide more protection of soils and water resources than Alternative A, which would not 

designate any CSMAs. 

4.3.13.3.1.5. Alternative E 

Cultural resource decision impacts on soil and water resources would be identical to 

Alternative B, except that Alternative E would close the Comb Ridge CSMA (38,012 acres) and 

Beef Basin CSMA (20,300 acres) to oil and gas leasing, surface-disturbing vegetation 

treatments, and cross-country OHV use. These prescriptions would provide greater protection for 

soils and water resources than any other alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-458 

4.3.13.3.1.6. Proposed Plan 

Cultural resource decision impacts on soil and water resources under the Proposed Plan would be 

the same as those described under Alternative C except that Comb Ridge would become a 

recreation management zone within the Cedar Mesa SRMA, Tank Bench CSMA would become 

Tank Bench SRMA, Beef Basin CSMA would become Beef Basin SRMA, and McLoyd 

Canyon-Moon House (1,607 acres) would become a recreation management zone. 

4.3.13.3.2. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

Livestock grazing management decisions would affect soils and water resources when AUMs for 

livestock and/or wildlife are adjusted in response to evidence from monitoring that water quality 

or soil degradation is imminent or occurring. Depending on season of use and duration, reducing 

AUMs could have a short-term, direct, and potentially beneficial impact, as it could increase the 

area of ground cover left after the grazing season. Changes in ground cover, including biological 

soil crusts, would have direct, long-term impacts to water quality and soil productivity. 

With respect to livestock grazing, the alternatives vary between areas proposed as unavailable for 

livestock grazing. Impacts on vegetation (and subsequently, on water and soils) vary depending 

on the season of use in relation to vegetation growing seasons. For example, proper grazing in 

areas with the potential for periods of high runoff (generally due to spring runoff and late 

summer thunderstorms) would reduce or minimize the adverse impacts of these events: banks 

that retain their vegetation (due to properly managed livestock grazing) would likely be protected 

from erosion caused by high flows. 

4.3.13.3.2.1. Alternative A 

Livestock grazing would be monitored for compliance with all rangeland standards (Appendix 

D). Where monitoring shows site degradation, adaptive management of livestock use through 

changes in seasons of use and closure of areas not meeting rangeland standards would reduce 

adverse impacts to soils and water resources. 

Alternative A would have long-term indirect beneficial impacts to soil and water resources in the 

Comb Wash side canyons (Mule Canyon below U-95, Arch, Fish, Owl, and Road). These areas 

would continue to be unavailable for livestock grazing and this rest from grazing would allow 

maintenance and/or improvement of vegetation subsequently restoring soil productivity. The 

impacts of livestock grazing on soil and water resources on other allotments within the 

Monticello PA would continue to be managed in accordance with Utah Rangeland Health 

Standards. The areas unavailable for livestock grazing under Alternative A would protect 

approximately 3,000 acres of wind erodible soil, 5,600 acres of water erodible soils, and 14,600 

acres of soil with poor reclamation potential from adverse impacts due to grazing. Livestock 

grazing would continue to occur on approximately 94,500 acres of wind erodible soils, 16,300 

acres of water erodible soils, and 328,700 acres of soil with poor reclamation potential. Refer to 

Table 4.126 for comparison with other alternatives. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-459 

Table 4.126. Livestock Grazing in Soils with Limitations 

Alternative(s) Limitation Open Unavailable 

Wind 94,500 3,000 

Water 16,300 5,600 

Alternative A 

Reclamation Limited 328,700 14,600 

Wind 94,200 3,300 

Water 16,300 5,600 

Alternatives B and E 

Reclamation Limited 326,000 17,300 

Wind 94,200 3,300 

Water 16,300 5,600 

Alternative C and the 

Proposed Plan 

Reclamation Limited 326,000 17,300 

Wind 94,500 3,000 

Water 16,300 5,600 

Alternative D 

Reclamation Limited 328,500 14,800 

4.3.13.3.2.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the BLM would develop seasonal restrictions, closures, and/or forage 

utilization limits on grazing in all riparian areas and especially those Functioning at Risk. These 

actions and closures of areas to grazing would reduce adverse impacts to soils and water 

resources similarly to Alternative A. The total area with limited soils open to livestock grazing 

under Alternative B would be very slightly less than under Alternative A. Refer to Table 4.126 

for comparison of alternative impacts. For a qualitative description of the impacts of removal of 

grazing from riparian areas, see Section 4.3.11.2.2, Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on 

Riparian Resources, for Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.2.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C would have the same closure areas and management of livestock grazing, and 

therefore the same impacts, as Alternative B. The one exception would be Mule Canyon, only 

part of which would be made unavailable for grazing under Alternative C. Therefore, Alternative 

C would have very slightly more impacts on soils and watersheds than Alternatives B and A. 

However, the acreage of limited soils open to livestock grazing is nearly identical under all 

alternatives. 

4.3.13.3.2.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D would make the same areas unavailable to grazing as Alternative B, with the 

exception of the Horsehead Canyon within the Montezuma Canyon allotment, Dodge Canyon 

allotment, and Mule Canyon allotment north of U-95, all of which would be open to livestock 

grazing under Alternative D. There would be no seasonal restrictions, closures, and/or forage 

utilization limits on grazing in riparian areas classified as Functioning at Risk, so fewer 

reductions in adverse impacts would occur as compared to Alternative B. This alternative would 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-460 

have very similar impacts to sensitive soils as would occur under Alternative A (see Table 

4.126). 

4.3.13.3.2.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the total area with limited soils open and unavailable for livestock grazing 

would be the same as under Alternative B, with the same impacts to soils and water resources. 

4.3.13.3.2.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the total area with limited soils open and unavailable for livestock 

grazing would be the same as under Alternative C, with the same impacts to soils and water 

resources. 

4.3.13.3.3. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

Impacts related to mineral development would occur where sensitive soils were impacted 

through surface disturbance. These impacts include loss of vegetative cover and associated 

accelerated soil erosion, sedimentation of surface waters, and a loss of soil productivity. 

4.3.13.3.3.1. Alternative A 

Refer to Table 4.127 below for a comparison of limited soil acreage open and closed under 

Alternative A and the action alternatives. Alternative A would result in more adverse impacts to 

soils and water resources as compared to the Proposed Plan and the action alternatives, which 

have fewer acres of limited soils open to mineral development. A total of 77,600 acres of wind 

erodible; 15,000 acres of water erodible; and 217,300 acres of reclamation-limited soils would be 

open to surface-disturbing mineral leasing under Alternative A. A total of 23,500 acres of wind 

erodible; 12,800 acres of water erodible; and 85,000 acres of reclamation limited soils would be 

closed to surface-disturbing mineral leasing. It should be noted that Table 4.127 indicates areas 

open for surface-disturbing leasing; it does describe the actual predicted disturbance from 

mineral development. 

Geophysical exploration would also be allowed under Alternative A, and would potentially 

adversely impact soils and water resources in areas with limited soils in the short term. Table 

4.128 outlines estimated potential surface disturbance due to oil and gas leasing and geophysical 

exploration over the next 15 years (15 years). This surface disturbance would have potential 

long-term adverse impacts on soils and water resources where disturbance occurs in sensitive 

soils. Under Alternative A, the total potential surface disturbance due to oil and gas leasing and 

geophysical exploration would be 665, 189, and 731 acres in the Blanding Sub-basin, Monument 

Upwarp, and Paradox Fold and Fault Belt respectively. These acreages would represent less than 

1% of the total Monticello PA and disturbance would impact a very small percentage of the 

limited soils open to surface disturbance (see Table 4.127). 

4.3.13.3.3.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the following acreages of sensitive soils would be open for mineral leasing: 

74,000 acres of highly wind erodible soils; 15,100 acres of highly water erodible soils; 276,930 

acres of reclamation sensitive soils. This would be approximately 3,600 less wind erodible; 100 

more water erodible; and 59,630 less reclamation sensitive acres open to mineral leasing than 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-461 

under Alternative A. A total of 3,300 more wind erodible; 200 less water erodible; and 37,500 

less reclamation sensitive soils would be closed, as compared to Alternative A (see Table 4.127). 

The total estimated surface disturbance from oil and gas development and exploration would be 

lower under Alternative B (1,430 acres) than under Alternative A (1,585 acres), as shown in 

Table 4.128. An additional 851 acres of surface disturbance would occur over 15 years under 

Alternative B due to the development of uranium and vanadium (300 acres), placer gold (10 

acres), limestone (50 acres), sand and gravel (360), building stone (113 acres), and clay (18 

acres). This disturbance would occur under the Proposed Plan and all of the action alternatives, 

but is not expected under Alternative A (No Action). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.13 S

4-462 

Table 4.127. Acreage of Limited Soils Open and Closed to Surface-disturbing Mineral Leasing by Alterna

Alternative A Alternative B 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

Limited 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

Limited 

Wind 

open 14,000 3,800 102,900 9,600 3,300 82,230 14,300 

Blanding Sub-basin 

closed 700 400 8,200 5,000 800 27,300 300 

open 43,600 10,200 8,500 49,000 11,000 101,600 49,900 

Monument Upwarp closed 22,500 12,000 75,200 17,000 11,300 5,900 16,400 

open 20,000 1,000 105,900 15,400 800 93,100 19,276 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt 

closed 300 400 1,600 4,800 500 14,300 965 

open 77,600 15,000 217,300 74,000 15,100 276,930 83,476 

Total in Monticello PA 

closed 23,500 12,800 85,000 26,800 12,600 47,500 17,665 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.13 S

4-463 

Table 4.127. Acreage of Limited Soils Open and Closed to Surface-disturbing Mineral Leasing by Alterna

Alternative D Alternative E 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

Limited 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

Limited 

Wind 

open 14,400 3,800 99,000 9,642 3,219 78,555 11,299 

Blanding Sub-basin

closed 300 300 10,500 5,057 900 30,975 3,386 

open 50,100 12,100 108,800 8,926 4,301 41,000 41,998 

Monument Upwarp closed 1,600 10,200 51,700 57,136 17,975 119,574 24,065 

open 20,200 1,100 107,000 11,164 358 76,476 19,276 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt

closed <100 200 500 9,076 953 30,942 965 

open 84,700 17,000 314,800 29,732 7,878 196,031 72,573 

Total in Monticello PA 

closed 1,900 10,700 62,700 71,269 19,828 181,491 28,416 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.13 S

4-464 

Table 4.128. Predicted Surface Disturbance over Life of Plan From Oil and Gas Leasing and Geophysica

Alternative A Alternative B Alte

Blanding 

Sub basin 

Monument 

Upwarp 

Paradox Fold 

and Fault Belt 

Total 

Blanding 

Sub basin 

Monument 

Upwarp 

Paradox Fold 

and Fault Belt 

Total 

Blanding 

Sub basin 

Monument 

Upwarp 

Oil and gas average disturbance LOP 

394 69 236 699 363 79 194 636 395 8

Geophysical surface disturbance LOP 

271 120 495 886 249 137 408 794 271 14

Total predicted surface disturbance 

665 189 731 1,585 612 216 602 1,430 666 22
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.13 S

4-465 

Table 4.128. Predicted Surface Disturbance over Life of Plan From Oil and Gas Leasing and Geophysica

Alternative D Alternative E Prop

Blanding 

Sub basin 

Monument 

Upwarp 

Paradox Fold 

and 

Fault Belt 

Total 

Blanding 

Sub basin 

Monument 

Upwarp 

Paradox Fold 

and 

 Fault Belt 

Total 

Blanding 

Sub basin 

Monument 

Upwarp 

Oil and gas average disturbance LOP 

395 86 240 721 345 30 143 518 395 82 

Geophysical surface disturbance LOP 

271 149 504 924 237 53 301 591 271 143 

Total predicted surface disturbance 

666 235 744 1,645 582 83 444 1,109 666 225 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-466 

4.3.13.3.3.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the following approximate acreages of sensitive soils would be open to 

surface-disturbing activities related to mineral leasing: 83,476 acres of highly wind erodible 

soils; 16,443 acres of highly water erodible soils; and 311,700 acres of reclamation sensitive 

soils. This would result in potential for surface disturbance on approximately 5,876 more wind 

erodible acres; 1,443 more water erodible acres; and 94,400 more reclamation limited soils than 

under Alternative A. Approximately 17,700 wind erodible acres; 17,600 water erodible acres; 

and 65,900 reclamation-limited acres would be closed to mineral leasing. The 1,613 acres of 

total estimated surface disturbance would be greater than the 1,585 acres estimated under 

Alternative A (see Table 4.128). An additional 851 acres of surface disturbance would occur 

over 15 years under Alternative C due to the development of uranium and vanadium (300 acres), 

placer gold (10 acres), limestone (50 acres), sand and gravel (360), building stone (113 acres), 

and clay (18 acres). This disturbance would occur under the Proposed Plan and all of the action 

alternatives, but is not expected under Alternative A (No Action). 

4.3.13.3.3.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the following acreages of sensitive soils would be open to potential 

surface-disturbing activities related to mineral leasing: 84,700 acres of highly wind erodible 

soils; 17,000 acres of highly water erodible soils; and 314,800 acres of reclamation sensitive 

soils. This would result in potential adverse impacts on 7,100 more wind erodible acres; 2,000 

more water erodible acres; and 97,500 more reclamation-limited soils than under Alternative A. 

A total of 1,900 wind erodible acres; 10,700 water erodible acres; and 62,700 reclamationlimited acres would be closed to mineral leasing. An estimated total of 1,645 acres of soil 

disturbance due to minerals development and exploration would be greater than under 

Alternative A (1,585 acres) and the other action alternatives (see Table 4.128). An additional 851 

acres of surface disturbance would occur over 15 years under Alternative D due to the 

development of uranium and vanadium (300 acres), placer gold (10 acres), limestone (50 acres), 

sand and gravel (360), building stone (113 acres), and clay (18 acres). This disturbance would 

occur under the Proposed Plan and all of the action alternatives, but is not expected under 

Alternative A (No Action). 

4.3.13.3.3.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the following acreages of sensitive soils would be open for mineral leasing: 

29,732 acres of highly wind erodible soils; 7,878 acres of highly water erodible soils; and 

196,031 acres of reclamation sensitive soils. This would be approximately 47,868 less wind 

erodible; 7,122 less water erodible; and 21,269 less reclamation sensitive acres open to mineral 

leasing than under Alternative A. A total of 47,769 more wind erodible; 7,028 more water 

erodible; and 96,491 more reclamation sensitive soils would be closed, as compared to 

Alternative A. The 1,109 acres of estimated surface disturbance due to mineral development and 

exploration would be lower than under any alternative, including the 1,585 acres expected under 

Alternative A (see Table 4.128). An additional 851 acres of surface disturbance would occur 

over 15 years under Alternative E due to the development of uranium and vanadium (300 acres), 

placer gold (10 acres), limestone (50 acres), sand and gravel (360), building stone (113 acres), 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-467 

and clay (18 acres). This disturbance would occur under the Proposed Plan and all of the action 

alternatives, but is not expected under Alternative A (No Action). 

4.3.13.3.3.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the following approximate acreages of sensitive soils would be open to 

surface-disturbing activities related to mineral leasing: 72,573 acres of highly wind erodible 

soils; 14,570 acres of highly water erodible soils; and 274,712 acres of reclamation sensitive 

soils. This would result in potential for surface disturbance on approximately 5,027 less wind 

erodible acres; 460 less water erodible acres; and 57,412 more reclamation limited soils than 

under Alternative A. Approximately 28,416 wind erodible acres; 13,034 water erodible acres; 

and 102,812 reclamation-limited acres would be closed to mineral leasing. The 1,613 acres of 

total estimated surface disturbance would be greater than the 1,585 acres estimated under 

Alternative A (see Table 4.128). An additional 851 acres of surface disturbance would occur 

over 15 years under the Proposed Plan due to the development of uranium and vanadium (300 

acres), placer gold (10 acres), limestone (50 acres), sand and gravel (360), building stone (113 

acres), and clay (18 acres). This disturbance would also occur under all of the action alternatives, 

but is not expected under Alternative A (No Action). 

4.3.13.3.4. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON SOILS AND WATER

4.3.13.3.4.1. Alternatives A–D 

There would be no direct impacts from non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics decisions 

on soils and water under these alternatives, since no lands would be managed to preserve 

wilderness characteristics. Because these areas would not receive protective management, they 

may be open to adverse impacts to soils and water resources, such as additional development, 

ROWs, and surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.13.3.4.2. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, a total of 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. These areas would be closed to 

OHV use, which would reduce soil disturbance, erosion, and associated impacts to water quality. 

Lands with wilderness characteristics would also be closed to mineral leasing and disposals and 

would prohibit new road construction or ROWs, which would also reduce impacts to soils and 

water resources. Finally, lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to woodland 

harvest, thereby eliminating associated surface disturbance and associated impacts to soils and 

water resources. Therefore, Alternative E would have beneficial impacts to soils and water 

resources over approximately 582,360 more acres than any other alternative, including 

Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.4.3. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, a total of 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. These areas would 

limit OHV use to designated routes, which would reduce soil disturbance, erosion, and 

associated impacts to water quality. Lands with wilderness characteristics would also be NSO or 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-468 

closed to mineral leasing and disposals and would be avoidance or exclusion areas of ROWs, 

which would also reduce impacts to soils and water resources. Therefore, the Proposed Plan 

would have beneficial impacts to soils and water resources over approximately 88,871 more 

acres than the alternatives (including Alternative A), except for Alternative E. 

4.3.13.3.5. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

Recreation management decisions would potentially affect sensitive soils and water quality in 

critical watersheds and priority sub-basins under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives. The 

disturbance of sensitive soils (reclamation limited, highly erodible, or biological crusts) through 

surface disturbance and loss of vegetative cover in areas open to OHV use would increase the 

risk of stream sedimentation and resultant decreases in water quality. Disturbance levels would 

be relative to amount of surface disturbance and proximity to water resources. Limiting OHV use 

to designated routes would minimize adverse impacts to soils and water. Vegetation disturbance 

in riparian areas and highly erodible areas from OHV use or visitor use would increase the risk 

of water quality degradation and loss of soil productivity due to accelerated wind and water 

erosion and vegetation removal. 

Vegetation disturbance leading to increased surface runoff and alteration of erosional and 

depositional processes would occur in areas with high visitor use. Recreation permit systems 

would continue to manage visitor use in areas with sensitive soils or in riparian areas. Analysis 

of visitor use was completed under Section 4.3.11.2.4, Impacts of Recreation Decisions on 

Riparian Resources. Impacts to soils and water resources from visitor use would be at the same 

relative levels as riparian impacts. 

4.3.13.3.5.1. Alternative A 

Recreation management decisions under Alternative A would allow OHV use in sensitive soils 

with potential to disturb 36,400 acres of wind erodible, 5,700 acres of water erodible, and 

179,700 acres of reclamation-limited soils. OHV use could potentially result in short-term 

surface disturbance resulting in streambank destruction, vegetation damage, and sedimentation of 

surface waters. OHV trails could also lead to increased incidence of water erosion due to 

gullying resulting in sedimentation of streams. A total of 64,600 acres of wind erodible, 22,000 

acres of water erodible, and 199,100 acres of reclamation limited soils would be limited to 

designated routes or closed to OHV use, thus reducing adverse impacts on soils and water 

resources in closed or travel limited areas. Refer to Table 4.129 for comparison between 

alternatives. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3.13 S

4-469 

Table 4.129. OHV Use in Reclamation-Limited Soils by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternativ

 

 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

limited 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

limited 

Wind 

Water 

open 36,400 5,700 179,700 0 0 0 200 0 

All RFD areas closed 

or limited 

64,600 22,000 199,100 101,000 27,700 376,100 100,800 27,700 

Alternative D Alternative E Proposed P

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

limited 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

limited 

Wind 

Water 

open 300 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 

All RFD areas closed 

or limited 

100,700 27,700 375,800 101,000 27,700 376,100 100,936 27,703 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-470 

4.3.13.3.5.2. Alternative B 

OHV use under Alternative B would be the lowest of any alternative, along with Alternative E 

(see Table 4.129). No areas would be open to cross-country OHV use within the Monticello PA. 

This would result in 36,400 less wind erodible acres; 5,700 less water erodible; and 179,700 less 

reclamation sensitive acres where OHV use would occur on designated routes than under 

Alternative A. 

Several SRMAs would be designated under Alternative B, which would result in management 

restrictions that would impact soils and water resources. Within the San Juan River SRMA, 

launch schedules would allow approximately 30,000 user/days per year, which is 10,000 fewer 

user days than Alternative A and Alternative C, and 15,000 fewer user days than Alternative D. 

Trip size would be limited to 20 people (including crew) for both private and commercial use, 

which is fewer than any other alternative. These management actions would reduce adverse 

impacts due to visitor use more than any other alternative (except Alternative E, which would 

have the same management). Camping permits would be less than any other alternative in the 

Grand Gulch Plateau (Cedar Mesa) In-Canyon Camping Area, resulting in the greatest amount of 

soil and water resources protection of any alternative. Levels of camping are shown in the 

Alternatives Matrix. The Dark Canyon SRMA would allow fewer commercial permits than 

under any alternative. Camping in designated sites would be allowed and dispersed camping 

would not be allowed. Group size would be limited to 10–12 with 15 private users per day in the 

canyon. Alternative A would not have any user limits within the Dark Canyon SRMA. Limits on 

group size and number of commercial permits would reduce bank trampling, human waste 

(e-coli), and noxious weed spread in regulated areas. These actions would result in a reduction of 

surface and vegetation disturbance due to human use, thus having the highest level of protection 

for soils and water resources of any alternative. Dispersed camping would not be allowed in the 

Indian Creek Corridor. Camping would only be allowed in designated sites resulting in fewer 

impacts to riparian resources than any alternative. 

4.3.13.3.5.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C very few areas would be open to OHV use within the Monticello PA. This 

would result in 36,200 less wind erodible acres; 5,700 less water erodible acres; and 179,400 less 

reclamation sensitive acres subject to impacts from OHV use than under Alternative A. Areas 

closed to OHV use and limited to designated routes would be nearly the same as under 

Alternative B (see Section 4.3.13.2.4). By reducing OHV use to designated trails and closing 

some areas to OHV use, Alternative C would have the similar levels of impact to sensitive soils 

as Alternative B, and far fewer than Alternative A (see Table 4.129). 

The San Juan SRMA would be designated with similar management as under Alternative A. 

Launch limits would allow approximately 40,000 user/days per year, which is the same as under 

Alternative A. Alternative C would allow fewer user days than Alternative D and more user days 

than Alternatives B and E. Trip size would be limited to 25 people (including crew) total for both 

private and commercial trips, which is fewer than Alternative A and Alternative D, and more 

than Alternatives B and E. Refer to discussion in Alternative A for impacts related to soil and 

vegetation disturbance from visitor use. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-471 

The camping numbers in Grand Gulch Plateau (Cedar Mesa) In-Canyon Camping Area would be 

more than Alternatives B and E and less than Alternative A and Alternative D, as reflected in the 

Alternatives Matrix. Camping in designated sites would be allowed in the Dark Canyon SRMA. 

Group size would be limited to 15 with up to 20 private users per day. These limits would protect 

soils and water resources from adverse impacts due to visitor use more than Alternative A and 

Alternative D (which would not designate camping limits) and less than Alternatives B and E. 

Dispersed camping would be allowed in the Indian Creek Corridor except for within the 

following designated dispersed camping zones that have been established: Bridger Jack Mesa, 

Indian Creek Falls, and Creek Pasture. Camping within these zones would be limited to 

designated sites. These limits on camping would protect soils and water resources more than 

Alternative A and Alternative D and less than Alternative B. 

Overall, Alternative C would provide more protection of soils and water resources due to 

management actions for recreation than Alternative A and Alternative D and less protection than 

under Alternatives B and E. 

4.3.13.3.5.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, 300 acres of wind erodible and 300 acres of reclamation limited soils 

would be open to OHV use within the Monticello PA. This would be 36,100 less wind erodible 

acres; 5,700 less water erodible; and 179,400 less reclamation-limited acres open to OHV use 

than under Alternative A. There would be no areas closed to OHV use under Alternative D, but 

nearly all OHV use would be limited to designated routes (see Section 4.3.13.2.4). By reducing 

OHV use to designated trails, Alternative D would have the similar levels of use within sensitive 

soils as Alternative B, and far fewer than Alternative A (see Table 4.129). 

Alternative D would allow approximately 45,000 user/days per year, private and commercial 

trips combined within the San Juan SRMA, which would result in a higher level of use than 

under any other alternative. Trip size would be increased to a maximum of 35 people per trip for 

both private and commercial use, which would be more people per trip than any other 

alternative. Camping permit numbers in the Grand Gulch Plateau (Cedar Mesa) In-Canyon 

Camping Area would be greater than Alternatives B, C, and E and fewer than under Alternative 

A, as reflected in the Alternatives Matrix. Dispersed camping would be allowed in the Dark 

Canyon SRMA, resulting in the same impacts as under Alternative A. The group size would be 

the same as Alternative C, with no limits on private user numbers. Dispersed camping would be 

allowed throughout the Indian Creek corridor, which would provide the lowest amount of 

protection of soils and water resources of any alternative. 

Overall, Alternative D would provide the lowest level of protection for soils and water resources 

due to recreation decisions than any action alternative but a higher level of protection than under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.5.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of recreation decisions on soils and water resources would be 

the same as under Alternative B, except that no OHV travel would be allowed within non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics (582,360 acres). By reducing OHV use to designated routes 

and closing the highest overall acreage to OHV use of any alternative (958,410 acres), 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-472 

Alternative E would have the lowest use levels, and consequently, the lowest OHV-related soils 

impacts within designated recreation areas, of any alternative. 

4.3.13.3.5.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of recreation decisions on soils and water resources would 

be the same as under Alternative C, except that OHV travel would be limited to designated 

routes within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (88,871 acres). By reducing OHV 

use to designated routes the Proposed Plan would have the second lowest use levels, and 

consequently, the second lowest OHV-related soils impacts within designated recreation areas, 

as compared to the alternatives. 

4.3.13.3.6. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

4.3.13.3.6.1. Alternative A 

Alternative A would limit surface disturbance in riparian areas, and would thereby limit adverse 

impacts to soils and water resources, since riparian areas naturally filter surface runoff and 

attenuate floods. Reduction of floods would limit the amount of erosion and sedimentation of 

water bodies. 

All floodplains and riparian/wetlands are managed in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 

and 11990, sections 303 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, thus 

protecting riparian areas from impacts related to surface disturbance. These protections would 

indirectly reduce adverse impacts to soils and water resources by reducing sedimentation and 

salinization of water. 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas development would be No Surface Occupancy (NSO) in 

riparian areas. The Monticello PA would follow Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing and Recreation Management to achieve riparian PFC. No new surfacedisturbing activities would be allowed within active floodplains or within 100 m of riparian 

areas. These actions would protect soils and water resources from adverse impacts due to surface 

disturbance. 

4.3.13.3.6.2. Alternative B 

Impacts under Alternative B would be the same as under Alternative A except that selected areas 

would be closed to motorized use and livestock trailing, which would result in minor beneficial 

reductions in impacts to soils and water resources. 

4.3.13.3.6.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of riparian decisions would be the same as under Alternative B. 

4.3.13.3.6.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of riparian decisions would be the same as under 

Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-473 

4.3.13.3.6.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of riparian decisions would be the same as under Alternative B. 

4.3.13.3.6.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of riparian decisions would be the same as under 

Alternative B. 

4.3.13.3.7. IMPACTS OF SOILS AND WATER DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

In addition to those impacts common to all alternatives described in Section 4.3.13.2, soils and 

water decisions specific to each alternative would also affect soils and water resources. 

4.3.13.3.7.1. Alternative A 

There would be no additional impacts under Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.7.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, soil erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation would be beneficially 

reduced by stipulations requiring that erosion control plans be developed for surface-disturbing 

activities on slopes greater than 20%. These measures would reduce erosion and sedimentation 

relative to Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.7.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, soil erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation would be beneficially 

reduced by stipulations requiring that erosion control plans be developed for surface-disturbing 

activities on slopes greater than 20%, and that surface disturbance be limited on slopes greater 

than 40%. These measures would reduce erosion and sedimentation relative to Alternatives A 

and B. 

4.3.13.3.7.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, soil erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation would be beneficially 

reduced by stipulations requiring that erosion control plans be developed for surface-disturbing 

activities on slopes greater than 40%. These measures would reduce erosion and sedimentation 

relative to Alternatives A. 

4.3.13.3.7.5. Alternative E 

Impacts under Alternative E would be the same as under Alternative B, except that additional 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities would apply within non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Therefore, impacts to soils and water resources would be less adverse under 

Alternative E than under any other alternative. 

4.3.13.3.7.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of soils and water resources decisions would be the same 

as under Alternative C. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-474 

4.3.13.3.8. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

Special Designations would generally reduce adverse impacts to floodplains, soils, and water 

resources through limits on surface disturbance within Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs) and river segments designated as Wild and Scenic under the National Wild and Scenic 

River System (NWSRS). Short-term adverse impacts to soils and water resources would occur in 

areas where vegetation treatments are allowed within special designations. Allowing vegetation 

treatments would result in increased sedimentation in the short-term, but would provide longterm beneficial impacts on soils and water resources by improving vegetation cover and health. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, ACEC designation would generally require areas 

with surface disturbance to be reclaimed using BMP’s after project completion. This would 

reduce any long-term adverse impacts to soils and water resources. The total acreage of limited 

soils in ACECs by alternative is shown in Table 4.130 below. Short-term adverse impacts would 

still occur due to any surface-disturbing activities in these areas, but effective reclamation would 

prevent these impacts from being long-term. Additionally, OHV use would generally be limited 

to designated trails or prohibited, thus reducing adverse impacts as discussed under Section 

4.3.13.2.4, Impacts of Recreation Decisions Common to All Alternatives. 

Table 4.130. ACEC Special Designations in Limited Soils, by Alternative

Alternative A Alternatives B Alternative C Wind Water Reclamation limited Wind Water Reclamation limited Wind Water 

Reclamation 

limited 

ACECs 9,400 12,200 91,400 9,200 11,200 100,000 300 600 14,100

Alternative D Alternatives E Proposed Plan 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

limited 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

limited 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

limited 

ACECs 0 0 0 9,200 11,200 100,000 300 600 14,100

4.3.13.3.8.1. Alternative A 

A total of 9,400 acres of wind erodible soils; 12,200 acres of water erodible soils; and 91,400 

acres of reclamation-limited soils would be within designated ACECs under Alternative A (see 

Table 4.130). These designations would generally reduce impacts to soils and water resources 

due to surface disturbance, as described above. 

The designation of river segments as Wild and Scenic would not be evaluated under Alternative 

A. River segments determined eligible for designation in the 1991 RMP would retain protections 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-475 

from surface disturbance, thus limiting adverse impacts. River segments not evaluated in the 

1991 RMP would not be protected from surface disturbance and its impacts. 

4.3.13.3.8.2. Alternative B 

Designation of ACECs and Wild and Scenic river segments proposed under Alternative B would 

limit surface disturbance on 9,200 acres of wind erodible; 11,185 acres of water erodible; and 

100,000 acres of reclamation limited soils. This would result in protection of 200 fewer acres of 

wind erodible; 1,000 fewer acres of water erodible; and 8,600 more acres of reclamation limited 

soils, as compared to the Alternative A. However, the management prescriptions of special 

designations under Alternative B are generally slightly more protective than under Alternative A. 

Management of Wild and Scenic Rivers under Alternative B would recommend Dark Canyon 

(2,048 acres) and San Juan River Wild Segments #3 and #5 (4,896 acres) as Wild under the 

WSR system. These designations would limit surface disturbance within the river corridors at 

these locations. These actions would provide more long-term protection of soils and water 

resources than Alternative A, which would not designate any Wild river segments. 

The designations proposed under Alternative B would result in the protection of more acres of 

reclamation limited soils and biological soil crusts than Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.8.3. Alternative C 

Designation of ACECs and Wild and Scenic river segments proposed under Alternative C would 

limit surface disturbance on 300 acres of wind erodible; 600 acres of water erodible; and 14,100 

acres of reclamation limited soils. These designations would result in less protection for soils and 

water resources than under Alternative A (see Table 4.130). 

Management of Wild and Scenic Rivers under Alternative C would recommend Dark Canyon 

(2,048 acres) as Wild under the WSR system, as well as sections of the Colorado River that were 

already determined to be eligible. This designation would limit surface disturbance within the 

river corridor. These limits on surface disturbance would provide more long-term protection of 

soils and water resources than Alternative A, which would not designate any Wild river 

segments. 

The designations proposed under Alternative C would result in the protection of fewer acres of 

reclamation limited soils and biological soil crusts than Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.8.4. Alternative D 

There would be no special designations under Alternative D. No reduction in adverse impacts 

would occur under this alternative, resulting in the lowest level of protection from adverse 

impacts. 

4.3.13.3.8.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of special designations decisions on soils and water resources 

would be the same as under Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-476 

4.3.13.3.8.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of special designations decisions on soil and water 

resources would be the same as under Alternative C. 

4.3.13.3.9. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

The management of special status species under all alternatives would generally be positive 

where soils are indirectly protected from disturbance due to protections for TES. Where 

treatments are limited due to the presence of TES, impacts could be beneficial or adverse. 

4.3.13.3.9.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would conduct inventories and monitoring studies in order to 

determine special status plant and animal species locations, potential habitat, population 

dynamics, and existing and potential threats. Beneficial impacts would occur where riparian 

areas and waterways would be protected through implementation of current and future sensitive 

species Conservation Agreements. These agreements include the Colorado River cutthroat trout 

Conservation Agreement and Strategy and Conservation Agreement for the roundtail chub, 

bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth sucker. 

Specific actions to improve habitat for some TES would likely result in beneficial impacts on 

soils and water resources due to improvement of natural water filtration and increased water 

holding capacity of natural vegetation. Limits on surface disturbance would reduce adverse 

impacts due to loss of vegetation and its natural water filtration and flood attenuation properties. 

The protections of Bald eagle winter roosting sites, including avoidance of disturbance to or loss 

of large cottonwood gallery riparian habitats, would reduce adverse impacts to soils and water 

resources by maintaining the natural filtration of these areas. Where riparian gallery habitats are 

lost, adverse impacts to soils and water resources would be due to increased runoff and lack of 

filtration of surface waters. Bald Eagle protection would also require avoidance of surface 

disturbance in riparian areas, with the same impacts as discussed above. The protections for 

Mexican Spotted Owls (MSO) would require any activity that includes water production would 

be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat, thus reducing adverse 

impacts to soils and water resources. 

Any BLM lands that contains riparian habitat within the range of Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher or Yellow-billed Cuckoos would be managed to avoid development and/or implement 

use restrictions. The BLM would ensure that water extraction or disposal practices do not result 

in change of hydrologic regime that would result in loss or degradation of riparian habitat. 

Revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas within riparian areas and adjacent uplands would be 

done with native species or ecological equivalents. These actions or limits on disturbance would 

reduce the adverse impacts of disturbance to soils and water resources as discussed above. 

Avoidance of development and/or use restrictions within BLM areas, watersheds, or tributaries 

to Designated Critical Habitat for the Colorado River fish (bonytail, humpback chub, Colorado 

pikeminnow, and razorback sucker) would also result in reduction of adverse impacts to soils 

and water resources. Finally, limits on water depletions to protect special status fish would also 

result in reduction of adverse impacts such as reduced spring flood magnitudes or less frequent 

floodplain inundation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-477 

4.3.13.3.9.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of special status species decisions would be the same as under 

Alternative A, except that there would be minor additional protective measures within Gunnison 

Sage-grouse and Mexican Spotted Owl habitat that would also benefit soils and watersheds, such 

as prohibitions on road construction within 2 miles of active strutting grounds. These additional 

measures would have a minor impact on soils, but would have a greater benefit than under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.9.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of special status species decisions would be the same as under 

Alternative A, except that there would be minor additional protective measures within Gunnison 

Sage-grouse and Mexican Spotted Owl habitat that would also benefit soils and watersheds, such 

as NSO leasing stipulations and prohibitions on road construction within 0.6 miles of active 

strutting grounds. These additional measures would have a minor impact on soils, but would 

have a greater benefit than under Alternatives A and D. They would have a less beneficial impact 

than Alternatives B and E. 

4.3.13.3.9.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of special status species decisions would be the same as under 

Alternative A, except that there would be negligible, additional protective measures within 

Gunnison Sage-grouse and Mexican Spotted Owl habitat that would also benefit soils and 

watershed, such as prohibitions on road construction within 0.25 miles of active strutting 

grounds. These additional measures would have a negligible beneficial impact on soils. 

4.3.13.3.9.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of special status species decisions would be the same as under 

Alternative B. 

4.3.13.3.9.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of special status species decisions would be the same as 

under Alternative C 

4.3.13.3.10. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

Vegetation treatments would potentially impact soils and water resources through changes in 

vegetation type and canopy cover, and the resulting shifts in water runoff and erosion. 

Vegetation treatments would potentially increase surface water temperature due to lost 

vegetation cover adjacent to streams, which would be an adverse impact on water resources. 

Surface-disturbing vegetation treatments could also result in increased erosion and stream 

sedimentation. Analysis of beneficial impacts of vegetation treatments was based upon total 

acres of treatment that improves watershed condition. 

4.3.13.3.10.1. Alternative A 

 Under Alternative A, existing vegetation treatment would continue on 232,100 acres. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-478 

4.3.13.3.10.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the impacts from vegetation management decisions would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A. Alternative B would result in approximately 7,600 acres of 

vegetation treatments per year, or a total of 114,000 acres over 15 years. This is approximately 

118,100 fewer acres of vegetation treatments than Alternative A, and would therefore result in 

fewer short-term adverse impacts and fewer long-term beneficial impacts to soils and water 

resources. 

4.3.13.3.10.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts from vegetation management decisions would be similar to 

those described under Alternative B. Alternative C would result in approximately 9,300 acres of 

vegetation treatments per year, or a total of 139,500 acres over 15 years. This is approximately 

92,600 fewer acres of vegetation treatments than Alternative A, and would therefore result in 

fewer short-term adverse impacts and fewer long-term beneficial impacts to soils and water 

resources. 

4.3.13.3.10.4. Alternative D 

The impacts from vegetation management decisions under Alternative D would be similar to 

those described under Alternative B. Alternative D would result in approximately 11,300 acres 

of vegetation treatments per year, or a total of 169,500 acres over 15 years. This is approximately 

62,600 fewer acres of vegetation treatments than Alternative A, and would therefore result in 

fewer short-term adverse impacts and fewer long-term beneficial impacts to soils and water 

resources. 

4.3.13.3.10.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on soils and water 

resources would be the same as under Alternative B except that no new land treatments would be 

allowed in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.13.3.10.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on soils and water 

resources would be the same as under Alternative C. 

4.3.13.3.11. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

The designation of VRM classes would result in indirect impacts to soil and water resources 

depending on the type of surface-disturbing activity that these classes would allow. For example, 

VRM Class I would stipulate NSO and would limit potentially adverse surface-disturbing 

activities in order to protect scenic quality, whereas VRM Class II would stipulate that 

management activities not alter landforms, but would not necessarily limit surface-disturbing 

activities. For the purpose of this analysis, the potential impacts of VRM designation are 

evaluated based on the acreage of each limited soil type that would be protected by being within 

areas designated as VRM Class I and II. These acreages, by alternative, are listed in Table 4.131. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-479 

4.3.13.3.11.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, approximately 36,050 acres of wind erodible, 16,015 acres of water 

erodible, and 140,071 acres of reclamation limited soils would be designated as VRM Class I 

and II. Approximately 64,840 acres wind erodible, 11,512 water erodible, and 235,592 acres 

reclamation limited soils would be designated as VRM Class III and IV, and therefore would be 

at greater risk of adverse impacts due to surface disturbances. 

4.3.13.3.11.2. Alternative B 

Visual resource management under Alternative B would designate 34,539 acres of wind 

erodible; 16,331 acres of water erodible; and 135,232 acres of reclamation limited soils as VRM 

Class I and II. This would result in the protection of 1,511 fewer wind erodible acres; 316 more 

water erodible acres; and 4,839 fewer reclamation-limited acres than under Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.11.3. Alternative C 

Visual resource management under Alternative C would designate 28,622 acres of wind 

erodible; 12,879 acres of water erodible; and 105,081 acres of reclamation limited soils as VRM 

Class I and II. This would be 7,428 fewer wind erodible acres; 3,136 fewer water erodible acres; 

and 34,990 fewer reclamation-limited acres designated as VRM Class I and II than under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.11.4. Alternative D 

Visual resource management under Alternative D would designate approximately 16,584 acres 

of wind erodible; 10,746 acres of water erodible; and 60,502 acres of reclamation limited soils as 

VRM Class I and II. This would be 19,466 fewer wind erodible acres; 5,269 fewer water 

erodible acres; and 79,569 fewer reclamation-limited acres designated as VRM Class I and II 

than under Alternative A (see Section 4.3.18, Visual Resources, for a qualitative description of 

the impacts of VRM). 

4.3.13.3.11.5. Alternative E 

Visual resource management under Alternative E would designate 72,796 acres of wind erodible; 

21,164 acres of water erodible; and 199,099 acres of reclamation limited soils as VRM Class I 

and II. This would result in the protection of 36,746 more wind erodible acres; 5,149 more water 

erodible acres; and 59,028 more reclamation-limited acres than under Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3.11.6. Proposed Plan 

Visual resource management under the Proposed Plan would designate 38,135 acres of wind 

erodible; 14,085 acres of water erodible; and 124,767 acres of reclamation limited soils as VRM 

Class I and II. This would be 2,085 more wind erodible acres; 1,930 fewer water erodible acres; 

and 15,304 fewer reclamation-limited acres designated as VRM Class I and II than under 

Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-480 

Table 4.131. VRM Designation - Limited Soils by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

VRM 

I and II 

(acres) 

36,050 16,015 140,071 34,539 16,331 135,232 28,622 12,879 105,081

VRM 

III and IV 

(acres) 

64,840 11,512 235,592 66,390 11,362 240,503 72,304 14,813 270,630

Alternative D Alternative E Proposed Plan 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

Wind 

Water 

Reclamation 

VRM 

I and II 

(acres) 

16,584 10,746 60,502 72,796 21,164 199,099 38,135 14,085 124,767 

VRM 

III and IV 

(acres) 

84,590 16,952 315,186 28,118 6,529 176,631 62,770 13,605 250,934 

4.3.13.3.12. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON SOILS AND WATER

Potential impacts to soils and water resources from woodlands decisions may result from an 

increased risk of excessive vegetation removal, surface disturbance, soil compaction, and 

hydrological changes in areas open to woodland harvest. This risk would be due to the potential 

for surface disturbance from motorized vehicles and foot traffic during wood gatherings, as well 

as the loss of woody shrub and forest vegetation from areas, particularly those areas with 

sensitive and/or highly erodible soils. 

4.3.13.3.12.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, a total of 1,309,894 acres of the Monticello PA would be open to woodland 

harvest. Therefore, Alternative A would result in the highest risk of impacts to soils and water 

resources (Table 4.132), as described above. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-481 

Table 4.132. Acres of Soils Available for Woodland Harvesting, By Alternative

 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Available for 

Woodland 

Harvesting 

(Acres) 

1,309,894 730,074 841,938 841,938 548,477 837,939 

4.3.13.3.12.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, a total of 730,074 acres would be open to woodland harvest, or 579,820 

fewer acres than under Alternative A. Therefore, Alternative B would result in a lower risk of 

adverse impacts to soils and water resources, as described above. 

4.3.13.3.12.3. Alternatives C and D 

Under Alternatives C and D, a total of 841,938 acres would be open to woodland harvest, or 

467,956 fewer acres than under Alternative A. Therefore, Alternatives C and D would result in a 

lower risk of adverse impacts to soils and water resources, as described above. 

4.3.13.3.12.4. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, a total of 548,477 acres would be open to woodland harvest, or 761,417 

fewer acres than under Alternative A. Therefore, Alternative E would result in a lower risk of 

adverse impacts to soils and water resources, as described above. 

4.3.13.3.12.5. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, a total of 837,939 acres would be open to woodland harvest, or 

471,955 fewer acres than under Alternative A. Therefore, the Proposed Plan would result in a 

lower risk of adverse impacts to soils and water resources, as described above. 

4.3.13.4. MITIGATION MEASURES

Any activity with potential for surface disturbance would be required to follow stipulations as 

outlined in Appendix A and Appendix I. These surface stipulations would protect soils and water 

resources by requiring Best Management Practices (BMPs) for all activities in limited soils or on 

slopes greater than 20%. The use of BMPs would limit adverse impacts to soils and water 

resources. 

4.3.13.5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts would include short-term, increased erosion and sedimentation and 

short-term nutrient release to surface waters due to prescribed burning and vegetation treatments; 

increases in surface water temperature due to vegetation cover lost because of vegetation 

treatment and woodland harvesting immediately adjacent to streams; and loss of soils 

productivity and water quality degradation due to surface disturbances caused by proposed oil 

and gas exploration, development, and production. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-482 

4.3.13.6. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Livestock grazing would provide a short-term economic benefit for the livestock industry that 

would not affect the long-term soil productivity of soils and water if Rangeland Standards and 

Guides are met as detailed in Chapter 2 Management Common to All. Similarly, minerals 

development, recreation, and OHV use would provide a short-term economic benefit to the 

tourism industry and would not affect long-term soil productivity and water quality if appropriate 

applicant committed measures and Chapter 2`s Management Common to All is effectively 

implemented. However, where surface-disturbing activities in reclamation-limited soils cannot 

be mitigated successfully or reclaimed, some long-term loss of soil productivity could result. 

4.3.13.7. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Drilling of oil and gas wells would result in a long-term loss of that soil productivity within 

wellpad, wellpad infrastructure, and access roads during the productive life of the well. Areas 

dedicated to cross country or concentrated OHV use may not be able to be completely restored 

due to erosion, and some small irretrievable losses of soil may occur. None of the adverse 

impacts would be irreversible because soils and water productivity could be restored in the longterm. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-483 

4.3.14. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

Impacts from the various alternatives related to values associated with Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs), Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), and Wilderness Study Areas 

(WSAs) are described in this section. 

In general, management of specially designated areas is focused on allowing those uses and 

activities that are considered compatible with the specific, special resources of concern, while 

restricting those uses and activities that would impact those identified value(s). In the case of 

ACECs, the management focuses on protecting specific, identified relevant and important values, 

resources, and natural systems, or managing natural hazards. 

For river segments that are eligible/suitable for congressional designation into the national 

system, the management focuses on protecting the specific, identified, outstandingly remarkable 

values, the free-flowing nature of the river, and tentative classifications for eligible river 

segments. 

For WSAs, the management focuses on maintaining the wilderness setting, characteristics and 

experience, and meeting the non-impairment standard of the Interim Management Policy and 

Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP – BLM, 1995). Accordingly, this impact 

analysis will determine how each alternative impacts the relevant and important values for 

ACECs, the outstandingly remarkable values and tentative classifications for eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, and the wilderness setting, characteristics and experience in WSAs. WSAs will be 

managed under the IMP the Proposed Plan and all alternatives. The only decisions being 

considered for WSAs are OHV area designations, travel routes, and VRM objectives (classes). 

4.3.14.1. ACECS – IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Impacts common to the Proposed Plan and all alternatives would be caused by implementation of 

resource program policies such as best management practices, cultural mandates, and appropriate 

fire management response. Those that would protect the relevant and important values will not 

be discussed further. In addition, except for Alternative A, No Action, OHV use would be 

limited to designated routes unless otherwise specified. This would protect the relevant and 

important values of the ACECs by eliminating surface disturbance from cross-country OHV 

travel. Limiting OHV use to designated routes throughout the planning area would also likely 

result in a shift in riding in motorized recreation as OHV riders throughout the field office adjust 

their riding habits to comply with the new restrictions. This shift would likely result in fewer 

instances of inadvertent, casual, or deliberate illegal riding off designated routes, and would 

consequently also decrease the risk of impacts to resources within the ACEC. 

Any section(s) of a proposed or existing ACEC that falls within a WSA would be managed under 

the IMP, which strictly regulates surface disturbance and impacts that would alter the naturalness 

and opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude of the area. One of the practical effects of 

interim management is permitted activities in WSAs (except grandfathered and valid existing 

rights) are limited to temporary uses that create no new surface disturbance, nor involve 

permanent placement of structures. Prescriptions for lands that lie in both (overlap) ACECs and 

WSAs must comply with the prescription (IMP or ACEC) that is most restrictive. Since the IMP 

imposes special management conditions to protect wilderness characteristics, it is assumed that 

there would be no impacts to the relevant and important values in the overlap areas and that 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-484 

ACEC management would be duplicative in most instances. Table 4.133 lists the percent of 

ACECs that overlap with WSAs. Maps 87–90 show the areas where ACECs would overlap with 

WSAs under each alternative. 

4.3.14.2. ACECS – ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

In order for an area to be designated as an ACEC, it must meet the criteria of "relevance" and 

"importance" and require special management to protect the relevant and important values, 

resources, natural systems, or hazards (generally referred to as values) as described in 43 CFR 

1610.7-2 and BLM Manual Section 1613.11-.12. This analysis focuses on impacts to these 

values. These impacts are described in detail under Alternative A (No Action). The subsequent 

impacts analysis for the action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) and the Proposed Plan discloses their 

level of impact in comparison to Alternative A. 

ACECs are areas that are subject to special management to protect relevant and important values. 

While standard management includes compliance with policy, laws, and mandates, special 

management typically includes restrictive prescriptions such as closures to mineral development, 

limits on livestock grazing or restrictions on woodland product harvest, VRM Class I 

management, and packing out human waste. Some of the decisions to be made in this plan would 

have no adverse impacts on existing or potential ACECs, eligible river segments, or WSAs 

regardless of the alternative chosen. Only decisions that may affect the values of these areas are 

analyzed further. 

Table 4.133. ACECs by Alternative, with Percent of Each that is WSA 

Alternative A Alternatives B 

and E 

Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan 

ACECs 

Acresa % 

WSA 

Acres % 

WSA

Acres % 

WSA

Acres % 

WSA 

Acres %WSA 

Alkali Ridge 39,202 0 39,196 0 39,196 0 0 N/A 39,196 0

Bridger 

Jack Mesa 

6,260 100 6,225 100 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

Butler 

Wash North 

17,464 100 17,365 100 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

Cedar 

Mesa 

295,336b

 64.0 306,743 68.3 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

Dark 

Canyon 

61,660 100 61,660 100 0 N/A N/A 0 N/A

Hovenweep 1,798 0 2,439 0 2,439 0 0 N/A 2,439 0

Indian 

Creek 

8,510 13.4 8,510 80.4 3,908 0 0 N/A 3,908 0

Lockhart 

Basin 

N/A N/A 47,783 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

Lavender 

Mesa 

649 0 649 0 649 0 0 N/A 649 0

Shay 

Canyon 

3,561 0 119 0 119 0 0 N/A 119 0
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-485 

Table 4.133. ACECs by Alternative, with Percent of Each that is WSA 

Alternative A Alternatives B 

and E 

Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan 

ACECs 

Acresa % 

WSA 

Acres % 

WSA

Acres % 

WSA

Acres % 

WSA 

Acres %WSA 

San Juan 

River 

0 0 7,590 0 7,590 0 0 N/A 4,321 0

Scenic 

Highway 

57,637 c 9,930 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0 N/A

Valley of 

the Gods 

0d

 0 22,863 0 22,863 0 0 N/A 22,863 0

Total 492,177 521,141 76,764 0 73,495

a

 GIS technology has changed since the last RMP. Acres listed under this alternative may be slightly different even though the 

polygon is the same size under other alternatives. 

b

 Includes Pine and Step Canyons 21,280 acres of the Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC 

c Does not include 21,380 acres that overlaps with the Cedar Mesa ACEC. 

d Acreage included in Cedar Mesa ACEC (31,387 acres). 

4.3.14.2.1. ALKALI RIDGE ACEC6

Alkali Ridge is proposed as an ACEC under Alternatives A, B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan 

to provide special management attention to protect the area's relevant and important cultural and 

historic values. The area would not be designated as an ACEC under Alternative D. 

4.3.14.2.1.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, Alkali Ridge ACEC (39,202 acres) would be managed as open to most 

resource uses including mineral development, woodland harvest, livestock and OHV use, and 

land treatments. Cultural resources would be avoided by a sufficient margin as to allow 

permanent protection. This ACEC would also encompass the Alkali Ridge National Historic 

Landmark (2,340 acres), which would have identical management prescriptions under this 

alternative, including the requirement that cultural resources be avoided by 100 feet. It should be 

noted that agency responsibilities to a National Historic Landmark are higher than to National 

Register listed or eligible properties (see 36CFR65.2(c)(2): Federal agencies must take actions to 

minimize impacts to such a resource, in consultation with the Advisory Council). Active leasing 

within a landmark where data recovery might be required would likely be construed as an 

increased threat. In the remainder of the ACEC, all cultural properties eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places would be surrounded by an avoidance area sufficient enough to allow 

permanent protection. 

In general, direct impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be avoided through 

adherence to the Section 106 process and avoidance of sites through relocation of surfacedisturbing activities. However, cultural resource districts, landscapes, and some traditional 

cultural properties (TCPs) would not be afforded the same beneficial protection due to the fact 

 

6 In order to reduce redundancy, when similar impacts occur in different ACECs, a detailed explanation of impacts will be given in 

the first ACEC presented. Subsequent analysis will summarize the impacts and the reader can assume that the detailed information 

of impacts from the previous ACEC also applies. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-486 

that these types of resources often cover vast geographic areas and have multiple individual sites 

which may be affected by the physical and auditory disturbances created by construction and 

operation of mineral development infrastructure and other surface-disturbing activities. Physical 

and auditory disturbances are especially critical to TCPs where viewsheds and soundscapes are 

the primary components. These impacts can render the TCP non-functional for the related Native 

American Tribe or other cultural group (BLM 2004). 

Although livestock grazing would be managed under the Standards for Rangeland Health there is 

potential for direct impacts to cultural resources from trampling and loss of vegetation in areas 

with livestock grazing, especially in riparian areas or other areas where cattle tend to congregate. 

Trampling can dislodge and fracture cultural artifacts and destroy site integrity. Loss of 

vegetation exposes cultural resources making them more susceptible to looting and degradation 

from exposure (Roney 1977). Most of the adverse effects to the sites in the Monticello FO have 

occurred from past livestock grazing and trailing activities (personal communication between 

Nancy Shearin, Monticello FO and Deb Reber, SWCA, 2006). Future disturbance will only add 

to the site degradation. 

Indirect negative impacts to cultural resources may also occur from recreational activities that 

are not targeted under Section 106. Increasing visitation from hikers, cyclists, and OHV users to 

more remote areas would increase the risk of intentional and inadvertent damage to cultural 

resources. Loss of ground cover may churn up archaeological deposits and destroy historical 

context. Archaeological materials exposed by natural or human-induced erosion would then 

become vulnerable to unauthorized collection (VanderHoek 2005). The risk would be greater 

from OHV use due to their ability to travel over greater distances and access more remote 

locations. Under Alternative A, OHV use is limited to existing trails in the proposed ACEC. 

Limiting motorized travel to existing routes would prevent off-road use and further surface 

disturbance that would damage cultural resources. 

Alternative A allows for private and commercial use of woodland products. There is potential for 

negative indirect impacts to cultural resources from this activity. Impacts consist primarily of 

unintended damage to cultural sites by driving vehicles off designated roads for the cutting and 

loading of wood and the subsequent use of the resultant "trail" (tire tracks) by OHV riders (BLM 

2004). 

Allowing surface-disturbing vegetation treatments would have adverse and/or beneficial longterm effects. Adverse effects would be possible if cultural surveys (especially in areas of dense 

vegetation cover) do not reveal cultural resources and treatments inadvertently destroy them. 

Vegetation treatment projects also could impact sites where Native Americans collect plants that 

are culturally significant. (CA. State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 2006) In addition, if 

locations of cultural resources are known and surrounding areas are treated, the demarcation 

between the treatment and non-treatment areas makes cultural resources more visible and 

therefore more subject to damage and looting. Conversely, beneficial impacts to cultural 

resources would occur from the reduction in fuels loading and may protect sites from wildfire in 

addition to offering positive benefits to other resource programs. 

Under Alternative A, the area would be open for mineral leasing with Standard stipulations. The 

entire ACEC falls within the Blanding Sub-Basin RFD area that has a high potential for mineral 

development. Approximately 41 wells are predicted to be developed in the area totaling 394 

acres of surface disturbance. (See minerals discussion for specifics). Although surveys would 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-487 

have to be conducted prior to development, identified sites would have to be avoided, and 

mitigation measures employed there is a risk of impacts to the integrity of the landscape as 

discussed in the second paragraph of Alternative A. 

4.3.14.2.1.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B (39,196 acres) would be generally the same as Alternative A, except that this 

alternative would close the area to harvest of woodland product and surface-disturbing 

vegetation treatments. Alternative B would restrict livestock use if cultural resources are being 

impacted and manage the area as VRM Class IV rather than VRM Class III. 

There would be a beneficial long-term effect from closing the area to woodland product use 

because it would eliminate any chances of secondary impacts from cross-country travel to collect 

wood. (See discussion of impacts from OHV use under Alternative A) This proactive decision 

would offer a greater degree of protection to cultural resources than Alternative A. 

Unlike the other alternatives, Alternatives B specifically states that livestock use would be 

restricted if cultural resources are being damaged. There is no difference between this alternative 

and the Proposed Plan or other alternatives from a management perspective, as this restriction 

would be implemented regardless of whether or not it is stated in the PRMP/FEIS. However it 

does forewarn the permittee and may give the resource specialist more leverage to implement the 

restriction for site-specific proposals because it would be based on recent analysis and decisions. 

Alternative B would limit OHV use to designated roads and trails in the entire ACEC rather than 

existing roads and trails under Alternative A. This would have essentially the same effects on 

ACEC values as Alternative A. 

Alternative B does not allow for surface-disturbing vegetation treatments and treatment must 

avoid cultural sites by a sufficient margin as to have no impact. This decision provides the 

highest degree of protection to cultural resources because is does not allow for surface 

disturbance, thereby eliminating any possibility of damage from surface-disturbing activities. 

The final difference between Alternative B and Alternative A is the change to VRM management 

Class III from VRM Class IV. VRM Class IV would allow for major modifications to the 

landscape in comparison to VRM III that would allow moderate changes. However, this shift of 

VRM management objective is unlikely to have a substantial effect on cultural resources and 

associated values as both classes allow for development and associated surface disturbance. 

Under this alternative, the ACEC would also include Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark 

which would be managed with the same prescriptions as the ACEC with the following 

exceptions: 1) it would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing rather than timing and 

controlled surface use; 2) campfires would not be allowed; 3) it would be closed to geophysical 

work and the disposal of mineral materials; and 4) it would be recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. These actions would have direct beneficial long-term effects to 

cultural resources because they would eliminate any chance of inadvertent disturbance to cultural 

sites from mineral development and recreational use, thereby reducing potential risk to the 

integrity of the sites on a landscape level. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-488 

4.3.14.2.1.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C proposes the same management prescription as Alternative A except for 

prescriptions involving woodland harvest, vegetation treatments, visual resources management, 

and mineral leasing stipulations. Woodland harvest would be allowed but off-road travel to 

conduct that harvest would be allowed in chained areas only. Since surveys are required prior to 

chaining activities, cultural resources would typically have been identified and avoided before 

subsequent woodland harvest occurs. However, indirect OHV impacts could result as described 

in Alternative A. 

Alternative C also differs from Alternative A in that they allow for woodland product use. 

However, that use would be confined to specific areas within Alkali Ridge if cultural resources 

are being damaged. This adaptive management strategy offers beneficial protection, including 

the closure of areas if there is evidence of damage. This is more restrictive than Alternative A 

and less restrictive than Alternative B. 

Alternative C allows for vegetation treatments with non-surface-disturbing methods being 

preferred. If surface-disturbing treatments were approved, access routes would have to be 

reclaimed to prevent future use. This decision would prevent adverse impacts from OHV use as 

routes would be reclaimed thereby eliminating access. It also allows for noxious weed treatments 

that use the minimum amount of surface disturbance necessary. 

Alternative C would manage landscapes by VRM Class IV objectives, rather than Class III under 

Alternative A. The objective of Class IV provides for landscape change, and would allow for 

surface disturbance and landscape change. However, future actions would not move forward 

without adherence to the Section 106 process and the protections afforded to cultural resources 

by laws, regulations, and policies. 

Alternative C would provide for oil and gas leasing subject to Standard stipulations (6,032 

acres), timing limitations and controlled surface use (31,018 acres) and no surface occupancy 

(2,146 acres). The ACEC falls within the Blanding Sub-Basin RFD area that has a high potential 

for mineral development. Standard stipulations and controlled surface use would permit oil and 

gas exploration and development with mitigation for resource values and uses of concern. 

Approximately 41 wells are predicted to be developed in the RFD area totaling 394 acres of 

surface disturbance. (See minerals discussion for specifics). Under controlled surface use, 

cultural resource surveys would be conducted prior to surface disturbance, identified sites would 

be avoided, and mitigation measures would be implemented, protecting the relevant and 

important cultural resource values of the ACEC. Even with mitigation, however, there would be 

a risk of impacts to the integrity of the landscape as discussed under Alternative A. 

Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark would be managed the same as it is under Alternative 

B except the area would be open to geophysical exploration that meets the definition of "casual 

use." Impacts would be similar to Alternative B with a slightly greater risk of minor surface 

disturbance from geophysical exploration. 

4.3.14.2.1.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the area would not be designated as an ACEC and would be managed as 

open to all uses. The area would be available for woodland harvest, watershed improvements, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-489 

and livestock use. It would be managed as available for mineral development and as VRM Class 

IV. 

The impacts for this alternative would be similar to Alternative A. 

4.3.14.2.1.5. Alternative E 

The impacts under Alternative E (39,196 acres) would be the same as those under Alternative B 

because the management decisions would be the same. 

4.3.14.2.1.6. Proposed Plan 

The impacts under the Proposed Plan would be the same as described for Alternative C above, 

except that the ACEC would be available for mineral leasing with timing limitations and 

controlled surface use (37,050 acres) and no surface occupancy (2,146 acres). The effect of oil 

and gas leasing and development on the relevant and important cultural and historic values 

would be the same as described under Alternative C. The ACEC would also be managed as 

VRM III instead of VRM IV which would have impacts similar to Alternative A. 

4.3.14.2.2. BRIDGER JACK MESA ACEC 

Bridger Jack Mesa is proposed as an ACEC (Mesa top only) under Alternatives A (6,260 acres), 

B (6,225 acres), and E (6,225 acres) to protect the relevant and important relict vegetation 

values. It would not be designated as an ACEC under the Proposed Plan and Alternatives C and 

D. The entire proposed ACEC falls within the Bridger Jack Mesa WSA. 

4.3.14.2.2.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A the area would be designated as an ACEC and managed to exclude almost 

all surface-disturbing activities including mineral development. By curtailing virtually all 

surface-disturbing activities this alternative would offer direct long-term protection to the 

relevant and important relict vegetation. It should be noted that since the area is overlapped by 

Bridger Jack WSA and managed under the IMP it would be managed so as to prevent 

impairment to the wilderness values (Map 87). Management under the IMP’s non-impairment 

standard would also provide long-term protection of the ACEC values. 

Recreational use would be allowed but would be limited if vegetative resources are being 

damaged. Due to the inaccessibility of the area, recreation use is anticipated to be low. OHV and 

mountain bike use would not be allowed. Therefore, recreational activities would consist mainly 

of light foot traffic and would result in little disturbance to the vegetation. 

4.3.14.2.2.2. Alternatives B and E 

Alternatives B and E would designate a slightly smaller ACEC, 6,224 acres, with the same 

management prescriptions as Alternative A. The modification of the ACEC boundary under this 

alternative would exclude the non-vegetated spires. Impacts would be the same as described 

under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-490 

4.3.14.2.2.3. Alternatives C and D 

Alternatives C and D propose to drop the current ACEC designation and manage the area with 

prescriptions of the surrounding area with the only special management being exclusion from 

livestock and saddle stock grazing and woodland product use. As with Alternatives A, B, and E, 

it would be managed under the IMP, so vegetation values would be protected regardless of 

whether or not it is an ACEC. As mentioned under Alternative A the area is mostly inaccessible, 

so the exclusions of livestock grazing and woodland product use don't appear to be necessary to 

protect the resource. 

4.3.14.2.2.4. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, Bridger Jack Mesa would not be managed as an ACEC. Management 

of the WSA under the non-impairment standard of the IMP, however, would protect the relevant 

and important relict vegetation values of the ACEC. In addition, under the Proposed Plan, the 

area would be closed to livestock grazing, including grazing by pack and saddle stock. As 

described under Alternatives C above, the area is mostly inaccessible to livestock, so this action 

would have little protective effect on the relict vegetation. The area would also be closed to 

harvest of woodland products, except collection of wood for campfires. Again, given the 

inaccessibility of the area, this action would have little protective effect on the ACEC values. 

4.3.14.2.3. BUTLER WASH NORTH ACEC 

Butler Wash North is proposed as an ACEC to protect the areas scenic values under Alternatives 

A (17,464 acres) and B and E (17,365 acres). The area would not be designated as an ACEC 

under Alternatives C and D or the Proposed Plan. The entire proposed ACEC would lie within 

the Butler Wash WSA. 

4.3.14.2.3.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A the area would be closed to mineral leasing, as part of the WSA. Since the 

area would be managed as VRM Class I, the visual objective would be to retain a unmodified 

(natural) landscape. As per BLM Manual 8410 the objectives would be to preserve the existing 

character of the landscape and the level of change should be very low and should not attract 

attention. Geophysical work would be allowed if conducted by non-surface-disturbing methods.

Thus, direct negative impacts from geophysical work on the scenic quality are not anticipated. 

As a result of the decision to close the area to use of woodlands products there would be no 

harvest of pinyon or juniper, thereby providing beneficial impacts to visual resources by 

retaining the natural character of the landscape. The ACEC would be closed to OHV use. 

Livestock grazing would be allowed and would be managed under the Standards and Guidelines 

for grazing management. One of the guidelines states that when establishing grazing practices 

and rangeland improvements, the quality of the outdoor recreation experience would be 

considered. Aesthetic and scenic values, water, campsites and opportunities for solitude are 

among those considerations. For that reason there would be negligible effects from this activity 

on the scenic quality. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-491 

Since the entire area falls within a WSA, management prescriptions between the alternatives 

would have to conform to the IMP. Designating the area as an ACEC would reinforce protection 

of the scenic quality of the area. 

4.3.14.2.3.2. Alternatives B and E 

Alternatives B and E propose almost an identical management prescription as Alternative A 

except the BLM would seek to acquire state inholdings and would impose limitations on 

livestock grazing if scenic resources are being impacted. Acquiring state inholdings would have 

a major beneficial impact to the ACEC values because the state is not obligated to follow the 

IMP on their inholdings within WSAs, so development is possible within those areas. Any 

development involving surface disturbance would have a negative impact on the scenic values. If 

the BLM acquires those inholdings they would be managed in accordance with the IMP thereby 

protecting the scenic values of the ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.3.3. Alternatives C and D 

Alternatives C and D would not designate Butler Wash ACEC and management would default to 

the IMP. Management under the IMP would limit surface disturbances that would diminish the 

scenic values of the area. These alternatives would not pursue acquisition of state inholdings, and 

development on state sections that could impact the scenic values of the ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.3.4. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would not designate Butler Wash ACEC. However, management of the area 

as part of the Butler Wash WSA under the IMP would protect the relevant and important scenic 

ACEC values. In addition to the IMP, Butler Wash North would be retained in public ownership; 

be unavailable for private or commercial use of woodland products, though limited on-site 

collection of dead wood for campfires would be permitted; be available for livestock use, but 

may be limited if cultural resources are impacted; closed to OHV use; and be managed by VRM 

Class I objectives. These actions would also limit surface disturbances that would degrade the 

relevant and important scenic values of Butler Wash North. 

4.3.14.2.4. CEDAR MESA ACEC

Cedar Mesa is currently managed as an ACEC under Alternative A to protect its relevant and 

important cultural and scenic values, and the designation would continue under Alternatives B 

and E. Under Alternative A, the ACEC (295,336 acres) would include Valley of the Gods. Under 

Alternatives B and E the ACEC (306,742 acres) would not include Valley of the Gods as it is 

proposed as a separate ACEC under these alternatives. Cedar Mesa would not be designated as 

an ACEC under Alternatives C and D or the Proposed Plan. The area would be managed as a 

Cultural Special Recreation Management Area (C-SRMA) under Alternatives C and D, and an 

SRMA under the Proposed Plan. (See the Recreation section for a discussion of impacts from 

this decision). Grand Gulch, Road Canyon, Fish Creek Canyon, and Mule Canyon WSAs overlie 

the proposed Cedar Mesa ACEC comprising 209,619 acres or 71% of the proposed ACEC under 

Alternative A and 68% under Alternatives B and E. The existing ACEC configuration includes 

Valley of the Gods (22,863 acres), which is proposed as a separate ACEC under Alternatives B, 

C, and E and the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-492 

The WSAs would be managed under the IMP and the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis area 

management prescriptions are discussed in the next section. 

The remaining acres would be managed as outlined in the alternatives matrix and the impacts 

from those decisions are discussed below. Those elements of the ACEC prescription that are 

consistent with IMP direction would also apply to the WSA area. 

4.3.14.2.4.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the 295,336 acre area would be available for land treatments and wildlife 

habitat and range improvements. These actions would maintain and enhance vegetation and 

forage important to wildlife and their habitat, but also result in surface disturbance and 

modification of the landscape or scenic values. Over the long-term following reclamation 

(natural or actions taken by people), vegetation treatments would introduce variety to the 

vegetation community, enhancing its scenic appeal. Prior to vegetation treatments, the treatment 

area would be surveyed for cultural resources, and necessary mitigation measure implemented to 

protect cultural resources. 

With this alternative, the area would open to woodland product harvest in designated areas. Onsite collection of dead fuel wood would be allowed throughout the entire area. The harvesting of 

woodland product could be detrimental to the values of the ACEC depending on the area 

involved and the amount of wood harvested. Firewood cutting would remove some degree of 

vegetation, changing that element of the landscape. Depending on the amount or degree of 

removal, harvest of fuelwood could result in a noticeable change to the landscape – the scenery. 

Since cutting areas would be designated, those areas could be designed to reduce change to the 

landscape, and would be surveyed for the presence of cultural resources prior to cutting to 

mitigate any disturbance or harm to cultural sites. 

Under Alternative A the area would be open for mineral leasing with Standard stipulations, and 

NSO stipulations in areas managed for primitive recreation settings. NSO stipulations would 

protect the scenery of the landscape in those primitive recreation settings. Leasing with standard 

stipulations would allow construction of roads and well pads and placement of structures that 

would alter the scenery of the ACEC. However, the entire ACEC falls within the Monument 

Upwarp RFD which has low potential for mineral development (See Minerals discussion for 

specifics). Only nine wells are projected to be developed in the Monument Upwarp over the next 

15 years, totaling 69 acres of surface disturbance. There would also be surface disturbance 

created by geophysical work totaling 120 acres within the Monument Upwarp. This would be 

reclaimed within ten years. The ACEC is also open to the disposal of mineral materials and 

mineral entry. Depending on the location of these activities, there would be a risk of 

compromising the scenic values of the ACEC because of surface disturbance caused by mining 

activities and mineral development. The surface disturbance resulting from these development 

activities would be mitigated with the requirement for revegetation. Only that disturbance that 

would be successfully reclaimed within 5 years after project completion would be permitted. 

Depending on the soil and vegetation type in the project area this could preclude some 

development and would benefit the values of the ACEC. With all surface disturbance and 

development activities, cultural surveys would be conducted prior to implementation of the 

project to identify any cultural resources and prescribe needed mitigation measures, thus 

protecting cultural sites. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-493 

In the areas where the Scenic Highway Corridor overlaps (21,280 acres) the ACEC special 

conditions for the Corridor take precedence. The Corridor would be managed as open to most 

uses including mineral entry but it would also be managed as NSO for minerals and as VRM I. 

These two actions would rule out any occurrences of visible surface disturbance and would 

consequently protect the values of the ACEC in this area of overlap. 

Special protective management prescriptions close the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area to 

the following uses: mineral leasing, geophysical work, disposal of mineral materials, woodland 

product harvest, and ORV use. In addition a withdrawal from mineral entry would be requested 

and the area would be managed as VRM I. All of these actions would benefit the area by 

preventing surface disturbance and protecting the cultural and scenic resource values of the 

ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.4.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B's management prescriptions diverge from Alternative A in the aspects of 

recreational use, livestock use, and woodland product harvest. 

Under Alternative B the area would be available for livestock use, but with special conditions to 

protect at risk cultural resources. The special conditions mostly involve fencing to keep livestock 

from impacting sites with features at risk such as standing walls or large middens. Restrictions 

would be in conformance with the grazing permit renewal stipulations specific to protecting 

cultural resources at risk from livestock impacts within each allotment. Thus, there would be 

variations in protective measures for each allotment depending on site density and type. 

(personal communication between Nancy Shearin, Monticello FO and Deb Reber, SWCA on 

August 24, 2006) This prescription would offer beneficial direct protections to the cultural values 

of the ACEC by preventing damage from livestock trampling. 

Recreation use under Alternative B would be managed in the following way: 1) the area would 

be closed to dispersed camping; 2) overnight campers would be required to pack out human 

waste; 3) recreation permits for both day and overnight use would be limited as necessary to 

prevent cultural site damage from over visitation and 4) campfires would be limited to mesa tops 

and would be closed if there are impacts to cultural sites. All of these actions would provide 

beneficial direct and indirect impacts to the cultural and scenic ACEC values. Closing the area to 

dispersed camping and limiting visitation would decrease surface disturbance, limit social trails, 

and may reduce vandalism, pot hunting, and surface collections. 

Alternative B provides for additional protections to the ACEC values by requiring that human 

waste be packed out. This decision would maintain site-specific aesthetic values (i.e., campsites, 

canyons), water quality, and improve health and safety concerns. For much of Cedar Mesa there 

is concentrated use in narrow corridors. These small areas cannot isolate and naturally process 

large amounts of human waste. Research has shown that buried feces, and the microbes in it, 

persist for many months when buried. The volume of waste generated along the trail, combined 

with a climate that is not conducive to composting, make "digestion" of waste unlikely. 

Closing the area to private and commercial use of woodland products would have direct 

beneficial impacts to the relevant and important values of the ACEC. This decision would 

diminish impacts to cultural sites by eliminating unintended damage from driving vehicles off 

designated roads for the cutting and loading of wood and the subsequent use of the resultant 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-494 

"trail" (tire tracks) by OHV riders. This decision would also prohibit the harvesting of pinyonjuniper, reducing alteration to the vegetation component of the landscape and its scenic quality. 

Impacts to the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area would be the same as Alternative A. 

4.3.14.2.4.3. Alternatives C and D and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternatives C and D and the Proposed Plan, the area would not be designated as an 

ACEC. However, it would be managed as a Cultural Special Recreation Management Area – CSRMA under Alternatives C and D and an SRMA under the Proposed Plan (see Section 4.3.10, 

Recreation). No special management prescription would be implemented to protect the relevant 

and important cultural and scenic values. As a C-SRMA or SRMA, the management focus would 

be on providing outstanding recreational opportunities while protecting natural and cultural 

resource values. Further, large portions of the proposed ACEC are located in the Grand Gulch, 

Road Canyon, Fish Creek Canyon, and Mule Canyon WSAs. Management of the WSAs under 

the IMP to protect their wilderness characteristics would prevent surface disturbances and protect 

the relevant and important scenic and cultural resource ACEC values. Fuelwood harvest would 

be permitted in parts of the C-SRMA and SRMA. Removal of some degree of vegetation cover 

would alter the vegetation component of the landscape and thus the scenery of the ACEC. 

However, fuelwood harvest would not be permitted without survey and mitigation to protect 

cultural resources. The WSA portions of the proposed ACEC would be closed to oil and gas 

leasing and OHV use, and managed by VRM Class I objectives to preserve the characteristic 

landscape. All of these measures would continue to protect most of the ACEC values. 

4.3.14.2.4.4. Alternative E 

The impacts under Alternative E would be the same as those described under Alternative B, 

except that approximately 60,049 acres (20% of the proposed Cedar Mesa ACEC) would be 

managed with emphasis on protection of the natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This 

management would protect the relevant and important scenery and cultural resource values of the 

ACEC by limiting surface disturbance. These areas would be managed as VRM Class I, closed 

to mineral leasing, managed as exclusion areas for ROWs, closed to new road construction, 

closed to woodland harvesting and gathering, and closed to OHV travel. 

The impacts to the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area would be the same as Alternative A. 

4.3.14.2.5. DARK CANYON ACEC

Dark Canyon is an existing ACEC (61,660 acres) and Alternatives A, B, and E (61,660 acres) 

would continue ACEC management to protect the scenic and wildlife values. The ACEC would 

not be designated as an ACEC under Alternatives C and D or the Proposed Plan. Dark Canyon 

WSA overlaps the entire proposed ACEC (Maps 87 and 88). 

4.3.14.2.5.1. Alternative A 

Alternatives A proposes to exclude most surface-disturbing activities including woodland 

product use, OHV use, livestock use, oil and gas development, and mineral material disposal. 

The area would also be managed under VRM Class I objectives to preserve the characteristics 

landscape. Excluding surface-disturbing activities would have beneficial impacts to the relevant 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-495 

and important values because the natural character of the landscape would be retained thereby 

protecting scenic values. These management prescriptions would also offer benefits to wildlife 

by eliminating noise from construction projects, preventing habitat fragmentation, retaining soil 

structure and preventing vegetation loss. VRM I management would have similar beneficial 

impacts because the level of change to the characteristic landscape must be very low and not 

attract attention consequently eliminating most surface-disturbing activities. 

Besides the benefits of reducing surface disturbance, closing the area to OHV use would benefit 

wildlife by eliminating noise disturbances. Scientific literature indicates some wildlife species 

may be affected by excessive noise and disturbance. Displacement during winter depletes energy 

reserves needed for survival and reproduction by mammals and birds. On the other hand, some 

species (especially deer) adapt to the noise disturbance over time and may no longer be displaced 

by the activity (USFS 2005). 

Under Alternative A, area recreation use would be limited if cultural or resources or scenic 

values are being damaged. Although this decision would be beneficial in the long term, there is 

risk of short term direct and indirect negative impacts to the area from increased recreation use as 

limitations on use would only be applied after there is evidence of damage. Scenic values could 

be compromised by localized surface disturbance. Vegetation around the perimeter of campsites 

could be destroyed as more and larger groups occupy the sites. There is potential for cutting of 

greenwood because of lack of dead and downed wood for campfires and an increased risk of 

human induced wildfire. Water quality could be diminished by an increase in human and pet 

waste. Negative impacts to wildlife could occur from the presence and noise of visitors during 

sensitive breeding and foraging periods. 

A withdrawal for mineral entry would prevent mining related surface disturbance, with the same 

beneficial impacts to wildlife and scenery as noted above. 

4.3.14.2.5.2. Alternatives B and E 

Alternatives B and E would have similar effects on relevant and important scenic and wildlife 

values as Alternative A. Under these alternatives, however, campfires would only be allowed on 

mesa tops (not in the canyons) and there would be a requirement to pack out human waste. 

Packing out human waste would maintain site-specific aesthetic values, water quality, and 

improve health and safety concerns. This would indirectly benefit wildlife as they rely on healthy 

water systems. Packing out waste would offer some benefits to the scenic values by reducing the 

risk of erosional forces revealing human waste and paper by-products. Restricting campfire use 

to mesa tops would have minor beneficial impacts to the scenic values by reducing the risk of 

wildfire and eliminating unsightly campfire rings, ash, and debris. Reducing the risk of wildfire 

would have long-term beneficial impacts on wildlife because habitat would be preserved. 

4.3.14.2.5.3. Alternatives C and D 

Alternatives C and E would similar impacts to ACEC values as described for Alternatives B and 

E because the ACEC would remain within the Dark Canyon WSA and managed under the IMP 

to protect it wilderness characteristics. The protective prescription of the IMP would prevent 

surface disturbance, protecting the relevant and important scenic and wildlife value, as described 

for Alternatives B and E. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-496 

4.3.14.2.5.4. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, Dark Canyon would not be managed as an ACEC. It would, however, 

be managed as part of Dark Canyon WSA, under the IMP, with the same protective effects on 

ACEC values as described for the other alternatives. As a part of the WSA and a special 

recreation management area, however, Dark Canyon would be closed to private and commercial 

firewood cutting, closed to livestock use (except Fable Valley), closed to motorized and 

mechanized use, recommended for mineral withdrawal, and closed to oil and gas leasing. 

Recreation use would be limited if scenic and wildlife values were threatened. These actions 

would prevent or limit surface disturbance and protect wildlife habitat, resulting in protection of 

the relevant and important scenic and wildlife ACEC values. 

4.3.14.2.6. HOVENWEEP ACEC

Hovenweep is an existing ACEC (1,798 acres) and Alternatives A, B, C, and E and the Proposed 

Plan would continue ACEC management to provide special management attention to protect the 

area's relevant and important cultural and habitat management values. The size of the ACEC 

would be increased from 1,798 acres under Alternative A to 2,418 acres under Alternatives B, C, 

and E and the Proposed Plan . The additional 620 acres is contiguous with the existing ACEC 

and is east of Hovenweep National Monument. The area would not be designated as an ACEC 

under Alternative D. 

4.3.14.2.6.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, No Action, Hovenweep ACEC would be managed as open to most uses 

except for the disposal of mineral materials and woodland product use. These uses would result 

in surface disturbances that could harm the cultural resources and habitat values of the ACEC 

without mitigation measures. Needed mitigation measure, however, would be implemented and 

protect the ACEC values 

Mineral leasing would be subject to timing and controlled surface use on 918 acres (51.0%), 

which includes the ten acres of Cajon Pond Habitat, and no surface occupancy on 880 acres 

(49%) for the Visual Protective Zone. Surface uses would be precluded in Cajon Pond during the 

shorebird and waterfowl courtship and nesting season (March 1-June 30). The proposed ACEC is 

in the Blanding Sub-basin, the RFD area that has high potential for mineral development. Those 

portions that are managed with timing and controlled surface use would be subject to impacts 

from surface disturbance (see Alkali Ridge ACEC impacts discussion). The NSO stipulations for 

the Visual Protection Zone would offer indirect beneficial protection to values of the ACEC by 

eliminating surface disturbance. 

Mineral entry would be allowed with an approved plan of operation.7

 This would have negative 

effects on the values of the ACEC if approved. Although impacts to cultural sites would be 

mitigated there is still a risk of loss of site integrity and damage to cultural resources from 

relocation. Depending on the location of the mine, there could be degradation to visual quality in 

the Visual Protective Zone and Hovenweep National Monument. 

 

7 There is no historical knowledge of the evolution of these seemingly opposite management decisions other than mineral 

withdrawals require congressional approval which can be extremely labor intensive and time consuming to obtain. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-497 

4.3.14.2.6.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, an additional acquired 620 acres contiguous to the eastern border of 

the current ACEC and Hovenweep National Monument would be added to the ACEC. 

Alternatives B and E would be managed the same as Alternative A except under these 

alternatives, no new routes would be designated within the ACEC and surface-disturbing land 

treatments would not be allowed. One other key difference between these alternatives and 

Alternative A is that Alternatives B and E would manage the area as open to oil and gas leasing 

with Standard stipulations. The fact that oil and gas leasing would be managed under standard 

stipulations could negate the positive aspects of the other two decisions, which preclude surface 

disturbance. Allowing surface disturbance of up to 9.6 acres per well would have a detrimental 

effect on the visual, cultural, and wildlife resources. The visual protection zone and Cajon pond 

would be open for development. This could degrade the scenic quality of the surrounding areas 

including Hovenweep National Monument and may impact wildlife species utilizing the pond as 

habitat. In addition to surface disturbance, indirect adverse effects include noise and habitat 

fragmentation. 

4.3.14.2.6.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative A except that it would allow for watershed improvements 

and vegetative treatments as long as cultural sites are not impacted and the emphasis would be on 

non-surface-disturbing treatments. This allows for more protection of cultural sites while still 

allowing the flexibility to conduct treatments when needed to prevent noxious weed infestations 

and to improve wildlife habitat. 

As with Alternatives B and E, Alternative C would also manage oil and gas leasing with 

Standard stipulations. Impacts would be the same as noted in Alternatives B and E. 

4.3.14.2.6.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D would not designate the ACEC and would manage the area with similar 

prescriptions of the surrounding area. This equates to essentially the same management as 

Alternative C except the area would be managed as VRM Class IV. This would allow for the 

level of change to the landscape to be high rather than moderate. This difference would have a 

negligible on the impacts to the ACEC values. Consequently, impacts from Alternative D would 

be similar to Alternative C. 

4.3.14.2.6.5. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan is similar to Alternative A, except that it would allow for watershed 

improvements and vegetative treatments as long as cultural sites are not impacted and the 

emphasis would be on non-surface-disturbing treatments. This allows for more protection of 

cultural sites while still allowing the flexibility to conduct treatments when needed to prevent 

noxious weed infestations and to improve wildlife habitat. In addition, the visual emphasis zone 

would be managed as VRM II and NSO which would have beneficial impacts to the ACEC by 

reducing surface disturbance. 

The Proposed Plan would manage oil and gas leasing with timing limitations and controlled 

surface use (1,538 acres), and NSO (880 acres) stipulations. Development on that portion of the 

ACEC available for leasing with timing limitations and controlled surface use would result in 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-498 

surface disturbance and impacts to relevant and important cultural resource and habitat values as 

noted in Alternative B. However, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act would mitigate adverse effect on cultural sites and values. 

4.3.14.2.7. INDIAN CREEK ACEC 

Indian Creek is managed as an ACEC under Alternatives A, B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan 

to provide special management attention to protect the area's relevant and important scenic 

values. The area would not be designated as an ACEC under Alternative D. The size of the 

proposed ACEC varies between alternatives. Under Alternative A it would be 8,510 acres with 

6,130 acres (47%) overlapping the Indian Creek WSA (Map 87). Under Alternatives B and E, 

the ACEC would be 8,510 acres with 4,602 acres (54%) overlapping the Indian Creek WSA 

(Map 88) and under Alternative C it would be 3,908 acres with the WSA completely excluded 

(Map 89). The WSA would be managed to protect its wilderness characteristics under the IMP, 

protecting the scenic quality of the ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.7.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A the area would be managed as closed to the disposal of mineral materials, 

woodland product harvest, and OHV use. Closures to all of these activities would benefit the 

scenic quality by preventing surface disturbance and landscape change. 

Surface-disturbing activities such as mineral leasing, geophysical work and mineral entry would 

be allowed but they would be subject to a VRM Class I management standard which would 

either preclude the project entirely or only allow it if it meets the visual quality standards for the 

area. (As an example, mineral infrastructure may be located in a deep gully or other area that is 

topographically invisible from a typical viewpoint.) Restricting or concealing these activities 

would preserve the characteristics landscape (landform and vegetation) in visible areas thereby 

protecting the scenic quality. 

Recreation use would be curtailed if scenic values were damaged. As mentioned in Section 

4.3.10, Recreation, use would be allowed until there is evidence of damage the landscape – the 

scenery. The evidence could be as minor as footprints in biological soil crusts to something more 

significant such as a social trail in sensitive soils. 

The area would be available for livestock use. This would have negligible impacts on the scenic 

quality, as grazing doesn’t result in noticeable changes to the landform or vegetation. 

Another management prescription that would preserve and enhance the scenic qualities would be 

the requirement that revegetation be done with native species only. This would help retain the 

natural characteristics of the area and eliminate unnatural breaks of differing vegetation types. 

4.3.14.2.7.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B would be the same as Alternative A with the following exception. First, the BLM 

would request a mineral withdrawal for the area, which means it would be closed to mineral 

entry. This affords protection to the scenic values of the ACEC by preventing mining-related 

surface-disturbing activities that alter and degrade the scenic quality of the landscape. Second, 

the ACEC would be available for oil and gas leasing subject to a NSO stipulation, without 

exceptions. Third, the ACEC would be closed to fuelwood cutting, and collection for campfires. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-499 

These additional measures would further limit landscape change from surface disturbance and 

protect the relevant and important scenic values of the ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.7.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C is the same as Alternative B, except it allows for some dispersed camping but only 

outside of specified zones and OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. The 

difference in the amount of damage to scenic resources between the two alternatives would be 

negligible. 

4.3.14.2.7.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D would not designate the area as an ACEC and would allow all uses including 

dispersed camping. The area would be managed as VRM III, allowing moderate, but not 

landscape dominating change. The area that would be NSO under Alternatives A, B, and C 

would be managed as available to mineral leasing with timing and controlled surface use. OHV 

use would be limited to designated roads and trails. Allowing for surface-disturbing activities 

and construction of mineral infrastructure would alter the area's scenic qualities and the nature of 

the landscape. 

4.3.14.2.7.5. Alternative E 

The impacts under Alternative E would be the same as those under Alternative B, except 

approximately 3,887 acres (30% of the proposed ACEC) would be managed to maintain the 

wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of 

wilderness characteristics would include closure to mineral leasing and VRM Class I 

management objectives. These actions would provide long-term, protection of the relevant and 

important scenic values because protection of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

values would prevent surface disturbance that would diminish the scenic quality of the ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.7.6. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would be the same as Alternative B, except that 3,908 acres would be 

designated as an ACEC. The difference between the two alternatives would not noticeably 

change the impacts to the scenic values of the ACEC. In that portion of the proposed ACEC that 

would not be designated and managed as an ACEC under the Proposed Plan, much of it would 

be managed as part of the Indian Creek WSA. Management of the WSA under the IMP would 

prohibit uses that would result in surface disturbances that degrade wilderness values. That 

protection would also protect the relevant and important scenic ACEC values. 

4.3.14.2.8. LOCKHART BASIN ACEC

Lockhart Basin is proposed as an ACEC (47,783 acres) under Alternatives B and E to provide 

special management attention to protect the area's relevant and important scenic values. There is 

currently no existing ACEC for Lockhart Basin. A portion of the potential ACEC includes the 

existing Indian Creek ACEC. The area would not be designated as an ACEC under Alternatives 

C and D or the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-500 

4.3.14.2.8.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A the portion of the potential ACEC Lockhart Basin ACEC includes the 

existing Indian Creek ACEC (8,642 acres) and would be managed by VRM Class I objectives. 

The remaining 39,141 acres would be managed as VRM II. Although the area would be open to 

most uses, including mineral leasing, geophysical exploration, mineral material development, 

and mining entry, the limitations of the VRM Class I and Class II objectives would limit most 

surface disturbance and would preserve the scenic values of the ACEC. There would be some 

risk of change to the landscape under VRM II but as noted in VRM class objectives, landscape 

changes should not attract the attention of the casual observer. 

4.3.14.2.8.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B and Alternative E are the only alternatives proposing that Lockhart Basin be 

designated as an ACEC to protect its scenic values. Alternative B would preclude surfacedisturbing activities, manage the area under VRM Class I landscape objectives, and propose the 

area for withdrawal from mineral entry. Precluding surface-disturbing activities and managing 

the area as VRM I would offer a high degree of protection of the visual resources thereby 

protecting the ACEC's relevant and important scenic values. 

4.3.14.2.8.3. Alternatives C and D 

Alternatives C and D would not designate an ACEC and would allow most uses except 

woodland product harvest. Mineral leasing would be subject to timing limitations and controlled 

surface use but only in the bighorn sheep area. The rest of the area would be open with Standard 

stipulations. The area would be managed as VRM Class II and Class III. These visual objectives 

would mitigate and reduce changes to the landscape, but not prevent changes to the scenic values 

of the area, as oil and gas development would be allowed and the wells along with the associated 

infrastructure would degrade the visual quality from select viewpoints. 

4.3.14.2.8.4. Alternative E 

The impacts under Alternative E would be the same as those under Alternative B, except that 

approximately 21,298 acres (45% of the proposed ACEC) would be managed to protect the 

wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This management 

prescription would limit surface disturbance and provide additional protection for the ACEC's 

relevant and important scenic values by closing these acres to mineral leasing and geophysical 

exploration (by eliminating exemptions for geophysical exploration when VRM Class I criteria 

could be met), and by managing landscape change with VRM Class I objectives. 

4.3.14.2.8.5. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would not designate the ACEC and would allow most uses except woodland 

product harvest. Mineral leasing would be subject to timing limitations and controlled surface 

use in the bighorn sheep area. The rest of the area would be open for leasing with Standard 

stipulations. The area would be managed as VRM Class II and Class III. While these measures 

would not prevent alteration of landscape (scenic values), mitigation measures would be 

implemented to reduce the view of authorized surface disturbances, such as oil and gas 

development and the associated infrastructure. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-501 

4.3.14.2.9. LAVENDER MESA ACEC

Lavender Mesa is an existing ACEC (649 acres) and the designation would continue under 

Alternatives A, B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan to protect the area's relevant and import relict 

vegetation values. The area would not be designated as an ACEC under Alternative D. 

4.3.14.2.9.1. Alternative A 

Alternative A would prohibit OHV use, disposal of mineral materials, use of woodland products, 

grazing, land treatments (including vegetation treatments), wildlife habitat improvements, 

watershed control structures, and surface disturbance. Recreational use would be allowed but 

access is difficult. This alternative provides long-term protection to the ACEC values by 

precluding virtually all surface disturbance, thereby protecting the relict vegetation. There could 

be minor adverse impacts from hikers and climbers trampling vegetation or camping on the relict 

vegetation but recreational use can be curtailed under this alternative if there are any signs of 

damage to relict vegetation. Some mineral development would also be allowed but only on the 

slopes of the mesa as the mesa tops are NSO. This too would protect the relict vegetation on the 

mesa tops. 

4.3.14.2.9.2. Alternative B 

The Alternative B management prescription would be the same as Alternative A, except under 

Alternative B there would be allowances to conduct non-surface-disturbing vegetative treatments 

to control invasive species and for rehabilitation of disturbed surfaces. Alternative B would also 

prohibit campfires, limit recreation if vegetative resources are being impacted, and manage 

landscape change by VRM Class II objectives. 

These prescriptions would offer a slightly higher degree of protection to the relict vegetation than 

Alternative A because controlling invasive species would benefit the native plants. Given that 

invasive plants draw excessive amounts of water from the soil, displace native plants, and are 

practically unusable for food, cover, or nesting substrate by native wildlife (BLM Undated) they 

are a major threat to native species. Implementing this prescription would reduce the risk of 

invasive species gaining a foothold in the area consequently protecting and allowing for an 

increase in relict vegetation. 

Prohibiting campfires would also provide a higher level of protection to the relict vegetation 

values in comparison to Alternative A by eliminating the possibility of damage from campfires, 

campfire rings, or the possibility of human induced wildfires. 

VRM Class II objectives would limit surface disturbances that would harm the relict vegetation 

community. 

4.3.14.2.9.3. Alternative C 

Impacts from Alternative C are essentially the same as described above for Alternative B. 

4.3.14.2.9.4. Alternative D 

Under this alternative, the ACEC would not be designated, offering no special protection to the 

relevant and important relict vegetation community. The lands would be managed the same as 

the surrounding area - VRM Class III, OHVs limited to designated routes, and closed to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-502 

firewood cutting. However, since the mesa top is inaccessible to vehicles and livestock, little 

change to the plant community is expected. 

4.3.14.2.9.5. Alternative E 

The impacts under Alternative E would be the same as those under Alternative B, except that 

additional protections of the relevant and important relict vegetation would occur due to 

management focused on maintaining the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. This alternative would provide more protection for relict vegetation of 

the entire 649-acre ACEC. Closing the ACEC to oil and gas leasing and locatable mineral entry, 

as well as managing the landscape for VRM Class I objectives, would limit surface disturbance, 

protecting the relict vegetation community. 

4.3.14.2.9.6. Proposed Plan 

Impacts of the ACEC prescription of the Proposed Plan would be essentially the same as 

described for Alternative B. 

4.3.14.2.10. SHAY CANYON ACEC

Shay Canyon is an existing ACEC (3,561 acres) and Alternatives A, B, C, and E and the 

Proposed Plan would continue ACEC management to provide special management attention to 

protect the area's relevant and important cultural values. The size of the ACEC would be reduced 

to 119 acres under Alternatives B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan to only include the area with 

the highest site density. It would not be designated under Alternative D. 

4.3.14.2.10.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A the area managed as an ACEC would be 3,561 acres and would include the 

Newspaper Rock art panel, the riparian corridor of Indian Creek and the core of Shay Canyon. 

Alternative A would allow for grazing, campfires, and camping within the ACEC. All of these 

activities would increase the risk of minor localized surface disturbance to the cultural and 

paleontological sites from trampling and exposure. There is also potential for looting and 

vandalism from campers who may discover previously unexposed sites. 

Under Alternative A the area would be managed as VRM Class I. This management prescription 

would virtually eliminate the risk of damage from major surface-disturbing activities within the 

3,561 acres because the objective of this management class is to preserve the characteristics 

landscape. Consequently, even though mineral development (including mineral material 

disposal, mining entry, and mineral leasing) would be allowed under Alternative A, it is virtually 

precluded by the overriding requirements of VRM Class I. There is some risk of localized 

surface disturbance from geophysical work but it too must comply with VRM Class I objectives 

and would not impact the values of the ACEC. 

This alternative would allow for vegetation treatments and watershed and habitat improvements. 

The requirement that revegetation must be successfully established within 5 years after project 

completion supplements these prescriptions and assures that although there may be some 

temporary surface disturbance no irreparable harm would occur from these activities within the 

ACEC. The area would be closed to woodland product harvest and this would further protect 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-503 

cultural resources by eliminating the chance of negative impacts from vehicles driving off 

designated roads for cutting and loading wood. 

OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. This limitation would prevent 

additional surface disturbance that would potentially harm cultural and paleontological sites. 

4.3.14.2.10.2. Alternatives B and C and the Proposed Plan 

The size of the ACEC would be reduced to 119 acres under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, 

and the management prescriptions for that smaller area would be more restrictive than under 

Alternative A. No surface disturbance would be allowed for vegetation, watershed, or wildlife 

treatments/improvements. The area would be closed to the disposal of mineral materials, 

woodland product harvest, and camping. Livestock use would be restricted to trailing only and 

hiking would be limited to designated trails (except for side canyons). Mineral leasing would be 

managed as NSO. All of these prescriptions would protect the ACEC values by reducing the 

possibility of surface-disturbing activities that could damage cultural sites. The VRM II 

prescription under this alternative would complement these prescriptions by only allowing 

minimal change to the landscape. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. This 

limitation would prevent additional surface disturbance that would potentially harm cultural and 

paleontological sites. 

The remainder of the proposed ACEC, however, would not be designated under the Proposed 

Plan or these alternatives but would be managed in a manner similar to Alternative A. Lands 

outside the ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II rather than VRM Class I. This would be 

less restrictive than Alternative A. However, since several other prescriptions limit surface 

disturbance, the risk of adverse impacts would be minimal. Any action proposed would be 

implemented only following compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, protect the cultural resource values of the lands not designated and managed as an ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.10.3. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D the area would not be designated as an ACEC and as with Alternative A 

grazing, vegetation treatments, campfires and camping would be allowed. As noted under 

Alternative A these activities would increase the risk of surface disturbance to the cultural and 

paleontological sites from trampling, vandalism, and exposure. In addition mineral development 

including mineral material disposal would be allowed under Alternative D. There could be 

adverse impacts if surveys missed sites or cultural resources were damaged during relocation but 

in an area of this size the risk would be low. With this alternative the area would be managed as 

VRM Class III rather than VRM Class II as it is under Alternatives A, B, and C and the Proposed 

Plan. This would allow for a higher level of surface disturbance and would increase the potential 

for impacts to cultural sites. 

4.3.14.2.10.4. Alternative E 

The impacts under Alternative E would be the same as those under Alternative B, except that 

there would be additional protections to the relevant and important cultural values from the 

management prescriptions for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under this 

alternative, the prescription for protective management of 99 acres of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics (83% of the proposed ACEC) would provide additional protection for 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-504 

cultural resources by closing the ACEC to oil and gas leasing, geophysical exploration, and 

mineral entry; managing the ACEC under VRM Class I objectives; and closing the ACEC to 

OHV use. These actions prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would limits surface disturbance that could harm cultural 

and paleontological resources. 

4.3.14.2.11. SAN JUAN RIVER ACEC 

The San Juan River is proposed as an ACEC under Alternatives B (7,590 acres), C (4,321 acres), 

and E (7,590 acres) and the Proposed Plan (4,321 acres) to protect the area’s relevant and 

important wildlife values, scenery, cultural resources, and natural systems. The area would not 

be designated under Alternatives A or D but would be managed as the San Juan River Special 

Recreation Management Areas (SRMA). It should be noted that the area south of the river 

corridor is under the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation, and these prescriptions would not apply. 

4.3.14.2.11.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A the area would not be designated as an ACEC but would be managed as a 

special recreation management area (SRMA) of 15,100 acres. See the Recreation Section 4.3.10 

for a description of impacts from SRMA decisions under this alternative. 

Oil and gas leasing would be managed with timing and controlled surface use stipulations within 

the areas managed for semi-primitive, motorized recreation objectives (ROS – SPM) and NSO 

within areas managed for primitive objectives (ROS – P) (see Map 35). The remaining area 

would be managed with Standard oil and gas leasing stipulations. The ROS-P area corresponds 

with the eligible segment proposed as a Wild and Scenic River and would be protected from 

development within a quarter-mile of centerline. This would have beneficial impacts to the 

relevant and important values. Areas outside of this corridor would be managed with Timing and 

Controlled Surface Use and Standard stipulations. The values of these areas would be negatively 

impacted if mineral development were to occur because of surface disturbances, visual 

intrusions, and disruptions to wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Grazing is allowed under this alternative and could cause direct short-term negative impacts to 

the riparian areas. Springs and tributary streams are especially susceptible as livestock tend to 

congregate/loiter in these areas. Cattle grazing in riparian areas affects nutrients, fecal bacteria, 

sediments, stream banks, and vegetation in the riparian ecosystem, with associated effects on 

water quality. Livestock grazing in riparian areas can cause non-point source water pollution. 

(Mosley et al. 2005) Although grazing is managed under the Standards for Rangeland Health and 

permittees generally follow its mandates, it is difficult to apply these standards to free-roaming 

cattle on a day-to-day basis. Consequently there can be occasional impacts in these areas. 

Livestock grazing may also cause long-term direct impacts to cultural resources. (See Alkali 

Ridge ACEC Alternative A). 

Under this alternative, the area would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. This 

would directly benefit the values of the ACEC by precluding surface disturbance. This decision 

would help to preserve the pristine nature of the river corridor and would enhance the 

recreational experience. Sedimentation and pollution from surface disturbance would be reduced 

thereby improving or maintaining water quality and wildlife habitat. The visual integrity of the 

area would be preserved. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-505 

The river corridor would be managed as VRM Class I, Class II, and Class III. In those areas that 

would be managed as VRM Class I or Class II, the values of the ACEC would be protected 

because surface disturbance would not occur in VRM Class I areas and would be limited in 

VRM Class II areas. However those areas that would be managed as VRM Class III would be 

subject to moderate levels of surface-disturbing activities that would adversely impact the values 

of the ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.11.2. Alternative B 

This alternative differs from Alternative A because the entire area would be managed as NSO for 

mineral leasing and the VRM categories would shift from a higher percentage of VRM Class I to 

a higher percentage of VRM Class II and Class III. In addition the entire area would be closed to 

mineral materials disposal rather than just the ROS-P areas, and livestock grazing seasons of use 

would be shortened by two weeks to one month depending on the allotment. 

Managing the entire area as NSO for mineral leasing would have beneficial impacts to the values 

of the ACEC by preventing surface disturbance. Shifting from a higher percentage of VRM 

Class I to VRM Class II and Class III could have some impacts to the values of the ACEC 

because some level of surface disturbance may be allowed under VRM Class II and would 

certainly be allowed under VRM Class III. Even though the disturbances may meet the visual 

standards there would still be the risk of impacts to the wildlife, cultural, and natural systems 

values because of sedimentation, noise, and inadvertent damages to cultural sites from 

development. 

Closing the entire area to minerals materials disposal would further protect the values of the 

ACEC by eliminating surface disturbance and impacts from mining activities such as and noise 

from construction and operations. 

Shortening the seasons of use for livestock grazing would benefit the values of the ACEC by 

reducing forage and habitat conflicts with wildlife and reducing the risk of impacts to riparian 

areas as noted in Alternative A. 

Range, wildlife, and watershed improvement projects, including vegetation treatments would 

benefit wildlife by enhancing habitat. These projects would provide opportunities to restore 

native vegetation communities, benefiting the natural systems of the ACEC. Vegetation 

treatment would also add variety to the vegetation component of the landscape, enhancing the 

scenic appeal of the areas (e.g., restoring riparian communities, adding openings of shrubs and 

grasses to pinyon-juniper stands). While these projects may not directly benefit cultural 

resources, they would be designed, mitigated, and implemented to prevent harm or disturbance to 

cultural sites. 

4.3.14.2.11.3. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan 

Alternative C would be the same as Alternative B. The Proposed Plan would be the same as 

Alternative B, except for a smaller ACEC (4,321 acres). Under the Proposed Plan, 3,269 acres 

would not be designated and managed as an ACEC. The relevant and important wildlife, scenic, 

and cultural resource values and natural system values would be protected, however. Those lands 

not managed for their ACEC values would be located in a segment of the San Juan River 

recommended suitable for wild and scenic river designation. Management to protect river values 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-506 

would also protect the relevant and important values of the lands in the ACEC not designated 

under the Proposed Plan . 

4.3.14.2.11.4. Alternative D 

The area would not be designated as an ACEC under this alternative. The area would be 

managed with the same prescriptions, as Alternative B except that the entire area would be 

managed as VRM Class II and Class III, livestock use would be allowed from October 1-May 

31, and the area would not be recommended for mineral withdrawal. 

Managing the area as VRM Class II would offer beneficial protections to the values of the ACEC 

by precluding most surface use and retaining the visual integrity of the landscape. VRM Class III 

objectives would allow more moderate changes to the landscape, affecting the scenic quality of 

the lands. Livestock seasons of use would be similar to Alternative A. Please see the discussion 

under that alternative for possible impacts. Since the area would not be recommended for 

withdrawal there would be a risk of impacts to the values of the ACEC from mineral entry. The 

riparian corridor would be managed as NSO for oil and gas development, and there would only 

be impacts if an exception was applied, or the development area was outside of the riparian 

corridor. 

4.3.14.2.11.5. Alternative E 

The impacts under Alternative E would be the same as those under Alternative B, except that 

approximately 2,155 acres (28% of the proposed ACEC) of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed with further resource protections in order to preserve their 

wilderness values. This management decision would further protect the relevant and important 

(wildlife, scenic, cultural values, and natural systems) values of the ACEC by closing the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics to mineral leasing and mining entry, managing the 

area under VRM Class I objectives, excluding ROWs, prohibiting new roads, and closing the 

area to woodland harvesting and OHV travel. 

4.3.14.2.12. SCENIC HIGHWAY ACEC 

There are several Scenic Byways or Backways including: Indian Creek Corridor Scenic Byway, 

Bicentennial Trail of the Ancients, Monument Valley to Bluff Scenic Backway, Lockhart Basin 

Road Scenic Backway, Abajo Loop Road Scenic Backway, and Trail of the Ancients Scenic 

Backway. Management of lands adjacent to Scenic Byways and Backways could affect the 

visitor’s experience while driving along the Byways, depending on the activities allowed. 

Generally, surface-disturbing activities could have an adverse impact to the visitor experience 

that might be driving by on their way to a destination or visiting the Cedar Mesa area. VRM 

Classes I and II limit surface disturbance and tend to protect the scenic values and are therefore a 

benefit to the Scenic Byways and Backways. Protection such as NSO, closed to leasing, ROW 

avoidance and exclusion areas, and special designations such as WSAs, ACECs, and WSRs 

could all benefit the Scenic Byways by restricting or minimizing surface disturbance. Standard 

terms and conditions allow for moving oil and gas operations up to 200 m and could delay 

activities for up to 60 days which could be used to mitigate some impacts. Impacts from dust 

clouds (from filming, mineral development or exploration) could be allowed in most of these 

areas and would adversely impact visitor experiences; however, the impact would be short term. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-507 

Alternatives B and E tend to be more restrictive regarding surface-disturbing activities. 

Alternative E is the most restrictive protecting 582,360 acres for non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics by closing the area to surface-disturbing activities, OHV use, and recommending 

the areas for mineral withdrawal. 

WSAs are managed the same for all alternatives and the Proposed Plan and restrict activities that 

might adversely impact the Scenic Byways and Backways. Alternative A would manage the 

ACEC as NSO and VRM Class I. This generally would restrict surface-disturbing activities on 

the entire 79,017 acres of the Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.12.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A the area proposed for designation as an ACEC is 79,017 acres, although 

21,380 acres overlap with Cedar Mesa ACEC. Thus outside the Cedar Mesa ACEC, the Scenic 

Highway ACEC is 57,637 acres. Further, there are 9,930 acres that overlap with WSAs and are 

protected by the IMP (Map 87). The 9,930 acres would continue to be protected under all 

alternatives. 

Alternative A would allow for mineral leasing with NSO, open to mineral entry with an 

approved plan of operation, excluded from land treatments, and managed as VRM Class I. VRM 

Class I, would eliminate the risk of damage from major surface-disturbing activities within the 

57,737 acres because of the restrictive nature of this management class. Consequently, even 

though mineral development (including minerals disposal, entry and leasing) would be allowed 

under Alternative A, it is restricted by the overriding requirements of VRM Class I. There is 

some risk of localized surface disturbance from geophysical work but it would be minor and 

would not impact the values of the ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.12.2. Alternatives B, C, and D and the Proposed Plan 

Under these alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the area would not be managed as an ACEC. 

Under Alternative B, however, due to the overlap of 21,380 acres with the Cedar Mesa ACEC, 

protection of scenic values would still occur. As stated above, under all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan, those lands that overlap with WSAs would be protected by the IMP (Maps 88–

90). No appreciable impacts to the scenic values of those lands would occur. 

4.3.14.2.12.3. Alternative E 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B except for those non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that lie within the ACEC corridor. Non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to leasing, closed to OHV travel, recommended for withdrawal 

from mineral entry, and managed by VRM Class I objectives. These restrictive measures would 

limit surface disturbance and reduce impacts so as to be negligible for any lands that overlap 

between the Scenic Highway ACEC and non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.14.2.13. VALLEY OF THE GODS ACEC

Valley of the Gods is an existing special emphasis area within the Cedar Mesa ACEC. Under 

Alternatives B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan, 22,863 acres (including the special emphasis 

area) would be managed as a stand-alone ACEC to provide special management attention to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-508 

protect the area's relevant and important scenic values. The area would not be designated as an 

ACEC under Alternative D. 

4.3.14.2.13.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the 31,387-acres special emphasis area would be managed as NSO for 

mineral leasing and it would be open to the disposal of mineral materials, mineral entry, and 

geophysical work. Since the area would also be managed as VRM I this would preclude most 

development and resultant surface disturbance, except in areas where that disturbance would not 

be visible. This would have beneficial impacts on the scenic values of the ACEC by protecting 

the area from visible surface disturbance. With Alternative A, the area would be open to 

woodlands harvest but this would not impact the values of the ACEC because there are very few 

woodland resources in the area. In addition the area is open to livestock and OHV use limited to 

designated trails. These prescriptions would have minor impacts to the scenic values from 

localized surface disturbance but would not impact the larger landscape. A withdrawal from 

mineral entry would not be pursued under this alternative, but again with a VRM Class I 

management objectives, visible surface disturbance would be precluded. 

4.3.14.2.13.2. Alternatives B and C 

Under Alternatives B and C, the size of the ACEC would be reduced to 22,863 acres, 8,524 acres 

less than the Special Emphasis Area under Alternative A. These alternative differ from 

Alternative A because the area would be closed to the disposal of mineral materials, mineral 

leasing, and woodland product harvest, and a withdrawal from mineral entry would be pursued. 

These actions would limit surface disturbance in the entire ACEC, protecting scenic values, even 

areas unseen from primary viewpoints. These actions would also provide additional protection to 

other resource values because it would limit surface disturbance, again, even in areas that are not 

visible to the average traveler. Under Alternatives B and C, vegetation treatments would be 

allowed. These treatments would be required to comply with VRM Class I objectives, protecting 

the scenic value of the ACEC. Vegetation treatments may also introduce variety to the vegetation 

component of the landscape, and enhance the visual appeal of an area. One other difference from 

Alternative A is that campfires would not be allowed. This would offer temporary beneficial 

protections to the scenic values of the ACEC by preventing haze. 

4.3.14.2.13.3. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the area would not be designated as an ACEC. The area would be managed 

as open to minerals leasing, mineral entry, and mineral material disposal, with a VRM Class III 

landscape objective. Since this area has high development potential for limestone and sand and 

gravel and moderate development potential for oil and gas, some development could occur. This 

would introduce modification of the landform and vegetation and introduce human-made 

structures, negatively affecting the relevant and important scenic values of this eligible ACEC. 

However, depending of the type and the location of development, it may be possible to screen 

from key observation points, although it would not be required under VRM III. The area would 

be available for campfire use under this alternative and this would cause temporary impacts to 

the scenic values from haze. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-509 

4.3.14.2.13.4. Alternative E 

The impacts under Alternative E would be the same as those under Alternatives B and C, except 

that approximately 20,743 acres of the ACEC (91%) would be managed with further resource 

protections in order to maintain those non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that lie 

within the ACEC boundaries. This management would further protect the relevant and important 

scenic values of the ACEC by limiting surface disturbance through closure to mineral leasing 

and mining entry, management under VRM Class I objectives, exclusion of ROWs and new 

roads, closure of the area to woodland harvesting and wood gathering, and closure of the area to 

OHV travel. 

4.3.14.2.13.5. Proposed Plan 

The impacts of the Proposed Plan would be the same as Alternative B, except that mineral 

withdrawal would not be recommended, and the ACEC would be open to mineral leasing subject 

to no surface occupancy. However, under the Proposed Plan, land uses would be required to 

comply with VRM Class I management objectives, and visible surface disturbance would be 

precluded, protecting the relevant and important scenic ACEC values. 

4.3.14.3. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS – IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVE AND THE 

PROPOSED PLAN

In all action alternatives (B, C, D and E) and the Proposed Plan, where eligible rivers would be 

determined suitable, the BLM would manage these segments to protect or enhance the 

outstandingly remarkable values, tentative classification, and free-flowing nature of these rivers 

with specific protection allocations within the river corridor (1/4 mile of the high water mark on 

each side of the river). The extent of BLM’s authority is limited to those portions of the segment 

where BLM manages the shoreline, or other lands within the corridor, and is subject to valid 

existing rights. Further discussion is presented in Appendix H, Special Designations including 

the suitability determination. 

The free-flowing character of eligible river segments would be protected to the extent that 

modifications such as stream impoundments, channelization, and/or rip rapping would not be 

permitted along BLM shorelines. However, depending upon the alternative, values may be at risk 

from potential mineral development, OHV activity, or other surface-disturbing activities. Also, 

the protection is limited because there are no federal reserved water rights established for instream flow purposes because of eligibility or suitability determinations. In addition, unless BLM 

land is somehow involved in a proposed action, BLM has no control of potential modifications 

of the shoreline or other development (including development related to the perfection of water 

rights) on non-public lands. Because of these factors, there would be no affect on the Colorado 

River Compact from protective management of eligible/suitable segments. BLM's management 

authority only extends to public lands within the river corridor, and there are no water rights 

associated with suitability determinations. A suitability determination also has no effect on 

existing water compacts. Table 4.134 outlines the segments of rivers that would be determined 

suitable by alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-510 

4.3.14.4. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS – ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

Shown in Table 4.134 is a summary of management prescriptions by alternative. In all cases 

where the recommendation is "suitable wild" the lands are recommended for withdrawal from 

mineral entry. 

Table 4.134. River Segments that Would be Determined Suitable and Total River Miles 

(RM), by Alternative 

River/ 

River Segment 

Alternative 

A 

Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Proposed 

Plan 

Colorado River 

 Segment #1-

Recreational 

0 2.2 0 0 0 

 Segment #2-Scenic 0 5.5 5.5 0 5.5 

 Segment #3-Scenic 0 6.5 6.5 0 6.5 

Indian CreekRecreational 

0 4.8 0 0 0 

Fable Valley-Scenic 0 6.8 0 0 0 

Dark Canyon-Wild 0 6.4 6.4 0 6.4 

San Juan River 

 Segment #1-

Recreational 

0 8.5 0 0 0 

 Segment #2-

Recreational 

0 10 0 0 0 

 Segment #3-Wild 0 13.3 0 0 0 

 Segment #4-

Recreational 

0 4.2 0 0 0 

 Segment #5-Wild 0 17.3 0 0 17.3 

Arch CanyonRecreational 

0 6.9 0 0 0 

Total 0 92.4 18.4 0 35.7 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-511 

Table 4.135. River Segments Evaluated and Recommended for Wild and Scenic River Designation by Alte

Segment Acres Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Colorado River Segment #1 

352 Not evaluated 

NSO in floodplains and riparian corridors ROS semi primitive, non-motorized 

Recommendation: Suitable, Recreational VRM III Standard oil and gas lease terms 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, RecreationSame as Alternative 

Colorado River Segment #2 

880 Eligible 

NSO in floodplains and riparian corridors ROS semi primitive, non-motorized 

Recommendation: Suitable, Scenic VRM II NSO oil and gas leasing 

Recommendation: Suitable, Scenic Same as Alternative B 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, Scenic Same as Alternative 

Colorado River Segment #3 

1,040 Eligible 

NSO in floodplains and riparian corridors ROS semi primitive, non-motorized 

Recommendation: Suitable, Scenic VRM I Closed to oil and gas leasing Recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry 

Recommendation: Suitable, Scenic Same as Alternative B 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, Scenic Same as Alternative except: Closed to oil and gas leasing. 

Indian Creek 1,536 Not evaluated Recommendation: 

Suitable, Recreational VRM III Standard oil and gas lease terms NSO in floodplains and riparian corridors 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, RecreationSame as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-512 

Table 4.135. River Segments Evaluated and Recommended for Wild and Scenic River Designation by Alte

Segment Acres Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Dark Canyon 2,048 Not evaluated Recommendation: 

Suitable, Wild VRM I Closed to oil and gas leasing Recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry 

Recommendation: Suitable, Wild Same as Alternative B 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, Wild Same as Alternative 

Fable Valley 2,176 Not evaluated Recommendation: 

Suitable, Scenic VRM I NSO oil and gas leasing 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, Scenic Same as Alternative except: Closed to oil and gas leasing 

San Juan River Segment #1 

1,360 Not evaluated Recommendation: 

Suitable, Recreational VRM III Standard oil and gas lease terms NSO in floodplains and riparian corridors 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, RecreationSame as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-513 

Table 4.135. River Segments Evaluated and Recommended for Wild and Scenic River Designation by Alte

Segment Acres Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

San Juan River Segment #2 

1,600 Eligible. 

VRM I Withdrawn from mineral entry Surface disturbance from mining activities on existing claims would be limited to the extent possible without curtailing valid existing rights Area above the rim in the vicinity of the Bluff airport lease would be available for mineral material disposal. In areas closed to OHV a plan of operations is required for any mining-related activity other than casual use 

Recommendation: Suitable, Recreational VRM III Standard oil and gas lease terms NSO in floodplains and riparian corridors 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, RecreationSame as Alternative 

San Juan River Segment #3 

2,128 Same as San Juan 

River Segment #2 

Recommendation: Suitable, Wild VRM I Closed to oil and gas leasing Recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, Wild Same as Alternative except: Closed to oil and gas leasing 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-514 

Table 4.135. River Segments Evaluated and Recommended for Wild and Scenic River Designation by Alte

Segment Acres Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

San Juan River Segment #4 

672 Same as San Juan 

River Segment #2 

Recommendation: Suitable, Recreational VRM III Standard oil and gas lease terms NSO in floodplains and riparian corridors 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, RecreationSame as Alternative 

San Juan River Segment #5 

2,768 Same as San Juan 

River Segment #2 

Recommendation: Suitable, Wild VRM I NSO oil and gas leasing Recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, Wild Same as Alternative 

Arch Canyon 2,208 Not evaluated Recommendation: 

Suitable, Recreational VRM III Standard oil and gas lease terms NSO in floodplains and riparian corridors 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Not Suitable 

Recommendation: Suitable, RecreationSame as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-515 

4.3.14.4.1. ALTERNATIVE A

Under Alternative A, a suitability determination would not be made, but those river segments 

that were determined eligible in the 1991 San Juan RMP would remain eligible with this 

alternative. Where BLM manages the shoreline or other lands within the river corridors they 

would be managed to maintain the free-flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and 

tentative classification. The segments determined to be eligible were Colorado River Segments 

#2 and #3 and San Juan River Segments #2 (portion), #3, #4, and #5. Because the eligible river 

corridors would be subject to the existing land-use plan as far as resource allocations are 

concerned, they may be subject to case-by-case actions. These would be addressed through the 

NEPA process with mitigation applied. If any proposed land uses would affect the eligibility of a 

river segment, it is BLM policy to deny the action until suitability can be considered. Although a 

suitability determination would not be made in Alternative A (No Action), all eligible rivers 

would continue to be managed to protect the outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) in a caseby-case manner. The protective measures identified for the Colorado and San Juan River 

segments would continue. 

The San Juan River (Segments #1 and #2), Arch Canyon, Fable Valley, Indian Creek would be 

managed as open to minerals leasing under Standard stipulations or timing and controlled surface 

use. The San Juan River (Segments #3, #4, and #5), Fable Valley, and Dark Canyon would be 

managed as NSO or closed to mineral leasing. All segments except for the Colorado River and 

Dark Canyon would be open to mineral entry and the Colorado, Indian Creek, and San Juan 

River Segments (#1 and #2) are open to minerals material disposal. Generally, riparian corridors 

would be managed as NSO under BLM's riparian policy and therefore, regardless of the leasing 

category these areas would be protected from development. However there is an exception to 

allow for development in riparian areas if there are no other practical alternatives. In addition, on 

smaller rivers, in areas where the 0.25-mile WSR corridor extends beyond the riparian corridor 

there would not be NSO protection. In these instances, where mineral leasing (with Standard 

stipulations or timing and controlled surface use), mining entry, or mineral material disposal 

would be allowed, the outstandingly remarkable values of these rivers may be at risk from 

surface disturbance, habitat fragmentation, loss of visual integrity, and noise from construction 

and operation of mineral development infrastructure. 

With this alternative, Dark Canyon and the San Juan River would be managed as SRMAs. This 

would enhance this segment's recreational values, and would not affect the other outstandingly 

remarkable values. It would not affect the free-flowing nature of the river, and would be in 

keeping with the tentative classification of scenic, recreational, or wild. 

Arch Canyon, Colorado River (Segment #2), and the San Juan River (Segments #1 and #2) are in 

an open OHV category. Temporary impacts to outstandingly remarkable values could occur from 

surface disturbance and noise. All the remaining eligible river segments would be in a limited or 

closed OHV category. River corridors would largely be protected from disturbance related to 

OHV activity. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-516 

4.3.14.4.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

With Alternative B, 92.4 river miles involving the following eligible river segments – Colorado 

River (Segments #1, #2, and #3), Arch Canyon, Fable Valley, Indian Creek, Dark Canyon, and 

the San Juan River (Segments #1 through #5) would be determined suitable for designation into 

the National Wild and Scenic River System (see Table 4.135). Overall, because of the increased 

acreage identified and managed as suitable, and because other resource allocations such as OHV 

use limited to designated routes, and closure to mineral entry in all wild segments, this 

alternative would provide greater protection to outstandingly remarkable values than would the 

No Action Alternative. 

The San Juan River (Segments #1, #2, and #4), Colorado River (Segment #1), Indian Creek and 

Arch Canyon would be managed as open to minerals leasing under Standard stipulations or 

timing and controlled surface use, though floodplains and the riparian zones would be NSO. The 

San Juan River (Segments #3 and #5), Fable Valley, and Dark Canyon would be managed as 

NSO or closed to mineral leasing. All segments would be open to mineral materials disposal and 

the Colorado River (Segments #1 and #2), the San Juan (Segments #1, #2, and #4), Arch 

Canyon, and Fable Valley would be open to mineral entry. The risks to the ORVs in these 

segments are as noted above in Alternative A. 

With Alternative B the Colorado River (Segment #3), Dark Canyon, Fable Valley, and the San 

Juan River (Segment #3 and #5) would be managed as VRM Class I and the Colorado River 

(Segment #2) would be managed as VRM Class II. These segments would have direct beneficial 

protection to the scenic values and indirect benefits to other resource values because the VRM 

objectives would limit surface disturbance. Unless other management prescriptions would limit 

surface disturbance in these areas, the remaining segments would be at risk for adverse impacts 

to the ORVs from surface-disturbing activities. 

With this alternative, the San Juan River and Dark Canyon would be managed as SRMAs. This 

would emphasize these segments' recreational values, and would not affect the other 

outstandingly remarkable values. It would not affect the free-flowing nature of the river, and 

would be in keeping with the tentative scenic classification. 

All eligible and suitable river segments would be in a limited or closed OHV category, with most 

of the segments limited. River corridors would largely be protected from disturbance related to 

OHV activity. No loss of outstandingly remarkable values from OHV use would be anticipated 

during the next 15 years. 

4.3.14.4.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

With Alternative C, 18.4 river miles involving the eligible Colorado River Segments #2 and #3 

and Dark Canyon Segment would be determined suitable for designation into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System (see Table 4.135). This alternative would be more protective to the 

ORVs than Alternatives A and D but less so than Alternatives B and E. 

The San Juan River (Segments #1, #2 and #4), Colorado River (Segment #1), Indian Creek and 

Arch Canyon would be managed as open to minerals leasing under Standard stipulations or 

timing and controlled surface use. The San Juan River Segments #3 and #5, Fable Valley, and 

Dark Canyon would be managed as NSO or closed to mineral leasing. All segments would be 

open to mineral materials disposal. With Alternative C, mineral withdrawals would be pursued 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-517 

on the San Juan Segments #3 and #5 and Dark Canyon to restrict mineral-related disturbance and 

would therefore protect the outstandingly remarkable values and tentative classification of the 

river segments from mineral entry. The risks to the ORVs in the segments open to minerals 

leasing under Standard stipulations and timing and controlled surface use are as noted above in 

Alternative A. 

With Alternative C, Colorado River (Segment #1) and Dark Canyon would be managed as VRM 

Class I and Colorado River (Segment #2) and Fable Valley would be managed as VRM Class II. 

These segments would have beneficial direct protection to scenic and other resource values 

because the objectives limit surface disturbance. Unless there would be other management 

prescriptions that would limit surface disturbance in these areas the remaining segments would 

be at risk for adverse impacts to the ORVs. 

 With this alternative, Dark Canyon and the San Juan River would be managed as SRMAs. This 

would emphasize these segments' recreational values, and would not affect the other 

outstandingly remarkable values. It would not affect the free-flowing nature of the river, and 

would be in keeping with the tentative classification of scenic. 

All eligible and suitable river segments would be in a limited or closed OHV category, with most 

of the segments limited. River corridors would largely be protected from surface disturbance 

related to OHV activity. No loss of outstandingly remarkable values from OHV use would be 

anticipated during the next 15 years. 

4.3.14.4.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

No segments would be recommended suitable for designation under this alternative. This 

alternative would offer the least protections to the WSRs in comparison to Alternatives A, B, C 

and E and the Proposed Plan. 

The San Juan River (Segments #1, #2, and #4), Colorado River (Segments #1, #2, and #3), 

Indian Creek, and Arch Canyon would be managed as open to minerals leasing under Standard 

stipulations or timing and controlled surface use. The San Juan River (Segments #3, #5), Fable 

Valley, and Dark Canyon would be managed as NSO or closed to mineral leasing. All segments 

would be open to mineral materials disposal. No mineral withdrawals would be pursued with this 

alternative. 

Fable Valley and Dark Canyon would be managed as VRM Class I and the San Juan River 

would be managed as VRM Class II. These segments would provide direct protection to scenic 

and other resource values because these landscape objectives limit most surface-disturbing 

activities. The remaining segments would be managed as VRM Class III. Unless there would be 

other management prescriptions that would limit surface disturbance in these areas the remaining 

segments would be at risk for adverse impacts to the ORVs from surface disturbance, habitat 

fragmentation, loss of visual integrity, and noise from construction and operation of mineral 

development infrastructure. 

With this alternative, Dark Canyon and the San Juan River would be managed as SRMAs. This 

would emphasize this segment's recreational values, and would not affect the other outstandingly 

remarkable values. It would not affect the free-flowing nature of the river, and would be in 

keeping with the tentative classification of scenic. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-518 

All eligible river segments would be in a limited or closed OHV category, with most of the 

segments limited. River corridors would largely be protected from disturbance related to OHV 

activity. No loss of outstandingly remarkable values from OHV use would be anticipated during 

the next 15 years. 

4.3.14.4.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts under Alternative E would be the same as those under Alternative B, except that 

Colorado River Segment #3, San Juan River Segment #3, and Fable Valley would be closed to 

oil and gas leasing, and Colorado River Segment #3 and San Juan Segment #3 would be 

managed lands to maintain the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA land with wilderness 

characteristics where they exist along those segments. Because of these additional management 

prescriptions, this alternative would offer the greatest protection to WSRs in comparison to 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.14.4.6. PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, 35.7 river miles involving the eligible Colorado River Segments #2 

and #3, San Juan River Segment # 5, and Dark Canyon would be determined suitable for 

designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System (see Table 4.135). This alternative 

would be more protective to the ORVs than Alternatives A, C, and D but less so than 

Alternatives B and E. 

The San Juan River (Segments #1, #2 and #4), Colorado River (Segment #1), Indian Creek and 

Arch Canyon would be managed as open to minerals leasing under Standard stipulations or 

timing and controlled surface use. The San Juan Segments #3, Fable Valley, and Dark Canyon 

Rivers would be managed as NSO or closed to mineral leasing. All segments would be open to 

mineral materials disposal. Mineral withdrawals would be pursued on the Colorado River 

Segment #3, the San Juan River Segments #5, and Dark Canyon to restrict mineral-related 

disturbance and would therefore protect the outstandingly remarkable values and tentative 

classification of the river segments from mineral entry. The risks to the ORVs in the segments 

open to minerals leasing under Standard stipulations and timing and controlled surface use are as 

noted above in Alternative A. 

Under the Proposed Plan, San Juan River Segment # 5 and Dark Canyon would be managed as 

VRM I and the Colorado River Segments #2 and #3 would be managed as VRM II. These 

segments would have beneficial direct protection to scenic and other resource values because 

these landscape objectives would limit surface disturbance. Unless there would be other 

management prescriptions that would limit surface disturbance in these areas the remaining 

segments would be at risk for adverse impacts to the ORVs. 

With the Proposed Plan, Dark Canyon would be managed as SRMAs. This would emphasize 

these segments' recreational values, and would not affect the other outstandingly remarkable 

values. It would not affect the free-flowing nature of the river, and would be in keeping with the 

tentative classification of scenic. 

All eligible and suitable river segments would be in a limited or closed OHV category, with most 

of the segments limited. River corridors would largely be protected from disturbance related to 

OHV activity. No loss of outstandingly remarkable values from OHV use would be anticipated 

during the next 15 years. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-519 

4.3.14.5. IMPACTS TO WILDERNESS AND WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSAS) 

WSAs are managed under the Interim Management Policy (IMP), which directs the BLM to 

manage the area so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness. This applies 

to all uses and activities except those specifically exempted from this standard by FLPMA (such 

as grandfathered uses) (BLM 1995). Because of this protective management requirement, there 

would be no impacts to WSAs from implementation of this plan except in areas with valid 

existing rights. In those areas the impacts would be similar to those described in Section 4.3.8, 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics. Table 4.136 shows the acreages of WSAs in 

the Monticello FO. 

Table 4.136. Acreages of WSAs in the 

Monticello FO 

WSA Acreage1 

Bridger Jack Mesa 6,301 

Butler Wash 22,043 

Cheese Box Canyon 14,826 

Cross Canyon 945 

Dark Canyon ISA Complex 67,822 

Fish Creek Canyon 46,089 

Grand Gulch ISA Complex 105,181 

Indian Creek 6,884 

Mancos Mesa 50,876 

Mule Canyon 5,977 

Road Canyon 52,372 

South Needles 159 

Squaw and Papoose Canyon 6,552 

Total 386,027 

1 Acreages are GIS calculations and may not reflect acreages 

presented in BLM statewide Wilderness Study Report. 

 

All WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I. This management objective would preserve the 

natural landscape. Protection of the natural landscape would protect the setting required to 

provide for opportunities for solitude and needed to support primitive recreation activities. OHV 

travel in WSAs would be limited to designated routes. This would protect the natural character of 

the landscape of the WSAs, but allow for temporary, short-term impacts to opportunities for 

solitude and primitive forms of recreation in the WSA where motorized travel would be 

permitted. 

4.3.14.6. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Alternatives B and E would manage the largest area (521,241 acres) of the Monticello PA as 

ACECs, followed by Alternative A (504,947 acres), and Alternative C (76,764 acres) and the 

Proposed Plan (73,495 acres). No ACECs would be designated under Alternative D. Although 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-520 

Alternative A would designate a comparable number of areas as ACECs, its management 

prescriptions would generally not be as protective of the relevant and important ACEC values as 

Alternatives B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan. Therefore, Alternative E, which has the most 

acres designated and the most protective management prescriptions, would be the most 

protective of relevant and important ACEC values, followed by Alternatives B and C, the 

Proposed Plan and Alternative A, respectively. Alternative D would not provide any beneficial 

impacts to the ACEC values. Alternatives B and E best prevent irreparable damage to the 

relevant and important values, resources, natural systems and natural hazards. Alternative D does 

the least to prevent irreparable damage to the relevant and important values, resources, natural 

systems or natural hazards. However, to some degree because WSAs overlap many of the 

ACECs in Alternative A, protection is generally in place (Map 87). 

In all action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) and the Proposed Plan, where eligible 

rivers would be recommended suitable, the BLM would manage these segments to protect or 

enhance the outstandingly remarkable values, tentative classification, and free-flowing nature of 

these rivers with specific protective allocations within the river corridor (1/4 mile of the high 

water mark on each side of the river) to the extent of its authority, which is limited to those 

portions of the segment where BLM manages the shoreline or other lands within the corridor, 

and is subject to valid existing rights. Under Alternative A, a suitability determination would not 

be made, but those river segments that were determined eligible in the 1991 San Juan RMP 

would remain eligible with this alternative. Where BLM manages the shoreline or other lands 

within the river corridors, the rivers would be managed to maintain the free-flowing condition, 

outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification. Under Alternatives B and E, 92.4 

miles of river would be recommended as suitable; with the greatest beneficial impacts to wild 

and scenic rivers. Management prescriptions under Alternative E would be slightly more 

protective than those under Alternative B. The Proposed Plan would recommend 35.7 miles of 

river as suitable. Alternative D recommends 18.4 miles suitable for designation. Alternative D 

would not find any segments suitable. 

The management of WSAs would be the same under all alternatives. WSAs would be managed 

under the Interim Management Plan (IMP), which directs the BLM to manage the area so as not 

to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness. 

4.3.14.7. MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation measures would be required under any of the alternatives or the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.14.8. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts would occur from surface disturbance resulting from mineral 

development and OHV activity, where they are permitted under any alternative or the Proposed 

Plan. 

4.3.14.9. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Any loss of relevant and important ACEC values and outstanding remarkable wild and scenic 

river values, from surface disturbances created by other resource uses, would persist throughout 

the next 15 years, and would constitute a long-term loss of these values as a result of short-term 

uses. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-521 

4.3.14.10. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Any loss of relevant and important ACEC values or outstanding remarkable wild and scenic river 

values due to mineral development, OHV activity, or other surface disturbances would be 

irretrievable, lasting until the affected area was fully reclaimed, either naturally or with human 

intervention. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-522 

4.3.15. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

This section discusses impacts to special status species from management decisions of other 

resources and resource uses described in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning special status 

species are described in Chapter 3. 

Because of the large number of special status species that may occur in the Monticello PA, 

including Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species, it was determined that, in some cases, 

the most effective way to disclose impacts at the programmatic level would be to analyze the 

impacts to the habitat cover type used by those species. Accordingly, for the purposes of 

analysis, the special status species described in Chapter 3, Section 3.16 are grouped by habitat 

type, as shown in Table 4.137 below. Impacts to federally listed species are also analyzed by 

habitat type. Quantitative information is provided for the following species: Mexican Spotted 

Owl (MSO), Gunnison Sage-grouse, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWFL), Bald Eagle, and 

Colorado River fish (humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail). 

4.3.15.1. ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS

The habitats associated with these species are representative of the habitats of the other special 

status species (see Table 4.137). All habitat impacts analyzed in this section are approximations 

based on assumptions regarding the potential locations of facilities, vegetation treatments, 

grazing, and other impacts from management decisions. Representations of the available habitat 

(and critical habitat where designated) for these representative species within the Monticello PA 

can be found in Map 93(Colorado fish species and MSO), Map 92 (Bald Eagle), and Map 91 

(SWFL). Acreage calculations used for analysis for SWFL and Yellow-billed Cuckoo habitat 

were made using riparian vegetation acreages. Because both species utilize micro-habitats within 

riparian habitat, all habitat acreage calculations are likely over-estimations for these species. The 

Bald Eagle habitat acres used in this document include a 1-mile-wide buffer on all streams and 

rivers in the Monticello PA, all BLM mule deer winter range and a .0.5-mile buffer on Highways 

SR-191, SR-95, SR-275, and SR-211 (personal communication between Deb Reber and Susan 

Martin, SWCA, and Tammy Wallace, BLM, September 22, 2006). Acres of habitat for the MSO 

and the 4 endangered Colorado River fish species used in this document are taken from the GIS 

habitat layer for these species provided by the USFWS and BLM. Acres of Gunnison Sagegrouse habitat used in the following analyses were taken from the DWR habitat GIS layer. All 

references to the Colorado River fishes are specifically referring to the federally endangered 

bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila 

cypha), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). These 4 species are managed similarly, and 

impacts can typically be analyzed as a group. 

The black-footed ferret is not known to occur in the Monticello PA. However, the possibility 

exists that at some point in time the introduction of experimental non-essential populations of 

ferrets may be considered. Because there are no specific plans or time frames for reintroductions, potential re-introductions are not analyzed and potential impacts to black-footed 

ferrets are not analyzed. 

In all of the following subsections, management decisions discussed for each of the alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan are in addition to those discussed under Management Common to All 

Alternatives and the Proposed Plan in Table 2.1 of Chapter 2. The Proposed Plan and alternatives 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-523 

have the potential for adverse impacts on special status species through decisions for resource 

management such as travel, recreational use of the land, vegetation treatments, and oil or gas 

development. 

For most resource decisions for which there is limited variation in impacts by habitat type, 

impacts are discussed by the Proposed Plan and alternative in order to give an overall description 

of the impacts resulting from the management action. 

Air quality management does not directly result in additional emissions or air quality 

degradation. Potential impacts to air quality from actions, such as the construction of access 

roads to oil and gas development sites, would be analyzed as part of the energy and minerals 

program in the environmental analysis prepared for that action. Appropriate Section 7 

consultation with USFWS would be conducted as a part of the environmental process. Therefore, 

any potential impacts to air quality would result from implementing aspects of the energy and 

minerals program Given the objectives and goals of the air quality program and the support 

function for maintenance of appropriate air quality standards, implementation of the air quality 

program would not impact any of the listed threatened or endangered plant, fish, and animal 

species analyzed in this report and would not impact any of the designated critical habitat of the 

threatened or endangered fish and animal species analyzed in this report within the Monticello 

PA. 

The alternatives have the potential for both adverse and beneficial impacts on special status 

species through management actions such as travel management, recreational use of the land, 

vegetation treatments, and oil or gas development. Wherever possible, this document quantifies 

the amount and types of habitats that would be directly disturbed or reclaimed due to such 

actions. However, it is often difficult to quantify the loss or improvement of quality or condition 

of a habitat. Subtle increases or decreases in weeds, shrubs, forbs, water availability, undisturbed 

areas, or birthing or wintering grounds can greatly affect the distribution, health, and survival of 

a diversity of sensitive plant and animal species. The degree to which these impacts could occur 

varies by alternative, with alternatives that increase the amount of surface disturbance within 

special status species' habitats generally having greater potential adverse impacts on these 

species. Attempts are made to address potential impacts within each action analysis, but the 

discussions are often qualitative due to the difficulty in measuring such changes. 

Additional assumptions for this chapter include the following: (1) implementation of all of the 

alternatives would be in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and standard management 

guidelines; (2) actions associated with emergency or public safety would be performed at the 

discretion of the Authorized Officer; (3) though impacts resulting from implementation of any of 

the alternatives may extend beyond Monticello PA boundaries, they will be analyzed to their 

logical conclusion even if they extend beyond Monticello PA boundaries (an example of this 

would be analyzing impacts to aquatic species, including downstream impacts beyond the 

Monticello PA boundaries); and that, (4) public land users will comply with the decisions and 

allocations contained in the alternatives. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3

4-524 

Table 4.137. Grouping of Special Status Species by Habitat Type 

Habitat BLM Special Status Species Federally Listed Species Designa

Desert Shrub Wildlife: Gunnison's prairie dog, desert night lizard, 

ferruginous hawk, short-eared owl, Brewer's sparrow, loggerhead shrike, pinyon jay, sage sparrow 

Wildlife: None Wildlife: No

Plants: Cronquist milkvetch, Cutler milkweed, Copper Canyon milkvetch, Skull Valley spring-parsley, Hole-in-theRock prairie clover, spineless hedgehog cactus, Cataract Canyon gilia, Paradox breadroot, Howell scorpionweed, Bluff phacelia, Mancos shadscale, Jane's globemallow 

Plants: None Plants: No

Sagebrush and Perennial Grassland 

Wildlife: Brewer's sparrow, loggerhead shrike, pinyon jay, sage sparrow, Virginia's warbler, Gunnison's prairie dog, ferruginous hawk, short-eared owl, desert night lizard, Gunnison Sage-grouse, Mogollon vole, kit fox, silky pocket mouse, burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, prairie falcon 

Wildlife: Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) (E)8.

No critical published fferret. 

Plants: Chatterley's onion, Copper Canyon milkvetch, spineless hedgehog cactus, redroot buckwheat 

Plants: None Plants: No

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 

Wildlife: gray vireo, pinyon jay, Virginia's warbler Wildlife: None Wildlife: NoPlants: Chatterley's onion, spineless hedgehog cactus, redroot buckwheat, Paradox breadroot, Howell scorpionweed 

Plants: None Plants: No

Conifer and Mountain Shrub 

Wildlife: Yavapai mountain snail, Gunnison's prairie dog, Lewis's woodpecker, northern goshawk, three-toed woodpecker, broad-tailed hummingbird, black-throated gray warbler 

Wildlife: None Wildlife: No

Plants: spineless hedgehog cactus Plants: None Plants: No

8The black-footed ferret does not occur in the MPA, but is included here due to its potential to occur in association with prairie dog hab

Analysis Assumptions and 4.3.15.2.9 Impacts Common to All Alternatives for further discussion. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.3

4-525 

Table 4.137. Grouping of Special Status Species by Habitat Type 

Habitat BLM Special Status Species Federally Listed Species Designa

Riparian and Wetland 

Wildlife: American white pelican, bobolink, peregrine falcon, Arizona toad, smooth greensnake, bluehead sucker, roundtail chub, flannelmouth sucker, western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (C), Bald Eagle 

Wildlife: SWFL (E), bonytail (E), Colorado pikeminnow (E), humpback chub (E), razorback sucker (E) 

Colorado Rcritical habthe ColoradRiver downYampa RivRiver from inflow of La100-year fl

Plants: alcove bog orchid Plants: None Plants: No

Caves and Rock Crevices (Seeps) 

Wildlife: Allen's big-eared bat, big free-tailed bat, fringed myotis, spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat 

Wildlife: California condor (E; Experimental) 

California cnesting haMonticello individuals experimenpopulation

Plants: pinnate spring-parsley, Nevada willowherb, alcove rock-daisy, kachina daisy 

Plants: Navajo sedge (T) Navajo sed

population occurs on 

Rocky Slopes and Canyons 

Wildlife: common chuckwalla Wildlife: MSO (T) MSO: Des

consists of AZ, CO, Ncritical habdesignated Juan CounPA. 

Plants: Nevada willowherb, Canyonlands lomatium, western hophornbeam 

Plants: None Plants: No

(C) = candidate for federal listing (T) = federally listed as threatened (E) = federally listed as endangered 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-526 

4.3.15.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Under all alternatives, the BLM would comply with management plans and conservation 

agreements for special status species as detailed in Chapter 2. Additionally, all special status 

species-related measures outlined in the BLM's Oil and Gas Stipulations (Appendix C), 

Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices for Federally Listed Species (Appendix 

K), and Best Management Practices and Recommended Buffers and Nesting Periods for Raptors 

(Appendix M) would be followed. Further, the BLM is required to use methods and procedures 

necessary to improve the condition of special status species and their habitats to the degree such 

that their special status recognition is no longer warranted (BLM 2001c). There would be no 

specific individual protections provided for the majority of special status species listed in Table 

4.137, including the black-footed ferret, which has no special protective measures in place 

because there are no known populations in the Monticello PA. Many of these species, however, 

would be indirectly protected by the restrictions and buffers in place for Gunnison Sage-grouse, 

MSO, SWFL, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Bald Eagle, Navajo sedge, California condor, the 

endangered Colorado River fishes, and migratory birds (discussed in Section 4.3.19, Wildlife and 

Fisheries). These special status species protections are discussed in the following sections. 

4.3.15.3. ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PLAN IMPACTS

4.3.15.3.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.1.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the potential direct adverse impacts of cultural resource decisions on 

special status species include disturbance of individual wildlife and plant species. Wildlife could 

be disturbed by cultural resource site visitors, and plant species could be trampled or uprooted by 

visitors in cultural areas with high visitation. The potential indirect adverse impacts of cultural 

resource decisions on special status species include habitat disturbance and/or alteration caused 

by surface disturbance. This includes potential introduction and the spread of weedy, non-native 

plant species. Under Alternative A, Tank Bench and Beef Basin would not be managed as 

CSMAs and would be managed according to the 1991 San Juan RMP prescriptions. Human 

disturbance, including noise and vegetation trampling, in special status species habitat would be 

reduced due to the closure of the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area/Grand Gulch National 

Historic District to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, mineral leasing, OHV 

use, and mechanized or mechanical surface disturbance, including vegetation treatments. This 

would have beneficial impacts on special status species by decreasing the amount of surface 

disturbance caused by foot/vehicle traffic, tree removal, and oil and gas development in the area. 

Long-term adverse impacts would occur on special status species by not allowing mechanized or 

mechanical vegetation treatments that are designed to improved habitat for wildlife. 

4.3.15.3.1.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the qualitative impacts of cultural resource decisions on special status 

species would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. Under this alternative, Comb 

Ridge, Tank Bench, Beef Basin, and McLoyd Canyon-Moon House would be managed as 

CSMAs. The Comb Ridge Management Zone (MZ) within the Cedar Mesa SRMA (30,752 

acres) would be closed to woodland product collection, closed to oil and gas surface occupancy 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-527 

and mineral entry, and would only be available for non-surface-disturbing vegetation treatments. 

Camping would be limited to designated campgrounds and hiking and OHV use would be 

limited to designated trails. The Tank Bench CSMA (2,646 acres) would have the same surface 

disturbance restrictions as the Comb Ridge MZ with the Cedar Mesa SRMA, but would be 

closed to OHV use, campfires, and domestic pets and pack animals. The Beef Basin CSMA 

(20,302 acres) and the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA (1,607 acres) would have the same 

surface disturbance restrictions as the Comb Ridge MZ within the Cedar Mesa SRMA with the 

exception of mineral leasing, which would be allowed subject to standard terms. Under all 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,388 acres) 

would be closed to all surface disturbances, with the exception of designated trails and camping 

areas. 

There would be a considerable difference in impacts between Alternative B and Alternative A 

due to the designation of CSMAs and associated restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. 

Adverse impacts to special status species from surface-disturbing activities and other human 

disturbances under Alternative B would be considerably reduced from Alternative A due to 

restrictions on surface disturbances and use within the designated CSMAs and the 37,388 acres 

Grand Gulch National Historic District.

4.3.15.3.1.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the qualitative impacts of cultural resource decisions on special status 

species would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B. The Comb Ridge MZ within 

the Cedar Mesa SRMA would be managed the same as under Alternative B, except that 

woodland product collection and surface-disturbing vegetation treatments would be allowed. The 

Tank Bench CSMA would be managed the same as under Alternative B, except for the 

following: it would be open to oil and gas leasing and mineral entry under standard lease terms, 

hiking would be allowed off trails, and surface-disturbing land activities would be permitted. The 

Beef Basin CSMA would be managed the same as under Alternative B, except that campfires 

would be allowed, and groups larger than 20 people would be required to camp in designated 

areas. The McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA would be managed the same as under 

Alternative B, except that access to the interior corridor would be limited to 4 people at any one 

time. The Grand Gulch National Historic District would be managed the same as under 

Alternative B, but would allow non-motorized vegetation treatments. 

There would be a considerable difference in impacts between Alternative C and Alternative A 

due to the designation of CSMAs and associated restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. 

Adverse impacts to special status species from surface-disturbing activities and other human 

disturbances under Alternative C would be less than under Alternative A.

4.3.15.3.1.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, no CSMAs would be proposed for designation. Visitors would be allowed 

in greater numbers and more area would be open to woodland product harvest under this 

alternative. In addition, Tank Bench (2,646 acres) would be open to mineral material disposal 

and geophysical work. These management decisions would have adverse impacts on special 

status species as described in the other alternatives. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-528 

This alternative would have fewer adverse impacts on special status species than would 

Alternative A because visitor use numbers would be imposed for Butler Wash east of Comb 

Ridge and for McLoyd Canyon-Moon House, and woodland product harvest would not be 

allowed in Beef Basin. However, there would be more adverse impacts to special status species 

under Alternative D than under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan because of the decisions to 

allow for more visitors, woodland product harvest, and mineral development. 

4.3.15.3.1.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, impacts of cultural decisions on special status species would be the same as 

those described under Alternative B with the exception that OHV use would be closed in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and vegetation disturbances would be restricted to 

protect wilderness characteristics in these areas. This would result in long-term, beneficial 

impacts to special status species habitat, as well as adverse impacts from restrictions on 

vegetation treatments to improve vegetation communities and control the spread of invasive 

species. The Comb Ridge MZ within the Cedar Mesa SRMA and Beef Basin CSMA would 

allow maintenance for existing improvements to wildlife habitat, but no new improvements 

would be allowed. This would limit direct impacts associated with surface-disturbing 

improvements. However, it would also reduce long-term, indirect, beneficial impacts from 

vegetation and wildlife habitat improvements. Due to the designation of CSMAs and protections 

in place for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, Alternative E would have 

considerably fewer direct adverse impacts than Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.1.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the qualitative impacts of cultural resource decisions on special status 

species would be the same as those discussed under Alternatives B and C. The Comb Ridge 

recreation management zone of the Cedar Mesa SRMA would be managed the same as under 

Alternatives B and C, except that woodland product collection and surface-disturbing vegetation 

treatments would be allowed. The Tank Bench SRMA would be managed the same as under 

Alternatives B and C, except for the following: it would be open to oil and gas leasing and 

mineral entry under standard lease terms, hiking would be allowed off trails, and surfacedisturbing land activities would be permitted. The Beef Basin and the McLoyd Canyon-Moon 

House recreation management zones within the Cedar Mesa SRMA would be managed the same 

as under Alternatives B and C. The Grand Gulch National Historic District would be managed as 

a recreation management zone within the Cedar Mesa SRMA, and would allow non-motorized 

vegetation treatments. 

There would be a considerable difference in impacts between the Proposed Plan and Alternative 

A due to the designation of the recreation management zones, SRMAs and associated restrictions 

on surface-disturbing activities. Adverse impacts to special status species from surfacedisturbing activities and human disturbances under the Proposed Plan would be less than under 

Alternative A.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-529 

4.3.15.3.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.2.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

The impacts of fire management on special status species would be the same under all 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan, with all decisions guided by the Utah Land-use plan 

Amendment (LUP Amendment) for Fire and Fuels Management (Appendix A). Adherence with 

the LUP Amendment (which mandates the maintenance of existing healthy ecosystems and the 

protection of threatened, endangered, and special status species) would have beneficial impacts 

on special status species habitat in the Monticello PA, and would ensure that healthy ecosystems 

are not adversely impacted by fire management and fuels reduction. Wildland fire use would not 

be authorized in areas that are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or other 

weed invasion, important terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and non-fire adapted vegetation 

communities unless reasonable Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) were in place. These 

RPMs would have beneficial impacts on special status species habitat by reducing the spread of 

weeds and preserving native plant species, thereby maintaining suitable wildlife forage, cover, 

and habitat. 

Fuels management decisions include fuels-reduction treatments on 5,000 to 10,000 acres 

annually. These fuels-reduction treatments include: mechanical and manual treatments, 

prescribed fire, chemical or biological vegetation control, and aerial/ground seeding. These fuels 

management decisions would likely have a beneficial long-term impact on special status species 

habitat by helping to restore the natural fire regime, which would improve habitat health (Lewis 

and Harshbarger 1976), forage, nesting opportunities, and cover. Restoring the natural fire 

regime would also reduce the chance of wildland fire, and the subsequent loss of major 

ecosystem components. In the short-term, vegetation treatments could result in trampling or 

removal of forage and/or habitat, and human-caused wildlife disturbance including increased 

erosion, sedimentation, and surface runoff. 

Wildland fire use may be authorized in special status species habitats, and this could adversely 

impact special status species by burning or cutting of vegetative cover, reduction of the overall 

quantity or quality of habitat or forage, or mortality of individuals due to fire, trampling, or 

crushing. Indirect impacts to special status species and their habitats could include increased 

exposure to predators due to reduced vegetation cover, increased soil erosion, or other impacts to 

habitat quality. In the long-term, after appropriate rehabilitation wildland fire would benefit 

special status species habitat in an area by removing competition from weedy natives and 

invasive species. Once the competition was removed, a diverse native community would have 

the potential to establish itself in the area (Monsen 2004), which would mean more available 

forage and cover for special status wildlife species and available habitat for special status plant 

species (Stevens 2004). 

Wildland fire use would not be authorized in the following areas unless reasonable Resource 

Protection Measures were in place: 1) areas that are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire 

cheatgrass or other weed invasion, 2) important terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and 3) non-fireadapted vegetation communities (see Chapter 2 Table 2.1, Summary Table of Alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-530 

Desert Shrub Habitat

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, wildland fire use or fuels management actions and 

associated surface-disturbing treatments would not be authorized in desert shrub habitats, which 

are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or other weed invasion, unless 

reasonable Resource Protection Measures were in place. Resource Protection Measures would 

result in beneficial impacts because fire management activities that promote weed invasion could 

adversely impact special status plant species through direct impacts to individuals and 

competition from weed species. These also indirectly impact special status wildlife through 

short- and long-term changes in vegetation composition and structure and weed-induced 

destabilization of biological soil crusts. 

Sagebrush and Perennial Grassland and Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

The LUP indicates that the majority of fuels management treatments would occur in pinyonjuniper woodland and sagebrush habitats. Impacts would be analyzed with site-specific NEPA 

once it is determined where individual treatments would occur. Under all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan, fuels management actions would include surface-disturbing treatments on 5,000–

10,000 acres annually within the Monticello PA. 

Impacts to special status species would include trampling or removal of vegetation and 

associated disturbance to sensitive wildlife species from fire and human presence. In the longterm, however, vegetation treatments would potentially benefit special status species habitat by 

removing competition from weedy natives and invasive species. 

Riparian and Wetland Habitats

Direct adverse impacts from fire management decisions would include aquatic habitat 

degradation and modification, including sedimentation and salinization resulting from soil 

erosion and stream bank destabilization, changes in water chemistry, changes in flow pattern, 

and possible water withdrawals (USFWS 2002a; BLM 2005c; Trombulak and Frissell 2000). 

Indirect beneficial impacts of fire management on special status species and their habitats 

include the reduction of catastrophic wildland fires that cause habitat modification, soil erosion, 

stream sedimentation, and water quality degradation. Indirect adverse impacts of fire 

management in riparian areas include the potential for alteration of plant community structure, 

species composition, and a relative abundance of species. Fire is an imminent threat to special 

status species riparian habitats, because native riparian plants are neither fire-adapted nor fireregenerated; therefore, fires in riparian habitats can cause catastrophic, immediate, and drastic 

changes in riparian plant density and species composition (USFWS 2002a). Under all 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan, wildland fire and fuels management decisions would not be 

authorized in potential special status species riparian habitats (see Section 4.3.15.1). 

All Other Special Status Species Habitats in the Monticello PA

Under all other habitat types, wildland fire use would not be authorized unless reasonable 

Resource Protection Measures were in place if the habitat is deemed susceptible to post-fire 

cheatgrass or other weed invasion, important as terrestrial and aquatic habitat for special status 

species, or a non-fire-adapted vegetation community. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-531 

4.3.15.3.3. IMPACTS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, abandoned mine lands (AMLs) would be 

prioritized for area reclamation and mitigation. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be completed 

on all potential AML projects, thereby preventing adverse impacts to special status species. BLM 

would identify and clean up unauthorized dumping and shooting areas in the PA as required to 

comply with applicable state, local, and federal regulations. These would include areas such as 

the unauthorized shooting range west of Blanding, dumps near Hovenweep, the Monticello 

Airport, and Piute Knoll. 

Riparian and Wetland Habitats

Hazardous waste contamination from AML sites could directly or indirectly impact special status 

species in the short and long-term. Special status fish and amphibian species may be particularly 

vulnerable to adverse impacts to water quality, which could result in mortality of individuals, 

reduced forage or prey availability, or impacts to other habitat qualities. Any impacts to water 

quality could indirectly impact sensitive wildlife species that utilize affected riparian or wetland 

habitats through exposure to contaminants or impacts to prey availability or habitat quality. 

Health and safety management decisions could negatively impact the endangered Colorado River 

fishes due to impacts to the primary constituent elements for their designated critical habitat. 

Actions associated with health and safety management decisions could also negatively impact 

SWFL and other riparian species due to surface disturbance impacts resulting in water quality 

degradation, and increased human activities during mine reclamations and spill clean up. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, some abandoned mine lands sites would be 

prioritized due to hazardous waste contamination and water quality issues. The top criteria used 

to prioritize water-quality-based AML programs include threats to the environment (see special 

status section of Table 2.2, Summary of Impacts), which takes into account habitat quality for all 

special status fish species.) These actions are conducted under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authority and follow 

CERCLA processes. These reclamations would help to mitigate for the adverse impacts of poor 

water quality on special status fish species because the threat of groundwater contamination 

would be removed. Long-term water quality monitoring would be required.

Caves and Rock Crevices

In addition to naturally occurring caves and rock crevices, abandoned mining structures are often 

used as roosting habitat by bats, including sensitive bat species. Of the 18 bat species in Utah, 14 

species regularly occur in abandoned mines. One state special status species (Townsend's bigeared bat) has been found exclusively in abandoned mines (Grandison 2004). Of the special 

status bat species occurring in the Monticello PA (see Table 4.137), three are known to use caves 

as winter, day, or night roosts (Oliver 2000). There are also three sensitive plant species that 

grow in rock crevices and on steep slopes that could be impacted by activities associated with 

health and safety decisions in the Monticello PA. Completely sealing off AML entrances could 

have direct adverse impacts to roosting individuals and populations, which could include the 

reduction of suitable roosting habitats. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, potential 

mitigations to avoid and/or minimize impacts to special status bat species would include preconstruction surveys and the installation of bat compatible mine gates and cupolas, which allow 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-532 

bats to pass through but prohibit human entrance. Use of mitigation structures and monitoring 

would lessen adverse impacts of mine closures on bats. 

Under the Proposed Plan, hazardous materials management activities could negatively impact 

MSO and other cliff dwelling sensitive birds due to disturbance associated with the presence of 

humans and equipment.

All Other Special Status Species Habitats in the Monticello PA

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, impacts to all other special status species from 

abandoned mine reclamation would be negligible because they do not occur in areas that would 

be impacted by these activities. There is potential for negative impacts on species in all other 

habitat types resulting from the clean up of existing dumping and shooting areas. These impacts 

are likely to be negligible because the disturbed areas are unlikely to meet the habitat 

requirements of sensitive species. 

4.3.15.3.4. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.4.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Lands and realty decisions that could potentially impact special status species include access, 

easements, leases and permits, utility/transportation systems, exchanges, disposals, and 

withdrawals. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, WSAs would be exclusion areas for 

ROWs. Withdrawals and excluded areas would preserve and protect special status environmental 

resources and areas. Similarly, the acquisition and retention of any special status species habitat, 

quality riparian areas, and key productive ecosystems would have beneficial impacts on special 

status species. 

All areas not identified as avoidance or exclusion would be available for ROWs and could be 

subject to multiple-use terms on a case-by-case basis (BLM 2004a). The use of ROWs for utility 

and communication infrastructure could have direct, long-term adverse impacts on special status 

plant and wildlife species habitat due to surface disturbance for utility lines, communication 

sites, solar and wind energy sites, pipeline installation, trampling by workers and vehicles during 

construction activities, as well as impacts to special status bird or bat species and migration 

routes from wind turbines and construction of maintenance access roads. Additionally, noise and 

human presence associated with infrastructure installation could have adverse impacts on special 

status wildlife species in the Monticello PA. The installation of power poles may increase raptor 

predation on Gunnison's prairie dog and Gunnison Sage-grouse by providing hunting perches. 

Although this would be an adverse impact on these prey species, it would also provide a 

beneficial impact on raptor species in the planning area (see Section 4.3.19, Wildlife, for details). 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, applications for filming permits would have to 

meet the criteria that they do not impact special status species or their habitat. Accordingly, 

implementation of these minimum-impact criteria would prevent adverse impacts to special 

status species from filming. 

4.3.15.3.4.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, lands available for ROWs would be divided into four categories; lands with 

designated transportation and utility corridors, lands outside designated transportation and utility 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-533 

corridors, lands to be avoided, and lands to be excluded. Exclusion (120,800 total acres) and 

avoidance (253,790 total acres) areas under Alternative A would benefit special status species 

habitat in these areas by limiting the possibility of surface disturbances and vegetation removal 

that might result from an expanded ROW network. 

In areas where ROWs would be authorized, there could be long-term direct, adverse impacts on 

special status species habitat where installation would occur. These impacts would result from 

vegetation crushing and removal associated with construction and habitat fragmentation. Shortterm direct impacts could result from noise disturbances. Long-term indirect adverse impacts 

could result from the potential introduction of invasive plant species by construction equipment 

and building personnel. This alternative has the greatest amount of acreage open to ROW 

authorization and, therefore the greatest potential for impacts to special status species. 

4.3.15.3.4.3. Alternative B 

Alternative B would consider proposals for ROWs in the Monticello PA except in exclusion 

areas (416,612 acres) and avoidance areas (125,105 acres). This would limit both surface 

disturbance and vegetation removal in these areas which could be beneficial for special status 

species in these areas. Impacts to special status species from surface-disturbing activities and 

human disturbances under Alternative B would be less than under Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.4.4. Alternative C 

Alternative C would consider proposals for ROWs in the Monticello PA except in exclusion 

areas (395,329 acres) and avoidance areas (39,323 acres). This would limit both surface 

disturbance and vegetation removal in these areas which could be beneficial for special status 

species in these areas. Impacts to special status species from surface-disturbing activities and 

human disturbances under Alternative C would be less than under Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.4.5. Alternative D 

Alternative D would consider proposals for ROWs in the Monticello PA except in exclusion 

areas (386,853 acres) and avoidance areas (14,175 acres). This would limit both surface 

disturbance and vegetation removal in these areas which could be beneficial for special status 

species in these areas. Impacts to special status species from surface-disturbing activities and 

human disturbances under Alternative D would be less than under Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.4.6. Alternative E 

Alternative E would consider proposals for ROWs in the Monticello PA except in exclusion 

areas (974,463 acres) and avoidance areas (53,915 acres). This would limit both surface 

disturbance and vegetation removal in these areas which could be beneficial for special status 

species in these areas. Impacts to special status species from surface-disturbing activities and 

human disturbances under Alternative E would be less than under Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.4.7. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would consider proposals for ROWs in the Monticello PA except in 

exclusion areas (416,115 acres) and avoidance areas (133,293 acres). This would limit both 

surface disturbance and vegetation removal in these areas which could be beneficial for special 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-534 

status species in these areas. Impacts to special status species from surface-disturbing activities 

and human disturbances under the Proposed Plan would be less than under Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.5. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.5.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Grazing would continue to be unavailable on 134,520 acres in the areas identified in the 

Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan (Table 2.1), and Table 4.181 in Section 

4.3.17, Vegetation, shows the acres unavailable for livestock grazing by vegetation type. 

Livestock grazing allotments occupy approximately 99% of all lands within the Monticello PA. 

Detrimental impacts from grazing could include loss of biodiversity, lowering of population 

densities, disruption of some ecosystem functions, changes to community organization, and 

changes to the physical characteristics of both terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Chaneton and 

Lavado 1996; Fleischner 1994; Olff and Ritchie 1998). Within grazing allotments, special status 

species may be impacted by trampling, reduced forage or cover vegetation, reduced quality of 

riparian and wetland habitats, and other impacts to habitat quality or quantity. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, livestock grazing would be managed according to 

the Guidelines for Grazing Management to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 

1997). By adhering to these standards, the impacts from livestock grazing on special status 

species are expected to be minimal. Grazing use would be unavailable on approximately 137,440 

acres in the Monticello PA whereby adverse impacts to special status species by livestock would 

be reduced or eliminated. These closures could eliminate potential direct impacts from livestock 

grazing on special status species and associated habitat. Potential indirect, beneficial impacts 

could include increased habitat for special status species. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, grazing would be modified when monitoring 

indicates that objectives are not being met or resources are being adversely impacted. This would 

mitigate the adverse impacts of surface disturbance on riparian habitat associated with livestock 

grazing in the Monticello PA. 

Livestock grazing would be permitted, with potentially adverse, indirect impacts from grazing in 

riparian habitat. A reduction in surface disturbance enables native vegetation to establish faster in 

riparian habitat. 

Vegetation treatments including the use of mechanized or motorized equipment would be 

allowed in riparian areas. These treatments would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on 

vegetation in riparian habitat. Long-term beneficial impacts would include reduction of weed 

populations and creation of favorable conditions for establishment of native species. This, in 

turn, would improve riparian habitat for special status wildlife species. Short-term adverse 

impacts would include crushing and inadvertent removal of special status plant species during 

the treatment process. There could also be temporary adverse impacts on special status fish 

species habitat due to increased overland flow associated with soil compaction on soils adjacent 

to riparian areas (see Section 4.3.6, Livestock Grazing). 

The SWFL Recovery Plan would be implemented in all suitable habitat areas. This would have 

beneficial impacts on any species within SWFL habitat because of the goals of the recovery 

plans, which are, 1) increase and improve occupied, suitable, and potential breeding habitat; 2) 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-535 

increase meta-population stability; 3) improve demographic parameters; 4) minimize threats to 

wintering and migration habitat; 5) survey and monitor; 6) conduct research; 7) provide public 

education and outreach; 8) assure implementation of laws, policies, and agreements that benefit 

the flycatcher; 9) track recovery progress (USFWS 2002e). 

The Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing (Appendix G) and 

Recreation Guidelines (Appendix E) would be followed to achieve proper riparian functioning. 

Overall, the BLM would avoid degradation of habitats that could result in the loss of riparian 

vegetation, which would have beneficial impacts to special status species by preventing riparian 

habitat alteration. 

4.3.15.3.5.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, 128,098 acres would be unavailable for livestock grazing (those areas 

shown in Table 4.51). Table 4.138, below, shows the number of acres of habitat for select special 

status species unavailable for grazing under each alternative. 

Table 4.138. Special Status Species Habitat Unavailable for Grazing by Alternative 

Species Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Bald Eagle 4,835 7,898 7,898 4,835 7,898 7,898

Federally 

Listed Fish 

0 0 0 0 0 0

MSO 71,178 73,010 73,010 71,178 73,010 73,010

SWFL 2,381 2,816 2,816 2,394 2,816 2,816

Gunnison 

Sage-grouse 

0 0 0 0 0 0

Riparian and Rocky Slopes and Canyons

Under Alternative A, approximately 2% of the total 250,264 acres of Bald Eagle habitat, 10% of 

the total 22,896 acres of SWFL habitat, and 19% of the total 378,518 acres of MSO habitat in the 

Monticello PA would be unavailable for livestock grazing. 

Adverse impacts of livestock on special status riparian species could include loss of riparian 

habitat as a result of grazing of palatable native plant species. Once disturbed, these areas could 

become more susceptible to invasion by noxious and introduced weeds, which tend to be low 

value forage and cover species for special status wildlife (Popolizio et al. 1994, Sarr et al. 1996, 

Belsky et al. 1999). 

Under Alternative A, none of the total 1,690 acres of designated critical fish habitat in the 

Monticello PA would be unavailable for livestock grazing. Potential adverse impacts on special 

status fish species and their habitat would include direct, adverse impacts of livestock presence 

in streams and indirect, adverse impacts of increased stream sedimentation resulting from 

overland flow associated with riparian soil compaction. Cattle hooves compact the soil on 

stream-bank slopes, which results in less rainwater infiltration into soils and more overland 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-536 

flows. The result is large, short-lived flows rather than small, perennial flows (Trimble and 

Mendel 1995). 

Sagebrush, Desert Shrub, Conifer, and Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Under Alternative A, none of the Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat in the Monticello PA would be 

unavailable for livestock grazing, which could have direct and indirect adverse impacts on 

Gunnison Sage-grouse individuals and their habitat. Livestock grazing, when properly grazed, 

would not necessarily have adverse impacts on the native plant populations in an area. However, 

when improper grazing occurs, adverse impacts on native vegetation could be possible in some 

areas (Sparrow et al. 2003; Young and Evans 1973). The invasion and establishment of weedy 

species in arid environments is common following surface disturbance. Most native plant species 

are slow-growing, and generally cannot compete with invasive plants in disturbed areas (Stevens 

2004). Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, using standards and guides, grazing could 

be reduced in those areas where the native vegetation appears to be stressed. This would mitigate 

the adverse impacts of surface disturbance on these special status plant and wildlife habitats 

associated with livestock grazing in the Monticello PA. Table 4.181 in Section 4.3.17, 

Vegetation, shows the number of acres unavailable for grazing in each habitat for each 

alternative. 

4.3.15.3.5.3. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 141,160 acres would be unavailable for livestock grazing (those areas 

shown in Table 4.51 with additional unavailable acreages shown in Table 4.52). In addition, 

seasonal restrictions, closures, and/or forage utilization limits would be imposed on grazing in 

riparian areas determined to be Functioning at Risk. This would help mitigate the potential 

adverse impacts of livestock grazing in special status species habitats, as discussed in Alternative 

A. 

Riparian and Canyons

Under this alternative, 3% of total Bald Eagle habitat would be unavailable for livestock grazing, 

which would be 1% more than under Alternative A; 19% of total MSO habitat would be 

unavailable for livestock grazing (same as Alternative A); 12% of SWFL habitat would be 

unavailable for livestock grazing (2% more than under Alternative A). These proposed grazing 

restrictions would have more beneficial impacts on special status species than Alternative A 

because more potential habitat would be protected from grazing-related surface disturbances to 

vegetation. There would be no critical fish habitat unavailable for grazing under this alternative. 

Sagebrush, Desert Shrub, Conifer, and Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Under Alternative B, none of the Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat in the Monticello PA would be 

unavailable for livestock grazing, which would have the same level of direct and indirect adverse 

impacts on Gunnison Sage-grouse individuals and their habitat as under Alternative A. The 

additional acres of federally listed species habitat closed to livestock grazing under this 

alternative would decrease the magnitude of the adverse impacts associated with livestock 

grazing decisions more than under Alternative A or D. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-537 

4.3.15.3.5.4. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, 139,832 acres would be unavailable for livestock grazing (those areas 

shown in Table 4.51 with additional unavailable acreages shown in Table 4.54). Under 

Alternative C, the impacts of livestock grazing decisions on special status species would be the 

same as under Alternative B because the management decisions are the same, except for 

management of Mule Canyon, which would be made unavailable for grazing south of U-95, 

(North and South Forks north of U-95 would be open). 

4.3.15.3.5.5. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, 132,111 acres would be unavailable for livestock grazing (the number of 

unavailable acres shown in Table 4.51, with additional unavailable acres shown in Table 4.55). 

The same number of acres of federally listed wildlife species habitat would be closed to grazing 

under this alternative as under Alternative A. These closures would reduce the magnitude of the 

adverse impacts associated with livestock grazing in the Monticello PA, when compared to 

Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.5.6. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, 141,160 acres would be unavailable for livestock grazing. Under 

Alternative E, the impacts of livestock grazing decisions on special status species would be the 

same as under Alternative B because the management decisions are the same, except for 

management of wilderness values protection within non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Livestock grazing with the non-WSA wilderness characteristics lands would not 

be affected by the decision to protect wilderness values in these areas. 

4.3.15.3.5.7. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 139,832 acres would be unavailable for livestock grazing. The impacts 

would be similar to Alternative B because the only difference between Alternative B and the 

Proposed Plan is 656 additional acres would unavailable for livestock grazing. 

4.3.15.3.6. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.6.1. Alternative A 

In Tables 4.147–4.149 in Section 4.3.17, Vegetation, acres of each special status species habitat 

type in each leasing category are shown for each of the three RFD areas. Acreage figures under 

the standard stipulations (standard conditions) and timing and controlled surface use (special 

conditions) stipulations reflect the total BLM-administered areas within the Monticello PA open 

to surface-disturbing activities. The impacts of surface-disturbing oil and gas activities on native 

vegetation (special status species habitat) are discussed in Section 4.3.17.2.5, Impacts of 

Minerals Decisions on Vegetation. These are not estimates of the total area disturbed within the 

Monticello PA, but a comparison by alternative of the amount of area open to potential 

development within BLM-administered areas within the Monticello PA. All acreages provided in 

this document are approximations. Tables 4.108–4.111 include acres of select federally listed 

and BLM special status species habitat under each of the minerals leasing stipulations. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-538 

Desert Shrub, Sagebrush, Perennial Grassland, Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, and Conifer/Mountain

Shrub

Potential direct, adverse impacts of oil and gas development on special status species include 

placement of facilities or roads within either occupied habitat or potential habitat necessary for 

recovery, resulting in an overall reduction in suitable and potentially suitable habitat and an 

increase in habitat fragmentation (see Table 4.259). Additionally, noise associated with 

construction and operation activities could potentially disturb special status wildlife species. 

Protective measures would be implemented to mitigate these impacts (see Appendix A). Further 

mitigation measures include native vegetation protection and restoration requirements discussed 

in Section 4.3.17.4, which would benefit potentially suitable special status wildlife habitat and 

special status plant individuals and habitat. 

Riparian

Oil and gas development would have both direct and indirect adverse impacts on riparian 

species. Although the riparian zone is listed as NSO, this stipulation could be waived if 

necessary for transmission lines, roads, and surface occupancy (Appendix A). Development of 

oil and gas wells requires approximately 2.4 acre feet of water for well drilling and extraction per 

well, which could adversely affect riparian habitat. Each contracting company would identify its 

own water source and disposal methods for waste products. One of the main factors in the listing 

of the Colorado River fishes was the cumulative impact of water depletion within the Colorado 

River system and their associated critical habitat. Because the Colorado and San Juan Rivers are 

designated as critical habitat for the 4 federally listed fish species, any water withdrawal would 

constitute a significant impact on these species. New depletions from these rivers or changes in 

the amount of water returned to the rivers would constitute an additional impact on the Colorado 

River fishes. Although required conservation measures (Appendix A) would help mitigate the 

adverse impacts of minerals development on water quality, the mineral development, including 

road construction, outlined for each alternative and the Proposed Plan could result in indirect, 

adverse impacts to water quality due to sedimentation associated with soil compaction in areas 

adjacent to riparian areas and subsequent overland flow (Trimble and Mendel 1995). 

Other special status species dependent on riparian habitat for survival could be adversely 

impacted by oil and gas development activities. These impacts include a potential reduction on 

available prey species (fish) for special status bird species. Under Alternative A, 24% of SWFL 

habitat, 16% of Bald Eagle habitat, and none of Colorado River fish habitat would be categorized 

as closed or NSO to minerals leasing. 

Rocky Slopes and Canyons

Oil and gas maintenance activities would be allowed year-round in lands managed with standard 

stipulations and special conditions. The potential exists for the MSO to occupy the rocky 

slope/canyon habitat in the Monticello PA. Under Alternative A, 31% of MSO habitat would be 

closed or NSO to minerals leasing. Direct, adverse impacts include short-term disturbance of 

individual owls and other special status species resulting from construction and operation noise, 

and a long-term reduction in habitat from the installation of mineral development infrastructure. 

These impacts, however, would be partially mitigated by riparian habitat restoration 

requirements and seasonal disturbance restrictions. Impacts to owls and habitat would be avoided 

or minimized through the implementation of the conservation measures in Appendix A. This 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-539 

would include survey requirements for temporary activities during the owl breeding season 

(March 1–August 31) in potentially suitable or known owl habitat. No permanent disturbing 

actions would be allowed within 0.5 miles of areas where MSO surveys discover nesting 

individuals. 

Table 4.139. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat designated as Closed or NSO by 

Alternative and Proposed Plan 

Species Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E Proposed 

Plan 

MSO 117,424 166,131 116,648 112,101 300,489 129,969 

Gunnison 

Sagegrouse 

0 0 0 119 0 0

Colorado 

River fish 0 1,670 1,670 1,397 1,668 1,413 

SWFL 5,390 11,167 6,603 10,985 11,670 10,105 

Bald Eagle 39,127 28,335 25,290 22,360 75,694 27,655 

Table 4.139 provides acres of special status species habitat located in areas of the Monticello PA 

designated as closed or NSO to minerals leasing for each alternative and the Proposed Plan. The 

acres in Table 4.139 are carried forward from the 1991 RMP, which include acres from both 

locatable mineral entry and oil and gas RFD areas. Tables 4.140–4.154 provide acres of special 

status species habitat by RFD area acres only; therefore, they are not comparable. At the time of 

this analysis, spatially explicit habitat information is only available for these eight federally listed 

and BLM special status species. 

The number of acres of TES species habitat within each of the RFD areas by mineral leasing 

category are listed in Tables 4.109 through 4.111. Section 4.3.17, Vegetation, provides acreage 

estimates of actual surface disturbance in each RFD for each alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

Site-specific NEPA will take place for each oil and gas development once actual well locations 

are known. 

Table 4.140. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative A 

Special Status 

Species 

Surface Use 

with 

Standard 

Conditions 

(acres) 

Surface Use 

Limited by 

Special 

Conditions 

(acres) 

NSO and 

Closed to 

Mineral 

Entry 

(acres) 

NSO and 

Open to 

Mineral 

Entry 

(acres) 

Closed to 

Leasing and 

Mineral 

Entry (acres)

MSO 0 0 0 0 0

Gunnison Sagegrouse 

122 0 0 0 0

Colorado River fish 423 0 190 0 0

SWFL 6,949 2,266 532 83 410
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-540 

Table 4.140. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative A 

Special Status 

Species 

Surface Use 

with 

Standard 

Conditions 

(acres) 

Surface Use 

Limited by 

Special 

Conditions 

(acres) 

NSO and 

Closed to 

Mineral 

Entry 

(acres) 

NSO and 

Open to 

Mineral 

Entry 

(acres) 

Closed to 

Leasing and 

Mineral 

Entry (acres)

Bald Eagle 23,772 84,111 3,537 2,506 0

Table 4.141. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

Alternative A 

Special Status 

Species 

Surface Use 

with 

Standard 

Conditions 

(acres) 

Surface Use 

Limited by 

Special 

Conditions 

(acres) 

NSO and 

Closed to 

Mineral 

Entry 

(acres) 

NSO and 

Open to 

Mineral 

Entry 

(acres) 

Closed to 

Leasing and 

Mineral 

Entry (acres)

MSO 75,225 76,570 0 2,173 99,903

Gunnison Sagegrouse 

0 0 0 0 0

Colorado River fish 17 0 262 0 0

SWFL 1,386 1,377 357 964 2,433

Bald Eagle 7,598 31,506 4,759 16,204 7,731

Table 4.142. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault 

Under Alternative A 

Special Status 

Species 

Surface Use 

with 

Standard 

Conditions 

(acres) 

Surface Use 

Limited by 

Special 

Conditions 

(acres) 

NSO and 

Closed to 

Mineral 

Entry 

(acres) 

NSO and 

Open to 

Mineral 

Entry 

(acres) 

Closed to 

Leasing and 

Mineral 

Entry (acres)

MSO 76,108 33,381 0 4,916 10,432

Gunnison Sagegrouse 

4,424 0 0 0 0

Colorado River fish 37 236 0 0 0

SWFL 2,145 1,185 0 294 317

Bald Eagle 14,326 46,379 0 1,723 2,667

4.3.15.3.6.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the qualitative impacts on special status plant and animal species would be 

the same as described under Alternative A. See Tables 4.152–4.154 in Section 4.3.17, Vegetation 

for the acres of each vegetation type in each leasing category in each of the RFD areas.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-541 

Under Alternative B, 49% of SWFL habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO 

or closed, which is 25% more than under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 11% of Bald Eagle 

habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 5% less than 

under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 99% of Colorado River fish habitat in the Monticello 

PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 99% more than under Alternative A. This 

would protect other special status riparian plant and animal species, including the Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo. Under Alternative B, 44% of MSO habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized 

as NSO or closed, which is 13% more than under Alternative A. This would protect MSO as well 

as other special status species in this cliff, desert shrub and sagebrush habitat. No Gunnison 

Sage-grouse habitat would be closed to mineral entry. Overall, Alternative B would have fewer 

adverse impacts on special status species than Alternative A because more acres of habitat would 

be closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing. Tables 4.112 to 4.114 list the number of acres of TES 

habitat within each of the RFD areas. 

Table 4.143. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative B 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease 

Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gunnison SageGrouse 

0 122 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River 

fish 

19 0 0 0 961 43 

SWFL 2,997 0 2,660 2,444 4,573 284 

Bald Eagle 9,664 0 2,921 94,306 7,019 506 

Table 4.144. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

Alternative B 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease 

Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 23,595 2,170 3 122,922 130 105,050 

Gunnison Sagegrouse 

0 0 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River 

fish 

1 0 0 0 199 194 

SWFL 680 27 75 1,727 1,318 2,836 

Bald Eagle 2,814 3,580 5,762 41,523 3,119 11,410 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-542 

Table 4.145. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault 

Under Alternative B 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease 

Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 2,806 40,582 25 20,375 49,354 11,597 

Gunnison Sagegrouse 

69 4,402 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River 

fish 

0 0 0 0 74 199 

SWFL 96 1,286 7 405 1,686 470 

Bald Eagle 853 16,630 35 41,373 2,688 3,593 

4.3.15.3.6.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the qualitative affects on special status plant and animal species would be 

the same as described under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C, 29% of SWFL habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO 

or closed, which is 5% more than under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, 10% of Bald Eagle 

habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 6% less than 

under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, 99% of Colorado River fish habitat in the Monticello 

PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 99% more than under Alternative A. Under 

Alternative C, 31% of MSO habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO or 

closed, which is the same as under Alternative A. This would protect MSO as well as other 

special status species in this cliff, desert shrub, and sagebrush habitat. No Gunnison Sage-grouse 

habitat would be closed or NSO to mineral entry. Overall, Alternative C would have fewer 

adverse impacts on special status species than Alternative A because more acres of habitat would 

be closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing. Tables 4.115–4.117 list the number of acres of MSO, 

Colorado River fishes, and sage-grouse habitat within each of the RFD areas. Spatially explicit 

protected habitat information is only available for these six special status species. 

Table 4.146. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative C 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gunnison SageGrouse 

0 122 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 19 0 0 0 961 43 

SWFL 5,841 2 90 1,799 2,158 409

Bald Eagle 22,648 5 3,076 81,842 6,339 506
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-543 

Table 4.147. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

Alternative C 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 53,934 1,790 387 92,711 0 105,050 

Gunnison Sagegrouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 1 0 0 0 199 194 

SWFL 1,711 27 293 1,571 306 2,755 

Bald Eagle 6,182 767 8,952 39,369 1,529 11,410 

Table 4.148. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault 

Under Alternative C 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 22,079 35,101 38,118 12,024 5,819 11,597 

Gunnison Sagegrouse 

69 4,402 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 0 0 0 0 74 199 

SWFL 636 1,073 1,112 154 505 470 

Bald Eagle 8,514 13,362 1,882 35,909 1,913 3,593 

4.3.15.3.6.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the qualitative impacts on special status plant and animal species would be 

the same as described under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, 48% of SWFL habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO 

or closed, which is 24% more than under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, 9% of Bald Eagle 

habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 7% less than 

under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, 83% of Colorado River fish habitat in the Monticello 

PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 83% more than under Alternative A. 

Alternative D is the only alternative to classify any sage-grouse habitat (119 acres) as NSO or 

closed to minerals development. This would provide more protection for sage-grouse and other 

special status sagebrush plant and animal species than Alternative A. Under Alternative D, 30% 

of MSO habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 1% less 

than Alternative A. This would provide less protection to MSO as well as other special status 

species in this cliff, desert shrub, and sagebrush habitat. Overall, Alternative D would have fewer 

adverse impacts on special status species than Alternative A because more acres of habitat would 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-544 

be closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing. Tables 4.118–4.120 list the number of acres of MSO, 

Colorado River fishes, and sage-grouse habitat within each of the RFD areas. Spatially explicit 

protected habitat information is only available for these seven special status species. 

Table 4.149. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative D 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gunnison SageGrouse 

3 0 0 0 119 0 

Colorado River fish 19 0 0 0 1,004 0 

SWFL 409 0 0 2,158 6,596 1,136 

Bald Eagle 13,342 0 0 94,233 6,841 0 

Table 4.150. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

Alternative D 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 115,434 0 0 36,769 0 101,669

Gunnison SageGrouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 1 0 0 0 393 0 

SWFL 3,354 0 0 371 504 2,432

Bald Eagle 11,760 0 0 43,596 4,947 7,905

Table 4.151. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault 

Under Alternative D 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 55,259 0 0 59,046 0 10,433 

Gunnison SageGrouse 

1,713 2,758 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 0 0 0 273 0 0 

SWFL 1,812 1 0 1,819 0 317

Bald Eagle 15,954 0 0 46,550 0 2,667
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-545 

4.3.15.3.6.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the qualitative impacts on special status plant and animal species would be 

the same as described under Alternative A. See Tables 4.164–4.166 in Section 4.3.17, Vegetation 

for acres of each vegetation type in each leasing category in each of the RFD areas.

Under Alternative E, 56% of SWFL habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO 

or closed, which is 32% more than under Alternative A. Under Alternative E, 31% of Bald Eagle 

habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 15% more than 

under Alternative A. Under Alternative E, 99% of Colorado River fish habitat in the Monticello 

PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 99% more than under Alternative A. This 

would protect other special status riparian plant and animal species including the Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo. No Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would be closed or NSO to mineral entry. Under 

Alternative E, 79% of MSO habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO or 

closed, which is 48% more than under Alternative A. This would protect MSO as well as other 

special status species in this cliff, desert shrub, and sagebrush habitat. Overall, Alternative E 

would have fewer adverse impacts on special status species than Alternative A because more 

acres of habitat would be closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing. Tables 4.121–4.123 list the 

number of acres of TES habitat within each of the RFD areas. 

Table 4.152. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

Alternative E 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gunnison SageGrouse 

0 122 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 19 0 0 0 880 124 

SWFL 2,997 0 0 2,444 4,573 284 

Bald Eagle 9,442 0 2,921 94,306 5,246 2,501 

Table 4.153. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

Alternative E 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 10,684 465 3 40,977 130 201,611 

Gunnison Sagegrouse 

0 0 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 1 0 0 0 184 209 

SWFL 656 27 75 1,331 1,318 3,255 

Bald Eagle 2,243 686 3,749 14,894 2,479 44,157 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-546 

Table 4.154. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault 

Under Alternative E 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 31 15,879 11 10,068 24,508 74,240 

Gunnison SageGrouse 

69 4,402 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 0 0 0 0 74 197 

SWFL 96 1,231 2 381 1,663 577 

Bald Eagle 209 10,266 15 33,370 80 21,231 

4.3.15.3.6.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the qualitative affects on special status plant and animal species would 

be the same as described under Alternative A. 

Under the Proposed Plan, 48% of SWFL habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as 

NSO or closed, which is 24% more than under Alternative A. Under the Proposed Plan, 10% of 

Bald Eagle habitat in the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 6% 

less than under Alternative A. Under the Proposed Plan, 84% of Colorado River fish habitat in 

the Monticello PA would be categorized as NSO or closed, which is 84% more than under 

Alternative A. Under the Proposed Plan, 34% of MSO habitat in the Monticello PA would be 

categorized as NSO or closed, which is 3 % more than under Alternative A. This would protect 

MSO as well as other special status species in this cliff, desert shrub, and sagebrush habitat. No 

Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would be closed or NSO to mineral entry. Overall, the Proposed 

Plan would have fewer adverse impacts on special status species than Alternative A because 

more acres of habitat would be closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing. Tables 4.115–4.117 list the 

number of acres of MSO, Colorado River fishes, and sage-grouse habitat within each of the RFD 

areas. Spatially explicit protected habitat information is only available for these six special status 

species. 

Table 4.155. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin Under 

the Proposed Plan 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gunnison SageGrouse 

0 122 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 4 0 0 0 1,019 0 

SWFL 3,587 36 314 1,532 4,420 409

Bald Eagle 19,430 1,730 25,296 59,975 7,082 0
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-547 

Table 4.156. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Monument Upwarp Under 

the Proposed Plan 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 30,139 1790 387 97,391 0 112,489

Gunnison SageGrouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 1 0 0 0 171 223 

SWFL 1,075 68 182 1,043 1,052 3,242

Bald Eagle 5,760 767 8,575 37,646 4,587 10,443

Table 4.157. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat in the Paradox Fold and Fault 

Under the Proposed Plan 

Special Status 

Species 

Standard 

Lease Terms 

Controlled 

Surface Use

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations

Timing 

Limitations

No Surface 

Occupancy Closed 

MSO 10,814 35,079 14,656 46,707 5,854 11,626 

Gunnison SageGrouse 

69 4,402 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River fish 0 0 0 0 74 199 

SWFL 361 1,071 472 1,065 512 470

Bald Eagle 5,533 13,313 2,350 38,316 1,927 3,616

4.3.15.3.7. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Management decisions regarding non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

generally reduce adverse impacts to the special status species and habitat within their boundaries. 

Impacts to special status species vary among alternatives based on the acreage managed for 

wilderness characteristics and the oil and gas leasing stipulations assigned within them. 

4.3.15.3.7.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

There are no impacts common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan for lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

4.3.15.3.7.2. Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, no areas within the Monticello PA would be managed as 

non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-548 

4.3.15.3.7.3. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands wilderness characteristics 

would be managed to preserve their wilderness values. Proposed decisions to protect wilderness 

values would include managing the areas under VRM I objectives, closing the area to oil and gas 

leasing and locatable mineral development, closing the areas to off-route OHV use and new road 

construction, designating the areas as ROW exclusion areas, and closing the areas to woodland 

harvest and wood gathering. Fire suppression on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be through light on the land techniques. These proposed decisions would have long-term 

beneficial impacts on special status species in all of the habitat types by reducing the potential 

for surface disturbances, noise, and alteration of habitat. 

4.3.15.3.7.4. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 88,871 acres would be managed for their wilderness characteristics. 

These areas would include Dark Canyon (11.540 acres), Grand Gulch (13,657 acres), Mancos 

Mesa (30,068 acres), and Nokai Dome East (18,618 acres) and Nokai Dome West (14,988 

acres). Proposed decisions to protect wilderness values would include: 1) managing the areas 

under VRM II objectives; 2) closing most units to oil and gas leasing and establishing the Dark 

Canyon unit as NSO; 3) limiting OHV use to designated roads/trails; 4) establishing units as 

ROW avoidance areas; 5) maintaining existing improvements within units; 6) unavailable for 

private and commercial wood harvest; 7) available for non-ground disturbing treatments; 8) not 

proposed for mineral withdrawal; 9) available for mineral materials disposal if the oil and gas 

leasing category is standard or timing/controlled surface use, otherwise closed to mineral 

materials disposal; 10) unavailable for coal leasing; and 11) unavailable for geothermal leasing. 

Fire suppression on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be through light on 

the land techniques. These proposed decisions would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

special status species in all of the habitat types by reducing the potential for surface disturbances, 

noise, and habitat alteration. 

4.3.15.3.8. IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGY DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.8.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Management actions associated with paleontological resources program include survey and 

inventory, development of interpretive sites, establishment of temporary campgrounds, and 

construction of fences and erosion stabilization structures. Hand tools, power tools, and heavy 

machinery are used during these actions. Impacts to special status species may result from 

surface disturbance, foot traffic, soil erosion and compaction, and human presence. These actions 

can also result in increased potential for weed invasion or other changes to habitat structure and 

composition. Paleontological resource excavation or preservation actions are typically less than 

one acre in size and disturbances are generally isolated and short-term. Under all management 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the collection of vertebrate fossils and associated activities 

would be limited to qualified individuals and would thereby limit surface-disturbing activities to 

permitted activities. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-549 

Piñon-Juniper Woodland and Desert Shrub Habitats

Under the Proposed Plan and other management alternatives, implementation of the 

paleontological resource management program is likely to adversely affect Jones' cycladenia due 

to the potential for surface disturbance associated with discovery activities within known or 

potential piñon-juniper woodland and desert shrub habitats. Paleontological activities could 

negatively impact MSO and other sensitive species in this habitat due to paleontology related 

actions such as digging, fencing, and excavations that could alter the habitats utilized by MSO 

prey and disrupt foraging behaviors. 

Conifer and Mountain Shrub Habitat

Under the Proposed Plan, paleontological activities could negatively impact MSO and other 

sensitive species in conifer and mountain shrub habitat due to paleontology related actions such 

as digging, fencing, and excavations that could prey habitat and disrupt foraging behaviors. 

Riparian, Wetland and Stream Habitat

Under the Proposed Plan, paleontological activities could negatively impact SWFL and other 

riparian birds due to actions such as digging, fencing, excavations, or establishment of temporary 

camp sites in riparian habitats. Associated human activities may disrupt nesting and foraging 

behaviors and result in reduced reproductive success. Paleontological activities may also 

negatively impact endangered Colorado River fishes due to potential for water quality 

degradation and aquatic habitat modification during paleontologic activities. 

All Other Special Status Species Habitats in the Monticello PA

The impacts of paleontological resource management decisions on all other special status species 

habitats are expected to be negligible. Potential impacts are discussed in Section 4.3.15.2. 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.15.3.8.2. Alternative A 

Under this alternative, the only impacts on sensitive species and their habitat would be those 

discussed in the previous section. 

4.3.15.3.8.3. Alternatives B and E 

Under these alternatives, on-site evaluation of surface-disturbing activities for all Category 3, 

4/5, and 5 areas, and avoidance of impacts to paleontological resources are stipulated. In addition 

to the impacts common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, sensitive species in all habitat 

types would potentially be impacted by the surface disturbance and human presence associated 

with the on-site evaluations stipulated under these alternatives. In the long-term, any sensitive 

species habitat located in areas with paleontological resources would benefit from the impact 

avoidance requirement in these areas. These alternatives would result in fewer long-term, 

adverse impacts on sensitive species and their habitat then Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.8.4. Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan 

Under these alternatives, on-site evaluation of surface-disturbing activities for all Category 5 

areas would be required and impacts to paleontological resources would be minimized to the 

degree practicable. The site evaluation would consider the type of surface disturbance proposed 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-550 

and mitigation will be developed based on site-specific information. In addition to the impacts 

common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, sensitive species in all habitat types would 

potentially be impacted by the surface disturbance and human presence associated with the onsite evaluations stipulated under these alternatives. These alternatives would result in fewer longterm, adverse impacts on sensitive species and their habitat then Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.9. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.9.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Impacts to special status species from recreation include direct impacts from use of mechanized 

and non-mechanized vehicles, ground disturbance from trail development, trampling of 

individuals, habitat fragmentation, and increased access to secluded fragile habitats and species. 

Increased visitor use of recreational areas may also adversely impact special status species 

through increased noise and human presence. Indirect adverse impacts to riparian areas from 

recreation could include alternation of plant community structure and species composition, 

reduction in the relative abundance of species, and changes to stream channel morphology, all of 

which may contribute to habitat degradation. Management of recreational areas that includes 

measures to reduce surface disturbance and resource degradation would also reduce these 

adverse impacts on special status species. 

The adverse impacts of recreation decisions would be partially mitigated by the required 

reclamation of disturbed areas to meet the Utah Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines 

for Recreation Management (Appendix E) and protective measures outlined for federally listed 

species in Appendix Q. OHV use and dispersed camping are emphasized here due to the higher 

use levels of these activities in the Monticello PA, and the potential for direct adverse impacts to 

sensitive species and their habitats from these activities throughout the Monticello PA. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, riparian areas would be managed as NSO for oil 

and gas leasing. They would, however, be open to mineral entry and disposal of mineral 

materials, but not in active floodplains or within 100 m of riparian areas. Woodland product 

collection would be prohibited. These restrictions would decrease the intensity the impacts of 

surface disturbance on riparian habitat in the Monticello PA. 

4.3.15.3.9.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the San Juan River SRMA would restrict visitor use by issuing a limited 

number of river permits each year. Also, the Indian Creek SRMA would limit some camping to 

designated sites, which would reduce the surface disturbance associated with dispersed camping. 

These restrictions would reduce the adverse impacts of visitor traffic on special status species. 

There would, however, be adverse surface disturbance associated with the potential trampling 

and crushing of special status plant species by humans, horses, and vehicles. The surface 

disturbance associated with foot and vehicle traffic could also lead to the introduction of invasive 

plant species, with long-term adverse impacts on special status plant and animal habitats as 

discussed in previous sections. Additional impacts on special status species and their habitat 

would include direct and indirect disturbance of individual wildlife species by human visitors. 

Wildlife species, birds in particular, are directly impacted by vehicle traffic and other 

anthropogenic noise. Traffic noise has been shown to directly interfere with bird vocal 

communication, which affects territorial behavior and mating success (Reijnen and Foppen, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-551 

1994). The San Juan River SRMA (10,203 acres) would allow 40,000 user/days per year, and 

vehicle camping would not be restricted. These stipulations would allow potential surface and 

noise disturbances, which would have long-term adverse impacts on special status species in the 

SRMA, as discussed in previous sections. The acreage of each vegetation type included in the 

SRMA is listed for each alternative in Table 4.209 in Section 4.3.17, Vegetation. 

The Cedar Mesa SRMA (385,000 acres) with the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA would require 

pets to be leashed, camping only at campsites, and a total of 196 overnight visitors per day. This 

would reduce the adverse impacts of surface and noise disturbance associated with visitors. In 

Table 4.206 in Section 4.3.17 Vegetation, the acreage of each vegetation type included in the 

SRMA is listed in that table. 

Under Alternative A, the Dark Canyon SRMA (214,390 acres) and the Indian Creek SRMA (0 

acres) are managed as part of a larger Canyon Basins SRMA. There would be no limit on group 

size, camping location, or vehicle use. This could result in short- and long-term adverse impacts 

on special status species from surface and noise disturbances. In Tables 4.168 and 4.169 in 

Section 4.3.17, Vegetation, the acreage of each vegetation type included in the SRMA is listed 

for each alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

The White Canyon SRMA would have no limit on group size, camping location, or vehicle use. 

This could result in short- and long-term adverse impacts on special status species due to surface 

and noise disturbance. In Table 4.206 in Section 4.3.17, Vegetation, the acreage of each 

vegetation type included in the SRMA is listed. Table 4.158 includes acres of federally listed 

species habitat in each of the SRMAs under Alternative A. Gunnison Sage-grouse is not included 

in the table because none of the SRMAs overlap with Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat. 

Table 4.158. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat in each of the SRMAs Under 

Alternative A 

SRMA Bald Eagle Federally 

Listed Fish MSO SWFL 

Canyon Basins 

SRMA 

59,799 0 245,465 2,931 

Cedar Mesa SRMA 8,928 0 21,268 5,768 

Dark Canyon 0 0 0 0 

Grand Gulch Plateau 0 0 0 0 

Indian Creek 0 0 0 0 

San Juan River 

SRMA 

12,642 825 0 4,346 

White Canyon 0 0 0 0 

Under this alternative, 33% of Bald Eagle habitat, 70% of MSO habitat, 57% of SWFL habitat, 

49% of the federally listed fish habitat, and none of the Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would lie 

within the boundaries of proposed SRMAs. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-552 

4.3.15.3.9.3. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, the impacts of recreation management decisions on special status 

species would include those outlined below, as well as those discussed in Impacts Common to 

All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

The San Juan River SRMA would allow 30,000 user/days per year, which would be 25% fewer 

visitors allowed per year than under Alternative A. Vehicle camping would be restricted to 

designated areas. These management decisions would result in less surface and noise 

disturbances to habitat than Alternative A, but there would still be long-term, adverse impacts on 

special status species in the SRMA as discussed in previous sections. 

The Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA (375,739 acres) would be available for livestock use and 

vegetation treatments, pets would be allowed on leash, dispersed camping would be allowed, and 

a total of 144 overnight visitors per day would be permitted. This represents a 27% reduction in 

visitors permitted than under Alternative A. Under Alternatives B and E, the Dark Canyon 

SRMA (30,820 acres) would have a 15-private visitor per day limit and camping would be 

allowed in designated areas only. This would be a reduction in permitted visitation when 

compared with Alternative A, which would allow unlimited visitation. Permitted visitation could 

result in short and long-term, adverse affects on special status species from surface and noise 

disturbance, but to a lesser degree than under Alternative A. 

In the Indian Creek SRMA, dispersed camping would not be allowed. This alternative would 

result in short and long-term, adverse impacts on special status species due to surface and noise 

disturbance associated with visitors, but to a lesser extent than under Alternative A because of 

the camping restrictions. 

The White Canyon SRMA (89,271 acres) would limit use through a permit system. This could 

still result in short and long-term, adverse affects on special status species due to surface and 

noise disturbance, but to a lesser degree than under Alternative A. Table 4.159 includes acres of 

federally listed species habitat in each of the SRMAs under Alternatives B and E. Gunnison 

Sage-grouse is not included in the table because none of the proposed SRMAs overlap with 

Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat. 

Table 4.159. Alternatives B and E-Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat in each of 

the SRMAs 

SRMA Bald Eagle Federally 

Listed Fish MSO SWFL 

Canyon Basins 

SRMA 

0 0 0 0 

Cedar Mesa C-SRMA 0 0 0 0 

Dark Canyon 846 0 30,820 351 

Grand Gulch Plateau 7,737 0 17,330 4,061 

Indian Creek 19,243 0 83,203 2,195 

San Juan River 

SRMA 

11,217 793 0 3,556 

White Canyon 571 0 0 17 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-553 

Under this alternative, 16% of Bald Eagle habitat in the Monticello PA would be included within 

proposed SRMAs (17% less than under Alternative A). Forty-seven percent of federally listed 

fish habitat would be included within SRMA boundaries (2% less than under Alternative A; 35% 

of MSO habitat would lie within SRMAs, (35% less than under Alternative A); and 44% of 

SWFL habitat would be included in SRMAs (13% less than under Alternative A). 

Overall, this alternative would be likely to have less adverse impacts on special status species in 

SRMAs than Alternative A because of the increased protection afforded species within the 

proposed SRMAs. 

4.3.15.3.9.4. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of recreation management decisions on special status species 

would include following impacts in addition to those discussed in Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives. 

The San Juan River SRMA (9,859 acres) would allow 40,000 user/days per year, which is the 

same number of users permitted under Alternative A. Unlike Alternative A, camping would be 

restricted to designated areas under this alternative. These stipulations would allow for less 

surface and noise disturbance than Alternative A, but there would still be some long-term, 

adverse impacts on special status species in the SRMA as discussed in previous sections. 

Under Alternative C, the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA would be managed the same as under 

Alternative B with the following exceptions: woodland harvesting would be allowed, and a total 

of 180 overnight visitors per day would be permitted. Under this alternative, 8% fewer visitors 

would be allowed per day than under Alternative A which would reduce adverse impacts, 

however, there could be an increased level of surface disturbance related to woodland gathering 

and harvesting and/or noise-related disturbance compared with Alternatives A and B. Under 

Alternative C, the Dark Canyon SRMA management decisions would limit visitation to 20 

private visitors per day, and camping would be allowed in designated areas only. This would 

result in short and long-term adverse impacts on special status species due to surface 

disturbances, but to a lesser extent than under Alternative A. 

In the Indian Creek SRMA, dispersed camping would not be allowed except in designated 

dispersed camping zones. This alternative would result in short and long-term, adverse impacts 

on special status species due to surface and noise disturbance associated with visitors, but to a 

lesser extent than under Alternative A because of the camping restrictions. 

Under Alternative C, the impacts in on special status species in the White Canyon SRMA would 

be the same as under Alternative B. 

The same number of acres of federally listed species habitat would be included in SRMAs under 

this alternative as under Alternative B; therefore, there would be the same impacts on federally 

listed species and their habitat under this alternative. 

4.3.15.3.9.5. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of recreation management decisions on special status species 

resources would include the following impacts, in addition to those discussed previously in 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-554 

The San Juan River SRMA would allow 40,000 user/days per year, and vehicle camping would 

be restricted to designated areas in specified portions of the SRMA. These stipulations would 

potentially result in a similar level of surface disturbance as Alternative A, which would include 

long-term adverse impacts on special status species and their habitat in the SRMA, as discussed 

in previous sections. 

Under Alternative D, the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA would be managed the same as under the 

Proposed Plan with the exception that a total of 216 overnight visitors per day would be 

permitted. This could result in an increased level of surface and noise disturbance compared with 

Alternatives A, B, and the Proposed Plan. Under Alternative D, the Dark Canyon SRMA would 

have no limit on the number of private visitors per day, and dispersed camping would be allowed 

in some areas. This would result in short- and long-term adverse impacts on special status 

species and their habitat due to surface and noise disturbance, but to a lesser extent than under 

Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, the impacts on special status species and their habitat in the Indian Creek 

SRMA would be the same as under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, the impacts on special 

status species and their habitat in the White Canyon SRMA would be the same as under 

Alternative A. Table 4.160 includes acres of federally listed species habitat in each of the 

SRMAs under Alternative D. Gunnison Sage-grouse is not included in the table because none of 

the SRMAs overlap with Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat. 

Table 4.160. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat in each of the SRMAs Under 

Alternative D 

SRMA Bald Eagle Federally 

Listed Fish MSO SWFL 

Canyon Basins SRMA 0 0 0 0 

Cedar Mesa C-SRMA 0 0 0 0 

Dark Canyon 846 0 30,820 351 

Grand Gulch Plateau 7,737 0 17,330 4,061 

Indian Creek 19,243 0 83,203 2,195 

San Juan River SRMA 7,767 544 0 2,711 

White Canyon 571 0 0 17 

Under this alternative, 16% of Bald Eagle habitat in the Monticello PA would be included in an 

SRMA, which is 17% less than under Alternative A. Thirty-two percent of federally listed fish 

habitat would be included within proposed SRMA boundaries (17% less than under Alternative 

A). Thirty-five percent of MSO habitat would be included in an SRMA (35% less than under 

Alternative A), and 41% of SWFL habitat would be included within the SRMAs (16% less than 

under Alternative A). Overall, this alternative is likely to have more adverse impacts on special 

status species within the proposed SRMAs than Alternative A because of the increased number 

of permitted visitors in some of the SRMAs and the reduction in habitat protection within the 

SRMAs. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-555 

4.3.15.3.9.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of recreation management decisions on special status 

species would include following impacts in addition to those discussed in Impacts Common to 

All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

The San Juan River SRMA (9,859 acres) would include the same number of acres and be 

managed the same as under Alternative C. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the Cedar Mesa SRMA would be managed the same as under 

Alternative B with the following exceptions: woodland harvesting would be allowed, stock 

would be limited to 8 animals, group size would be expanded to 24, and campfires would be 

allowed on mesa tops. The Cedar Mesa SRMA would include 407,098 acres, which is 

approximately 6 % larger than under Alternative A. Under the Proposed Plan, 8% fewer visitors 

would be allowed per day than under Alternative A which would reduce adverse impacts, 

however, there could be an increased level of surface disturbance related to woodland gathering 

and harvesting and/or noise-related disturbance compared with Alternative A. The Grand Gulch 

Plateau would be managed as described for Alternative C. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the Dark Canyon SRMA, Indian Creek SRMA, and White Canyon 

SRMA would be managed as described for Alternative C, except group size limitations for the 

Dark Canyon SRMA would be 18 people. 

Under the Proposed Plan, ERMAs would be managed as described for Alternative C. 

4.3.15.3.10. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.10.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

BLM would follow Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing and 

Recreation Management (BLM 1997) to achieve riparian PFC, oil and gas leasing would be NSO 

in riparian areas, and no new surface-disturbing activities would be allowed within active 

floodplains or within 100 m of riparian areas unless it can be shown that: a) there are no practical 

alternatives or, b) all long-term impacts can be fully mitigated or, c) the activity will benefit and 

enhance the riparian area. In addition, a few trails would be closed to protect riparian resources. 

These requirements would help mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on 

special status species in riparian habitat. Floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas would be subject 

to fire suppression to protect riparian habitat. This could have short-term, adverse impacts on 

riparian species as a result of human presence and vegetation trampling associated with fire 

suppression activities. No camping would be allowed within 200 feet of isolated springs or water 

sources. This would help protect special status species habitat in these areas by reducing human 

presence and habitat modification. Hydraulic analysis would be completed in the design phase by 

the project proponent to eliminate potential environmental degradation associated with pipeline 

breaks at stream crossings to avoid repeated maintenance of such crossings. Specific 

recommendations regarding surface and subsurface crossings are found in Guidance for Pipeline 

Crossings (see Appendix F). These requirements would help mitigate the adverse impacts of 

stream degradation including sedimentation, removal of bank vegetation (resulting in increased 

stream temperature), and water contamination on special status fish species. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-556 

4.3.15.3.10.2. Alternatives A and D 

Under Alternatives A and D, impacts would be the same as discussed under Impacts Common to 

All Alternatives. 

4.3.15.3.10.3. Alternatives B, C, and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternatives B, C, and the Proposed Plan the impacts of riparian management decisions on 

special status species and their habitat would include the impacts outlined below, in addition to 

those discussed in Section 4.3.15.2, Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

OHV routes in selected riparian areas would be closed in riparian areas determined to be 

Functioning at Risk if site-specific analysis shows that OHV use is contributing to the 

degradation. Riparian areas considered "Functioning at Risk" would be closed to dispersed 

motorized camping until PFC is restored. In addition, some riparian areas would be unavailable 

for livestock grazing, while others would be subject to seasonal restrictions and forage utilization 

limits. These restrictions would lessen the number of acres of special status species habitat 

subject to the adverse impacts of surface disturbance in special status riparian areas. It would 

also reduce the adverse impacts of human presence and noise associated with OHV use in special 

status riparian habitat. Alternatives B, C and the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial to 

special status species and their habitat than Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.10.4. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of riparian management decisions on special status species and 

their habitat would be the same as for Alternative B except non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed as unavailable for mineral leasing, as unavailable for OHV 

use, as ROW exclusion areas, as unavailable for disposal of mineral materials, as unavailable for 

private and commercial woodland harvest, as VRM Class I, and as proposed for withdrawal from 

mineral entry. This alternative would be more beneficial to special status species and their 

habitat than Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.11. IMPACTS OF SOILS AND WATERSHED DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.11.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, soils and watershed decisions would comply with 

Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing (Appendix G) and Recreation 

(Appendix E). In addition, all floodplains and riparian/wetlands would be managed in 

accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, sections 303 and 404 of the Clean Water 

Act, the Colorado River Salinity Control Act, and the Endangered Species Act, which would 

protect the quality of stream water and federally listed species habitat. Also, uses in the 

Monticello PA would be managed to minimize and mitigate damage to soils, and activities 

located in areas with special status soils would be subject to site-specific NEPA. These 

restrictions would decrease the number of acres in the Monticello PA subject to the adverse 

impacts on special status species and habitat associated with surface-disturbing activities. This 

includes the indirect impacts of potential stream water contamination associated with increased 

sedimentation from runoff associated with disturbed areas. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-557 

4.3.15.3.11.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, impacts would be the same as Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

4.3.15.3.11.3. Alternatives B and D 

Under Alternatives B and D, the impacts of soils and watershed management decisions on 

special status species and their habitat would include the following impacts in addition to those 

discussed in Alternative A. If surface-disturbing activities cannot be avoided on slopes between 

21 and 40%, a plan including an erosion-control strategy and a BLM-approved survey and 

design would be required. This would provide protection for special status plant and animal 

species on 218,296 acres of land in the Monticello PA. Therefore, the actions associated with 

these alternatives would have less adverse impact on special status species and their habitat than 

Alternative A. Table 4.161 provides the total number of acres of each vegetation type in the 

Monticello PA with slopes greater than 40%. Special status species in pinyon-juniper woodland 

habitat would benefit from the large number of acres protected from surface-disturbing activities 

due to slope use restrictions. 

Table 4.161. Acres of Each Vegetation Type by Slope Steepness Category 

Vegetation Type Acres of slopes >40% Acres of slopes 21-40%

Conifer/Mountain Shrub 1,323 2,662 

Desert Shrub 6,391 27,473 

Invasive Plants and Weeds 43 213 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 77,332 180,954 

Riparian/Wetland 683 1,461 

Sagebrush/ Perennial Grassland 1,684 5,533 

Total 87,456 218,296 

4.3.15.3.11.4. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, the impacts of soils and watershed management 

decisions on special status species and their habitat would include the following impacts in 

addition to those discussed in Alternative B. For slopes greater than 40%, no surface disturbance 

would be allowed unless it is determined that it would cause undue or unnecessary degradation 

to pursue other placement alternatives, and an erosion plan would be required. Avoid surface 

disturbance on slopes greater than 40% would eliminate the adverse impacts associated with 

surface disturbance on special status species utilizing or inhabiting slopes greater than 40%. 

Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial to special status species and their 

habitat than Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.11.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, impacts of soils and watershed decisions on special status species would be 

the same as those described under Alternative B except for non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed as unavailable for mineral leasing, as unavailable for OHV 

use, as ROW exclusion areas, as unavailable for disposal of mineral materials and woodland 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-558 

harvest, and would be managed as VRM Class I, and as proposed for withdrawal from mineral 

entry. Therefore, the actions associated with the Proposed Plan would have less adverse impact 

on special status plant and animal species and their habitat than Alternatives A. 

4.3.15.3.12. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.12.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Special Designation areas, such as ACECs, WSAs, and WSRs would generally reduce long-term 

impacts to special status species that occur within their boundaries. Impacts to special status 

species vary among the Proposed Plan and alternatives based on the acreage of these specially 

designated areas, and the oil and gas leasing stipulations assigned within them. ACECs are 

designated to protect identified relevant and important values such as cultural resources, scenic 

qualities, and natural systems. ACEC designation would reduce impacts to special status species 

and habitats by limiting human activity and surface disturbances, preserving habitat, and limiting 

noise. 

WSAs are established in order to provide for the protection of wilderness character and for the 

use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner that leaves it unimpaired for future use. By definition, 

no surface disturbance, permanent new development, or ROW would be allowed in the WSAs; 

the lands would be closed to oil, gas, and mineral leasing. Under all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan, where ACECs overlap WSAs (see Maps 87–90 WSA management would take 

precedence. This land would be managed according to the IMP. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, any river segments found suitable for designation 

as a WSR would be recommended to Congress. Once identified—but prior to their official 

designation by Congress—these river segments would be managed to protect their free-flowing 

condition and outstandingly remarkable values. These qualities would be maintained within 1/4 

mile on each side of the river. The BLM would not seek water rights in these segments, and 

OHV travel would be limited to designated routes. 

A comparative analysis of the management (specifically relating to oil and gas leasing 

stipulations) of the ACECs under the Proposed Plan and each alternative would be the best 

representative of potential impacts of Special Designation decisions on special status species. 

Impacts of surface-disturbing oil and gas activities on special status species and their habitats 

include direct and indirect human-caused disturbance (i.e., vehicular traffic, trampling of 

vegetation, noise, and human presence) of individual species and their habitats. Further 

discussion of the qualitative impacts of surface-disturbing oil and gas activities on native 

vegetation (special status species habitat) can be found in Section 4.3.17, Vegetation. 

Within the Monticello PA, there are 12 proposed ACECs and 12 reviewed WSR segments. Not 

every proposed ACEC or WSR segment would be designated under each alternative (Table 

4.162 and Table 4.163). Other than stipulating that WSAs would be managed according to IMP 

and as VRM Class I there are no blanket management prescriptions within proposed ACECs, so 

the impacts to special status species resources from ACEC designations would vary depending 

on the management stipulations for each area under each alternative and the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-559 

Table 4.162. Proposed ACEC Acreage under the Proposed Plan and Each Alternative 

Alternatives 

ACEC 

A B C D E 

Proposed 

Pan 

Alkali Ridge 39,202 39,196 39,196 0 39,196 39,196

Bridger Jack Mesa 6,260 6,225 0 0 6,225 0

Butler Wash North 17,464 17,365 0 0 17,365 0

Cedar Mesa 295,336* 306,742 0 0 306,742 0

Dark Canyon 61,660 61,660 0 0 61,660 0

Hovenweep 1,798 2,439 2,439 0 2,439 2,439

Indian Creek 8,510 8,510 3,905 0 8,510 3,905

Lockhart Basin N/A** 47,783 0 0 47,783 0

Lavender Mesa 649 649 649 0 649 649

Shay Canyon 3,561 119 119 0 119 119

San Juan River 0*** 7,590 7,590 0 7,590 4,321

Valley of the Gods 0**** 22,863 22,863 0 22,863 22,863

Total 492,077 521,142 76,761 0 521,142 73,492

*Acreage includes Cedar Mesa ACEC (295,336) and Pine and Step Canyons (23,653). 

**Lockhart Basin is not currently an ACEC. A portion of the potential Lockhart Basin ACEC area includes the existing Indian 

Creek ACEC accompanied by current management prescriptions for this area. 

***The proposed San Juan River ACEC would continue to be managed under SRMA status under Alternative A. 

****Under Alternative A, the Valley of the Gods is a Special Emphasis Area for Scenic Value within the Cedar Mesa ACEC.

Table 4.163. Miles of WSR Segment Recommended for Designation by Alternative 

 WSR Segment Alternatives 

A B C D E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Colorado River Segment 1 

(Recreational) 

0 2.2 0 0 2.2 0

Colorado River Segment 2 

(Scenic) 

0 5.5 5.5 0 5.5 5.5

Colorado River Segment 3 

(Scenic) 

0 6.5 6.5 0 6.5 6.5

Indian Creek (Recreational) 0 4.8 0 0 4.8 0

Fable Valley (Scenic) 0 6.8 0 0 6.8 0

Dark Canyon (Wild) 0 6.4 6.4 0 6.4 6.4

San Juan River Segment 1 

(Recreational) 

0 8.5 0 0 8.5 0

San Juan River Segment 2 

(Recreational) 

0 10 0 0 10 0

San Juan River Segment 3 

(Wild) 

0 13.3 0 0 13.3 00

San Juan River Segment 4 

(Recreational) 

0 4.2 0 0 4.2 0
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-560 

Table 4.163. Miles of WSR Segment Recommended for Designation by Alternative 

 WSR Segment Alternatives 

A B C D E 

Proposed 

Plan 

San Juan River Segment 5 

(Wild) 

0 17.3 0 0 17.3 17.3

Arch Canyon (Recreational) 0 6.9 0 0 6.9 0

Total 0 92.4 18.4 0 92.4 35.7

4.3.15.3.12.2. Alternative A 

Ten of the 12 proposed ACECs would continue to be managed as ACECs under Alternative A 

(approximately 492,077 acres in total). This includes Valley of the Gods, which would be a 

Special Emphasis Area for scenic value within the Cedar Mesa ACEC as well as Pine and Step 

Canyons, which would be managed with the same prescriptions as Cedar Mesa ACEC. The 

proposed Lockhart Basin ACEC is not currently an existing ACEC but a portion of it includes 

the Indian Creek ACEC (8,510 acres). This portion would continue to be managed as an ACEC 

and is included in the total acreage above. 

Under Alternative A, none of the river segments reviewed for WSR status would be 

recommended as suitable for WSR status. This is fewer than all other Alternatives B, C, E, and 

the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.15.3.12.3. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, all 12 of the proposed ACECs (approximately 521,142 acres in 

total) would be designated and managed as ACECs. Alternatives B and E would designate 

29,065 (or 6%) more acres as ACECs than under Alternative A and 446,663 (or 86%) more acres 

than under the Proposed Plan, which would indirectly benefit special status species by providing 

protections from surface disturbance. 

Under Alternatives B and E, all 12 of the river segments reviewed for WSR status would be 

recommended as suitable for WSR status (92.4 miles in total). Management prescriptions vary 

from river segment to river segment (see Table 2.1 for specific prescriptions by segment) but this 

variation does not represent a notable difference between alternatives and the Proposed Plan in 

terms of the impacts of WSR designation since Alternatives B and E recommend more river 

segments for WSR status than all other alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.15.3.12.4. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, seven of the proposed ACECs (approximately 76,764 acres in total) would 

be recognized and managed as ACECs. Alternative C would designate approximately 415,313 

(or 84%) fewer land as ACECs than Alternative A, decreasing protections from surface 

disturbance compared to Alternative A. 

Three of the 12 river segments reviewed for WSR status would be designated as suitable for 

WSR status under Alternative C (18.4 miles in total). The remaining segments would not be 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-561 

recommended as suitable for WSR status. Alternative C would include 3 more WSR 

recommended river segments than Alternative A.

4.3.15.3.12.5. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, none of the 12 proposed ACECs would be designated. This is 492,077 

fewer acres than under Alternative A, and 74,429 fewer acres than under the Proposed Plan. 

Fewer acres would be closed to surface-disturbing activities under Alternative D than under all 

other alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Under Alternative D, none of the river segments reviewed for WSR status would be 

recommended as suitable for WSR status. This is fewer than all other alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan. 

4.3.15.3.12.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, seven of the proposed ACECs (approximately 74,429 acres in total) 

would be recognized and managed as ACECs. The Proposed Plan would designate 

approximately 417,648 fewer acres or 85% less land as ACECs than Alternative A, limiting 

protections from surface disturbance compared to Alternative A. 

Four of the 12 river segments reviewed for WSR status would be designated as suitable for WSR 

status under the Proposed Plan (35.7 miles in total). The remaining segments would not be 

recommended as suitable for WSR status. The Proposed Plan would include 3 more WSR 

recommended river segments compared to Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.13. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Navajo Sedge

Site-specific plant inventories would be required prior to any proposed surface-disturbing 

projects in suitable Navajo sedge habitat. Activities that would be avoided in suitable habitat 

include road construction, land disposal and approval of ROW corridors, and grazing activities 

(trailing, salting, watering, and herding). All motorized travel would be limited to designated 

routes in suitable Navajo sedge habitat. The use of herbicide and chemical treatments would be 

restricted. These avoidance measures and restrictions would help to mitigate the adverse impacts 

of habitat degradation and fragmentation for the Navajo sedge. 

Black-footed Ferret

No critical habitat rules have been published for the black-footed ferret. There are no special 

protective measures in place because there are no known populations in the Monticello PA. 

However, the 1988 Recovery Plan states, “direct reduction in the area occupied by prairie dogs 

has been shown to reduce the number of black-footed ferrets linearly” (USFWS 1988). 

Therefore, it can be assumed that critical habitat for the black-footed ferret coincides with prairie 

dog habitat (including areas of short vegetation and bare ground), and that impacts described in 

this chapter for prairie dogs would be the same for the black-footed ferret. 

Gunnison Sage-grouse

Major threats to the Gunnison Sage-grouse include roads, fences, and power poles that fragment 

habitat and provide perches and viewing areas for sage-grouse predators, including raptors, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-562 

leading to increased sage-grouse mortality (Connelly et al. 2000, Crawford et al. 2004). 

Additional threats to Gunnison Sage-grouse include reduction in native vegetation distribution 

and human disturbance during breeding and nesting season. The BLM's Guidance for the 

Management of Sagebrush Plant Communities for Sage-grouse Conservation, BLM's National 

Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004d) and Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide 

Conservation Plan (BLM 2005l) would be implemented in suitable habitat in the Monticello PA. 

An additional 320 acres of suitable Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would be managed as a 

conservation easement to protect and enhance their habitat. Adherence to these plans would have 

beneficial impacts on Gunnison Sage-grouse and other special status sagebrush species in the 

Monticello PA because of the habitat protections and restrictions on human disturbance specified 

in these plans. 

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO)

There would be no ground-disturbing activities allowed within a 0.5-mile radius of known MSO 

nests, with the 0.5-mile protective radii designated as Protected Activity Centers (PACs). These 

would be protected as outlined in the MSO Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995). Because healthy, 

native vegetation is a key component of suitable habitat (food source and shelter for owl prey 

species), these restrictions would have long-term beneficial impacts on MSOs and other special 

status species in the MSO nest buffer zones. MSO Designated Critical Habitat and suitable 

habitat would be avoided or use restrictions would be implemented. Suitable habitat restrictions 

would include staying on designated routes or revegetating access routes created by a project: 

actions that would help mitigate the adverse impacts of any surface disturbance associated with 

road construction in MSO prey habitat. 

In addition, surveys would be required for temporary activities taking place within 0.5 miles of 

suitable MSO habitat during breeding season (March 1–August 31). For all permanent actions, 

two years of surveys would be required prior to commencement of the activity. If MSOs were 

found during the surveys, no disturbing actions or permanent structures would be allowed within 

0.5 miles of any identified nest sites or PACs. Additionally, noise emissions would be reduced 

below 45 dBA at 0.5 miles from suitable habitat. This would help reduce the stress of noise on 

MSOs during the breeding season. Various studies have shown that human presence and noise 

disturbance leads to a significant reduction in prey handling and delivery by females, impacts 

that would reduce nest success (Frid 2002; Swarthout and Steidl 2003). These requirements 

would mitigate the adverse impacts of human disturbance on MSOs during breeding season. 

Bald Eagle

Bald eagles would be protected as outlined in the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 

668-668d, 54 Stat. 250, as amended). Activities on BLM lands that contain nesting or winter 

roosting habitat for the Bald Eagle would be avoided or restricted, depending on the duration and 

timing of the activity. Bald eagles would be managed according to the Best Management 

Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in Utah (BLM 2006c). These management 

requirements would include restrictions and avoidance measures, including required surveys 

prior to activity, possible monitoring during the activity, implementation of seasonal and spatial 

buffers during the breeding season (January 1–August 31), and avoidance of disturbance in 

riparian areas unless impracticable. No future ground-disturbing activities would be authorized 

within a 0.5-mile radius of known Bald Eagle nest sites year-round. Deviations may be allowed 

only after appropriate levels of consultation and coordination with the USFWS. In addition, no 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-563 

permanent above-ground structures would be allowed within a 0.50-mile radius of a winter roost 

site if the structure would result in the habitat becoming unsuitable for future winter roosting by 

Bald Eagles. 

As discussed in the MSO section, these requirements would help to mitigate the adverse impacts 

of human disturbance on Bald Eagles during breeding and roosting seasons. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWFL) and Yellow-billed Cuckoo

In SWFL and Yellow-billed Cuckoo riparian habitat, there would be no surface-disturbing 

activities within 300 feet of riparian areas, restrictions that would have long-term beneficial 

impacts on riparian special status species and their habitat within those buffer zones by 

eliminating ground disturbance and preventing habitat degradation. In addition, native species 

revegetation of disturbed riparian and adjacent upland areas would be required upon completion 

of an activity. Surveys would be required for activities taking place within suitable riparian 

habitat (see Map 65). Construction and other disruptive activities would not be permitted within 

a 0.25 mile buffer of occupied breeding habitat from May 1 through August 15. No permanent 

loud-noise-emitting facilities would be permitted within 0.25 miles of riparian habitat. In 

addition, SWFL would be protected as outlined in the SWFL Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002e). 

These requirements would help to mitigate the adverse impacts of human disturbances on special 

status bird species during breeding, nesting, and roosting seasons. 

California Condor

California condors and their habitat would be protected as outlined in the Recovery Plan for the 

California condor (USFWS 1996). If California condors are found to nest in the Monticello PA, 

there would be no roads or permanent structures allowed within 1 mile of the nest. In addition, 

no surface-disturbing activities or special use permit groups would be allowed within 1 mile of 

the nest during breeding season. These requirements would help to mitigate the adverse impacts 

of human disturbance on nesting California condors. Adverse impacts would be similar to those 

discussed for the MSO. 

Endangered Colorado River Fishes

The humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail chub would all be 

protected as outlined in their respective recovery plans (USFWS 2002a; USFWS 2002b; USFWS 

2002c; USFWS 2002d). All water depletions from any portion of the Upper Colorado River 

drainage basin above Lake Powell have been determined to adversely affect or modify the 

critical habitat of the 4 resident endangered fish species and must be reported to the BLM 

(USFWS 1987). Any new depletion would require formal Section 7 consultation with the 

USFWS and would require implementation of the Conservation Measures dictated in the 

Programmatic Biological Opinion for depletions to the Colorado River system (USFWS 1987). 

Surveys and monitoring would be required for activities taking place within designated critical 

habitat. Loss or degradation of riparian habitats would be avoided. The Utah Oil and Gas 

Pipeline Crossing Guidance would be implemented for all activities occurring near riparian areas 

(Appendix F). These requirements would help mitigate the adverse impacts of disturbance on 

special status fish species within the Monticello PA because of the associated reductions in 

human impacts such as grazing and surface-disturbing activities on fish habitat (Lentsch and 

Converse 1997). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-564 

4.3.15.3.13.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the impacts of special status species management decisions on special 

status species would include those discussed in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan section. 

4.3.15.3.13.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, the impacts of special status species management decisions on 

special status species and habitat would include the impacts outlined below in addition to those 

discussed in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan section. 

For the Gunnison Sage-grouse, year-round crucial habitat would be designated on 4,524 acres of 

BLM land in the Monticello PA. This crucial habitat is 3% of estimated sagebrush habitat in the 

Monticello PA. In sage-grouse lek habitat (defined as the 2-mile radius of an active strutting 

ground), there would be no surface-disturbing geophysical activities, with the exception of 

seasonal grazing (closed from March 20 to May 15), allowed. These restrictions would help 

mitigate the adverse impacts of surface disturbance on vegetation resources in lek habitat. Within 

six miles of lek habitat, sagebrush treatments, oil and gas leasing with standard stipulations, and 

seasonal grazing would be allowed. The construction of fences, power lines, wind-power 

turbines, or other tall structures would not be permitted. This would help reduce the predation of 

sage-grouse by raptors and the collision of sage-grouse with fences. The allowance of sagebrush 

treatments would help mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on special 

status species and habitat within the 6-mile buffer of the center of the lek. Because of these 

restrictions, there would be fewer adverse impacts on Gunnison Sage-grouse and other sagebrush 

special status species associated with these alternatives than with Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, the habitat in Arch Canyon for MSO and the flannelmouth sucker would 

be closed to OHV use, and group size would be limited to 10 individuals and 2 groups per day. 

These restrictions would help mitigate the impacts of noise disturbance on MSO and other cliffdwelling special status species in the closure area. The OHV closures would provide the 

opportunity for the reestablishment of riparian vegetation on closed OHV routes, and reduce the 

runoff, stream sedimentation, and erosion associated with OHV use that could adversely impact 

special status fish species habitat. 

4.3.15.3.13.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of special status species management decisions on special 

status species and habitat would be the same as those discussed in Alternative B except that 

disturbance would not be allowed within a 0.6-mile radius from the center of a lek. The potential 

disturbance associated with grazing in and around sage-grouse leks associated with this change 

in designation would result in this alternative having more adverse impacts on vegetation 

resources than Alternative B. The construction of fences, power lines, or other tall structures 

would be avoided. This could help reduce the predation of sage-grouse by raptors. Because of 

these restrictions, there would be fewer adverse impacts on special status plant and animal 

species in sagebrush habitat associated with this alternative than with Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, portions of the habitat in Arch Canyon for MSO and the flannelmouth 

sucker would be closed to OHV use, and group size would be limited to 12 vehicles and 2 groups 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-565 

per day. This would provide more protection for cliff-dwelling wildlife species and special status 

fish than the management activities proposed under Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.13.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of special status species management decisions on special 

status species in sagebrush habitat would include the impacts outlined below, in addition to those 

discussed in Section 4.3.15.2, Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

For Gunnison Sage-grouse, year-round crucial habitat would be designated on 2,877 acres of 

BLM land in the Monticello PA. In lek habitat (defined as a 0.25-mile radius of an active 

strutting ground), there would be no surface-disturbing activities allowed, with the exception of 

seasonal grazing. These restrictions would help mitigate the adverse impacts of seasonal grazing 

on special status species and sagebrush vegetation communities in lek habitat. Within 6 miles of 

the lek center, sagebrush treatments, fence construction, and oil and gas leasing with standard 

stipulations and seasonal grazing would be allowed. The allowance of sagebrush treatments 

would help mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on special status species 

and habitat within the 6-mile buffer of the lek center. 

Under this alternative, the habitat in Arch Canyon for MSO and the flannelmouth sucker would 

be open to OHV use on designated trails year-round, and commercial motorized group size 

would be limited to 12 vehicles and 2 trips per day. This would provide more protection for cliffdwelling wildlife species and special status fish than the management activities proposed under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.13.5. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of special status species management decisions on special 

status species and habitat would include the impacts outlined below in addition to those 

discussed in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan section. 

For the Gunnison Sage-grouse, year-round crucial habitat would be designated on 4,524 acres of 

BLM land in the Monticello PA. This crucial habitat is 3% of estimated sagebrush habitat in the 

Monticello PA. In sage-grouse lek habitat (defined as the 2-mile radius of an active strutting 

ground), there would be no surface-disturbing geophysical activities, and all permitted activities 

would be avoided from March 20 to May 15. These restrictions would help mitigate the adverse 

impacts of surface disturbance on vegetation resources in lek habitat. Within four miles of lek 

habitat, sagebrush treatments, oil and gas leasing with standard stipulations, and limited grazing 

would be allowed. The construction of fences, power lines, wind-power turbines, or other tall 

structures would not be permitted. This would help reduce the predation of sage-grouse by 

raptors and the collision of sage-grouse with fences. The allowance of sagebrush treatments 

would help mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on special status species 

and habitat within the 4-mile buffer of the center of the lek. Because of these restrictions, there 

would be fewer adverse impacts on Gunnison Sage-grouse and other sagebrush special status 

species associated with the Proposed Plan than with Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, the habitat in Arch Canyon for MSO and the flannelmouth sucker would 

be open to OHV use limited to designated routes. This restriction would help mitigate the 

impacts of noise disturbance on MSO and other cliff-dwelling special status species in the 

closure area. The OHV limitations would provide the opportunity for the reestablishment of 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-566 

riparian vegetation on closed OHV routes, and reduce the runoff, stream sedimentation, and 

erosion associated with OHV use that could adversely impact special status fish species habitat. 

4.3.15.3.14. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.14.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan for travel management, any new trail designations 

would consider special status species habitat, which could reduce the adverse impacts of surface 

and noise disturbance on special status plant and animal species. In addition, National Scenic 

Byways and Backways would be designated in the Monticello PA. These roads already exist, so 

there is not likely to be an appreciable impact on special status plant and animal species and their 

habitat resulting from these designations. 

A number of trails would be managed for non-mechanized travel under all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan (see Chapter 2 Table 2.1, Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan, 

for the list). Because these trails are already established and in use, there is not likely to be a 

noticeable increase in disturbances of special status species and habitat resulting from trail 

maintenance. There would also be trails and/or areas open to OHV use under all alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan. OHV use can physically damage the vegetation in special status species 

habitat and cause noise disturbance, which could have direct, adverse impacts on special status 

species, especially birds and big game, in the Monticello PA (Reijnen and Foppen 1995, Gelbard 

and Belnap 2003). The surface disturbance associated with OHV use can have direct and indirect 

adverse impacts on individual plants and animals as well as their habitat. 

4.3.15.3.14.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, there are a total of 611,310 acres open to OHV use which is more than 

under any of the other alternatives or the Proposed Plan. Under this alternative, there are 540,260 

acres with seasonal restrictions on OHV use off of existing trails to protect bighorn sheep 

lambing and rutting areas. There are an additional 789,170 acres where OHV use is limited to 

existing trails. These restrictions would indirectly benefit special status wildlife species using the 

restricted areas. The number of acres of each habitat type classified as closed or limited OHV use 

by alternative is located in Tables 4.184–4.186 in Section 4.3.17, Vegetation. 

This alternative has 276,430 acres closed to OHV use. These closures would decrease the 

adverse impacts of this alternative on special status species and their habitat in these protected 

areas by eliminating surface and noise disturbance associated with OHV use. A reduction in 

miles of available OHV trails would lead to a reduction in habitat fragmentation for special 

status wildlife species. A list of closed areas is located in the Summary Table of Alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan. Closed areas include some ACECs and vegetation study areas. Table 4.164 

provides acres of special status species habitat that are open to OHV use, closed to OHV use, or 

limited to designated trails under this alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-567 

Table 4.164. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat by OHV Usage Status Under 

Alternative A 

OHV 

Status Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Closed 16,275 371 101,801 3,568 0 

Limited 184,785 311 122,529 6,335 0 

Open 50,134 483 154,610 13,473 4,593 

Under this alternative, 7% of Bald Eagle habitat, 27% of MSO habitat, 16% of SWFL habitat, 

22% of the federally listed fish habitat, and none of Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would be 

closed to OHV use. 

4.3.15.3.14.3. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, the impacts of travel management decisions on special status 

species would include the following impacts in addition to those discussed in Alternative A. No 

acres would be open to cross-country OHV travel under these alternatives, which is 100% less 

than under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, there would be 1,359,417 acres with OHV use 

limited to designated routes; Alternative E would designate 812,679 acres for limited to 

designated OHV routes. Compared to Alternative A, there would be a substantial increase in 

OHV restrictions under these two alternatives because Alternative A would propose 789,170 

acres for OHV travel along designated and existing routes. 

Alternative B would close 423,698 acres to OHV use, which would be 147,268 acres (1.5 times 

more acreage) than under Alternative A. Alternative E would close 970,436 acres to OHV use 

(694,006 acres or 3.5 times more acreage than Alternative A). These closures would decrease the 

adverse impacts of these alternatives on special status species and their habitat in these protected 

areas by eliminating noise and surface disturbance associated with OHV use. A list of closed 

areas is located in the Summary of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan, Table 2.1. Designated 

OHV Closed areas include vegetation study areas, some SRMAs, and some WSAs. This action 

would protect more acres of ecologically important special status species habitat from the surface 

disturbance and weed spread associated with OHV use than Alternative A. Table 4.165 provides 

acres of special status species habitat that would be open to OHV use, closed to OHV use, or 

limited to designated routes under this alternative. 

Table 4.165. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat by OHV Usage Status Under 

Alternatives B and E 

OHV 

Status Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Closed 15,347 117 116,645 4,020 4,593 

Limited 235,163 1,018 262,107 18,949 0 

Open 0 0 0 0 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-568 

Under these alternatives, 6% of Bald Eagle habitat in the Monticello PA would be closed to 

OHV use, which is 1% less than under Alternative A. Seven percent of federally listed fish 

habitat would be closed, which is 15% less than under Alternative A. Thirty-one percent of MSO 

habitat would be closed to OHV use, which is 4% more than under Alternative A. Eighteen 

percent of SWFL habitat would be closed, which is 2% more than under Alternative A. One 

hundred percent of Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would be closed, which is 100% more than 

under Alternative A. 

There are fewer acres of special status species habitat subject to adverse surface-disturbing 

impacts, which contribute to habitat fragmentation, under this alternative than under Alternative 

A. 

4.3.15.3.14.4. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of travel management decisions on special status species and 

their habitat would include the following impacts in addition to those discussed in Alternative A. 

There are a total of 2,311 acres open to OHV use under this alternative, which is 608,999 acres 

(99%) less than under Alternative A. Note that the proposed open OHV area would be in an 

existing OHV play area, already disturbed and impacted by previous and current use (see Section 

4.3.10.3.12, Impacts of Travel Decisions on Recreation), so the impacts to special status species 

would be minor. There would be 1,362,142 acres within which OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. This would be a 58% increase in acreage, when compared to Alternative A. 

This alternative would close 418,667 acres to OHV use, which is 142,237 acres (1.5 times more 

acreage) than Alternative A. These closures would decrease the adverse impacts of this 

alternative on native vegetation in these protected areas by eliminating surface disturbance 

associated with OHV use. A list of closed areas is located in the Summary Table of Alternatives, 

Table 2.1. Closed areas include vegetation study areas, some SRMAs, some CSMAs, and some 

WSAs. This action helps protect more acres of ecologically important special status species 

habitat from the surface disturbance and weed spread associated with OHV use than Alternative 

A. Table 4.166 below provides acreage of special status species habitat that is open to OHV use, 

closed to OHV use, or limited to designated trails under this alternative. 

Table 4.166. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat by OHV Usage Status Under 

Alternative C 

OHV 

Status Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Closed 13,567 124 112,737 3,719 0 

Limited 235,388 1,011 263,801 19,114 4,593 

Open 1,555 0 2,214 135 0 

Under this alternative, 5% of Bald Eagle habitat in the Monticello PA would be closed to OHV 

use, which is 2% less than under Alternative A. Seven percent of federally listed fish habitat 

would be closed, which is 15% less than under Alternative A. Thirty percent of MSO habitat 

would be closed to OHV use, which is 3% more than under Alternative A. Sixteen percent of 

SWFL habitat would be closed, which is the same as under Alternative A. None of the Gunnison 

Sage-grouse habitat would be closed, which is the same as under Alternative A. There are fewer 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-569 

acres of special status species habitat subject to adverse surface-disturbing impacts under this 

alternative than under Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.14.5. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of travel management decisions on special status species and 

their habitat would include the impacts outlined below, in addition to those discussed in 

Alternative A. 

There are a total of 2,311 acres open to OHV use under this alternative (the same as discussed 

under the Proposed Plan), which is 608,999 acres (99%) less than under Alternative A. 

Approximately 1,780,807 acres of the Monticello PA would limit OHV travel to designated 

routes. This would be an increase of 991,637 acres or over 2 times more acreage than under 

Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, no acres within the Monticello PA would be closed to OHV use, which is 

276,430 acres (100%) less than under Alternative A. Table 4.167 below provides acres of special 

status species habitat that are open to OHV use, closed to OHV use, or limited to designated 

trails under this alternative. 

Table 4.167. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat by OHV Usage Status Under 

Alternative D 

OHV 

Status Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Closed 0 0 0 0 0 

Limited 248,955 1,105 376,538 22,834 4,593 

Open 1,555 0 2,214 135 0 

Under this alternative, there would be no special status species habitat closed to OHV use, which 

is 34% less acreage than under Alternative A. The elimination of OHV closured areas under this 

alternative would have greater adverse impacts on special status species than the impacts under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.14.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of travel management decisions on special status species 

and their habitat would include the following impacts in addition to those discussed in 

Alternative A. There are a total of zero acres open to OHV use under this alternative, which is 

590,225 acres (more than 99%) less than under Alternative A. There would be 1,388,191 acres 

within which OHV use would be limited to designated routes. This would be a 57% increase in 

acreage, when compared to Alternative A. Under the Proposed Plan the Arch Canyon route 

would be opened for the entire length of the canyon to the USFS boundary. This would 

potentially have long-term adverse impacts (related to noise and human presence) on MSO since 

Arch Canyon is identified as containing suitable MSO nesting habitat. 

The Proposed Plan would close 393,895 acres to OHV use, which is 105,974 acres (38% more 

acreage) than Alternative A. These closures would decrease the adverse impacts of this 

alternative on native vegetation in these protected areas by eliminating surface disturbance 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-570 

associated with OHV use. A list of closed areas is located in the Summary Table of Alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan, Table 2.1. Closed areas include vegetation study areas, some SRMAs, 

and some WSAs. This action helps protect more acres of ecologically important special status 

species habitat from the surface disturbance and weed spread associated with OHV use than 

Alternative A. Table 4.168 below provides acreage of special status species habitat that is open 

to OHV use, closed to OHV use, or limited to designated trails under the Proposed Plan. 

Table 4.168. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat by OHV Usage Status Under the 

Proposed Plan 

OHV 

Status Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Closed 13,505 124 112,737 3,719 0 

Limited 232,752 1,011 265,780 19,114 4,593 

Open 96 0 0 135 0 

Under the Proposed Plan, 5% of Bald Eagle habitat in the Monticello PA would be closed to 

OHV use, which is 2% less than under Alternative A. Seven percent of federally listed fish 

habitat would be closed, which is 15% less than under Alternative A. Thirty percent of MSO 

habitat would be closed to OHV use, which is 3% more than under Alternative A. Eighteen 

percent of SWFL habitat would be closed, which is 2% more than under Alternative A. None of 

the Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would be closed, which is the same as under Alternative A. 

There are fewer acres of special status species habitat subject to adverse surface-disturbing 

impacts under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.15. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.15.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, vegetation-related seed gathering and plant 

collection would be allowed in all areas meeting Utah's Rangeland Health Standards and Grazing 

Guidelines (BLM 1997). This could have short-term, direct adverse impacts on special status 

species and their habitat due to trampling and human disturbance during collection activities. 

Sagebrush habitat would be managed as described in the National Sage-grouse Habitat 

Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004d). A list of sagebrush communities prioritized for treatment is 

located in the Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan, Table 2.1. These 

restoration treatments would have long-term beneficial impacts on special status species in native 

sagebrush communities by providing them with improved habitat (Monsen 2004). The spread of 

noxious, invasive, and non-native weed species would be controlled through implementation of 

BLM weed management policies and action plans. In addition, restoration activities and stock 

animal feed would be required to use certified weed-free seed mixes, mulch, and feed. Actions 

taken to help slow/stop the spread of weeds in the Monticello PA would help reduce the adverse 

impacts of surface disturbance associated with stock use, oil and gas development, and other 

activities that result in the adverse impacts associated with alteration of special status species 

habitat. Those non-native, exotic, and invasive species of management concern for the 

Monticello PA are included in Table 3.59. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-571 

4.3.15.3.15.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, 15,475 acres of land treatments per year would be continued. This 

treatment decision would be greater than under any of the other alternatives. Impacts are 

discussed in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan section. Vegetation 

treatments for each alternative by vegetation type are provided in Table 4.230 in Section 4.3.17, 

Vegetation. 

4.3.15.3.15.3. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, there would be 7,600 acres of vegetation treatments per year, which is 

about 51% fewer acres of treatment per year than under Alternative A. In general, these 

treatment decisions would likely have more beneficial impacts on special status species and 

habitat than Alternative A because of the increased likelihood of successful vegetation treatments 

due to the concentration of efforts in specified vegetation communities. 

4.3.15.3.15.4. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on special status species 

would include the impacts outlined below, in addition to those discussed in Impacts Common to 

All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

There would be 9,300 acres of vegetation treatments under this alternative, which is 30% fewer 

acres of treatment than under Alternative A. There would be fewer, short-term adverse impacts 

associated with this alternative than Alternative A because fewer acres would be open to 

trampling and surface disturbance associated with vegetation treatments. 

4.3.15.3.15.5. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on special status species 

would include the impacts outlined below, in addition to those discussed in Impacts Common to 

All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

There would be 11,300 acres of vegetation treatments under this alternative, which is 27% fewer 

acres of treatment than under Alternative A. There would be fewer, short-term adverse impacts 

associated with this alternative than Alternative A because fewer acres are open to trampling and 

disturbance associated with vegetation treatments. There are more long-term beneficial impacts 

for special status species and habitat under this alternative than under Alternative B or the 

Proposed Plan because a greater number of acres would receive vegetation treatments. 

4.3.15.3.15.6. Alternative E 

There would be 7,600 acres of vegetation treatments under this alternative, which is 51% fewer 

acres of treatment than under Alternative A. Under Alternative E, the impacts to species would 

be the same as discussed under B, except that approximately 582,357 acres within the planning 

area would have restrictions on vegetation treatments in order to preserve non-WSA wilderness 

characteristics. These areas would be managed under VRM Class I objectives, which would limit 

the degree of treatment-related surface disturbances. The impacts of limiting vegetation 

treatments would be beneficial in the short- and long-term based on the reduced potential for 

trampling of species habitat, and the reduced potential for invasive species establishment and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-572 

spread from treatment-related surface disturbances. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would have more beneficial long-term impacts on special status species because more potential 

habitat would be protected within the non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas. 

4.3.15.3.15.7. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on vegetation 

resources would include the following impacts in addition to those discussed in Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. There would be 9,300 acres of vegetation 

treatments per year under this alternative, which is 30% fewer acres of treatment per year than 

under Alternative A. The short-term, adverse impacts of trampling and crushing vegetation 

associated with treatment would be substantially reduced compared to Alternative A. There are 

fewer long-term beneficial impacts to special status species and habitat under this alternative 

than under Alternative A because fewer acres would receive vegetation treatments. 

4.3.15.3.16. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.16.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, lands within the Monticello PA would be 

designated and managed as VRM Classes I through IV (see Chapter 3, Section 3.19, Visual 

Resources). All WSAs and eligible/designated WSR segments would be managed as VRM Class 

I or II. Very limited and minor impacts to scenic quality would be allowed in areas designated as 

VRM Class I or II. Vegetation treatments, with short-term impacts on visual quality, and other 

similar surface-disturbing activities designed to enhance native vegetation, would be allowed in 

VRM Class I or II areas. These limitations on surface disturbances as well as allowed habitat 

enhancement would mitigate the adverse impacts of management activities in special status 

species habitat. 

In areas designated as VRM Class III or IV, visual objectives would allow moderate or major 

changes to the visual landscape. Most types of surface-disturbing activities and human visitation 

would be allowed in VRM Class III or IV areas. These types of disturbance could have shortand long-term adverse impacts on special status species and their associated habitat in the 

Monticello PA. 

4.3.15.3.16.2. Alternative A 

Alternative A would have the third largest area (726,687 acres) subject to VRM Class I or II 

resource objective restrictions. It would have the third largest area (1,054,681 acres) subject to 

VRM Class III or IV resource objectives restrictions (see Map 66 for Alternative A VRM class 

designations). Because very limited and limited changes to scenic quality would be allowed in 

areas designated as VRM Class I or II, this alternative would have the third most acres protected 

from activities that could adversely affect special status plant and wildlife individuals and their 

suitable habitat. 

The number of acres of each habitat type in each of the VRM classes is located in Tables 4.190–

4.193 in Section 4.3.17, Vegetation. Table 4.169 contains the number of acres of federally listed 

species habitat located in each VRM class under this alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-573 

Table 4.169. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under 

Alternative A 

VRM 

Class Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

I 34,773 435 95,389 4,823 0 

II 50,266 592 121,354 9,148 44 

III 92,278 0 69,586 6,135 21 

IV 72,852 0 91,570 2,729 4,528 

Under this alternative, 34% of Bald Eagle habitat, 57% of MSO habitat, 61% of SWFL habitat, 

100% of the federally listed fish habitat, and 1% of Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would be in 

areas managed as VRM I or II.

4.3.15.3.16.3. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of visual resource management decisions on special status 

species and habitat would include the impacts outlined below, as well as those discussed in 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Some ACECs would also be managed under VRM Class I or II objectives. This alternative 

would have the second largest area (748,309 acres) subject to VRM I or II restrictions on impacts 

to scenic quality. It would have the second smallest area (1,034,813 acres) subject to VRM III or 

IV restrictions (see Map 67 for Alternative B VRM designations). Because very limited and 

limited management activities would be allowed in areas designated as VRM I or II, this 

alternative would have the second highest number of acres protected from activities that could 

adversely affect special status plant and wildlife individuals and their suitable habitat. Table 

4.170 contains the number of acres of federally listed species habitat located in each VRM class 

under this alternative. 

Table 4.170. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under 

Alternative B 

VRM 

Class Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

I 20,385 612 165,817 5,978 0 

II 58,908 273 67,740 6,811 44 

III 98,276 221 63,607 7,463 21 

IV 72,695 0 81,374 2,645 4,528 

Under this alternative, 32% of Bald Eagle habitat in the Monticello PA would be in areas 

managed under VRM Class I or II objectives (2% less than under Alternative A); 80% of 

federally listed fish habitat would be included in VRM Class I or II designated areas (20% less 

than under Alternative A); 62% of MSO habitat would be included in be in areas managed under 

VRM Class I or II objectives (5% more than under Alternative A); and 56% of SWFL habitat 

would be included in VRM Class I or II designated areas (5% less than under Alternative A). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-574 

One percent of Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would lie within areas managed under VRM I or II 

objectives, which would be the same as Alternative A. Overall, this alternative would be slightly 

less beneficial to these federally listed species and their habitat than Alternative A because fewer 

acres of potential habitat would lie within the more-protective VRM Class I and II designated 

areas. 

4.3.15.3.16.4. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of visual resource management decisions on special status 

species and habitat would include those discussed in Management Common to All, with 

additional impacts from specified ACECs managed as VRM Class I or II. Alternative C would 

have the fourth largest area (557,180 acres) subject to VRM Class I or II restrictions. It would 

have the second largest area (1,225,915 acres) subject to VRM III or IV restrictions (see Map 68 

for VRM designations under Alternative C). Because VRM Class I and II objectives would limit 

surface-disturbance-related impacts to existing scenic quality, this alternative would have the 

fourth largest number of acres protected from activities that could adversely affect special status 

plant and wildlife individuals and their suitable habitat. Table 4.171 contains the number of acres 

of federally listed species habitat located in each VRM class under this alternative. 

Table 4.171. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under 

Alternative C 

VRM 

Class Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

I 19,609 538 121,198 4,381 0 

II 32,928 342 51,846 5,527 0 

III 81,207 225 124,146 8,894 65 

IV 116,519 0 81,328 4,095 4,528 

Under this alternative, 21% of Bald Eagle habitat in the Monticello PA would be in areas 

managed under VRM Class I or II objectives, which is 13% less than under Alternative A. 

Eighty percent of federally listed fish habitat would be included in VRM Class I or II designated 

areas under this alternative (20% less than under Alternative A). Forty-six percent of MSO 

habitat would be included in be in areas managed under VRM Class I or II objectives (11% less 

than under Alternative A). Forty-three percent of SWFL habitat would be included in VRM 

Class I or II designated areas (18% less than under Alternative A). None of the Gunnison Sagegrouse habitat would be managed under VRM I or II objectives (1% less than under Alternative 

A). Overall, this alternative would be less beneficial to these federally listed species and their 

habitat than Alternative A because fewer acres of habitat would be subject to disturbance 

restrictions associated with VRM Class I and II objectives. 

4.3.15.3.16.5. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of visual resource management decisions on special status 

species and habitat would include those discussed in Impacts Common to All Alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan. This alternative would have the smallest area (399,261 acres) subject to VRM 

Class I and II objective restrictions. It would have the largest area (1,383,860 acres) designated 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-575 

as VRM Class III or IV, with the most area managed to allow moderate to major surface 

disturbance impacts to visual resources and species habitat (see Map 69 for Alternative D VRM 

designations). This alternative would have the fewest acres protected (under VRM Class I and II 

objectives) from activities that could adversely affect special status plant and wildlife individuals 

and their suitable habitat. 

Table 4.172 contains the number of acres of federally listed species habitat located in each VRM 

class under this alternative. 

Table 4.172. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under 

Alternative D 

VRM 

Class Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

I 10,686 0 115,708 3,159 0 

II 10,501 823 0 3,593 0 

III 114,650 236 181,364 12,381 65 

IV 114,557 0 81,342 3,722 4,528 

Under this alternative, 8% of Bald Eagle habitat in the Monticello PA would be in areas 

managed as VRM Class I or II (1% more than under Alternative A). Seventy-four percent of 

federally listed fish habitat would be included in VRM I or II under this alternative, (26% less 

than under Alternative A). Thirty-one percent of MSO habitat would be included in be in areas 

managed as VRM I or II (26% less than under Alternative A). Thirty percent of SWFL habitat 

would be included in VRM I or II (31% less than under Alternative A). None of the Gunnison 

Sage-grouse habitat would be managed as VRM I or II (1% less than under Alternative A). 

Overall, this alternative would be less beneficial to these federally listed species and their habitat 

than Alternatives A, B, or the Proposed Plan because fewer acres of habitat would be subject to 

disturbance restrictions associated with VRM I and II. 

4.3.15.3.16.6. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 582,357 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed to preserve their wilderness values. Management would 

include designating these areas as VRM I and limiting surface disturbances to those allowed 

under this class objective. Table 4.173 shows the acres of special status species habitat by VRM 

class for Alternative E. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-576 

Table 4.173. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under 

Alternative E 

VRM 

Class Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

I 68,396 612 300,524 9,500 0 

II 43,420 272 23,529 4,204 44 

III 74,634 221 26,728 4,618 21 

IV 59,737 0 27,523 2,081 4,528 

Alternative E would have the most acreage managed under VRM Class I and II objectives 

(1,109,848), and the least area managed under VRM Class III and IV objectives (671,828 acres). 

This would have the greatest beneficial impact on special status species when compared to 

Alternative A and the other action alternatives or the Proposed Plan, because of the likelihood for 

habitat preservation through restrictions on surface disturbances. Approximately 45% of Bald 

Eagle habitat would lie within VRM Class I and II designated areas, an increase of 11% when 

compared to Alternative A. Also managed as VRM Class I and II would be approximately 80% 

of listed fish species habitat (a decrease of 20% compared to Alternative A), 86% of MSO 

habitat (a 29% increase compared to Alternative A), 67% of SWFL habitat (a 6% increase 

compared to Alternative A), and 1% of sage-grouse habitat (identical to Alternative A). 

4.3.15.3.16.7. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of visual resource management decisions on special status 

species and habitat would include those discussed in Management Common to All, with 

additional impacts from specified ACECs managed as VRM Class I or II. The Proposed Plan 

would have the fourth largest area (651,030 acres) subject to VRM Class I or II restrictions. It 

would have the second largest area (1,130,585 acres) subject to VRM III or IV restrictions (see 

Map 71 for VRM designations under the Proposed Plan). Because VRM Class I and II objectives 

would limit surface-disturbance-related impacts to existing scenic quality, the Proposed Plan 

would have the fourth largest number of acres protected from activities that could adversely 

affect special status plant and wildlife individuals and their suitable habitat. Table 4.174 contains 

the number of acres of federally listed species habitat located in each VRM class under the 

Proposed Plan. 

Table 4.174. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat by VRM Class Under he 

Proposed Plan 

VRM 

Class Bald Eagle Federally Listed Fish MSO SWFL Gunnison Sage-grouse 

I 17,732 339 118,906 4,381 0 

II 34,484 545 71,400 5,527 0 

III 102,525 221 116,543 8,894 62 

IV 91,448 0 71,435 4,095 4,449 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-577 

Under the Proposed Plan, 19% of Bald Eagle habitat in the Monticello PA would be in areas 

managed under VRM Class I or II objectives, which is 15% less than under Alternative A. Fiftytwo percent of federally listed fish habitat would be included in VRM Class I or II designated 

areas under this alternative (48% less than under Alternative A). Fifty percent of MSO habitat 

would be included in be in areas managed under VRM Class I or II objectives (7% less than 

under Alternative A). Forty-three percent of SWFL habitat would be included in VRM Class I or 

II designated areas (18% less than under Alternative A). None of the Gunnison Sage-grouse 

habitat would be managed under VRM I or II objectives (1% less than under Alternative A). 

Overall, the Proposed Plan would be less beneficial to these federally listed species and their 

habitat than Alternative A because fewer acres of habitat would be subject to disturbance 

restrictions associated with VRM Class I and II objectives. 

4.3.15.3.17. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.17.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

In occupied priority migratory bird habitat, surface disturbance would be avoided from May 1 

through July 30. Occupied priority migratory bird habitat will be determined with the use of Utah 

Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy, Intermountain West Joint Venture Bird Habitat 

Conservation Areas, and other migratory bird conservation plans. In addition, 

maintenance/improvement of lowland riparian, wetlands, and low and high desert scrub 

communities would be prioritized in the Monticello PA. These three requirements would benefit 

both migratory bird and special status species in these habitats by maintaining and improving 

habitat necessary for survival. 

Reintroduction of native fish and wildlife species into historic or suitable ranges would continue 

where it is determined to be appropriate. This could help to reestablish special status species, 

including the Colorado River endangered fish species, in their historical habitat. This would have 

beneficial impacts on these species in the Monticello PA. 

Bighorn sheep habitat on the 5 mesa tops (56,740 acres) would be prioritized for improvement 

because of potential loss of habitat caused by surface disturbance in these areas. On-site 

mitigation would be required for projects that disturb or remove forage and browse species used 

by desert bighorn sheep. These requirements would help mitigate the adverse impacts of surfacedisturbing activities on special status species in sagebrush and desert shrub habitat used by 

bighorn sheep. Listed under each alternative and the Proposed Plan are seasonal wildlife 

protection areas for big game species. The special conditions common to all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan include no use of pyrotechnics, shooting during permitted filming, no use of lowflying aircraft, and minimal surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix P for minimal impact 

criteria during filming). Exceptions to special conditions for the seasonal wildlife protection 

areas could be granted by the Monticello FO Manager if it can be shown that legal rights would 

be curtailed, animals are not present in the specific project location, or the activity can by 

conducted so as not to adversely affect wildlife species. In addition, maintenance and operation 

activities for mineral production as well as hunting would be allowed during seasonal 

restrictions. These special conditions would protect and benefit special status species that utilize 

these areas during the seasonal protection. There would be less noise and direct disturbance from 

humans to special status species. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-578 

There would be 17,300 acres allotted as wildlife habitat on slopes of Peter's Canyon and East 

Canyon, which would have beneficial impacts on special status species in this area by reducing 

forage competition and direct impacts from livestock. 

4.3.15.3.17.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, seasonal protection would be in place on 329,750 acres from April 1 

through July 15 for bighorn sheep lambing, and again from October 15 through December 31 for 

rutting. There would be 12,960 acres of crucial pronghorn habitat closed to certain surfacedisturbing activities from May 15 through June 15 for fawning. There would be 197,550 acres of 

crucial deer winter habitat closed to certain surface-disturbing activities from December 15 

through April 30 (see Chapter 2 Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 2.1 for a 

list of activities). These closures would also protect special status wildlife species on 279,786 

acres of habitat. Alternative A provides a total of 184 days of protection for bighorn sheep, 32 

days for pronghorn, 137 days for deer, and no protection for elk (see Table 4.243). These 

restrictions would protect special status species and their associated habitat from direct human 

disturbance, noise, and surface-disturbing activities during those seasonal protection times. 

Table 4.175 contains the number of acres of special status species habitat located in areas with 

big game seasonal restrictions under each of the management alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Table 4.175. Acres of Special Status Species Habitat Located in Areas with Big Game 

Seasonal Restrictions 

Alternative 

A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Proposed Plan 

Bald Eagle 188,801 218,868 165,997 195,283 218,868 188,021

Critical 

Fish 

0 286 13 273 286 286

MSO 59,171 325,172 154,998 142,051 325,172 249,206 

Gunnison 

Sagegrouse * 

0/0 2,778/4,884 2,456/4,884 0/3,197 2,778/4,884 2,337/4,884

SWFL 1,679 10,937 3,340 4,030 10,937 7,174

*The number following the dash is the total acres of designated sage-grouse habitat for each alternative. The total acres of habitat 

does not change by alternative for the other special status species listed in the table.

4.3.15.3.17.3. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, the impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on 

special status species resources would include those discussed in Management Common to All 

Alternatives and the Proposed Plan, as well as the restrictions in place for wildlife habitat during 

parts of the year (see Table 4.236). Seasonal wildlife protection areas would have special 

conditions for all land-use activities with the exception of woodland harvest. Seasonal protection 

would be in place on 453,388 acres from April 1 through July 15 for bighorn sheep lambing, and 

again from October 15 through December 31 for rutting. There would be 29,365 acres of crucial 

pronghorn habitat closed to certain surface-disturbing activities from May 1 through June 15 for 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-579 

fawning. In addition, spring grazing (April 15–June 15) would be eliminated in allotments within 

pronghorn habitat. There would be 785,921 acres of crucial deer winter habitat closed to certain 

surface-disturbing activities from November 1 through May 15. The final restriction would be on 

191,173 acres of elk habitat from November 1 through May 15. These closures would also 

protect special status wildlife species on 558,041 acres of habitat (99% more than under 

Alternative A). These special conditions include no oil and gas leasing activities, no geophysical 

work, and no permitted or commercial OHV use. 

Alternatives B and E also provide for longer seasonal wildlife protection, which would benefit 

special status species by providing for a longer period of reduced human disturbances from noise 

and surface-disturbing activities. Seasonal protection would be the same for bighorn sheep, and it 

would last 15 days longer for pronghorn fawning areas and 60 days longer for deer winter range 

areas than in Alternative A. There is no protection for elk habitat in Alternative A, versus 196 

days of special conditions in Alternatives B and E (see Table 4.243). 

4.3.15.3.17.4. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on special 

status species and associated habitat would include those discussed in Management Common to 

All Alternatives, as well as the restrictions in place for wildlife habitat during parts of the year 

(see Table 4.237). Seasonal wildlife protection areas would have the same special conditions as 

under Alternative A, with the exception of OHV restrictions. Under this alternative, the number 

of OHV users may be limited. In addition, there would be 326,898 acres subject to special 

wildlife conditions, which is 17% more than under Alternative A. Alternative C provides for 

different lengths of time for seasonal restrictions. Seasonal protection would be 30 days fewer 

for bighorn sheep, 15 days more for pronghorn, 15 days more for deer, and 150 days more for 

elk than Alternative A (see Table 4.243). Because of these differences, this alternative would be 

less likely to adversely affect special status species and associated habitat in the wildlife 

protection areas of the Monticello PA than Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.17.5. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on special 

status species and associated habitat would include those discussed in Management Common to 

All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan, as well as the restrictions in place for wildlife habitat 

during parts of the year (see Table 4.238). Seasonal wildlife protection areas would have the 

same special conditions as under Alternative A, with the exception of OHV restrictions. Under 

this alternative, OHV use would only be allowed on designated routes. Additionally, there 

265,244 acres would be subject to special wildlife conditions, (5% less than under Alternative 

A). Seasonal protection would be 45 days fewer for bighorn sheep, 15 days more for pronghorn, 

the same for deer, and 136 days longer for elk than Alternative A (see Table 4.243). Because of 

limitation of OHV use to designated trails, this alternative would be less likely to adversely 

affect special status species and habitat in the wildlife protection areas of the Monticello PA than 

Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.17.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on special 

status species and associated habitat would include those discussed in Management Common to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-580 

All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan, as well as the restrictions in place for wildlife habitat 

during parts of the year (see Table 4.239). Seasonal wildlife protection areas would have the 

same special conditions as under Alternative B, which provide more protection to special status 

species in wildlife habitat than the special conditions included in Alternative A. Under the 

Proposed Plan, the number of OHV users may be limited. In addition, there would be 963,332 

acres subject to special wildlife conditions, which is 56% more than under Alternative A. The 

Proposed Plan provides for shorter lengths of time for seasonal restrictions than Alternative B. 

Seasonal protection would be not be provided for pronghorn antelope grazing, which is the same 

as under Alternative A, Deer and elk winter range would include fewer seasonally protected 

acres protected for fewer days as part of the Proposed Plan than under Alternative B. There 

would be more acres of deer and elk winter range protected for a longer period of time as part of 

the Proposed Plan than under Alternative A. 

Because of these differences, this alternative would be less likely to adversely affect special 

status species and associated habitat in the wildlife protection areas of the Monticello PA than 

Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.18. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.18.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Impacts to special status species from woodland management activities include removal of trees 

used by these species as cover, roosting, or breeding sites; direct impacts to individuals from 

trampling or crushing during harvesting; and indirect impacts due to changes in vegetation 

structure, which could be beneficial or adverse depending on the species. Woodland harvest 

resulting in reduced probability of wildfire would likely reduce potentially adverse impacts to 

special status species that occupy woodland habitats. 

Indirect adverse impacts of wood gathering include off-road driving, trampling, and removal of 

native vegetation, which result in special status species habitat degradation that can include 

reductions in prey species, forage species, and cover. 

Sensitive wildlife species in pinyon-juniper woodland habitat would face short- and long-term 

adverse impacts from surface and noise disturbance associated with woodland harvest. 

All WSAs, Arch Canyon, Alkali Ridge NHL, Grand Gulch NHD (mesa-top), Beef Basin, Fable 

Valley, Comb Ridge SRMA (south of Highway 95), San Juan SRMA, developed recreation sites, 

areas unavailable for livestock grazing, wildlife exclosures, cultural sites, Indian Creek Corridor, 

McLoyd Canyon-Moon House, Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA (in-canyon), Grand Gulch NHD (in 

canyon), floodplains, and riparian/aquatic areas would be excluded from woodland harvesting. 

This decision would provide beneficial impacts to special status species by protecting habitat 

from harvesting related surface disturbances and loss of vegetation cover. 

4.3.15.3.18.2. Alternative A 

Impacts to special status species from woodland management activities include removal of trees 

used by these species as cover, roosting, or breeding sites; direct impacts to individuals from 

trampling or crushing during harvesting; and indirect impacts due to changes in vegetation 

structure, which could be beneficial or adverse depending on the species. Woodland harvest 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-581 

resulting in reduced probability of wildfire would likely reduce potentially adverse impacts to 

special status species that occupy woodland habitats. 

Indirect adverse impacts of wood gathering include off-road driving, trampling, and removal of 

native vegetation, which result in special status species habitat degradation that can include 

reductions in prey species, forage species, and cover. 

Under Alternative A, 1,309,894 acres (73% of the planning area) would be open to woodland 

harvest and wood gathering. In the area open to harvesting, there would be 793,757 acres of 

pinyon-juniper vegetation available for woodland harvesting. Of the five alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan, this would have the largest area open to woodland harvest and wood gathering, 

and therefore the greatest potential risk of disturbance to special status species utilizing the 

pinyon-juniper woodland habitat (see Table 4.137).

4.3.15.3.18.3. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 730,075 acres would be open to woodland harvest and wood gathering. 

This would be 579,820 fewer acres (56% less) than Alternative A. In the area open to harvesting, 

there would be 504,666 acres of pinyon-juniper vegetation available for woodland harvesting 

(37% fewer acres than under Alternative A). 

In addition, limitations on off-road travel and wood product use in the deer and elk winter range 

from November 1 through May 15 would do more to mitigate the short-term adverse impacts of 

woodland product collection and harvest on special status species and habitat than Alternative A. 

This alternative would have fewer short- and long-term beneficial impacts on special status 

species and habitat than Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.18.4. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, 841,938 acres would be available for harvesting and the impacts of 

woodlands management decisions on special status species and habitat would include those 

discussed in Alternative A. In the area open to harvesting, there would be 597,086 acres of 

pinyon-juniper vegetation available for woodland harvesting (25% fewer acres than under 

Alternative A). This alternative would have fewer short- and long-term adverse impacts on 

special status species and habitat than Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.18.5. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, 841,938 acres would be available for woodland harvesting and the impacts 

of woodlands management decisions on special status species and habitat would include those 

discussed in Alternative A. In the area open to harvesting, there would be 597,086 acres of 

pinyon-juniper vegetation available for woodland harvesting (25% fewer acres than under 

Alternative A). This alternative would have fewer short- and long-term adverse impacts on 

special status species and habitat than Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.18.6. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of woodlands management decisions on special status species 

and habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except that 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would also be closed to woodland harvesting, thereby giving 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-582 

additional long-term beneficial, surface-disturbance-related protection to special status species 

and their potential habitat. Under this alternative, 608,476 acres would be open to and available 

for woodland harvesting (54% fewer acres than under Alternative A). In the area open to 

harvesting, there would be 73,428 acres of pinyon-juniper vegetation available for woodland 

harvesting (91% fewer acres than under Alternative A). This alternative would have fewer shortand long-term adverse impacts on special status species and habitat than Alternative A. 

4.3.15.3.18.7. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 837,939 acres (36% fewer acres than under Alternative A) would be 

available for woodland harvesting and the impacts of woodlands management decisions on 

special status species and habitat would include those discussed in Alternative A. In the area 

open to harvesting, there would be 597,086 acres of pinyon-juniper vegetation available for 

woodland harvesting (25% fewer acres than under Alternative A). The Proposed Plan would 

have fewer short- and long-term adverse impacts on special status species and habitat than 

Alternative A. 

4.3.15.4. MITIGATION MEASURES

The Best Management Practices described in the Management Common to All section in 

Chapter 2 and Appendixes A and I would serve to avoid and/or minimize impacts to special 

status species and habitat in the Monticello PA. 

4.3.15.5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

There will be unavoidable adverse impacts to special status species and habitat in the Monticello 

PA resulting from surface-disturbing activities, recreation, and resource development activities 

associated with the resource management decisions detailed in the PRMP/FEIS. Potentially 

adverse impacts include reductions in native forage due to trampling and grazing by wildlife and 

livestock; trampling and weed introduction by human visitors (motorized and non-motorized); 

permanent alteration of special status species habitat due to clearing activities such as oil-well 

pad installation and woodland harvest; and noise disturbance of special status species individuals 

associated with human presence. 

4.3.15.6. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

As discussed throughout this section, some of the short-term multiple uses of the Monticello PA 

are likely to impact or reduce special status species and/or their habitat. These uses include oil 

and gas development, ROW authorizations, livestock grazing, camping, off-road vehicle travel, 

and woodland harvest. These impacts, however, provide economic benefits, and will be partially 

mitigated by the actions discussed in the Management Common to All sections for each 

management decision. Implementation of conservation measures, as well as adherence to BLM 

requirements and the ESA, would prevent these short-term resource uses from significantly 

impacting the long-term productivity of special status species habitat in the planning area. 

4.3.15.7. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Irretrievable impacts associated with surface-disturbing activities proposed throughout the 

planning area include the loss of special status species habitat value from mineral development, 

fire treatments, or grazing. These resource values would be lost until successful 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-583 

restoration/rehabilitation takes place. Management Common to All Alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan detailed in the Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan (Table 2.1 

in Chapter 2) requires reclamation of disturbed areas following completion of management 

actions (i.e., well-pad deconstruction and reseeding and weed eradication in overgrazed areas). 

Implementation of this reclamation/rehabilitation would prevent these impacts from being 

irreversible. Some decisions would have irretrievable impacts to special status species, which 

include loss of habitat from the placement of permanent structures, such as campgrounds and 

facilities. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-584 

4.3.16. TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

As the popularity of travel within the Monticello PA increases and greater numbers of on-road 

and off-road vehicles and visitors use the road and trail system within the PA, travel management 

issues are becoming an increasing concern (see the discussion of OHV resource use conflicts in 

Section 3.11.4.3 and 3.11.4.5, Recreation). These concerns include (and are not limited to) 

engine noise, air pollution from exhaust emissions, impacts to erodible soils, the potential for 

travel-related stream sedimentation and non-point source water pollution, potential impacts to 

federally listed and sensitive wildlife species habitats, and potential impacts to historic and 

prehistoric archaeological sites. 

Two assumptions were used in the analysis of impacts to travel within the Monticello PA: 

• Areas designated as open to cross-country OHV use, and areas managed as limited to 

Designated Routes and Trails would be beneficial to OHV travel, as these areas would allow 

access within the Monticello PA; 

• Areas designated as closed to on and off-road vehicles would be adverse to mechanized 

travel because of the reduced opportunities for travel access. The number of acres designated 

as open, limited to designated routes, or closed to OHV travel and the miles of designated 

routes along B-Class and D-Class roads [see below] were the indicators for analyzing the 

impacts to travel. (See Table 4.179 at the end of the section for a summary of travel data used 

in the analysis of impacts.) No assumptions were made for non-mechanized travel (i.e., 

equestrian, hiking, backpacking) because, as discussed in Section 4.3.16.2.11.2., NonMechanized Travel, none of the proposed alternatives and the Proposed Plan would restrict 

these forms of travel within the PA except where necessary to protect specific resource 

values, and to maintain public health and safety. 

Road classes are discussed and considered in the analysis of impacts to travel. The road 

classifications relevant to the analysis are as follows: 

• Class B roads are those that are regularly maintained by the State of Utah within the 

Monticello FO planning area, with road surfaces that can be natural, paved, or gravel; 

• Class C roads are roads within town or city municipal boundaries (e.g., Monticello, Blanding, 

Bluff); 

• Class D roads are those with natural surfaces only, not on a regular maintenance schedule 

(though they may be maintained), and not funded for maintenance by the State of Utah (BLM 

2005j). 

4.3.16.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

After approval of the proposed RMP, management decisions under the action alternatives 

(Alternatives B, C, D, and E) and under the Proposed Plan would continue to analyze the impacts 

of limited to designated travel routes for all vehicles within the planning area, including 

mountain biking and motorized OHV routes, through adaptive management at the activity 

planning level. This would be beneficial to travel management in the long-term because travelrelated resource-use conflicts would be identified and resolved through potential modification of 

these designated limited routes. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-585 

Through travel resource management, if the AO determines that OHV travel use would cause or 

have the potential to cause resource degradation, travel along the route would be prohibited or 

limited. This would be adverse to travel in the long-term because access opportunities within the 

planning area would be reduced. 

4.3.16.2. ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PLAN IMPACTS 

The following resources would have negligible to minor impacts on travel, and will not be 

analyzed further in this section: 

Health and Safety

Health and safety management decisions for all the alternatives and the Proposed Plan that would 

identify and address abandoned minelands safety concerns, respond to hazardous waste releases, 

and protect public health and safety would have negligible impacts on travel management 

because these management decisions would not close routes or delay, restrict, or otherwise 

interfere with travel opportunities within the Monticello PA. 

Livestock Grazing

Grazing management decisions for all alternatives and for the Proposed Plan would have 

negligible impacts on travel because grazing restrictions and exclusions, and authorized grazing 

use within the planning area would not prevent or limit travel. 

Paleontology

Management decisions for paleontological resources would have negligible impacts on travel 

because the collection of fossils for personal, commercial, and scientific use, and the protection 

of these resources would not affect travel opportunities. 

Soils and Watershed

Soils and watershed management decisions common to all of the alternatives and to the Proposed 

Plan would have negligible impacts on travel because none of the soil management decisions to 

protect sensitive soils, prevent soil erosion, and protect watershed resources would restrict 

access, prohibit travel, or affect travel opportunities. 

Visual Resources

The proposed VRM management decision impacts on travel would be negligible because VRM 

designations and visual resource objectives within the planning area for all the alternatives would 

be consistent with other land management decisions, including travel. There are no specific 

VRM management decisions that would restrict or prohibit travel or access within the Monticello 

PA, beyond those required by law (e.g., IMP-related restrictions on motorized travel within 

VRM Class I-managed WSAs). 

4.3.16.2.1. IMPACTS OF AIR QUALITY DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

Air quality management decisions common to all of the alternatives would require compliance 

with Utah air conservation regulations (R307-5-7) prohibiting the use, maintenance, or 

construction of roads without fugitive dust-abatement measures. BLM policy requires 

monitoring and managing exhaust emissions to prevent deterioration of air quality within PSD 

Class I airsheds (e.g., Canyonlands, Arches, and Capitol Reef National Parks). The impacts on 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-586 

travel within the PA would be minor and short-term along unpaved travel routes (D-Class roads) 

that require road-surfacing-related, dust-abatement measures, because travelers could experience 

some travel delays or re-routing around the affected road sections during maintenance. 

4.3.16.2.2. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

Under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, management decisions for the Comb Ridge 

and Beef Basin would allow either open OHV cross-country travel (Alternative A only) or 

limited OHV travel along designated routes. This would be beneficial in the long-term to travel 

by allowing access to or within these CSMAs/SRMAs. 

Management decisions under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan for the Grand Gulch 

National Historic District would designate the area as closed to OHV use, which would have 

adverse, long-term impacts on travel because opportunities for OHV travel into the area would 

be prohibited. It should be noted that this area lies within a WSA and, as stipulated under the 

IMP; mechanized travel (other than along existing "ways") is prohibited within WSAs. 

4.3.16.2.2.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, travel would be prohibited along a 500-foot segment of a spur road (DClass road) that allows access to the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House This would have long-term, 

adverse impacts on travel for those wishing to drive to the hiking access trailhead for this cultural 

site, as it would reduce the travel access opportunities for those visitors who either cannot walk 

or choose not to walk along the spur road to this site. 

4.3.16.2.2.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under these similar alternatives, the Tank Bench CSMA would be closed to OHV use, with 

impacts as discussed for the Grand Gulch National Historic District above. Compared to 

Alternative A, these two action alternatives would have more adverse impacts on travel 

opportunities because Alternative A would not impose travel restrictions in the area (the 

management decisions are unspecified). 

Management decisions under these alternatives would close the D-Class access road to the 

McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA (hiking to the Moon House site would be limited to the 

designated trail), with impacts as described under Alternative A. 

4.3.16.2.2.3. Alternative C 

The impacts of management decisions for the Tank Bench CSMA would be the same as 

discussed under Alternatives B and E. 

Management decisions impacts on travel for the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA would be 

the same as discussed under Alternative B. 

4.3.16.2.2.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, travel within the Tank Bench area would be managed under the same 

decisions as the surrounding areas, which would be beneficial for travel in the long-term because 

travel along designated routes would be allowed. Compared to Alternative A, the beneficial 

impacts on travel would be similar, but to a lesser degree, because this action alternative would 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-587 

limit travel to designated routes within the Tank Bench area while travel opportunities under 

Alternative A would be unspecified (and unlimited). 

Travel management decisions under this alternative for the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House 

CSMA would permit travel along the D-Class road to the Moon House site, with long-term, 

beneficial impacts on travel because access opportunities would be available. Compared to 

Alternative A, this action alternative would be more beneficial to travel in the long-term because 

site access would be available, whereas under Alternative A, directly accessing the site by 

motorized vehicles would not be allowed. 

4.3.16.2.2.5. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the management decisions for the Tank Bench SRMA would be the 

same as discussed under Alternatives B and E (access to the site limited to the designated trail ), 

with the same impacts comparison to Alternative A. 

Management decisions on travel for the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House Management Zone would 

be the same as discussed under Alternative B. 

4.3.16.2.3. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

Fire management decisions under the alternatives and the Proposed Plan would have negligible 

long-term impacts on travel because prescribed fire treatments, fuels treatments, fire prevention 

and mitigation, and wildland fire suppression would not prevent or impede travel within the 

Monticello PA. There could be short-term, minor, adverse impacts on travel if prescribed burns 

or wildland fires crossed travel routes that required temporary road or trail closure, or temporary 

re-routing around the fire management or suppression area to protect public safety. 

4.3.16.2.4. IMPACTS OF LAND AND REALTY DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

Under management decisions common to all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, land and 

realty decisions would have negligible impacts on travel from granting filming permits for 

cinematography within the planning area because permit stipulations would require that these 

activities would not significantly restrict public access along routes. The granting of ROWs 

access within the planning area for oil and gas leases could have minor, beneficial impacts on 

travel in the long-term by establishing routes for access in the planning area along spur roads to 

oil and gas well sites. The ROW impacts would be minor because 1) only production sites would 

have maintained access to well sites (exploration sites and access roads would be reclaimed), and 

2) the RFD predictions for oil and natural gas well drilling throughout the planning area after 

approval of the Proposed Plan ranges from a relatively small 54 to 76 wells. 

4.3.16.2.5. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

The impacts of mineral resource management decisions on travel would be similar to those 

discussed above for Lands and Realty decisions because the decisions are similar. The granting 

of ROWs and the construction of minerals-related access roads would be permitted under all of 

the alternatives, but the predicted level of mineral resource development would result in a 

relatively small number and short length of additional spur-type access roads when compared 

with the existing and/or designated routes in the planning area. Accordingly, minerals decisions 

would have beneficial but minor impacts on opportunities for travel within the planning area. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-588 

4.3.16.2.6. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON TRAVEL

Alternatives A, B, C, and D would not manage non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to 

preserve their wilderness values. There would be no impacts to travel under these alternatives. 

Alternative E would manage non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics for protection of 

their wilderness values. Travel management decisions would prohibit all OHV travel within the 

approximately 582,360 acres of lands inventoried as having non-WSA wilderness characteristics 

by designating existing routes through these areas as closed to OHV use (see Section 4.3.8.9.1, 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Travel Management, for OHV management and acreage closures). 

The impacts to travel would be substantial under this alternative, as mechanized travel 

opportunities would not be available within and through those areas (along approximately 179 

miles of D-Class routes within non-WSA wilderness characteristics lands) where designated 

routes have been proposed under the Monticello Travel Plan. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would have more adverse impacts on travel opportunities because 582,360 acres and 

179 miles of OHV routes would be closed to OHV travel opportunities that would not be closed 

under Alternative A. 

The Proposed Plan would manage 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics for the protection of their wilderness values. Management prescriptions would 

limit OHV travel within these areas to designated routes. However, a substantial portion of these 

lands (88,825 acres) would be managed for OHV designated-route travel under the PA travel 

plan and the remaining area (44 acres) would be managed as closed to OHV travel under other 

resource management prescriptions. The impacts on travel within these areas would be minor 

because OHV travel along designated routes would be allowed within 99% of these non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would have 

more adverse impacts on mechanized travel because fewer acres within the PA would be 

available for open, cross-country OHV travel access. 

4.3.16.2.7. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

Recreational management decisions common to all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

would ensure that the Monticello FO coordinate and develop procedures, protocols, and permits 

with other federal agencies to provide reasonable access for non-recreational use of OHVs for 

search-and-rescue, military, emergency, and other non-specified uses. This would be beneficial 

in the long-term by developing plans and establishing routes for efficient travel within the 

planning area by federal, non-BLM personnel. 

4.3.16.2.7.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, vehicle access would not be allowed within the San Juan River SRMA 

between Comb Wash and Lime Creek (as stipulated in the current RMP), which would be 

adverse in the long-term for travel because opportunities would not be available for recreational 

access along this stretch of the river. 

Commercial-type travel (including motorized/mechanized recreational vehicle use) within the 

planning area would require an SRP, but the impacts on travel would be negligible because no 

restrictions or prohibitions are specified under this alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-589 

4.3.16.2.7.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, vehicle access would not be allowed from Comb Wash to Lime 

Creek within the San Juan River SRMA, with adverse long-term impacts on travel, because of 

the reduced opportunities for travel and access to the river. Compared to Alternative A, these 

alternatives would have the same impacts to travel because Alternative A would also not allow 

vehicle access along this stretch of the river. 

Commercial-type motorized or mechanized tours and events would be seasonally prohibited (i.e., 

SRPs would not be issued) for routes within pronghorn, bighorn sheep, deer, and elk crucial 

habitat, and lambing and rutting areas. Table 4.176 below shows the proposed times when travel 

routes for all alternatives and the Proposed Plan would be closed or limited to designated routes 

in order to protect these wildlife species. 

Table 4.176. Proposed Travel Closing or Travel Limitation Periods in Wildlife Areas 

Alternative A Alternatives B 

and E Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Bighorn 

Sheep 

1 Apr– 5 Jul 

15 Oct–31 Dec 

1 Apr– 5 Jul 

15 Oct–31 Dec 

1 Apr–15 Jun 

15 Oct–15 Dec 

15 Apr–15 May 

1 Nov–15 Dec 

1 Apr–15 Jun 

15 Oct–15 Dec 

Pronghorn 15 May–15 Jun 15 Apr–30 Jun 1 May–15 Jun 15 May–15 Jun 1 May–15 Jun 

Elk Unspecified (no 

identified crucial 

habitat) 

1 Nov–15 May 15 Nov–15 Apr 15 Dec–31 Mar 15 Nov–15 Apr 

Deer 15 Dec–30 Apr 1 Nov–15 May 15 Nov–15 April 15 Dec–31 Mar 15 Nov–15 April 

Affected 

Roads in 

Wildlife 

Habitat 

Zero miles of 

travel routes 

seasonally 

closed to private, 

permitted, or 

commercial OHV 

travel. 

512 miles of 

travel routes 

seasonally 

closed to 

permitted or 

commercial OHV 

travel, but open 

to private use. 

135 miles of 

travel routes 

seasonally 

closed to 

permitted or 

commercial OHV 

travel, but open 

to private use. 

Zero miles of 

travel routes 

seasonally 

closed to private, 

permitted, or 

commercial 

travel. 

135 miles of 

travel routes 

seasonally closed 

to permitted or 

commercial OHV 

travel, but open 

to private use. 

This would have short-term, adverse impacts on specific recreational travel-related activities 

during these times because the opportunities for permitted or commercial OHV travel and/or 

motorized events into or through crucial habitat would be prohibited along 512 miles of travel 

routes in order to protect wildlife species. The impacts on private motorized OHV and mountain 

biking travel opportunities would be negligible because no wildlife restrictions would be 

applicable. Compared to Alternative A, these alternatives would have more adverse impacts on 

travel because 512 miles of travel routes would be seasonally closed to some forms of 

commercial travel, with decreased opportunities for access and movement through the planning 

area. 

Note that while the recreation management decisions under Alternative E would be very similar 

to those discussed under Alternative B, Alternative E would manage approximately 582,360 total 

acres for the protection of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the proposed 

SRMAs and the ERMA. The impacts on travel under this alternative would be more adverse to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-590 

recreation-related travel opportunities, as discussed in Section 4.3.16.2.6, because travel 

opportunities for OHVs along D-Class routes within lands with non-WSA wilderness 

characteristics would be prohibited. 

4.3.16.2.7.3. Alternative C 

Impacts on travel along the San Juan River from Comb Wash to Lime Creek would be the same 

as discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions are the same. 

Under this alternative, there would be short-term, adverse impacts on travel from seasonal 

limitations in crucial pronghorn, deer, elk, and bighorn sheep habitat through closing 

approximately 135 miles of travel routes (26% of the routes closed under Alternative B) to some 

permitted or commercial OHV use or mechanized tours and events. Compared to Alternative A, 

this alternative would have more adverse impacts on travel because commercial-type recreational 

travel opportunities would be reduced. 

4.3.16.2.7.4. Alternative D 

Impacts on travel along the San Juan River from Comb Wash to Lime Creek would be the same 

as discussed under Alternatives B. 

The impacts on travel from restricting OHV use to designated routes in crucial pronghorn, deer, 

elk, and bighorn sheep habitat would be negligible because private and commercial recreational 

travel restrictions would not impede or prevent travel through crucial wildlife habitat (no 

recreation-related roads would be seasonally closed to travel in crucial wildlife habitat). The 

impacts would be similar to those discussed for Alternative A. 

4.3.16.2.7.5. Proposed Plan 

The impacts of recreation decisions on travel under the Proposed Plan would be the same as 

discussed under Alternative C for commercial access into wildlife areas because the management 

decisions are the same. The prohibitions on access along the San Juan River would be the same 

as discussed under Alternative B. 

4.3.16.2.8. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

4.3.16.2.8.1. Alternative A 

The impacts on travel from riparian management decisions would be negligible under 

Alternative A. Management decisions under the current RMP would maintain water quality in 

streams to meet state and federal requirements, and preserve and restore riparian natural 

functioning conditions, but these decisions would not specifically restrict or prohibit travel 

within or through riparian areas. 

4.3.16.2.8.2. Alternatives B and E 

These alternatives would apply the same management decisions to riparian areas, resulting in 

short-term, adverse impacts on travel opportunities from potential temporary closures of 

Functioning at Risk riparian areas to dispersed motorized use. These areas would be closed until 

riparian Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is restored. Management decisions under these 

alternatives would have long-term, adverse impacts on travel from closing selected riparian areas 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-591 

to vehicle traffic if site-specific analysis determines that OHV use is causing riparian 

degradation. At this programmatic-level of analysis, the size of the at-risk riparian areas that 

would be closed to travel, and the length of time that they would be closed (and thus reduce the 

opportunities for travel) are unknown. The impacts on travel from riparian management 

decisions would be analyzed under NEPA at the site-specific level during project development 

and implementation. Compared to Alternative A, these alternatives would be more adverse to 

travel in the short- and long-term because roads and travel routes within riparian areas could 

potentially be closed to travel opportunities in order to protect riparian resources. 

4.3.16.2.8.3. Alternative C 

The impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because the management 

decisions are the same. 

4.3.16.2.8.4. Alternative D 

The impacts under Alternative D would be the same as discussed under Alternative A because 

the management decisions are the same. 

4.3.16.2.8.5. Proposed Plan 

The impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because the management 

decisions are the same. 

4.3.16.2.9. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

Management decisions related to impacts to travel access and restrictions within ACECs, WSAs, 

and along recommended eligible Wild and Scenic River segments are analyzed under Sections 

4.3.16.2.7 (Impacts of Recreation Decisions), 4.3.16.2.8 (Impacts of Riparian Decisions) and 

4.3.16.2.11 (Impacts of Travel Management Decisions) for OHV and other motorized vehicle 

use. 

4.3.16.2.10. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

Management decisions related to impacts to travel access and restrictions within special status 

species habitat are analyzed under Sections 4.3.16.2.7 (Recreation) and 4.3.16.2.8 (Riparian). 

4.3.16.2.11. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

4.3.16.2.11.1. OHV Travel 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, OHV travel would be managed under open, limited to designated routes, 

and closed travel designations. As shown in Table 4.177 below, current OHV designations under 

Alternative A would manage 611,310 acres as open for cross-country travel (see Map 58). The 

limited to designated route category of OHV travel would be managed with 540,260 acres 

designated as limited use with season restrictions to protect important wildlife habitat; 570,390 

acres would be managed as limited to existing roads and trails to protect cultural, scenic, and 

recreational values; and 218,780 acres would be managed as limited to designated roads and 

trails to protect resource values within ACECs, SRMAs, developed recreation sites, and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-592 

riparian/floodplain areas. Approximately 276,430 acres would be managed as closed to OHV 

travel to protect vegetation study areas, and ACEC resource values. 

Table 4.177 OHV Acreage Designations by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Open 611,310 0 2,311 2,311 0 0 

Limited – Seasonal 

Restrictions (miles) 

540,260 - 3.81 - - 81

Limited – Existing 

Roads and Trails 

570,390 - - - - - 

Limited – Designated 

Roads and Trails 

218,780 1,359,417 1,362,142 1,780,807 812,679 1,388,191 

Closed 276,430 423,698 418,667 0 970,436 393,895 

Total2 2,217,1703 1,783,115 1,783,120 1,783,118 1,783,115 1,782,086 

1

This mileage number applies to Arch Canyon. 

2

Acreage figures may vary by alternative due to the changes in GIS technology and variances in shapefiles. 

3

Acres are not additive under this alternative because of overlap between limited use categories.

The impacts to travel under the open OHV category would be beneficial in the long-term 

because these areas would not impede or restrict OHV travel, continuing to allow unlimited, 

cross-country OHV travel in the designated open areas. Limited OHV use along designated roads 

and trails would also have beneficial impacts on OHV travel because travel along these routes 

would be unimpeded. Limited OHV use with seasonal restrictions would have short-term, 

adverse impacts on travel opportunities by prohibiting travel along these designated routes 

during specified times of the year. Areas designated as closed to OHV use would continue to 

adversely affect motorized OHV travel opportunities. 

Alternative B

Alternative B would not designate any acreage under the open OHV travel category. Limited to 

Designated Route OHV use would be allowed on 1,359,417 acres, with 423,698 acres designated 

as closed to OHV travel (Map 59). The impacts on OHV travel would be adverse along routes 

designated as closed to travel because travel and access opportunities within these portions of the 

planning area would be prohibited. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more 

adverse in the long-term on travel because 1) more area would be designated as closed to OHV 

travel (more than 53% more area), and 2) no area would be designated as open to cross-country 

OHV travel, with long-term, adverse impacts on this form of travel from the elimination of the 

611,310 acres of open cross-country OHV travel opportunities allowed under Alternative A. 

Arch Canyon would be closed to OHV use to protect special status species within the canyon 

(e.g., the Mexican Spotted Owl and flannelmouth sucker). The impacts to travel in the long-term 

would be adverse because opportunities for motorized OHV travel within the canyon would be 

eliminated. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more adverse because 

Alternative A would not prohibit travel within the canyon. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-593 

Alternative C

This alternative would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternatives B and E, 

except that a very small area would be designated as open to cross-country OHV travel 

opportunities (2,214 acres near Indian Creek within the Indian Creek SRMA, and 97 acres in 

Butler Wash [within the Cedar Mesa C-SRMA]) (Map 60). The comparison of OHV travel under 

this alternative with Alternative A would be similar to the comparison under Alternatives B and 

E because the areas designated as limited and closed are similar: there would be a 5,031-acre 

difference for the closed category between Alternatives B/E and Alternative C, and a 2,725-acre 

difference under the limited OHV use category. 

Under Alternative C, OHV use would be limited to designated routes within Arch Canyon, with 

some long-term adverse impacts on travel opportunities through partial closure of the canyon to 

OHV travel. The impacts on travel under this alternative, when compared to Alternative A, 

would be similar. Alternative D 

Similar to Alternative C, Alternative D would designate a small 2,311-acre area as open to crosscountry OHV travel, but none of the planning area would be designated as closed to OHV travel 

access along designated routes (Map 61). Under this alternative, the travel opportunities for open 

unlimited, cross-country OHV travel would be adversely impacted in the long-term, when 

compared to Alternative A, as approximately 609,000 acres (99% of the area designated as open 

under Alternative A) would have prohibitions on cross-country OHV travel, with a substantial 

reduction in opportunities for this form of travel. The opportunities for travel along designated 

routes and trails would not be restricted, except for the seasonal restrictions on commercially 

permitted mechanized tours or events as discussed above under Section 4.3.16.2.7. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial impacts on OHV travel because 

276,430 fewer acres would be designated as closed to OHV travel, which would increase the 

OHV-related travel opportunities within the planning area along designated routes. This 

alternative would also have more adverse impacts to travel, when compared to Alternative A, 

from the loss of practically all of the opportunities for cross-country OHV travel. 

Under this alternative, OHV use within Arch Canyon would be limited to the designated route 

along the D-class road that allows access to the canyon. The impacts on travel opportunities 

within the canyon would be minor because canyon travel opportunities would not be restricted 

along the designated route. The impacts on travel under this alternative, when compared to 

Alternative A, would be similar. 

Alternative E

Alternative E travel decisions would designate no acres as open to cross-country OHV travel and 

travel within Arch Canyon would be the same as Alternative B, with impacts as discussed under 

that alternative. Approximately 970,436 acres would be closed to OHV travel (582,360 acres and 

179 miles of routes within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and the remainder 

throughout the Monticello PA) (Map 62). As discussed above in Section 4.3.16.2.6, the impacts 

of closing more than 54% of the Monticello PA to OHV travel would have substantially adverse 

impacts on mechanized travel opportunities. The impacts on non-mechanized travel would be 

negligible, as these forms of travel (hiking, backpacking, and equestrian) would not be affected 

by route closures except where public safety and resource protection would be a concern. The 

designation of 812,679 acres as limited to designated routes would have impacts on travel 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-594 

opportunities, as discussed under Alternative B, but to a lesser degree because fewer acres would 

be designated for travel under this OHV use category. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have substantially more adverse impacts on 

travel opportunities because: 1) 611,310 acres (100% of the area designated under Alternative A) 

would be closed to cross-country OHV travel, and 2) 694,006 more acres would be closed to 

OHV travel opportunities (with a total acreage closure of 970,436 acres or over 3.5 times more 

acres than designated under Alternative A) under this alternative than under Alternative A. 

4.3.16.2.11.2. Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternatives B and E. 

The comparison of OHV travel under the Proposed Plan with Alternative A would be similar to 

the comparison under Alternatives B and E because the areas designated as limited and closed 

would be similar: there would be a 29,803-acre difference for the OHV closed category between 

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, and a 28,677-acre difference under the limited OHV use 

category. 

Under the Proposed Plan, OHV use would be limited to designated routes within Arch Canyon, 

with some long-term beneficial impacts on travel opportunities through allowed OHV travel 

along the entire length of the canyon from its mouth to the USFS boundary. Seasonal restrictions 

would be applied to commercial OHV groups from March 1 through August 31 to protect 

sensitive species, but this would not apply to private OHV users. The impacts would be adverse 

for commercial users from restrictions on travel opportunities, but there would be no impact so 

private use travel opportunities. The impacts to OHV travel would be similar to Alternative A 

because there would be opportunities for travel along the full length of the canyon. 

4.3.16.2.11.3. Non-Mechanized Travel (Hiking, Backpacking, Equestrian) 

Management decisions for all alternatives and the Proposed Plan would provide opportunities for 

non-mechanized travel on all routes open to mechanized uses, and would manage routes that 

exclude motorized OHV and mountain bikers to reduce user conflicts, and provide travel 

opportunities independent of motorized OHV and mountain biking routes. Management would 

not restrict non-mechanized travel within the Monticello PA, except in areas where specific 

resource values would need protection or for public health and safety reasons. All of the 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan would have long-term beneficial impacts to non-mechanized 

travel because travel opportunities would only be limited for the reasons just mentioned, if the 

health and safety of the traveler would be put at risk, or where natural and cultural resources 

have been degraded and need to be rehabilitated or preserved. 

4.3.16.2.11.4. Road Travel 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, no D-Class roads would be closed because of resource use conflicts, 

restrictions to authorized users only, proposed management decisions, purpose and need review, 

or crucial wildlife habitat. As shown in Table 4.178, 890 miles of B-Class roads would be open 

within the planning area, with approximately 2,179 miles of D-Class roads open within the 

planning area. The impacts on travel under this alternative would be negligible because travel 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-595 

opportunities to access the Monticello PA would not be prohibited or restricted along these 

roads. 

Table 4.178. B-Class and D-Class Roads in the Monticello Planning Area (Miles) 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Open BClass 

Roads 

890 875 873 873 875 873 

Open DClass 

Roads 

2,179 1,521 1,947 2,205 1,342 1,947 

Closed 

D-Class 

Roads 

0 780 316 45 959 316 

Source: BLM 2006d. 

1The D-Class closed roads include those routes seasonally closed to protect wildlife crucial habitat (see Section 4.3.16.2). 

 

Alternative B

Under these alternatives, 15 miles of B-Class roads (fewer than 2%) would not be designated, 

with 780 miles of D-Class roads (34% of the total number of D-Class roads) proposed for closing 

because of resource use conflicts, restrictions to authorized users only, proposed management 

decisions under this alternative, purpose and need review, or crucial wildlife habitat needs. Of 

the proposed 780 miles of D-Class closures, 258 miles would be closed because of crucial deer 

habitat needs, 155 miles because of resource designations under this alternative, 75 miles 

because of crucial elk habitat needs, 136 miles because of crucial bighorn sheep habitat needs, 34 

miles because of authorized use only along designated roads, and 30 miles because of purpose 

and need review of road use. Other reasons for closure would include 47 miles because of 

riparian vegetation conflicts and 6 miles due to law enforcement conflicts. (See the Monticello 

Travel Plan [Appendix N] for a description of the route designation process.) The remainder of 

the proposed closures would be for cultural resource, seasonal, and other wildlife habitat and 

vegetation conflicts. These proposed road closures would have long-term adverse impacts on 

travel because of the reduction in planning area travel and access opportunities. Compared to 

Alternative A, these alternatives would be more adverse to travel because 780 more miles (34% 

more D-Class routes) would be closed to travel than under Alternative A, which would not close 

any D-Class roads. 

Alternative C

Alternative C would propose to not designate 17 miles of B-Class roads in the travel plan (fewer 

than 2%), and close 316 miles of D-Class roads (14% of the total number of D-Class roads under 

this alternative) within the planning area. Of the proposed 316 miles of road closures, the 

majority of closures would be for the following reasons: 109 miles for crucial deer habitat needs; 

38 miles for WSA intrusions/resource designations under this alternative; 58 miles for resource 

designations; 33 miles for road purpose and need review; 17 miles for authorized use only along 

specified roads; and 31 miles for bighorn sheep habitat needs. The impacts of these proposed 

closures would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the affects on travel 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-596 

opportunities would be similar. However, the degree of impact on travel would be roughly half 

of that disclosed under Alternative B because road closures under this alternative would be 46% 

of those proposed under Alternative B. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have 

more adverse impacts on travel for the same reasons as discussed under Alternative B. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would propose to not designate 17 miles of B-Class roads in the travel plan (the 

same as under Alternative C) and close 45 miles of D-Class roads. The proposed D-Class 

closures would be because of WSA intrusions. The impacts of these road closures on travel 

under this alternative would be minor because 1) the total number of road closures is small, 

compared to the total miles of B- and D-Class road within the planning area (2% of B-Class 

roads, 2% of D-Class roads), and 2) the D-Class road closures within WSAs would be for 

reasons required under the IMP to limit trails and routes to those existing prior to the time that 

the WSA was established (i.e., to eliminate unauthorized routes within the WSA). Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial to travel along D-Class roads because 26 

more miles of D-Class roads would be open for travel than under Alternative A. This would 

provide more opportunities for planning area travel and access along these roads. The impacts on 

B-Class roads would be the same as discussed under Alternative B. 

Alternative E

Travel decisions for Alternative E would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B, 

except that the 582,360 acres within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

closed to OHV travel. Closing these areas would not affect travel opportunities along B-Class 

routes because these are state-administered and maintained routes, beyond the jurisdiction of 

BLM land management; however, 179 miles along D-Class roads would be closed to OHV travel 

opportunities within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Compared to Alternative A, 

this alternative would have more adverse impacts on D-Class OHV travel because fewer OHV 

travel opportunities would be available under Alternative E. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan would not designate 17 miles of B-Class roads (fewer than 2%) in the travel 

plan, and close 316 miles of D-Class roads (14% of the total number of D-Class roads under this 

alternative) within the planning area. Of the proposed 316 miles of road closures, the majority of 

closures would be for the following reasons: 109 miles for crucial deer habitat needs; 38 miles 

for WSA intrusions/resource designations under this alternative; 58 miles for resource 

designations; 33 miles for road purpose and need review; 17 miles for authorized use only along 

specified roads; and 31 miles for bighorn sheep habitat needs. The impacts of these proposed 

closures would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the affects on travel 

opportunities would be similar. However, the degree of impact on travel would be roughly half 

of that disclosed under Alternative B because road closures under this alternative would be 46% 

of those proposed under Alternative B. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have 

more adverse impacts on travel for the same reasons as discussed under Alternative B. Note that 

while 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed under 

this alternative, the impacts to travel would be negligible because management decisions for 

these areas would allow travel access along designated roads and trails within these areas. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-597 

4.3.16.2.11.5. Scenic Byways and Backways 

Under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, scenic byways would be maintained along 

the Indian Creek Corridor, along the Bicentennial–Trail of the Ancients National Scenic Byway, 

and along Monument Valley. Scenic backways would be maintained along the Lockhart Basin 

Road, the Trail of the Ancients (Backway), Elk Ridge Road, and the Abajo Loop Road. These 

management decisions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on travel by providing scenicquality-related travel opportunities within the PA. 

4.3.16.2.12. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

The impacts of vegetation treatments for ecosystem restoration, fire management, and exotic 

vegetation control on travel are similar to those discussed under Section 4.3.16.2.3, Impacts of 

Fire Management Decisions on Travel, because the treatments and resultant impacts of the 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan would be similar. 

4.3.16.2.13. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

4.3.16.2.13.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, management decisions for the protection of bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and 

deer would have impacts similar to those discussed in Section 4.3.10, Recreation, i.e., the 

impacts would be negligible to minor on travel. No restrictions or limitations would be placed on 

travel except cross-country OHV travel within bighorn sheep crucial habitat (personal 

communication between Tammy Wallace, Monticello FO, and Thomas Sharp, SWCA, 2006). 

4.3.16.2.13.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under these alternatives, permitted and commercial OHV travel would be prohibited within 

bighorn sheep, pronghorn, deer, and elk crucial habitat. The impacts would be short-term, but 

adverse, on travel opportunities for these activities, as approximately 512 miles of routes would 

be seasonally closed to protect wildlife. It should be noted that private motorized OHV and 

mountain biking travel along designated routes would be permitted within these areas, so there 

would be negligible impacts on opportunities for private travel. Compared to Alternative A, 

these alternatives would be more adverse to commercial and permitted types of travel because of 

the prohibitions on OHV access into crucial wildlife habitat. 

4.3.16.2.13.3. Alternative C 

The impacts of crucial wildlife habitat restrictions on travel would be similar to those discussed 

under Alternatives B and E, but to a lesser degree, as some travel limitations would be placed on 

the extent and duration of commercial and permitted OHV use within crucial wildlife habitat. 

Approximately 135 miles of travel routes would be closed to protect wildlife species under this 

alternative (26% of the acres closed to travel under Alternatives B and E), which would reduce 

travel opportunities. It should be noted for Alternatives B and E, that private OHV/mechanized 

travel along designated routes would be permitted within these areas, so the impacts on 

opportunities for this type of travel would be negligible. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would be more adverse to travel because more roads would be closed, and thus the 

opportunities for travel would be reduced. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-598 

4.3.16.2.13.4. Alternative D 

The impacts of crucial wildlife habitat restrictions on travel would be similar to those discussed 

under Alternative A because the management decisions would be similar. 

4.3.16.2.13.5. Proposed Plan 

The impacts of wildlife and fisheries decisions on travel would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B because the decisions are the same. 

4.3.16.2.14. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

4.3.16.2.14.1. Alternative A 

Alternative A woodlands decisions would have negligible impacts on travel because there are no 

specific management decisions that would reduce or limit travel access opportunities within the 

Monticello PA. 

4.3.16.2.14.2. Alternative B 

Alternative B would have short-term, adverse impacts on travel by managing the East Canyon, 

Harts Draw, Salt Creek Mesa, Dark Canyon, White Canyon, South Cottonwood, and Montezuma 

Watershed woodland zones with seasonal, commercial-travel restrictions on woodland 

harvesting access to elk, deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep in UDWR-designated crucial 

habitat in order to protect these wildlife species, as discussed under Section 4.3.10, Recreation, 

and Section 4.3.19, Wildlife (and shown in Table 4.176 above). Compared to Alternative A, the 

short-term restrictions and route closures on travel under Alternative B would be more adverse 

because travel would be seasonally restricted or prohibited in these zones. 

4.3.16.2.14.3. Alternative C 

The impacts to travel under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B because woodland 

decisions under this alternative would impose travel restrictions and close areas to protect sitespecific cultural and other sensitive resources. Private and/or commercial woodland harvesting 

activities would be permitted to travel off-road to harvest and collect wood, but would be limited 

or prohibited, as necessary, to protect resources. 

4.3.16.2.14.4. Alternative D 

The impacts on travel under this alternative would be similar to Alternative B because while 

there would be no OHV woodland harvesting decisions that would restrict or prohibit travel 

access to harvest and collect wood, site-specific travel restrictions in harvesting areas would be 

imposed to protect cultural and other sensitive resources. 

4.3.16.2.14.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, all lands with non-WSA wilderness characteristics within the proposed 

woodland harvesting zones would be managed to protect wilderness values. Woodland decisions 

to protect these characteristics would include closure to OHV use, scenic quality management 

under VRM I objectives, and prohibitions on firewood gathering and woodland harvesting. 

These management decisions would have short-term and long-term adverse impacts on OHV 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-599 

travel, as 1) OHV travel (including OHV travel to harvest and collect wood) would not be 

allowed within the approximately 582,360 acres of lands with non-WSA wilderness 

characteristics, and 2) the same short-term seasonal restrictions applied to protect wildlife within 

woodland harvesting zones (as discussed under Alternative B) would restrict travel opportunities. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more adverse impacts on OHV travel 

because more acreage would be closed to travel or seasonally restrict travel opportunities. 

4.3.16.2.14.6. Proposed Plan 

The impacts to travel under the Proposed Plan would be similar to Alternative B because crucial 

wildlife habitat would be protected through seasonal travel restriction. Travel restrictions would 

also be applied under this alternative to protect site-specific cultural and other sensitive 

resources, but private and/or commercial woodland harvesting activities would be permitted to 

travel off-road to harvest and collect wood. Under this alternative, 88,871 acres of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect their wilderness values (as 

discussed above under Alternative E), including prohibitions on private and commercial 

woodland harvesting. However, the impacts on travel opportunities would be minor because 

OHV travel would still be allowed along designated routes and trails within these areas. 

4.3.16.3. SUMMARY OF TRAVEL ANALYSIS DATA

The following table (Table 4.179) summarizes acres of OHV designations, miles of proposed 

travel routes, and proposed travel restrictions under each alternative, the purpose of which is to 

provide the reader with a concise description of the data used in this impacts analysis. 

Table 4.179. Travel Data Summary Table 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Open B-Class 

Roads 

890 miles 875 miles 873 miles 873 miles 875 miles 873 miles 

Open D-Class 

Roads 

2,179 miles 1,521 miles 1,947 miles 2,205 miles 1,342 miles 1,947 miles 

Closed D-Class 

Roads 

0 miles 780 miles 316 miles 45 miles 959 miles 316 miles 

OHV Open 611,310 

acres 

0 acres 2,311 2,311 acres 0 acres 0 acres 

OHV Limited – 

Seasonal 

Restrictions 

540,260 

acres 

- 3.8 miles (in 

Arch 

Canyon)

- - 8 miles (in 

Arch 

Canyon) 

OHV Limited – 

Existing Roads 

and Trails 

570,390 

acres 

- - - - - 

OHV Limited – 

Designated 

Roads and Trails 

218,780 

acres 

1,359,417 

acres 

1,362,142 

acres 

1,780,807 

acres 

812,679 

acres 

1,388,191 

acres 

OHV Closed 276,430 

acres 

423,698 

acres 

418,667 

acres 

0 acres 970,436 

acres 

393,895 

acres 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-600 

Table 4.179. Travel Data Summary Table 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Bighorn Sheep 

Travel 

Restrictions 

Closed to 

OHV crosscountry 

travel from 

1 Apr–15 Jul 

15 Oct–31 

Dec 

1 Apr–15 Jul 

15 Oct–31 

Dec 

1 Apr–15 

Jun 

15 Oct–15 

Dec 

15 Apr-15 

May 

1 Nov-15 

Dec 

1 Apr–15 Jul 

15 Oct–31 

Dec 

1 Apr–15 

Jun 

15 Oct–15 

Dec 

Pronghorn 

Travel 

Restrictions 

15 May-15 

Jun 

15 Apr–30 

June 

1 May–15 

Jun 

15 May-15 

Jun 

15 Apr–30 

June 

1 May–15 

Jun 

Elk Travel 

Restrictions 

Unspecified 

(no identified 

crucial 

habitat) 

1 Nov–15 

May 

15 Nov–15 

Apr 

15 Dec-31 

Mar 

1 Nov–15 

May 

15 Nov–15 

Apr 

Deer Travel 

Restrictions 

15 Dec-30 

Apr 

1 Nov– 15 

May 

15 Nov–15 

Apr 

15 Dec-31 

Mar 

1 Nov– 15 

May 

15 Nov–15 

Apr 

Affected Roads 

in Wildlife 

Habitat 

Zero miles of 

travel routes 

closed to 

private, 

permitted, or 

commercial 

OHV travel. 

512 miles of 

travel routes 

closed to 

permitted or 

commercial 

OHV travel, 

but open to 

private use. 

135 miles of 

travel routes 

closed to 

permitted or 

commercial 

OHV travel, 

but open to 

private use. 

Zero miles of 

travel routes 

closed to 

private, 

permitted, or 

commercial 

OHV travel. 

512 miles of 

travel routes 

closed to 

permitted or 

commercial 

OHV travel, 

but open to 

private use. 

135 miles of 

travel routes 

closed to 

permitted or 

commercial 

OHV travel, 

but open to 

private use. 

4.3.16.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON TRAVEL

See Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 for a summary of impacts to travel. 

4.3.16.5. MITIGATION

There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to access or increase the opportunities 

for travel within the planning area, except as discussed in Section 4.3.1, Air Quality and Climate 

for dust abatement. 

4.3.16.6. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts to travel would be caused by temporary seasonal road or route 

closures in crucial fawning, lambing, and crucial winter habitat for wildlife along routes where 

vehicles could impact deer, elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and special status wildlife species. 

4.3.16.7. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short-term use of resources in the planning area would have no impact on the long-term 

productivity of travel. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-601 

4.3.16.8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

All route or road closures described above are irretrievable in that the use of that travel resource 

would be irretrievably lost until the routes are reopened. However, none of these closures are 

irreversible in that it is possible to reopen any of these closed areas or routes subject to additional 

analysis. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-602 

4.3.17. VEGETATION RESOURCES 

The following resources are not discussed in this section because their management decisions 

would have negligible impacts on vegetation resources: Air Quality, Health and Safety, NonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and Socioeconomics. 

4.3.17.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Sagebrush habitat would be managed as required by the BLM Special Status Species 

Management – Manual 6840 (BLM 2001c), which requires the BLM to use the methods and 

procedures necessary to improve the condition of special status species and their habitats to the 

point where special status recognition is no longer warranted. In addition, BLM's National Sagegrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 1.3.1 guidance (BLM 2004d) would be followed to ensure 

land-use plans and plan amendments adequately address sage-grouse habitat conservation needs. 

Harts Draw, Beef Basin, Black Mesa, Alkali, Mustang, Cedar Point, Shay Mesa, and all areas 

with Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would be prioritized for treatment. These management 

actions would have beneficial impacts on native plant species in sagebrush vegetation 

communities because improved sage-grouse habitat necessitates the maintenance of large areas 

of native sagebrush communities (Crawford et al. 2004).

The Monticello FO would incorporate vegetation treatments from the Utah Record of Decision 

(ROD) for Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States EIS (BLM 1991b as 

amended). Restoration treatments would include biological, chemical, manual, mechanical, and 

prescribed burning. These treatments would have long-term, beneficial impacts on all native 

vegetation communities by reducing competition from noxious weeds and exotic, invasive plant 

species (BLM 1991b). 

The spread of noxious, invasive, and non-native weed species would be controlled by 

implementing the principles in BLM weed management policies and action plans (see Table 

3.59Invasive and Noxious Weeds of San Juan County). In addition, restoration activities and 

stock animal feed would be required to use certified weed-free seed mixes, mulch, and feed. 

Restoration treatments to help slow and/or halt the spread of weed species in the Monticello PA 

would reduce the adverse impacts of surface disturbances associated with improper livestock 

management, minerals development, motorized OHV travel in designated open areas, and other 

activities that result in disturbances to native vegetation. Greasewood would be treated in Comb 

Wash, Butler Wash, Montezuma, East Canyon, Indian Creek, South and North Cottonwood 

Wash, and Cross Canyon to improve ground cover, biodiversity, and water quality. This could 

have short-term, adverse impacts on native vegetation in the treatment areas from surface 

disturbances and loss of productivity, but would have long-term, beneficial impacts on the 

treated, native vegetation community as a whole by removing undesirable, non-native plant 

species, thereby allowing the establishment of a diverse, native vegetation community. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, seed gathering and plant collection would be 

allowed in all areas meeting Utah's Rangeland Health Standards. This could have short-term, 

direct, adverse impacts on native vegetation due to pedestrian trampling, as well as minor 

potential for loss in reproductive success due to seed/plant removal. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-603 

4.3.17.2. ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PLAN IMPACTS

4.3.17.2.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

4.3.17.2.1.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, there would be no designated Cultural Special Management Areas 

(CSMAs) and the cultural areas identified in Table 4.33 would be managed according to 1991 

RMP Prescriptions. Butler Wash East of Comb Ridge would be managed with no allocation limit 

and no size limit on private or commercial groups, with camping, OHV use, dogs, fires and 

grazing permitted within the area. Under this alternative, potential direct adverse impacts from 

increased trampling of native vegetation by visitors to cultural sites would be reduced or 

eliminated. However, there would be adverse impacts associated with surface-disturbing 

vegetation treatments, and direct disturbance to vegetation and introduction of noxious and 

invasive weed species from recreationists, vehicles, and livestock. The level of cultural resource 

protection (that indirectly results in vegetation resource protection) varies by alternative. Because 

the extent and location of these surface disturbances are not known at this time, the quantitative 

differences in vegetation impacts between alternatives and the Proposed Plan cannot be 

determined. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, adverse impacts of cultural resource decisions on 

vegetation would be reduced due to the closure of the Grand Gulch National Historic District 

(37,388 acres) to private and/or commercial use for woodland products, mineral leasing, OHV 

use, and mechanized or mechanical surface disturbance (including vegetation treatments). This 

would decrease the number of native trees removed from this area. It would also decrease the 

amount of surface disturbance caused by foot/vehicle traffic in the area. Under Alternative A, the 

only surface disturbance restrictions would be in the Grand Gulch National Historic District. See 

Table 4.180 for the acreages of each vegetation type within the Grand Gulch National Historic 

District. 

Table 4.180. Acreage of Vegetation Type by Cultural Area 

Vegetation Type Comb 

Ridge 

Tank 

Bench Beef Basin 

McLoyd 

CanyonMoon 

House 

Grand 

Gulch 

National 

Historic 

District 

Conifer/mountain shrub 15,884 0 20 0 13 

Desert shrub 0 858 181 0 7,154 

Invasive species and weeds 4 0 0 0 24 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 17,576 1,564 15,796 1,408 26,902 

Riparian and wetland 3,378 225 17 3 860 

Sagebrush and perennial 

grassland 1,147 0 4,285 196 2,434 

Total Vegetated Acres 37,989 2,647 20,299 1,607 37,387 

1

 Acres of each vegetation type were determined using the Southwest ReGAP terrestrial ecological classification system (USGS 

2004). Because vegetation types may overlap or be overestimated in the SWReGAP coverages, total acres of vegetation may 

exceed the total acres of the area being analyzed. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-604 

4.3.17.2.1.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the qualitative impacts of cultural resource decisions on vegetation 

resources would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. Under this alternative, 

Comb Ridge Tank Bench Beef Basin and McLoyd Canyon-Moon House would be managed as 

CSMAs. The Comb Ridge CSMA (38,012 acres) would be closed to woodland product 

collection, closed to oil and gas surface occupancy and mineral entry, and would only be 

available for non-surface-disturbing vegetation treatments. Camping would be limited to 

designated campgrounds and hiking and OHV use would be limited to designated trails. The 

Tank Bench CSMA (2,646 acres) would have the same surface disturbance restrictions as the 

Comb Ridge CSMA, but would be closed to OHV use. The Beef Basin (20,302 acres) and the 

McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA (1,607 acres) would have the same surface disturbance 

restrictions as Comb Ridge CSMA with the exception of mineral leasing, which would be 

allowed subject to standard terms. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the Grand Gulch 

National Historic District (37,388 acres) would be closed to all surface disturbances, with the 

exception of designated trails and camping areas. 

There would be a considerable difference in impacts between Alternative B and the No Action 

Alternative due to the designation of four CSMAs and associated restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities. Adverse impacts to vegetation from surface disturbance under Alternative B 

would be considerably reduced from Alternative A due to restrictions on surface disturbances 

within 62,567 acres of designated CSMAs and the 37,388 acres Grand Gulch National Historic 

District.

4.3.17.2.1.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the qualitative impacts of cultural resource decisions on vegetation 

resources would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B. The Comb Ridge CSMA 

would be managed the same as under Alternative B, except that woodland product collection and 

surface-disturbing vegetation treatments would be allowed. The Tank Bench CSMA would be 

managed the same as under Alternative B, except for the following: it would be open to oil and 

gas leasing and mineral entry under standard lease terms, hiking would be allowed off trails, and 

surface-disturbing land activities would be permitted. The Beef Basin CSMA and the McLoyd 

Canyon-Moon House CSMA would be managed the same as under Alternative B, but would 

allow non-motorized vegetation treatments. 

There would be a considerable difference in impacts between Alternative C and the No Action 

Alternative due to the designation of four CSMAs and associated restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities. Adverse impacts to vegetation from surface disturbance under Alternative C 

would be greater than under Alternative B due to more acres of native vegetation in the CSMAs 

subject to adverse impacts from surface disturbance. Adverse impacts under Alternative C would 

be less than under Alternative A.

4.3.17.2.1.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the qualitative impacts of cultural resource decisions on vegetation 

resources would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, as Comb Ridge, Tank Bench, 

and Beef Basin would not be managed as CSMAs, but would be managed with similar 

management prescriptions as under Alternative C. These areas would be available for livestock 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-605 

use, surface-disturbing vegetation treatments, and OHV use on designated routes. Tank Bench 

would be open to locatable mineral entry and disposal of mineral materials and geophysical 

work, campfires, and private and commercial use of woodland products. Beef Basin would be 

managed as closed to private or commercial use of woodland products. McLoyd Canyon-Moon 

House would be managed the same as under Alternative C, with the following exceptions: 24 

visitors and two commercial groups would be allowed each day. The Grand Gulch National 

Historic District would be managed the same as under Alternative C; however, if the WSA is 

released by Congress, it would be open to oil and gas leasing with no surface occupancy and 

casual geophysical exploration. 

Alternative D would have similar impacts as Alternative A due to the designation of only one 

CSMA and the Grand Gulch National Historic District, and allowances for surface disturbances 

associated with livestock grazing, vegetation treatments, OHV use, and mineral entry in the other 

cultural areas. Adverse impacts to vegetation from surface disturbance under Alternative D 

would be greater than under Alternatives B and C due to more acres of native vegetation subject 

to adverse impacts from surface disturbance. 

4.3.17.2.1.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, impacts of cultural decisions on vegetation resources would be the same as 

those described under Alternative B with the exception that OHV use would be closed in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and vegetation disturbances would be restricted to 

protect wilderness characteristics in these areas. This would result in long-term, beneficial 

impacts to vegetation, as well as adverse impacts from restrictions on vegetation treatments to 

improve vegetation communities and control the spread of invasive species. The Comb Ridge 

and Beef Basin CSMAs would allow maintenance for existing improvements to wildlife habitat, 

but no new improvements would be allowed. This would limit direct impacts associated with 

surface-disturbing improvements. However, it would also reduce long-term, indirect, beneficial 

impacts from vegetation and wildlife habitat improvements. Due to the designation of four 

CSMAs and protections in place for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, Alternative 

E would have considerably fewer direct adverse impacts than Alternative A. This alternative 

would also have fewer direct adverse impacts and indirect beneficial impacts to vegetation than 

any of the other management alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.17.2.1.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the qualitative impacts of cultural resource decisions on vegetation 

resources would be the same as those discussed under Alternatives B and C. The Comb Ridge 

recreation management zone of the Cedar Mesa SRMA would be managed the same as under 

Alternatives B and C, except that woodland product collection and surface-disturbing vegetation 

treatments would be allowed. The Tank Bench SRMA would be managed the same as under 

Alternatives B and C, except for the following: it would be open to oil and gas leasing and 

mineral entry under standard lease terms, hiking would be allowed off trails, and surfacedisturbing land activities would be permitted. The Beef Basin SRMA and McLoyd CanyonMoon House recreation management zone would be managed the same as under Alternatives B 

and C. The Grand Gulch National Historic District would be managed the same as under 

Alternatives B and C, but would allow non-motorized vegetation treatments. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-606 

There would be a considerable difference in impacts between the Proposed Plan and the No 

Action Alternative due to the designation of two SRMAs and two recreation management zones 

and associated restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. Adverse impacts to vegetation from 

surface disturbance under the Proposed Plan would be greater than under Alternatives B and C 

due to more acres of native vegetation in the SRMAs subject to adverse impacts from surface 

disturbance. Adverse impacts under the Proposed Plan would be less than under Alternative A.

4.3.17.2.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

4.3.17.2.2.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions identified 

in consultation with the USFWS for the Utah Land-use plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels 

Management would be implemented in fire-related actions (see Appendix B). Maintenance of 

existing healthy ecosystems is one of the criteria for establishing fire management priorities and 

would have beneficial impacts on vegetation resources in the Monticello FO. Wildland fire use 

would not be authorized in the following areas unless reasonable Resource Protection Measures 

were in place: areas that are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or other weed 

invasion, important terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and non-fire adapted vegetation communities. 

These measures would have beneficial impacts on vegetation by reducing the spread of weeds 

and exotic, invasive species into native vegetation communities. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, fuels management actions would include surfacedisturbing treatments on 5,000 to 10,000 acres annually. These actions include: mechanical and 

manual treatments, prescribed fire, chemical or biological vegetation control, and aerial/ground 

seeding. These treatments would have long-term beneficial and short-term adverse impacts on 

vegetation communities in treated areas. Fuels treatments that thin vegetation and reduce or 

eliminate weeds benefit native vegetation communities by allowing greater growth potential and 

also by removing competition from weedy native and invasive species. Once competition from 

weedy or non-native species is removed, a diverse native community has the potential to 

establish itself in the area (Stevens and Monsen 2004). Adverse impacts associated with fuels 

management actions include trampling and crushing of vegetation, and thinning or removal of 

rare or ecologically desirable species. Fuels management actions potentially result in a shortterm, adverse reduction in native species diversity. However, in the long-term fuels treatments 

allow native and desirable non-native species to become established and promote more varied 

species composition and habitat structure (e.g., forests with multiple age classes and canopy 

openings for groundcover establishment). 

4.3.17.2.2.2. Alternatives B, C, D, E, and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternatives B, C, D, E, and the Proposed Plan the impacts of fire management decisions 

on vegetation resources would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.3. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

Lands and realty decisions include the following issues: access, easements, leases and permits, 

utility/transportation systems, exchanges, disposals, and withdrawals. The Monticello FO AMS 

Chapter 7 contains a complete list of common realty issues the Monticello FO can expect. Lands 

and realty decisions common to the Proposed Plan and the alternatives pertain to filming permits, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-607 

Recreation and Public Purpose and other authorizations for disposal, access, easements, land 

tenure adjustments, and land disposals. 

Applications for filming permits for work on existing roads include the following criteria for 

approval: project would not impact sensitive species habitat, would not involve the use of exotic 

species, and would not adversely impact relict environments or riparian areas. Applications for 

filming permits for work in WSAs, WSR corridors, NRHP Eligible Sites, and Native American 

Sacred Sites would include the following additional criteria for approval: no significant livestock 

use and a maximum of 15 vehicles and 75 people in the sensitive area. Trampling and vegetation 

removal associated with filming operations could result in short- and long-term adverse impacts 

on vegetation resources. Adverse impacts would be reduced by these required avoidance and/or 

minimization criteria for sensitive habitats, and by restrictions on the use of exotic species. 

Under the Proposed Plan and the alternatives approximately 6,581 acres would be identified for 

disposal. These data are not available in a spatially explicit format; therefore, acres of impacts by 

TES species habitats are not available for this analysis. Nevertheless, land disposal decisions 

could result in impacts to all vegetation types. On the other hand, the acquisition and retention of 

any TES species habitat, quality riparian areas, and key productive ecosystems would protect 

vegetation resources. 

4.3.17.2.3.1. Alternative A 

Mineral withdrawals (132,380 total acres) and exclusion (120,800 total acres) and avoidance 

(253,790 total acres) areas under Alternative A would help preserve and protect sensitive 

environmental resources and areas. 

The Monticello FO AMS Chapter 7 contains a list of ACECs and SRMAs closed to ROWs in the 

Monticello FO. These closures would benefit vegetation in these areas. However, all areas not 

identified as avoidance or exclusion will be available for ROWs and could be subject to 

multiple-use terms on a case-by-case basis (BLM 2005c). ROW corridors are presently used for 

electric transmission facilities, pipelines 10 inches and larger, communication lines, federal and 

state highways, and major county road systems. The permanent installation of utility and 

communication infrastructure in ROWs could have direct, long-term, adverse impacts on native 

vegetation due to vegetation removal and trampling by workers and vehicles during construction 

activities.

4.3.17.2.3.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of lands and realty decisions on vegetation resources would 

include the qualitative impacts discussed in Alternative A and at the beginning of this section, 

with the withdrawal of an additional 119,330 acres from locatable mineral entry (an increase of 

approximately 90% over Alternative A). 

Under this alternative lands would be considered available for ROWs except for exclusion areas 

(approximately 416,612 total acres) and avoidance areas (approximately 125,105 total acres). 

Exclusion areas under Alternative B would include approximately 245% more land than under 

Alternative A. Avoidance areas, on the other hand, would include approximately 51% less land 

than under Alternative A. Overall, this alternative would have fewer adverse impacts on 

vegetation than Alternative A by withdrawing more land from locatable mineral entry and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-608 

excluding more land from ROWs (though less land would be ROW avoidance area than under 

Alternative A). 

4.3.17.2.3.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of lands and realty decisions on vegetation resources would be 

the same as under Alternatives A and B, except there would be 10,468 fewer acres withdrawn 

from locatable mineral entry (approximately 8% less than under Alternative A). Exclusion and 

avoidance areas for ROWs would consist of 395,329 acres and 39,323 acres, respectively. Under 

Alternative C exclusion areas would be 227% greater than under Alternative A while avoidance 

areas would be 85% smaller than under Alternative A. Overall, Alternative C would have more 

adverse impacts on vegetation than Alternative A due to the lesser acreage of land withdrawn 

from locatable mineral entry and the lesser acreage established as avoidance for ROWs (though 

more acreage would be ROW exclusion area under Alternative C than under Alternative A). 

4.3.17.2.3.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of lands and realty decisions on vegetation resources would be 

the same as under Alternatives A, B, and C, except there would be 86,249 fewer acres withdrawn 

from locatable mineral entry (approximately 65% less than under Alternative A). Exclusion and 

avoidance areas for ROWs would consist of 386,853 acres and 14,175 acres, respectively. Under 

Alternative D exclusion areas would be 220% greater than under Alternative A while avoidance 

areas would be 94% smaller than under Alternative A. Overall, Alternative D would have more 

adverse impacts on vegetation than Alternative A due to the lesser acreage of land withdrawn 

from locatable mineral entry and the lesser acreage established as avoidance for ROWs (though 

more acreage would be ROW exclusion area under Alternative D than under Alternative A). 

4.3.17.2.3.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of lands and realty decisions on vegetation resources would be 

the same as the impacts discussed under Alternative B except that under Alternative E 53,915 

acres would be ROW avoidance areas (79% less than under Alternative A) and 974,463 acres 

would be ROW exclusion areas (707% greater than under Alternative A). Also, 834,070 acres 

would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry (530% more than under Alternative A). 

Alternative E would have fewer adverse impacts on vegetation than the other alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan because fewer surface disturbances would be allowed due to protection of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.17.2.3.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of lands and realty decisions on vegetation resources 

would be the same as under Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E except there would be 81,715 fewer 

acres (approximately 62% less than under Alternative A) withdrawn from locatable mineral 

entry. Exclusion areas for ROWs would consist of 416,115 acres (244% more than under 

Alternative A) while avoidance areas for ROWs would consist of 133,293 acres (47% less than 

under Alternative A). Overall, the Proposed Plan would have greater adverse impacts on 

vegetation than Alternative A due to the lesser acreage of land withdrawn from locatable mineral 

entry and the lesser acreage established as ROW avoidance areas (though more acreage would be 

ROW exclusion area under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative A). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-609 

4.3.17.2.4. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives livestock grazing would be managed according to 

the Guidelines for Grazing Management to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health 

(Appendix D). Furthermore, grazing would continue to be excluded from 128,098 acres in areas 

identified in the Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan (Table 2.1). The 

allotments and their seasons of use would be the same as in the San Juan RMP (BLM 1991) with 

the exceptions listed in the Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. Included in 

these 128,098 acres are approximately 15,720 acres excluded from livestock use for wildlife 

objectives (i.e., managed for wildlife use) on parts of the slopes of Peter's Canyon and East 

Canyon, which would help maintain native vegetation in those areas. In total, approximately 8% 

of the Monticello FO planning area would be unavailable for livestock grazing under the 

Proposed Plan and all alternatives (Map 12). Because the intensity and exact location of grazing 

activities are not known at this time, the quantitative differences in vegetation will instead be 

analyzed by comparing the acres of each vegetation type unavailable for grazing under the 

Proposed Plan and each alternative (Table 4.181). Under the Proposed Plan and all action 

alternatives new allotments would be added in South Vega, Upper Mail Station, and Big 

Westwater. In areas where utilization levels have not been established the targeted level of use 

would be 50% to meet the objectives of this plan. 

There is the potential for direct and indirect adverse impacts on vegetation resources associated 

with grazing-related surface disturbance in 92% of the Monticello PA. Livestock grazing, when 

done at proper levels, would not have adverse impacts on the native plant species in an area. 

However, when improper grazing practices occur at higher levels than the native vegetation can 

support, adverse impacts to native vegetation are inevitable. In all vegetation types in the 

Monticello PA, if native vegetation is grazed beyond the point of natural regeneration, nonnative, weedy species such as cheatgrass are better able to colonize an area and inhibit the future 

restoration of native species (Sparrow et al. 2003, Young and Evans 1973). Under all alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan, adaptive management would be applied to livestock grazing in areas 

where the native vegetation appears to be overburdened, in order to mitigate adverse impacts to 

vegetation. 

4.3.17.2.4.1. Alternative A 

The impacts of livestock grazing decisions on vegetation under Alternative A would be the same 

as the impacts described above for the Proposed Plan and all alternatives because the decisions 

would be the same. 

Table 4.181. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type Unavailable for Grazing for the Proposed 

Plan and Alternatives 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives

B and E Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan 

Conifer/mountain 

shrub 

785 800 800 785 785

Desert shrub 8,411 8,967 8,992 8,420 8,420

Invasive species 

and weeds 

99 99 99 99 99
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-610 

Table 4.181. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type Unavailable for Grazing for the Proposed 

Plan and Alternatives 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives

B and E Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan 

Pinyon-juniper 

woodland 

121,317 129,641 129,641 121,504 121,504

Riparian/wetland 2,380 2,816 2,816 2,394 2,394

Sagebrush/perenn

ial grass 

5,362 5,434 5,434 5,362 5,362

Total 138,354 147,757 147,782 138,564 138,564

4.3.17.2.4.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, the impacts of livestock grazing decisions on vegetation resources 

would be the same as those discussed above, except that additional areas would be made 

unavailable to grazing. Additional closures would consist of Slickhorn Canyon (Perkins 

Brother's Allotment), Rone Bailey Mesa (Upper Mail Station Allotment), Dodge Canyon 

Allotment, Mule Canyon (including North and South Forks north of U-95), Rogers Allotment, 

Portions of West Butler Wash Canyons, and Horsehead Canyon within the Montezuma Canyon 

allotment (Map 13). These closures would generally have a beneficial impact on native 

vegetation through full plant development and growth without livestock grazing pressures. In the 

long-term, Alternatives B and E would likely have fewer potential adverse impacts on native 

vegetation in the Monticello FO than Alternative A because of the closure of 13,062 additional 

acres to livestock grazing. Under Alternatives B and E, 6.6% more acres of the desert shrub 

vegetation type, 6.9% more pinyon-juniper woodland, 18.3% more riparian/wetland, and 1.3% 

more sagebrush/perennial grassland would be closed to grazing than under Alternative A, with 

more potentially beneficial impacts as discussed above. 

4.3.17.2.4.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of livestock grazing decisions on vegetation resources would 

be the same as discussed for Alternatives B and E, with the exception that Mule Canyon south of 

U-95 would be unavailable for grazing, and the North and South Forks north of U-95 would be 

open (Map 14). As discussed above, these closures would generally have a beneficial impact on 

native vegetation through full plant development and growth without livestock grazing pressures. 

In the long-term, Alternative C would have fewer potential adverse impacts on native vegetation 

in the Monticello FO than Alternative A due to the closure of 11,738 additional acres to livestock 

grazing. Under Alternative C, 6.9% more acres of the desert shrub vegetation type, 6.9% more 

pinyon-juniper woodland, 18.3% more riparian/wetland, and 1.3% more sagebrush/perennial 

grassland would be closed to grazing than under Alternative A, with only slightly greater acres of 

desert shrub. 

4.3.17.2.4.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of livestock grazing decisions on vegetation resources would 

include those discussed under Alternative A, with the additional closures of Slickhorn Canyon 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-611 

(Perkins Brother's Allotment), Rone Bailey Mesa (Upper Mail Station Allotment), Rogers 

Allotment, and portions of West Butler Wash Canyons (Map 15). Due to the closure of 4,013 

additional acres to livestock grazing, Alternative D is likely to have slightly less potential 

adverse impacts on native vegetation in the long-term than Alternative A. Under Alternative D, 

0.1% more acres of the desert shrub vegetation type, 0.2% more pinyon-juniper woodland, and 

0.6% more riparian/wetland would be closed to grazing than under Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.4.5. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of livestock grazing decisions on vegetation resources 

would be the same as discussed above. Specific locations where closures would occur and where 

restrictions would be in place are listed in the Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All 

Alternative (Table 2.1). As discussed above, closures would generally have a beneficial impact 

on native vegetation through full plant development and growth without livestock grazing 

pressures. In the long-term, the Proposed Plan would have fewer potential adverse impacts on 

native vegetation in the Monticello FO than Alternative A due to the closure of 11,738 additional 

acres to livestock grazing. Under the Proposed Plan, 0.1% more acres of the desert shrub 

vegetation type, 0.2% more pinyon-juniper woodland, and 0.6% more riparian/wetland would be 

closed to grazing than under Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.5. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

In Tables 4.147–4.149, the number of acres of each vegetation type in each leasing category is 

shown for each of the RFD areas. Acreage figures under the Standard Stipulations and Timing 

and Controlled Surface Use reflect the total BLM administered areas within the Monticello PA 

open to surface-disturbing activities. These are not estimates of the total area disturbed within the 

Monticello PA, but a comparison by alternative and the Proposed Plan of the amount of area 

open to potential development within BLM administered areas within the Monticello PA. All 

acreages provided in the vegetation sections are approximations. The remaining discussion of 

impacts of minerals decisions on vegetation pertains primarily to oil and gas leasing, mineral 

material disposal, mineral entry, and geophysical activity. The discussion of impacts due to oil 

and gas leasing and geophysical activity includes surface disturbance approximations due to 

these activities. Surface disturbances for other mineral activities would also occur; under the 

Proposed Plan and all alternatives there would be approximately 851 acres of surface disturbance 

total for 15 years as a result of uranium and vanadium activities (300 acres), placer gold 

activities (10 acres), limestone activities (50 acres), sand and gravel activities (360 acres), 

building stone activities (113 acres), and clay activities (18 acres). This disturbance would have 

adverse impacts (as described below) on vegetation resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-612 

Table 4.182. Alternative A–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulation In the B

RFD Area 

Vegetation Type 

Surface Use with 

Standard 

Conditions (acres) 

Surface Use 

Limited by Special Conditions (acres) 

NSO and Closed to 

Mineral Entry 

(acres) 

NSO and Open to 

Mineral Entry 

(acres) 

Conifer/mountain shrub 549 11 0 1 Desert shrub 81,663 17,530 2,167 1,120 Invasive species and weeds 584 224 0 31 Pinyon-juniper woodland 146,689 87,504 2,204 2,526 Riparian/wetland 6,949 2,266 532 83 Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

31,096 18,454 3 311 

Total 267,530 125,989 4,906 4,072 

Table 4.183. Alternative A–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulation In the M

RFD Area 

Vegetation Type 

Surface use with 

Standard 

Conditions (acres) 

Surface use 

Limited by Special Conditions (acres) 

NSO and Closed to 

Mineral Entry 

(acres) 

NSO and Open to 

Mineral Entry 

(acres) 

Conifer/mountain shrub 5,002 3,008 0 76 Desert shrub 21,459 120,633 2,179 53,429 Invasive species and weeds 30 545 250 Pinyon-juniper woodland 101,907 286,930 2,506 78,949 Riparian/wetland 1,386 1,377 357 964 Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

12,997 25,681 0 7,595 

Total 142,781 438,174 5,042 141,263 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-613 

Table 4.184. Alternative A–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations In the 

Fold Belt RFD Area 

Vegetation Type 

Surface use with 

Standard 

Conditions (acres) 

Surface Use 

Limited by Special Conditions (acres) 

NSO and Closed to 

Mineral Entry 

(acres) 

NSO and Open to 

Mineral Entry 

(acres) 

Conifer/mountain shrub 1,088 37 0 9 Desert shrub 45,187 12,159 0 2,098 Invasive species and weeds 

1,366 170 0 1 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 90,093 54,756 0 2,340 Riparian/wetland 2,145 1,185 0 294 Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

21,091 20,506 0 174 

Total 160,970 88,813 0 4,916 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-614 

4.3.17.2.5.1. Alternative A 

Potential direct adverse impacts from oil and gas production and mineral materials entry and 

disposal would occur as various forms of surface disturbance. Of the three oil and gas RFD areas 

within the Monticello FO (see Map 57), vegetation in the Blanding Sub-basin RFD area is 

expected to be the most impacted by minerals decisions, because it has the highest predicted 

levels of oil and gas well development (42 wells total for 15 years). In addition, there are nine 

wells expected in the Monument Upwarp area and 25 wells expected in the Paradox fault and 

fold belt over the life of the Monticello FO RMP. On average, a well pad disturbs 9.6 acres, so 

oil and gas development would result in the direct removal of native vegetation from 

approximately 701 acres (73 wells total) in the Monticello FO total for 15 years. Site-specific 

analysis will be necessary to determine the vegetation types impacted by oil and gas 

development. 

In addition to the 1,399,454 acres managed for oil and gas leasing in the Monticello FO, there are 

530,000 acres of managed coal resources in the San Juan Coal Field, 10,000 acres of tar sand 

resources in the White Canyon Special Tar Sand Area, two Known Potash Leasing Areas of 

unspecified size, and 16,320 acres in the Warm Springs canyon geothermal area. Site-specific 

analysis will be necessary to determine the vegetation types impacted by coal, tar sand, and 

potash development. 

Surface disturbance associated with well, pipeline, and road construction would result in both 

short- and long-term adverse impacts on vegetation, beyond the life of the well. In the shortterm, loss of vegetation associated with surface disturbance would increase the potential for 

invasion of undesirable plant species, including noxious weeds (Piemeisel 1951). Surface 

disturbance would also have long-term impacts on vegetation resources. Following completion 

of oil and gas activities, native seeding and weed management would occur at each site. Initial 

establishment of sagebrush and other native species following seeding is estimated to take three 

to four years. Successful establishment is dependent on the exclusion or reduction of livestock 

and control of weedy annuals on the restoration site during this time (Monsen and Stevens 2004). 

Revegetation is especially difficult in desert shrub vegetation because soils are shallow and 

highly saline and moisture availability is relatively low (Stevens and Monsen 2004). Introduction 

of undesirable plant species, notably cheatgrass, is likely in the sagebrush/perennial grass types 

due to the species' ability to out-compete native plant species in disturbed areas and to thrive in 

arid conditions (Morrow and Stahlman 1984, Piemeisel 1951). 

Adverse impacts of minerals decisions on vegetation resources would be partially mitigated by 

the implementation of Management Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan outlined 

in Table 2.1. This management would include no surface occupancy (NSO) in riparian 

vegetation, required revegetation of oil and gas well sites upon project completion, and land 

management that meets or moves towards meeting Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health 

(Appendix D). 

Under this alternative, there would be 41 wells drilled in the Blanding Sub-basin total for 15 

years. This would result in approximately 394 acres of surface disturbance. This disturbance 

could occur in any of the vegetation types except for riparian. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-615 

Under this alternative, there would be 7 wells drilled in the Monument Upwarp total for 15 years. 

This would result in approximately 69 acres of surface disturbance. This disturbance could occur 

in any of the vegetation types except for riparian. 

Under this alternative, there would be 25 wells drilled in the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt total 

for 15 years. This would result in approximately 236 acres of surface disturbance. This 

disturbance could occur in any of the vegetation types except for riparian. 

Weed Dispersal Associated with Roads 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, new roads would be created to access oil and gas 

wells in the three RFD areas. In addition, traffic on existing roads is likely to increase due to 

construction and operation of new and existing oil and gas facilities in the Monticello FO. The 

number of acres of roadside vegetation that may be invaded by weeds introduced during road 

construction and traffic was calculated using data from the literature (Gelbard and Belnap 2003). 

The minimum number of miles of road required to connect future well pads to existing roads was 

calculated. This number was then converted to meters and multiplied by 100 m, which is the 

width of potential weed infestation due to road disturbance. The resulting number of acres of 

roadside vegetation subject to the introduction and/or spread of noxious weeds and invasive 

species is provided in Table 4.185. 

Table 4.185. Acres of Roadside Vegetation Subject to Weed Invasion 

Vegetation Type Alternative 

A 

Alternatives

B and E 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Proposed 

Plan 

Conifer/mountain 

shrub 

1,010 0 977 1,014 977 

Desert shrub 34,272 29,069 32,768 35,056 32,768 

Invasive species and 

weeds 

459 428 463 468 463 

Pinyon-juniper 

woodland 

59,451 46,126 55,156 59,682 55,156 

Riparian/wetland 2,384 1,898 2,252 2,541 2,252 

Sagebrush/perennial 

grass 

24,182 19,465 21,689 24,254 21,689 

Total 121,758 96,986 113,305 123,015 113,305 

Lands Available for Mineral Material Disposal

Under Alternative A, 584,270 acres of land in the Monticello FO are available for disposal of 

mineral materials subject to standard terms and conditions, or approximately 33% of the 

1,784,724 acres in the Monticello FO. There are currently 821,070 acres (approximately 46% of 

Monticello FO lands) subject to special conditions under Alternative A. Currently, there are 

373,850 acres (approximately 21% of Monticello FO lands) closed to disposal of mineral 

materials. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-616 

Lands Available for Mineral Entry

Under Alternative A, 1,652,743 acres of land in the Monticello FO are open to mineral entry, or 

approximately 93% of the 1,784,724 acres in the Monticello FO. This area is potentially subject 

to the impacts described above. There are currently 132,380 acres (approximately 7% of 

Monticello FO lands) withdrawn from mineral entry. These acres would not be subject to the 

risks of surface disturbance associated with open pit mining activities. 

Geophysical Activity

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, geophysical activity would be permitted in the 

Monticello FO. Under Alternative A, approximately 886 acres of vegetation would be 

temporarily impacted by geophysical exploration. Impacts associated with exploration on 

existing roads would include crushing of individual plants and the potential spread of invasive 

and weedy plant species along existing roadways in the Monticello FO. There would be shortterm, negative impacts associated with removal and/or displacement of native vegetation. Areas 

disturbed by geophysical activity would be completely reclaimed within 10 years. It is not 

known exactly where the geophysical activity would take place; therefore, the acreage of 

disturbance by vegetation type is not available. Site-specific NEPA analysis will take place on a 

project-by-project basis to quantify the impacts by vegetation type. Table 4.186 presents the 

predicted acres of surface disturbance associated with geophysical exploration by RFD area. 

Table 4.186. Acres of Surface Disturbance Associated with Geophysical Exploration by 

RFD Area 

RFD Area Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Blanding 271 249 271 271 250 266 

Monument 120 137 143 149 123 125 

Paradox 495 408 489 504 385 489 

Total 886 794 904 924 758 880 

4.3.17.2.5.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the qualitative impacts of minerals decisions on vegetation resources would 

be the same as those discussed under Alternative A because the impacts from minerals 

development would be the same. The major differences in impacts between this alternative and 

the No Action Alternative would be 1,367,015 acres available for management of oil and gas 

leasing (2.3% fewer acres than under Alternative A), and 365,170 acres available for mineral 

material disposal with standard stipulations (38% fewer acres than under Alternative A). Acres 

available for oil and gas leasing by vegetation type in each of the RFD areas are shown in Tables 

4.152–4.154. The acres and location of predicted surface disturbance are similar for each 

alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

Under this alternative, there would be 38 wells drilled in the Blanding Sub-basin total for 15 

years. This would result in approximately 364.8 acres of surface disturbance, which could occur 

in any of the vegetation types except for riparian. This is 3 (7%) fewer wells and 28.8 (7%) fewer 

acres of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-617 

Table 4.187. Alternative B–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category in the Bla

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface Use and 

Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Sur

Occup

Conifer/mountain shrub 519 0 0 43 Desert shrub 70,846 0 752 13,817 Invasive species and weeds 

367 0 32 432 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 

59,056 71 2,660 159,258 

Riparian/wetland 2,997 0 0 2,444 Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

14,142 21 141 35,133 

Total 147,927 92 3,585 211,127 

Table 4.188. Alternative B–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category in the Mo

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface Use and 

Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surfac

Occupanc

Conifer/mountain shrub 

4,879 2 0 3,030 

Desert shrub 85,051 315 9,617 75,456 5,Invasive species and weeds 

94 0 7 671 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 

92,198 10,721 9,373 325,073 25,
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-618 

Table 4.188. Alternative B–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category in the Mo

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface Use and 

Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surfac

Occupanc

Riparian/wetland 680 27 75 1,727 1,Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

8,285 579 270 33,259 3,

Total 191,187 11,644 19,342 439,216 35,

Table 4.189. Alternative B–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category in the Par

Fold Belt RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 611 73 0 438 1Desert shrub 1,954 24,693 1 6,600 25,95Invasive species and weeds 

495 16 0 868 12

Pinyon-juniper woodland 14,092 24,454 29 86,580 21,36Riparian/wetland 96 1,286 7 405 1,68Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

6,863 4,534 0 30,037 29

Total 24,111 55,056 37 124,928 49,43
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-619 

Under this alternative, there would be 8 wells drilled in the Monument Upwarp total for 15 years. 

This would result in approximately 76.8 acres of surface disturbance, which could occur in any 

of the vegetation types except for riparian. This is 1 (14%) more well and 9.6 (147%) more acres 

of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, there would be 20 wells drilled in the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt total 

for 15 years, resulting in approximately 192.0 acres of surface disturbance, which could occur in 

any of the vegetation types except for riparian. This is 5 (20%) fewer wells and 48 (20%) fewer 

acres of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A. Across the three RFD areas, there 

would be 7 (9.6%) fewer wells and 67.2 (9.6%) fewer acres of disturbance under Alternative B 

than would occur under Alternative A. 

Weed Dispersal Associated with Roads

Under Alternative B, there would be fewer acres of all vegetation types subject to invasion by 

noxious weeds and invasive species than under Alternative A due to a reduction in new roads for 

oil and gas activity. Alternative B would have fewer negative impacts to vegetation than 

Alternative A, because there would be fewer acres subject to disturbance and potential weed 

infestation. Table 4.190 provides the percent difference in acres of roadside vegetation subject to 

weed infestation between Alternatives A and B by vegetation type. 

Table 4.190. Percent Difference in Acres of Roadside 

Vegetation Subject to Weed Infestation 

Vegetation Type 

Percent Difference 

Compared with 

Alternative A 

Conifer and mountain shrub 15% less 

Desert shrub 15% less 

Invasive species and noxious weeds 7% less 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 12% less 

Riparian and wetland 10% less 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland 20% less 

Total 20% less 

Lands Available for Mineral Material Disposal

Under Alternative B, 365,168 acres of land in the Monticello FO would be available for disposal 

of mineral materials subject to standard terms and conditions. That is 219,102 acres (37%) fewer 

than are currently subject to standard terms and conditions for mineral materials disposal under 

Alternative A. 

There would be 876,736 acres subject to special conditions. That is 55,666 acres (7%) more than 

are currently subject to special conditions for disposal of mineral materials under Alternative A. 

There would be 542,402 acres closed to disposal of mineral materials. That is 168,552 acres 

(45%) more than would be closed to disposal under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-620 

Lands Available for Mineral Entry

Under Alternative B, 1,533,413 acres of land in the Monticello FO would be open to mineral 

entry. That is 7% fewer acres than would be open under Alternative A. 

There would be 251,710 acres recommended to be withdrawn from mineral entry. That is 

119,330 acres (90%) more than would be withdrawn from mineral entry under Alternative A. 

Geophysical Activity

Under Alternative B, the qualitative impacts of geophysical activity on vegetation resources 

would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. There would be approximately 794 

acres of surface disturbance associated with geophysical exploration under this alternative. This 

is approximately 10% fewer acres of disturbance than would be expected under Alternative A, 

which could result in slightly reduced impacts overall due to the decreased acreage open to 

exploration. 

4.3.17.2.5.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the qualitative impacts of minerals decisions on vegetation resources would 

be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. The major difference in impacts between 

this alternative and the No Action Alternative is the reduction in acres available for management 

of oil and gas leasing and mineral material disposal with standard stipulations. Acres available 

for oil and gas leasing by vegetation type in each of the RFD areas are provided in Tables 4.156–

4.158. 

Under both Alternatives A and C, there would be 41 wells drilled in the Blanding Sub-basin total 

for 15 years. This would result in approximately 394 acres of surface disturbance, which could 

occur in any of the vegetation types except for riparian. 

Under this alternative, there would be 9 wells drilled in the Monument Upwarp total for 15 years. 

This would result in approximately 86 acres of surface disturbance, which could occur in any of 

the vegetation types except for riparian. This is 2 (29%) more wells and 19.2 (29%) more acres 

of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-621 

Table 4.191. Alternative C–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the Bla

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 544 0 0 18 Desert shrub 90,330 6 1,341 7,571 2,22Invasive species and weeds 

490 0 32 313 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 128,580 72 3,041 103,630 3,13Riparian/wetland 5,841 2 90 1,799 2,15Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

26,746 21 230 22,615 22

Total 252,531 101 4,734 135,946 7,74

Table 4.192. Alternative C–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the Mo

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 7,101 43 15 808 Desert shrub 87,707 166 12,831 73,966 21,81Invasive species and weeds 

94 0 14 671 4

Pinyon-juniper woodland 179,233 4,434 35,318 242,232 2,77Riparian/wetland 1,711 27 293 1,571 30
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-622 

Table 4.192. Alternative C–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the Mo

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

14,465 134 3,536 27,971 6

Total 290,311 4,804 52,007 347,219 24,99

Table 4.193. Alternative C–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the Pa

Fold Belt RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 995 61 13 54 1Desert shrub 12,655 20,392 18,312 4,804 3,04Invasive species and weeds 

1,148 16 86 245 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 52,674 20,348 21,710 49,591 2,19Riparian/wetland 636 1,073 1,112 154 50Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

11,807 4,233 349 25,200 14

Total 79,915 46,123 41,582 80,048 5,90
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-623 

Under this alternative, there would be 24 wells drilled in the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt total 

for 15 years. This would result in approximately 230 acres of surface disturbance, which could 

occur in any of the vegetation types except for riparian. This is 1 (4%) fewer wells and 9.6 (4%) 

fewer acres of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A. Across the three RFD areas, 

there would be 1 (1.4%) more well and 9.6 (1.4%) more acres of disturbance under Alternative C 

than would occur under Alternative A. 

Weed Dispersal Associated with Roads 

Under Alternative C, there would be fewer acres of all vegetation types subject to invasion by 

noxious weeds and invasive species than under Alternative A due to a reduction in new roads for 

oil and gas activity. Alternative C would have fewer negative impacts to vegetation than 

Alternative A because there would be fewer acres subject to disturbance and potential weed 

infestation. Table 4.194 provides the percent difference in acres of roadside vegetation subject to 

weed infestation between Alternatives A and C by vegetation type. 

Table 4.194. Percent Difference in Acres of Roadside 

Vegetation Subject to Weed Infestation 

Vegetation Type 

Percent Difference 

Compared with 

Alternative A 

Conifer and mountain shrub 3% less 

Desert shrub 4% less 

Invasive species and noxious weeds 1% more 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 7% less 

Riparian and wetland 6% more 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland 10% more 

Total 7% less 

Lands Available for Mineral Material Disposal

Under Alternative C, 624,734 acres of land in the Monticello FO would be available for disposal 

of mineral materials subject to standard terms and conditions. That is 40,464 acres (7%) more 

than are currently subject to standard terms and conditions for mineral materials disposal under 

Alternative A. 

There would be 724,234 acres subject to special conditions. That is 96,836 fewer acres (12%) 

than are currently subject to special conditions for disposal of mineral materials under 

Alternative A. 

There would be 435,338 acres closed to disposal of mineral materials. That is 61,488 acres 

(16%) more than currently closed to disposal under Alternative A. 

Lands Available for Mineral Entry

Under Alternative C, 1,663,221 acres of land in the Monticello FO would be open to mineral 

entry. That is 10,478 fewer acres (less than 1%) than are currently open under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-624 

There would be 121,912 acres recommended to be withdrawn from mineral entry. That is 10,468 

acres (8%) less than are currently withdrawn from mineral entry under Alternative A. 

Geophysical Activity

Under Alternative C, the qualitative impacts of geophysical activity on vegetation resources 

would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. There would be approximately 904 

acres of surface disturbance associated with geophysical exploration under this alternative. This 

is approximately 2% more acres of disturbance than would be expected under Alternative A, 

which would result in a slightly greater impacts overall, due to the increased acreage open to 

exploration. 

4.3.17.2.5.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the qualitative impacts of minerals decisions on vegetation resources would 

be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. The major difference in impacts between 

this alternative and the No Action Alternative is a reduction in acres available for management of 

oil and gas leasing and mineral materials disposal with standard stipulations. Acres available for 

oil and gas leasing by vegetation type in each of the RFD areas are provided in Tables 4.160–

4.162. 

Under Alternatives A, C, and D, there would be 41 wells drilled in the Blanding Sub-basin total 

for 15 years. This would result in approximately 393.6 acres of surface disturbance, which could 

occur in any of the vegetation types except for riparian. 

Under Alternatives C and D, there would be 9 wells drilled in the Monument Upwarp total for 15 

years. This would result in approximately 86.4 acres of surface disturbance, which could occur in 

any of the vegetation types except for riparian. This is 2 (29%) more wells and 19.2 (29%) more 

acres of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A. 

Under Alternatives A and D, there would be 25 wells drilled in the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt 

total for 15 years. This would result in approximately 240.0 acres of surface disturbance. This 

disturbance could occur in any of the vegetation types except for riparian. Across the three RFD 

areas, there would be 2 (29%) more wells and 19.2 (29%) more acres of disturbance than under 

Alternative A, and more wells and disturbance than would occur under any of the other 

management alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-625 

Table 4.195. Alternative D–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations In the 

basin RFD Area 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 0 0 0 0 555 Desert shrub 5,721 0 0 1,726 94,363 Invasive species and weeds 

2 0 0 0 604 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 9,271 0 0 3,614 165,414 Riparian/wetland 409 0 0 2,158 6,596 Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

96 0 0 247 32,585 

Total 15,499 0 0 7,745 300,117 

Table 4.196. Alternative D–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the Mo

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 7,597 0 0 459 Desert shrub 145,976 0 0 49,886 1,89Invasive species and weeds 

606 0 0 220 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 312,464 0 0 153,795 2,55Riparian/wetland 3,354 0 0 371 50
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-626 

Table 4.196. Alternative D–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the Mo

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

30,300 0 0 15,990 

Total 500,297 0 0 220,721 4,94

Table 4.197. Alternative D–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the Pa

Fold Belt RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 1,105 24 0 5 Desert shrub 35,128 0 0 24,315 Invasive species and weeds 

1,245 2 0 256 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 90,119 440 0 56,476 Riparian/wetland 1,812 1 0 1,819 Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

21,233 2,096 0 18,401 

Total 150,642 2,563 0 101,272 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-627 

Weed Dispersal Associated with Roads

Under Alternative D, there would be more acres subject to disturbance and potential invasion by 

noxious weeds and invasive species than under Alternative A due to an increase in new roads for 

oil and gas activity. Alternative D would have greater negative impacts to vegetation than 

Alternative A because there would be more acres subject to disturbance and potential weed 

infestation. Table 4.198 provides the percent difference in acres of roadside vegetation subject to 

weed infestation between Alternatives A and D by vegetation type. 

Table 4.198. Percent Difference in Acres of Roadside 

Vegetation Subject to Weed Infestation 

Vegetation Type Percent Difference 

Compared with Alternative A 

Conifer and mountain shrub 0% 

Desert shrub 2% more 

Invasive species and noxious weeds 2% more 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 0% 

Riparian and wetland 7% more 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland 0% 

Total 1% more 

Lands Available for Mineral Material Disposal

Under Alternative D, 962,283 acres of land in the Monticello FO would be available for disposal 

of mineral materials subject to standard terms and conditions. That is 378,013 acres (65%) more 

than are currently subject to standard terms and conditions for mineral materials disposal under 

Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, there would be 420,998 acres subject to special conditions. This is 

400,072 fewer acres (49%) than would be subject to special conditions for disposal of mineral 

materials under Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, there would be 401,027 acres closed to disposal of mineral materials. That 

is 27,177 acres (7%) more than would be closed to disposal under Alternative A. 

Lands Available for Mineral Entry

Under Alternative D, 1,738,992 acres of land in the Monticello FO would be open to mineral 

entry. That is 86,249 acres (5%) more than would be open to mineral entry under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, it would be recommended that 46,131 acres be withdrawn from mineral 

entry. That is 86,249 fewer acres (65%) than would be withdrawn under Alternative A. 

Geophysical Activity

Under Alternative D, the qualitative impacts of geophysical activity on vegetation resources 

would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. There would be approximately 924 

acres of surface disturbance associated with geophysical exploration under this alternative. This 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-628 

is approximately 38 acres (4%) more disturbance than would occur under Alternative A, which 

would result in a slightly greater impact overall due to the increased acreage open to exploration. 

4.3.17.2.5.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the qualitative impacts of minerals decisions on vegetation resources would 

be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. The major difference in impacts between 

this alternative and the No Action Alternative would be the reduction in acres available for 

management of oil and gas leasing and mineral materials disposal due to minerals leasing 

restrictions within the 582,357 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. These 

lands would be closed to minerals leasing and mineral materials disposal, closed to off-route 

OHV use, closed to new road construction to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, and surface disturbance impacts would be limited to VRM Class objectives. 

These restrictions on minerals-related surface disturbance would have long-term, beneficial 

impacts on vegetation resources within the planning area. Nevertheless, RFD predictions of oil 

and gas development within the planning area under Alternative E would be approximately 74% 

of the RFD-predicted level of development under Alternative A (see below). Acres available for 

oil and gas leasing by vegetation type in each of the RFD areas are provided in Tables 4.164–

4.166. The acres and location of predicted surface disturbance is similar for each alternative and 

the Proposed Plan. 

Under this alternative, there would be 36 wells drilled in the Blanding Sub-basin total for 15 

years. This would result in approximately 345 acres of surface disturbance, which could occur in 

any of the vegetation types except for riparian. This is 5 (12%) fewer wells and 48.6 (12%) fewer 

acres of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, there would be 3 wells drilled in the Monument Upwarp total for 15 years. 

This would result in approximately 30 acres of surface disturbance, which could occur in any of 

the vegetation types except for riparian. This is 4 (57%) fewer wells and 37.2 (55%) fewer acres 

of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-629 

Table 4.199. Alternative E–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations In the 

RFD Area 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 519 0 0 43 Desert shrub 59,650 0 752 13,813 9,74Invasive species and weeds 

366 0 32 432 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 52,377 71 2,660 159,248 7,09Riparian/wetland 2,935 0 0 2,444 3,14Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

13,816 21 141 35,133 31

Total 129,663 92 3,585 211,113 20,29

Table 4.200. Alternative E–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulation In the M

RFD Area 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 4,652 2 0 1,680 4Desert shrub 18,125 302 2,021 31,560 1,27Invasive species and weeds 

5 0 1 86 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 32,825 914 2,783 135,607 4,92Riparian/wetland 327 1 39 787 69
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-630 

Table 4.200. Alternative E–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulation In the M

RFD Area 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

4,428 323 119 14,532 85

Total 60,362 1,542 4,963 184,252 7,79

Table 4.201. Alternative E–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulation In the P

Fold Belt RFD Area 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 611 53 0 425 Desert shrub 1,787 11,068 0 5,942 12,22Invasive species and weeds 

495 9 0 868 8

Pinyon-juniper woodland 11,570 8,071 13 69,380 11,59Riparian/wetland 33 982 2 278 48Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

6,841 3,116 0 29,038 12

Total 21,337 23,299 15 105,931 24,52
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-631 

Under this alternative, there would be 15 wells drilled in the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt total 

for 15 years. This would result in approximately 143 acres of surface disturbance, which could 

occur in any of the vegetation types except for riparian. This is 10 (40%) fewer wells and 97 

(40%) fewer acres of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A. Compared to the 

Alternative A RFD areas, this represents a 26% reduction in expected oil and gas development 

total for 15 years and the lowest level of disturbance that would occur under any of the 

management alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Lands Available for Mineral Materials Disposal

Under this alternative, areas with non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

closed to disposal of mineral materials, which would encompass approximately 1,025,378 acres 

(58% of the planning area). Under Alternative E, 37% more acreage would be closed to disposal 

than under Alternative A. 

Lands Available for Mineral Entry

Under Alternative E, 951,053 acres of land in the Monticello FO would be open to mineral entry. 

That is 42% fewer acres than are currently open under Alternative A. There would be 834,070 

acres recommended to be withdrawn from mineral entry, which is 701,690 acres (530%) more 

than would be withdrawn from mineral entry under Alternative A. Non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics (582,360 of the 834,070 acres noted above) would be recommended 

for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Geophysical Activity

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed for geophysical exploration. 

Under Alternative E, the qualitative impacts of geophysical activity on vegetation resources 

would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. There would be approximately 591 

acres of surface disturbance associated with geophysical exploration under this alternative. That 

is approximately 33% fewer acres of disturbance than would be expected under Alternative A, 

which could result in reduced impacts to vegetation resources from the decreased acreage open 

to this form of minerals exploration. 

4.3.17.2.5.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the qualitative impacts of minerals decisions on vegetation resources 

would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. The major difference in impacts 

between the Proposed Plan and Alternative A is the reduction in acres available for management 

of oil and gas leasing and mineral material disposal with standard stipulations. Acres available 

for oil and gas leasing by vegetation type in each of the RFD areas are provided in Tables 4.156–

4.158. 

Under the Proposed Plan, there would be 42 wells drilled in the Blanding Sub-basin total for 15 

years. This would result in approximately 383 acres of surface disturbance, which could occur in 

any of the vegetation types except for riparian. 

Under the Proposed Plan, there would be 9 wells drilled in the Monument Upwarp total for 15 

years. This would result in approximately 72 acres of surface disturbance, which could occur in 

any of the vegetation types except for riparian. This is the same number of wells as under 

Alternative A but 3 (4%) more acres of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-632 

Table 4.202. Proposed Plan–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the B

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 500 0 0 61 Desert shrub 78,344 5 511 7,490 15,90Invasive species and weeds 

488 0 32 311 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 112,428 72 2,606 107,612 15,84Riparian/wetland 3,816 0 0 1,850 4,34Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

26,540 21 141 22,735 40

Total 222,116 98 3,290 140,059 36,50

Table 4.203. Proposed Plan–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the M

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 1,898 43 2 5,408 60Desert shrub 72,562 1,072 11,208 66,164 1,99Invasive species and weeds 

93 46 7 617 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 141,638 5,162 20,511 231,200 16,05Riparian/wetland 1,089 68 182 1,039 1,16
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-633 

Table 4.203. Proposed Plan–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the M

RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease Terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

11,489 163 927 28,437 1,24

Total 228,769 6,554 32,837 332,865 21,07

Table 4.204. Proposed Plan–Acreage of Each Vegetation Type by Oil and Gas Leasing Category In the P

Fold Belt RFD 

Vegetation Type Standard Lease terms Controlled Surface Use 

Controlled 

Surface use 

and Timing 

Limitations 

Timing 

Limitations 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

Conifer/mountain shrub 260 61 13 789 1Desert shrub 3,807 20,392 26,502 5,462 3,04Invasive species and weeds 

424 16 117 939 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 26,101 20,348 24,331 73,541 2,19Riparian/wetland 364 1,073 1,378 160 50Sagebrush/ perennial grass 

8,841 4,233 490 28,025 14

Total 39,797 46,123 52,831 108,916 5,90
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-634 

Under the Proposed Plan, there would be 25 wells drilled in the Paradox Fault and Fold Belt total 

for 15 years. This would result in approximately 233 acres of surface disturbance, which could 

occur in any of the vegetation types except for riparian. This is the same number of wells as 

under Alternative A but 3 (1%) fewer acres of disturbance than would occur under Alternative A. 

Across the three RFD areas, the number of wells would be the same between the Proposed Plan 

and Alternative A but there would be 11 (2%) fewer acres of disturbance under the Proposed 

Plan than under Alternative A. 

Weed Dispersal Associated with Roads 

Under the Proposed Plan, there would be fewer acres of all vegetation types subject to invasion 

by noxious weeds and invasive species than under Alternative A due to a reduction in new roads 

for oil and gas activity. The Proposed Plan would have fewer negative impacts to vegetation than 

Alternative A because there would be fewer acres subject to disturbance and potential weed 

infestation. Table 4.205 provides the percent difference in acres of roadside vegetation subject to 

weed infestation between Alternative A and the Proposed Plan by vegetation type. 

Table 4.205. Percent Difference in Acres of Roadside 

Vegetation Subject to Weed Infestation 

Vegetation Type 

Percent Difference 

Compared with 

Alternative A 

Conifer and mountain shrub 3% less 

Desert shrub 4% less 

Invasive species and noxious weeds 1% more 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 7% less 

Riparian and wetland 6% more 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland 10% more 

Total 7% less 

Lands Available for Mineral Material Disposal

Lands available for mineral material disposal would be the same under the Proposed Plan as 

under Alternative C. 

Lands Available for Mineral Entry

Under the Proposed Plan, 1,734,458 acres of land in the Monticello FO would be open to mineral 

entry. That is 81,715 more acres (5%) than are currently open under Alternative A. 

There would be 50,665 acres recommended to be withdrawn from mineral entry. That is 81,715 

acres (62%) less than are currently withdrawn from mineral entry under Alternative A. 

Geophysical Activity

Under the Proposed Plan, the qualitative impacts of geophysical activity on vegetation resources 

would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. There would be approximately 904 

acres of surface disturbance associated with geophysical exploration under the Proposed Plan. 

This is approximately 2% more acres of disturbance than would be expected under Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-635 

A, which would result in a slightly greater impacts overall, due to the increased acreage open to 

exploration. 

4.3.17.2.6. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON VEGETATION

4.3.17.2.6.1. Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, the Monticello FO would not manage the planning area for 

the preservation of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.17.2.6.2. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 582,357 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed to preserve their wilderness values. The impacts on vegetation 

resources would be beneficial in the long-term because surface disturbance related impacts to 

vegetation communities would be limited. There would be short-term and long-term indirect 

impacts to vegetation resources from preservation of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics because of prohibitions on vegetation treatments, fire treatments, and woodland 

harvesting that would maintain the risks of wildland fire and the spread of invasive species. 

4.3.17.2.6.3. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 88,871 acres would be managed for their wilderness characteristics. 

These areas would include Dark Canyon (11.540 acres), Grand Gulch (13,657 acres), Mancos 

Mesa (30,068 acres), and Nokai Dome East (18,618 acres) and Nokai Dome West (14,988 

acres). Proposed decisions to protect wilderness values would include: 1) managing the areas 

under VRM II objectives; 2) closing most units to oil and gas leasing and establishing the Dark 

Canyon unit as NSO; 3) limiting OHV use to designated roads/trails; 4) establishing units as 

ROW avoidance areas; 5) maintaining existing improvements within units; 6) unavailable for 

private and commercial wood harvest, except for onsite collection for campfires; 7) available for 

non-ground disturbing treatments; 8) not proposed for mineral withdrawal; 9) closed to mineral 

materials disposal; and 10) unavailable for coal and geothermal leasing. These proposed 

decisions would have long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation by reducing the potential for 

surface disturbances and alteration of habitat. However, because of prohibitions on vegetation 

treatments, fire treatments, and woodland harvesting the risk of wildland fire and the spread of 

invasive species would be maintained in these areas. 

4.3.17.2.7. IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

4.3.17.2.7.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, paleontology decisions that could impact vegetation resources include 

increased visitor use associated with fossil collection, which could have short-term adverse 

impacts on vegetation due to trampling. It is BLM policy that only non-mechanized tools are 

allowed for use by fossil hunters and that any surface disturbances caused by fossil collecting 

activities have negligible impacts on planning area resources. These requirements would 

minimize the adverse impacts on vegetation caused by paleontology-related surface disturbances.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-636 

4.3.17.2.7.2. Alternatives B, C, D, and E and the Proposed Plan 

Because the BLM's fossil collecting policy and resource protection stipulations would be 

applicable to the Proposed Plan and all of the proposed alternatives, the impacts of paleontology 

management decisions on vegetation resources under the Proposed Plan and action alternatives 

would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.8. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, all developed recreation sites would be 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry, closed to disposal of mineral materials, and 

open for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. In addition, grazing would be unavailable in 

developed sites and collection of woodland products would not be allowed. These requirements 

would decrease the intensity of long-term impacts on vegetation in the project area by decreasing 

the amount of surface disturbance in the SRMAs compared to other areas in the Monticello FO. 

There would, however, still be surface disturbance associated with trampling and crushing of 

vegetation by humans, horses, and vehicles. In addition, there is potential for introduction of 

weed seeds by visitors bringing clothing and equipment to the area from around the country. This 

disturbance could lead to the introduction of invasive plant species as discussed in previous 

sections. The adverse impacts of recreation decisions would be partially mitigated by the 

required reclamation of disturbed areas to meet Utah's Rangeland Health Standards (Appendix 

D). 

4.3.17.2.8.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A the impacts of recreation management decisions on vegetation resources 

would include the following impacts in addition to the qualitative impacts discussed at the 

beginning of this section. 

Under Alternative A, the Cedar Mesa SRMA (385,000 acres) would require pets to be leashed, 

camping only at campsites, and a maximum of 196 overnight visitors per day. This would reduce 

adverse impacts from surface disturbance associated with visitors. The White Canyon would not 

be identified as an SRMA under Alternative A and would have no limit on group size, camping 

location, or vehicle use. This could result in short- and long-term, adverse impacts to vegetation 

from surface disturbance. Table 4.206 lists the acreage of each vegetation type included in the 

Cedar Mesa SRMA and White Canyon SRMA. 

Table 4.206. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in the Cedar Mesa and White Canyon 

SRMAs Under the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Vegetation Type Cedar Mesa SRMA1 White Canyon 

SRMA2

Conifer/mountain shrub 213 0 

Desert shrub 105,904 289 

Invasive species and weeds 111 1 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 230,453 2,521 

Riparian/wetland 4,061 17 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-637 

Table 4.206. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in the Cedar Mesa and White Canyon 

SRMAs Under the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Vegetation Type Cedar Mesa SRMA1 White Canyon 

SRMA2

Sagebrush/perennial grassland 32,482 0 

Total 373,224 2,828 

1

Cedar Mesa SRMA would be 385,000 total acres under Alternative A and 407,098 acres under the Proposed Plan. 

2

White Canyon would not be identified as an SRMA under Alternative A. Under all other alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

White Canyon SRMA would be 2,828 acres. 

Under Alternative A, the Dark Canyon SRMA (30,820 acres) and the Indian Creek SRMA 

(89,271 acres) would be managed as part of a larger Canyon Basins SRMA (214,390 acres). 

There would be no limit on group size or vehicle use, but camping would be prohibited within 

the Indian Creek riparian corridor and limited to designated sites outside the corridor. These 

restrictions would lessen the adverse impacts of visitor traffic on native vegetation as explained 

in the above sections. However, this management would result in short- and long-term, adverse 

impacts to vegetation from surface disturbance. The size of the Dark Canyon and Indian Creek 

SRMAs would not differ under Alternatives B, C, D, E, and the Proposed Plan. In Tables 4.168 

and 4.169, the acreage of each vegetation type included in each SRMA is listed for each 

alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

Under Alternative A, the San Juan River SRMA (15,100 acres) would allow 40,000 user days 

per year and vehicle camping would not be restricted. These stipulations allow for surface 

disturbance, which could have long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation in the SRMA as 

discussed in previous sections. In Table 4.207, the total acreage of each type of vegetation for the 

San Juan River SRMA is listed for each alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

Table 4.207. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in the Dark Canyon SRMA for the 

Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Vegetation Type 

Alternative A 

(Canyon 

Basins SRMA) 

Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 2,254 391 391 391 

Desert shrub 43,765 908 908 908 

Invasive species and weeds 56 3 3 3 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 190,473 28,587 28,587 28,587 

Riparian/wetland 2,931 351 351 351 

Sagebrush/ 

perennial grass 

17,562 577 577 577 

Total 257,041 30,817 30,817 30,817 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-638 

Table 4.208. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in the Indian Creek SRMA for the 

Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Vegetation Type 

Alternative A 

(Canyon 

Basins SRMA) 

Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 2,254 198 198 198 

Desert shrub 43,765 40,818 40,818 40,818 

Invasive species and weeds 56 26 26 26 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 190,473 42,278 42,278 42,278 

Riparian/wetland 2,931 2,195 2,195 2,195 

Sagebrush/ 

perennial grass 

17,562 3,741 3,741 3,741 

Total 257,041 89,256 89,256 89,256 

Table 4.209. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in the San Juan River SRMA for the 

Proposed Plan and each Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 0 0 0 0 

Desert shrub 3,733 3,268 3,082 1,650 

Invasive species and 

weeds 

0 0 0 0 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 4,134 4,117 3,979 2,604 

Riparian/wetland 2,508 2,117 2,097 1,640 

Sagebrush/ 

perennial grass 

3 3 3 3 

Total 10,378 9,505 9,161 5,897 

4.3.17.2.8.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of recreation management decisions on vegetation resources 

would include following impacts in addition to the qualitative impacts discussed above. 

Under Alternative B, the San Juan River SRMA would include 12.5% less of the desert shrub 

vegetation type, 0.4% less pinyon-juniper woodland, and 15.6% less riparian/wetland vegetation 

than under Alternative A. There would be 30,000 user days permitted per year, which is 25% 

fewer visitors allowed per year than under Alternative A. Vehicle camping would be restricted to 

designated areas. These stipulations would allow for less surface disturbance than Alternative A, 

but there would still be long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation in the SRMA, as discussed in 

previous sections. 

The Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA would be available for livestock use and vegetation treatments, 

pets would not be allowed in canyons requiring permits, hiking and overnight camping permits 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-639 

would be limited to 25 visitors per day, and the area would be managed as VRM III and IV. 

These actions would result in a decreased level of surface disturbance compared with Alternative 

A, depending on the level of disturbance resulting from livestock use and vegetation treatments. 

Under Alternative B, the Dark Canyon SRMA would limit group sizes to 10 and 12 people 

(private and commercial, respectively), would allow 15 private visitors per day, camping would 

be allowed in designated areas only, and collection of woodland products, including deadwood 

for campfires, would be prohibited. Visitor use would result in short- and long-term, adverse 

impacts on vegetation due to surface disturbance, but to a lesser extent than under Alternative A. 

Dispersed camping would not be allowed in the Indian Creek riparian corridor and would be 

limited to designated sites elsewhere. This would result in short- and long-term, adverse impacts 

on vegetation from surface disturbance associated with visitors, but to a lesser extent than under 

Alternative A because of limited visitor and camping permits and other restrictions. 

The White Canyon SRMA would limit use through a backcountry permit system. This would 

result in short- and long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation due to surface disturbance, but to a 

lesser degree than under Alternative A due to resource protection measures. 

4.3.17.2.8.3. Alternative C and Proposed Plan 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, the impacts of recreation management decisions on 

vegetation resources would include the following impacts in addition to the qualitative impacts 

discussed above. 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, the San Juan River SRMA (see Table 4.209) would 

include 17.5% less of the desert shrub vegetation type, 3.8% less pinyon-juniper woodland, and 

16.4% less riparian/wetland vegetation than under Alternative A. There would be 40,000 user 

days per year permitted, which is the same level of visitation allowed under Alternative A. 

Vehicle camping would be restricted to designated areas. These stipulations would allow for less 

surface disturbance than Alternative A, but there would still be long-term, adverse impacts on 

vegetation in the SRMA as discussed in previous sections. 

Under Alternative C, the Cedar Mesa SRMA would be managed the same as under Alternative B 

with the following exceptions: commercial and private use of woodland products would be 

allowed and campfires would only be allowed on mesa tops. This would result in an increased 

level of surface disturbance compared with Alternatives A and B, depending on the level of 

disturbance resulting from livestock use and vegetation treatments. 

Under the Proposed Plan the Cedar Mesa SRMA would be 407,098 acres and include two 

management zones (Comb Ridge, at 30,752 acres, and McLoyd-Moonhouse at 1,607 acres). 

Management prescriptions for this area under the Proposed Plan would be similar to Alternatives 

A and B with similar impacts. 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, the Dark Canyon SRMA would be managed the 

same as Alternative B, except that group size would be limited to 18 people and 20 private 

visitors per day, which is 25% more than would be permitted under Alternative B. Camping 

would be allowed in designated areas only if and where necessary, and leashed pets would be 

allowed. This would result in reduced short- and long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation due to 

surface disturbance compared to Alternative A, but greater impacts than under Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-640 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, in the Indian Creek SRMA, dispersed camping 

would be allowed in the Indian Creek Corridor and in designated dispersed camping zones (see 

Summary Table of Alternatives). Because of these camping restrictions, this alternative would 

have fewer short- and long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation due to surface disturbance 

associated with visitors than under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, the impacts on vegetation in the White Canyon 

SRMA would be the same as under Alternative B. 

The Proposed Plan would differ from Alternative C in that it would include two additional 

SRMAs—Tank Bench (2,646 acres) and Beef Basin (20,302 acres). Providing focused recreation 

management in these areas would generally reduce adverse impacts to vegetation in these areas. 

4.3.17.2.8.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of recreation management decisions on vegetation resources 

would include the following impacts in addition to the qualitative impacts discussed above. 

Under Alternative D, the San Juan River SRMA would include 55.8% less of the desert shrub 

vegetation type, 37.0% less pinyon-juniper woodland, and 34.6% less riparian/wetland 

vegetation than under Alternative A. There would be 45,000 user days per year permitted, which 

is an increase of 5,000 user days from Alternative A. Vehicle camping would not be restricted 

within the SRMA except for the bench above Sand Island Recreation Area, which would be 

closed to camping, and camping would be closed within one-half mile of designated campsites 

area wide. These stipulations would allow for a slightly reduced amount of surface disturbance 

as would occur under Alternative A, including long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation in the 

SRMA as discussed in previous sections. 

Under Alternative D, the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA would be managed the same as under 

Alternative C with the following exception: a total of 216 overnight visitors per day would be 

permitted, which is 20 (10%) more overnight visitors than under Alternative A. This could result 

in an increased level of surface disturbance compared with Alternatives A, B, and C, depending 

on the level of disturbance resulting from livestock use and vegetation treatments. 

Under Alternative D, the Dark Canyon SRMA would have no limit on the number of private 

visitors per day and dispersed camping would be allowed in some areas. This would result in 

short- and long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation due to surface disturbance, but to a lesser 

extent than under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, management of the Indian Creek SRMA would be the same as under 

Alternative C. The White Canyon SRMA would be managed the same as under Alternative C, 

except that campfires would be allowed and there would be no permit system. There would be 

fewer short- and long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation due to surface disturbance than under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.8.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of recreation management decisions on native vegetation would 

include the following impacts in addition to those discussed under Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-641 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within proposed SRMAs would be closed to 

mineral leasing, closed to new road construction, managed under VRM I objectives, closed to 

woodland harvesting, closed to OHV use, closed to disposal of mineral materials, and proposed 

for withdrawal from mineral entry. Lands without wilderness characteristics would be managed 

as VRM III and IV. These stipulations would result in less surface disturbance than under the 

other four alternatives and the Proposed Plan, but there would still be potential for long-term, 

adverse impacts on native vegetation within the SRMAs as discussed in previous sections. 

In the Cedar Mesa SRMA, there would be special conditions on livestock use on non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. In addition, no new vegetation treatments or wildlife habitat 

improvements would be allowed in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Finally, nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as VRM Class I. These additional 

protections would result in less surface disturbance in this SRMA compared with the other four 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Vegetation resources within all of the proposed SRMAs would be impacted by the above 

mentioned stipulations to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics affected within each SRMA would be: San Juan SRMA 

(4,124 acres or 40% of the SRMA); Cedar Mesa SRMA (109,700 acres or 29% of the SRMA); 

Dark Canyon (2,522 acres or 8% of the SRMA); Indian Creek SRMA (47,393 acres or 53% of 

the SRMA); and White Canyon SRMA (2,092 acres or 74% of the SRMA). 

Overall, Alternative E would have fewer adverse impacts on native vegetation in SRMAs than 

Alternative A, the other action alternatives, and the Proposed Plan because of increased 

protections to limit surface disturbances in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.17.2.9. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

4.3.17.2.9.1. Alternatives A and D 

Under Alternatives A and D, riparian areas would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing. 

They would, however, be open to mineral entry and disposal of mineral materials, but not in 

active floodplains or within 100 m of riparian areas. Woodland product collection would be 

prohibited in riparian communities, except for ceremonial use by Native Americans. In addition, 

riparian areas would be grazed according to the Guidelines for Grazing Management to achieve 

the Standards for Rangeland Health, which require proper riparian functioning condition 

(Appendix D). The BLM would avoid degradation of habitats that could result in the loss of 

riparian vegetation. The reduction in surface disturbance associated with these restrictions would 

help decrease the establishment of noxious weeds and invasive plant species in riparian areas in 

the Monticello FO. Because livestock grazing would be allowed, there may be indirect, 

potentially adverse impacts from surface disturbance of riparian soils and vegetation associated 

with cattle hooves and improper grazing practices, in which case livestock grazing practices 

would be modified to allow the riparian system to meet and/or move towards meeting Proper 

Function Conditions (PFC) (Dobson 1973, Kauffman et al. 1983). Reduced surface disturbance 

in riparian vegetation allows the establishment of native vegetation, which facilitates proper 

riparian functioning. Vegetation treatments, including the use of mechanized or motorized 

equipment, would be allowed in riparian areas. These treatments would have both beneficial and 

adverse impacts on vegetation in riparian vegetation. Beneficial impacts would include reduction 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-642 

of weed populations and the restoration of diverse native vegetation. Adverse impacts would 

include crushing and inadvertent removal of native vegetation during the treatment process.

4.3.17.2.9.2. Alternatives B and C and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternatives B and C and the Proposed Plan the impacts of riparian management decisions 

on vegetation resources would include the following impacts in addition to those discussed in 

Alternative A. OHV routes in selected riparian areas would be closed in Functioning At Risk 

riparian areas if site-specific analysis indicates that OHV use is contributing to riparian 

degradation. Some riparian areas would be unavailable for livestock grazing, while others would 

be subject to seasonal restrictions and forage utilization limits if they are found to be Functioning 

At Risk. These restrictions would reduce the number of acres of native vegetation subject to 

potentially adverse impacts from surface disturbance in sensitive riparian areas. The Proposed 

Plan and these alternatives would be more beneficial to vegetation resources when compared to 

Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.9.3. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of riparian management decisions on vegetation resources 

would include the following impacts in addition to those discussed under Alternatives B and C 

and the Proposed Plan. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as 

closed to mineral leasing, closed to OHV use, proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry, 

ROW exclusion areas, closed to private and commercial woodland harvest, and managed as 

VRM I. These restrictions would reduce the number of acres of native vegetation subject to 

potentially adverse impacts from surface disturbance in sensitive riparian areas. Alternative E 

would be more beneficial to vegetation resources when compared to any of the management 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.17.2.10. IMPACTS OF SOILS AND WATERSHED DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

4.3.17.2.10.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, soils and watershed decisions would comply with maintenance of riparian 

preferred future condition and Guidelines for Grazing Management to achieve the Standards for 

Rangeland Health. In addition, activities in the Monticello FO would be managed to minimize 

and mitigate damage to soils, and activities located in areas with sensitive soils (i.e., saline, 

gypsiferous, or highly erodible) would be subject to site-specific NEPA (see Table 4.126 and 

4.127 in Section 4.3.13, Soils and Water Resources). These restrictions would decrease the 

number of acres in the Monticello FO subject to adverse impacts on vegetation resources 

associated with surface-disturbing activities. There would not be any slope restrictions on 

allowable disturbance under this alternative.

4.3.17.2.10.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, the impacts of soils and watershed management decisions on 

vegetation resources would include the following in addition to impacts discussed under 

Alternative A. Surface-disturbing activities would not be permitted on slopes greater than 40%. 

This would exclude 87,456 acres (approximately 5%) of land in the Monticello FO from 

potential development, which would eliminate adverse impacts from surface disturbance on 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-643 

vegetation growing on slopes greater than 40%. As a result, actions associated with this 

alternative would have fewer adverse impacts on vegetation resources than Alternative A. If 

surface-disturbing activities cannot be avoided on slopes between 21% and 40%, a plan 

including an erosion control strategy and a BLM-approved survey and design would be required. 

The acres of each vegetation type located in areas where the slopes are greater than 40% or 21% 

to 40% are provided in Table 4.210. 

Table 4.210. Acres of Each Vegetation Type by Slope Steepness 

Category

Vegetation Type Acres of slopes 

>40% 

Acres of slopes 

21%–40% 

Conifer/mountain shrub 1,323 2,662

Desert shrub 6,391 27,473

Invasive species and weeds 43 213

Pinyon-juniper woodland 77,332 180,954

Riparian/wetland 683 1,461

Sagebrush/ 

perennial grassland 

1,684 5,533

Total 87,456 218,296

4.3.17.2.10.3. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, the impacts of soils and watershed management 

decisions on vegetation resources would include the following impacts in addition to those 

discussed under Alternative A. Surface-disturbing activities would not be permitted on slopes 

greater than 40% unless it is determined that it would cause undue or unnecessary degradation to 

pursue other placement alternatives. Therefore, surface disturbance allowed under this alternative 

could cause direct and indirect adverse impacts on native vegetation on up to 87,456 acres of 

steep slopes in the Monticello FO. If surface-disturbing activities cannot be avoided on slopes 

between 21% and 40%, a plan including an erosion control strategy and a BLM-approved survey 

and design would be required. Therefore, the actions associated with this alternative would have 

fewer adverse impacts on vegetation resources than Alternatives A and D, but greater adverse 

impacts than Alternative B. 

4.3.17.2.10.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of soils and watershed management decisions on vegetation 

resources would require a plan including an erosion control strategy and a BLM-approved survey 

and design for development of land with slopes greater than 40%. The required erosion and 

design plan would help mitigate the adverse impacts of surface disturbance on vegetation 

resources located in and downslope of steep development areas. Therefore, this alternative would 

have fewer adverse impacts on vegetation resources than Alternative A, but greater adverse 

impacts than Alternatives B and C. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-644 

4.3.17.2.11. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) would be 

managed according to the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review. All WSAs would be managed under VRM Class I objectives, which would 

indirectly minimize the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on vegetation resources 

by preserving high scenic quality and prohibiting surface disturbances and structures that would 

degrade VRM I scenic quality (see Section 4.3.18, Visual Resources). 

4.3.17.2.11.1. Alternative A 

Alkali Ridge (39,202 acres)

Under Alternative A, this ACEC would be open for mineral leasing with special conditions, open 

for geophysical work, available for mineral materials disposal, and open to mineral entry. It 

would also be available for woodland product collection, surface-disturbing land treatments, 

range and wildlife habitat improvements, livestock grazing, and OHV use on existing roads and 

trails. The allowance of these surface-disturbing activities in the ACEC would have both 

beneficial and adverse impacts on vegetation resources. Land and vegetation treatments would 

have adverse impacts on vegetation in the short-term due to trampling or removal of individual 

plants. In the long-term, however, these treatments would help to reestablish native vegetation 

communities in the ACEC. As discussed in Section 4.3.17.1, Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives and the Proposed Plan, other surface-disturbing activities allowed in the ACEC 

would have adverse impacts on vegetation resources. The acres of each vegetation type in Alkali 

Ridge by alternative and the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 4.211. 

Table 4.211. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Alkali Ridge by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

 B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 1 1 1 N/A 

Desert shrub 864 864 864 N/A 

Invasive species and weeds 24 24 24 N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 31,766 31,760 31,760 N/A 

Riparian/wetland 357 357 357 N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 5,153 5,153 5,153 N/A 

Total 38,165 38,159 38,159 N/A 

Bridger Jack Mesa (6,260 acres)

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC, which is managed for near relict vegetation value, would be closed to 

mineral leasing, mineral disposal, livestock grazing, OHV use, woodland product collection, and 

land and vegetation treatments. However, the ACEC would be available for geophysical work 

and open to locatable mineral entry. The restricted surface-disturbing activities listed above 

would help to mitigate adverse impacts from authorized surface disturbance. The acres of each 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-645 

vegetation type in Bridger Jack Mesa by alternative and the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 

4.212. 

Table 4.212. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Bridger Jack Mesa by Proposed Plan 

and Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 134 133 N/A N/A 

Desert shrub 9 8 N/A N/A 

Invasive species and weeds 0 0 N/A N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 5,969 5,934 N/A N/A 

Riparian/wetland 3 3 N/A N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 147 71 N/A N/A 

Total 6,2621 6,149 N/A N/A 

1

 Acres of each vegetation type were determined using the Southwest ReGAP terrestrial ecological classification system (USGS 

2004). Because vegetation types may overlap or be overestimated in the SWReGAP coverages, total acres of vegetation may 

exceed the total acres of the area being analyzed.

Butler Wash North (17,464 acres)

This ACEC would be managed with similar restrictions to Bridger Jack Mesa. However, since 

Butler Wash North is within a WSA surface-disturbing vegetation treatments, otherwise allowed, 

would be prohibited. The acres of each vegetation type in Butler Wash North by alternative and 

the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 4.213. 

Table 4.213. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Butler Wash North by Proposed Plan 

and Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 46 46 N/A N/A 

Desert shrub 61 61 N/A N/A 

Invasive species and weeds 0 0 N/A N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 16,602 16,506 N/A N/A 

Riparian/wetland 30 28 N/A N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 725 725 N/A N/A 

Total 17,4641 17,366 N/A N/A 

1

 Acres of each vegetation type were determined using the Southwest ReGAP terrestrial ecological classification system (USGS 

2004). Because vegetation types may overlap or be overestimated in the SWReGAP coverages, total acres of vegetation may 

exceed the total acres of the area being analyzed.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-646 

Cedar Mesa (295,337 acres)

This ACEC would be managed with the same restrictions as Alkali Ridge; therefore, impacts 

would be the same. The acres of each vegetation type in Cedar Mesa by alternative and the 

Proposed Plan are presented in Table 4.214. 

Table 4.214. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Cedar Mesa by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 211 212 N/A N/A 

Desert shrub 79,672 55,874 N/A N/A 

Invasive species and weeds 95 109 N/A N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 183,115 212,775 N/A N/A 

Riparian/wetland 3,615 3,588 N/A N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 26,949 31,679 N/A N/A 

Total 293,657 304,237 N/A N/A 

Dark Canyon (61,660 acres)

This ACEC would be managed with similar restrictions to Bridger Jack Mesa except that the 

area would be subject to conditional fire suppression, with motorized suppression methods used 

only if necessary to protect life or property. Therefore, there would be a minimal difference in 

surface disturbance impacts between Dark Canyon and Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC. The acres of 

each vegetation type in Dark Canyon by alternative and the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 

4.215. 

Table 4.215. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Dark Canyon by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 543 543 N/A N/A 

Desert shrub 1,892 1,892 N/A N/A 

Invasive species and weeds 9 9 N/A N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 56,966 56,966 N/A N/A 

Riparian/wetland 354 354 N/A N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 1,896 1,896 N/A N/A 

Total 61,6601 61,6601 N/A N/A 

1

 Acres of each vegetation type were determined using the Southwest ReGAP terrestrial ecological classification system (USGS 

2004). Because vegetation types may overlap or be overestimated in the SWReGAP coverages, total acres of vegetation may 

exceed the total acres of the area being analyzed.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-647 

Hovenweep (1,796 acres)

Hovenweep ACEC would be open for mineral leasing (NSO in the visual emphasis zone, special 

conditions elsewhere), geophysical work, mineral entry, livestock grazing, OHV use on roads 

and trails, and vegetation treatments in most areas. It would be closed to mineral materials 

disposal and vegetation treatments in the 880 acre visual protective zone. The surface-disturbing 

activities allowed in this ACEC would have adverse impacts on vegetation resources as 

discussed in Section 4.3.17.1, Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Restrictions on mineral materials disposal and vegetation treatments would have beneficial 

impacts on vegetation resources in this ACEC, and would help mitigate adverse impacts from 

authorized surface-disturbing activities. The acres of each vegetation type in Hovenweep by 

alternative and the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 4.216. 

Table 4.216. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Hovenweep by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 0 0 0 N/A 

Desert shrub 305 392 392 N/A 

Invasive species and weeds 2 2 2 N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 486 813 813 N/A 

Riparian/wetland 4 4 4 N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 998 1,198 1,198 N/A 

Total 1,795 2,409 2,409 N/A 

Indian Creek (8,510 acres)

This ACEC would be managed with the same restrictions as Bridger Jack Mesa except that 

livestock use would be allowed and mineral leasing would be subject to NSO restrictions. 

Therefore, surface disturbance impacts on vegetation resources would be greater than in the 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC. The acres of each vegetation type in Indian Creek by alternative and 

the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 4.217. 

Table 4.217. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Indian Creek by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 0 0 0 N/A 

Desert shrub 4,710 4,710 2,289 N/A 

Invasive species and weeds 0 0 0 N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 3,222 3,222 1,317 N/A 

Riparian/wetland 577 577 298 N/A 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-648 

Table 4.217. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Indian Creek by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 0 0 0 N/A 

Total 8,509 8,509 3,904 N/A 

Lockhart Basin (0 acres)

This area is not managed as an ACEC under Alternative A. The acres of each vegetation type in 

Lockhart Basin by alternative and the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 4.218. 

Table 4.218. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Lockhart Basin by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub N/A 0 N/A N/A 

Desert shrub N/A 25,317 N/A N/A 

Invasive species and weeds N/A 125 N/A N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland N/A 20,340 N/A N/A 

Riparian/wetland N/A 1,556 N/A N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass N/A 154 N/A N/A 

Total N/A 47,492 N/A N/A

Lavender Mesa (649 acres)

This ACEC would be managed with the same restrictions as Bridger Jack Mesa; therefore, 

impacts would be the same. The acres of each vegetation type in Lavender Mesa by alternative 

and the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 4.219. 

Table 4.219. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Lavender Mesa by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 11 11 11 N/A 

Desert shrub 0 0 0 N/A 

Invasive species and weeds 0 0 0 N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 499 499 499 N/A 

Riparian/wetland 0 0 0 N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 139 139 139 N/A 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-649 

Table 4.219. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Lavender Mesa by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Total 649 649 649 N/A

Shay Canyon (3,561 acres)

This ACEC would be managed with the same restrictions as Alkali Ridge with one exception: 

woodland product collection would not be allowed. This would reduce the adverse impacts of 

permitting surface-disturbing activities in the ACEC. The acres of each vegetation type in Shay 

Canyon by alternative and the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 4.220.

Table 4.220. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Shay Canyon by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 11 0 0 N/A 

Desert shrub 1 0 0 N/A 

Invasive species and weeds 0 0 0 N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 3,057 98 98 N/A 

Riparian/wetland 247 20 20 N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 245 2 2 N/A 

Total 3,561 120 120 N/A

San Juan River (0 acres)

Under Alternative A, this area is managed as an SRMA. The acres of each vegetation type in San 

Juan River by alternative and the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 4.221. 

Table 4.221. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in San Juan River by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub N/A 0 0 N/A 

Desert shrub N/A 1,650 971 N/A 

Invasive species and weeds N/A 0 0 N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland N/A 2,604 1,562 N/A 

Riparian/wetland N/A 1,640 1,380 N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass N/A 3 3 N/A 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-650 

Table 4.221. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in San Juan River by Proposed Plan and 

Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Total N/A 5,897 3,916 N/A

Valley of the Gods (0 acres)

This area is managed as special emphasis area for scenic value within the Cedar Mesa ACEC 

under Alternative A. The acres of each vegetation type in Valley of the Gods by alternative and 

the Proposed Plan are presented in Table 4.222. 

Table 4.222. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in Valley of the Gods by Proposed Plan 

and Alternative 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternative C 

and Proposed 

Plan 

Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub N/A 0 0 N/A 

Desert shrub N/A 21,383 21,383 N/A 

Invasive species and weeds N/A 0 0 N/A 

Pinyon-juniper woodland N/A 1,395 1,395 N/A 

Riparian/wetland N/A 81 81 N/A 

Sagebrush/perennial grass N/A 0 0 N/A 

Total N/A 22,859 22,859 N/A

4.3.17.2.11.2. Alternative B 

Alkali Ridge (39,196 acres)

Under Alternative B, this ACEC would be 4 acres (0.01%) smaller than under Alternative A. It 

would be open for mineral leasing with standard stipulations and livestock grazing, but it would 

not be open to woodland product collection or surface-disturbing land treatments. The adverse 

impacts of this alternative on vegetation resources would be less than those under Alternative A 

because of the reduction in allowable surface-disturbing activities. 

Bridger Jack Mesa (6,219 acres)

Under Alternative B, this ACEC would be 41 acres (0.7%) smaller than under Alternative A. As 

a result, the impacts of management decisions pertaining to surface disturbance would be 

approximately the same as those discussed for Alternative A. 

Butler Wash North (17,365 acres)

Under Alternative B, this ACEC would be 98 acres (0.7%) smaller than under Alternative A. 

There would be 1 less acre of desert shrub vegetation, 94 fewer acres of pinyon-juniper 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-651 

woodland vegetation, and 2 fewer acres of riparian vegetation than under Alternative A. Because 

the acreage is slightly reduced between Alternatives A and B, the impacts of management 

decisions pertaining to surface disturbance would be slightly greater than those discussed for 

Alternative A. 

Cedar Mesa (306,743 acres)

Under Alternative B, this ACEC would be 11,406 acres (3.9%) larger than under Alternative A. 

There would be 1 additional acre of conifer/mountain shrub vegetation, 23,799 fewer acres of 

desert shrub vegetation, 14 additional acres of invasive species and weeds vegetation, 26,660 

additional acres of pinyon-juniper woodland vegetation, and 4,731 additional acres of riparian 

vegetation than under Alternative A. This ACEC would be managed with the same restrictions as 

under Alternative A with the following exceptions: it would be closed to dispersed camping and 

collection of woodland products. These surface disturbance restrictions, plus the increased size 

of the ACEC under this alternative, would decrease the magnitude and extent of adverse impacts 

on vegetation resources compared to Alternative A. One exception would be the loss of 23,799 

acres of desert shrub vegetation, which would lead to an increased risk of surface-disturbing, 

adverse impacts on native vegetation in this vegetation type compared to Alternative A.

Dark Canyon (61,659 acres)

This ACEC would be the same size and be managed with the same restrictions as under 

Alternative A with the following exceptions: vegetation treatments with minimal surface 

disturbance would be allowed. The allowance of vegetation treatments would have beneficial 

impacts on native vegetation in the ACEC. 

Hovenweep (2,412 acres)

Under this alternative, this ACEC would be 616 acres (34%) larger than under Alternative A. 

There would be 87 more acres of desert shrub vegetation, 327 more acres of pinyon-juniper 

woodland vegetation, and 200 more acres of riparian vegetation than under Alternative A. This 

ACEC would be managed with the same restrictions as under Alternative A except that 

vegetation treatments would not be allowed. This would reduce beneficial impacts on native 

vegetation by failing to improve vegetation resources in the ACEC. The larger size of the ACEC, 

however, would provide protection for more acres of native vegetation than under Alternative A. 

Overall, this alternative would have fewer negative impacts on vegetation resources than 

Alternative A.

Indian Creek (8,510 acres)

Under Alternative B, this ACEC would be approximately the same size as under Alternative A. 

The ACEC would be managed with the same restrictions as under Alternative A except that 

dispersed camping would not be allowed. This would help mitigate adverse impacts of camping 

on native vegetation in the ACEC. Overall, this Alternative would have fewer negative impacts 

on vegetation resources in Indian Creek than Alternative A because of the decreased level of 

surface disturbance associated with the prohibition of dispersed camping. 

Lockhart Basin (47,783 acres) 

This ACEC would be open for mineral leasing with NSO, geophysical work, and livestock 

grazing. It would be closed to mineral disposal and woodland product collection. These 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-652 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities would reduce adverse impacts on vegetation 

resources in this ACEC. Because this area would not be designated as an ACEC under 

Alternative A, Alternative B would have fewer adverse impacts on vegetation resources because 

of restrictions to surface-disturbing activities with ACEC designation. 

Lavender Mesa (649 acres)

Under Alternative B, this ACEC would be the same size and managed with the same restrictions 

as under Alternative A except that vegetation treatments with minimal surface disturbance would 

be allowed. Overall, the allowance of vegetation treatments would have beneficial impacts on 

native vegetation in the ACEC because treatments would reduce the cover of weedy species and 

restore native plant species diversity. 

Shay Canyon (119 acres)

Under Alternative B, this ACEC would be 3,442 acres (97%) smaller than under Alternative A. 

There would be 11 fewer acres of conifer/mountain shrub habitat, 1 less acre of desert shrub 

habitat, 2,959 fewer acres of pinyon-juniper woodland vegetation, 227 fewer acres of riparian 

vegetation, and 243 fewer acres of sagebrush/perennial grassland vegetation than under 

Alternative A. This ACEC would be managed with the same restrictions as under Alternative A 

with the following exceptions: no surface-disturbing vegetation treatments, NSO oil and gas 

management, grazing on trails only, and closed to mineral materials disposal. These restrictions 

on surface-disturbing activities would reduce adverse impacts on vegetation resources and would 

help mitigate adverse impacts from authorized surface-disturbing activities. Overall, this 

alternative would adversely impact more acres of vegetation resources in Shay Canyon than 

would occur under Alternative A. 

San Juan River (7,590 acres)

Under this alternative, the San Juan River area would be managed as an ACEC and would be 

open for mineral leasing with NSO, seasonal livestock use, vegetation treatments, and OHV use 

on roads and trails. The surface-disturbing activities allowed in the ACEC would have adverse 

impacts on vegetation resources as discussed under Alternative A. San Juan River would be 

closed to mineral disposal, mineral entry, and woodland product collection. Restrictions on 

surface disturbance would reduce adverse impacts on vegetation resources and would help 

mitigate adverse impacts from authorized surface-disturbing activities. Although this ACEC 

would be smaller than the San Juan River SRMA proposed under Alternative A, there would be 

fewer adverse impacts on vegetation resources resulting from increased restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities associated with ACEC designation. 

Valley of the Gods (22,863 acres)

Under this alternative, the Valley of the Gods area would be managed as an ACEC. It would be 

managed as VRM I, closed for mineral leasing and disposal of mineral materials, available for 

livestock use and vegetation treatments, and closed to woodland product use. These surfacedisturbing activities would have adverse impacts on vegetation resources as discussed under 

Alternative A. Restrictions on surface disturbance would reduce adverse impacts on vegetation 

resources and would help mitigate adverse impacts from authorized surface-disturbing activities. 

Although this ACEC would be smaller than the special emphasis area within the Cedar Mesa 

ACEC proposed under Alternative A, there would be fewer adverse impacts on vegetation 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-653 

resources resulting from increased restrictions on surface-disturbing activities under this 

alternative. 

Summary

Overall, there would be fewer adverse impacts on vegetation resources in ACECs under 

Alternative B than under Alternative A. This is because of the increase in the number of acres 

designated as ACECs and a reduction in allowable surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.17.2.11.3. Alternative C 

Alkali Ridge, Hovenweep, Indian Creek, Shay Canyon, and Valley of the Gods

Under this alternative, these ACECs would be the same size as under Alternative B and the 

impacts of management decisions pertaining to surface disturbance would be the same as those 

discussed for Alternative B. 

Bridger Jack Mesa, Butler Wash North, Dark Canyon, and Lockhart Basin

Under Alternative C, these areas would not be managed as ACECs. Therefore, the management 

decisions under Alternatives A and B would have fewer adverse impacts on fewer acres of native 

vegetation than under this alternative. 

Cedar Mesa (306,742 acres)

Under Alternative C, this area would not be managed as an ACEC. Cedar Mesa would be 

managed as a C-SRMA, which provides fewer protective measures for soil and vegetation. 

Therefore, the management decisions under Alternatives A and B would have fewer adverse 

impacts on fewer acres of native vegetation than under this alternative. 

Lavender Mesa (649 acres)

Under this alternative, these ACECs would be the same size as under Alternative A, and would 

be managed with the same restrictions. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the 

same as those discussed in Alternative A. 

San Juan River (7,590 acres)

Under Alternative C, the San Juan River ACEC would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Impacts of management decisions pertaining to surface disturbance would be the same as those 

discussed for Alternative B. 

Summary

Overall, there would be greater adverse impacts on vegetation resources in the ACECs and other 

areas under Alternative C than under Alternative A. This is because of the decrease in the 

number of acres designated as ACECs and the increase in allowable surface-disturbing activities 

compared to Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-654 

4.3.17.2.11.4. Alternative D 

Alkali Ridge, Bridger Jack Mesa, Butler Wash North, Cedar Mesa, Dark Canyon, Hovenweep, 

Indian Creek, Lockhart Basin, Lavender Mesa, Shay Canyon, San Juan River, and Valley of the 

Gods

Under this alternative, these areas would not be managed as ACECs. Therefore, management 

decisions under Alternatives A, B, and C would have fewer adverse impacts on fewer acres of 

native vegetation than under Alternative D. 

Overall, there would be greater adverse impacts on vegetation resources in ACECs and other 

areas under this alternative than under Alternative A. This is because of the decrease in the 

number of acres designated as ACECs and the increase in allowable surface-disturbing activities 

compared to Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.11.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of special designations management decisions on native 

vegetation would be the same those discussed under Alternative B with the following exceptions. 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to preserve their wilderness 

values. Preservation stipulations would include management under VRM I objectives, no 

minerals leasing, no off-route OHV travel, no new road construction, no mineral materials 

disposal, and no firewood gathering or harvesting. These stipulations would have additional 

long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation resources by restricting surface disturbances to a 

greater degree than those discussed under Alternative B. The areas of vegetation resources within 

the proposed ACECs that would be beneficially affected include: 0.1% of Bridger Jack Mesa, 

0.2% of Butler Wash, 20% of Cedar Mesa, 0.5% of Dark Canyon, 46% of Indian Creek, 100% of 

Lavender Mesa, 45% of Lockhart Basin, 28% of San Juan River, 83% of Shay Canyon, and 91% 

of the Valley of the Gods. 

Management of these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would decrease surface 

disturbance within the above ACECs, which would provide more beneficial protection to 

vegetation resources when compared to Alternative A, the other action alternatives, and the 

Proposed Plan. 

4.3.17.2.11.6. Proposed Plan 

Alkali Ridge, Hovenweep, Indian Creek, Shay Canyon, and Valley of the Gods

Under the Proposed Plan, these ACECs would be the same size as under Alternative B. The 

impacts of management decisions pertaining to surface disturbance would be similar to those 

discussed for Alternative B with minor modifications described in the Summary Table of 

Alternatives and the Proposed Plan (Table 2.1). 

Bridger Jack Mesa, Butler Wash North, Dark Canyon, and Lockhart Basin

Under the Proposed Plan, these areas would not be managed as ACECs. Therefore, the 

management decisions under Alternatives A and B would have fewer adverse impacts on fewer 

acres of native vegetation than under the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-655 

Cedar Mesa (375,739 acres)

Under the Proposed Plan, this area would not be managed as an ACEC. Cedar Mesa would be 

managed as an SRMA, which provides fewer protective measures for soil and vegetation. 

Therefore, the management decisions under Alternatives A and B would have fewer adverse 

impacts on fewer acres of native vegetation than under the Proposed Plan. 

Lavender Mesa (649 acres)

Under the Proposed Plan, this ACEC would be the same size as under Alternative A and it would 

be managed with similar protective restrictions. Therefore, impacts to vegetation would be the 

same as Alternative A. 

San Juan River (4,321 acres)

Under the Proposed Plan, the San Juan River ACEC would be 3,269 acres (43%) smaller than 

under Alternatives B and E. Impacts of management decisions pertaining to surface disturbance 

would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B but decreased given the lesser acreage of 

the ACEC. 

Summary

Overall, there would be greater adverse impacts on vegetation resources in the ACECs and other 

areas under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative A. This is because of the decrease in the 

number of acres designated as ACECs and the increase in allowable surface-disturbing activities 

compared to Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.12. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

4.3.17.2.12.1. Alternative A 

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act and BLM Manual 6840 requires avoiding and/or 

minimizing surface-disturbing activities in Threatened and Endangered species habitat. In 

addition, both the BLM's Guidance for the Management of Sagebrush Plant Communities for 

Sage-grouse Conservation and BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 

would be implemented in suitable habitat in the Monticello FO (4,546 acres of sagebrush 

vegetation). An additional 320 acres of suitable Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat would be 

managed as a conservation easement to protect and enhance their habitat. Adherence to these 

plans would have beneficial impacts on vegetation resources in the Monticello FO. 

There would be no ground disturbing activities allowed within a 0.5 mile radius of known Bald 

Eagle or Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) nests, which would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

sagebrush vegetation in those buffer zones. MSO Protected Activity Centers (PACs) would be 

protected as outlined in the MSO Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995). MSO Designated Critical 

Habitat and suitable habitat would be avoided or use restrictions would be implemented. Within 

suitable habitat, these would include staying on designated routes or revegetating access routes 

created by a project, which would help mitigate the adverse impacts of surface disturbance 

associated with road construction and/or use on vegetation. 

In Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and endangered Colorado River 

fishes riparian habitat, there would be no surface-disturbing activities within 300 feet of riparian 

habitat, which would have long-term beneficial impacts on riparian vegetation in those buffer 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-656 

zones. If oil and gas operations require stream crossing, Utah Oil and Gas Pipeline Crossing 

Guidance would be followed to help mitigate negative impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

associated with pipeline crossing (Appendix F). 

If California condors nest in the Monticello FO, there would be no surface-disturbing activities 

allowed within 1 mile of the nest, which would have long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation 

in those buffer zones. 

4.3.17.2.12.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of special status species management decisions on vegetation 

resources would include the following management in addition to that discussed under 

Alternative A. For Gunnison Sage-grouse, year-round critical habitat would be designated on 

4,524 acres of the sagebrush vegetation on BLM land in the Monticello FO (see Map 74). In lek 

habitat (2.0 mile radius of an active strutting ground), there would be no surface-disturbing 

activities allowed, with the exception of seasonal grazing. These restrictions would help mitigate 

the adverse impacts of seasonal grazing on vegetation resources in lek habitat. Within 6 miles of 

lek habitat, sagebrush treatments, oil and gas leasing with standard stipulations, and year-round 

grazing would be allowed (except seasonally in Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage-grouse, and 

Dry Farm). Sagebrush treatments would mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing 

activities on vegetation resources within the 6 mile lek habitat buffer. 

Under this alternative, MSO and flannelmouth sucker habitat in Arch Canyon would be closed to 

OHV use and have a maximum group size of 10 people per day. These restrictions would reduce 

the surface disturbance in Arch Canyon associated with human visitation more than under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.12.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of special status species management decisions on vegetation 

resources would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B, except lek habitat would be 

defined as within 0.60 miles of an active strutting ground. Grazing would be permitted yearround. Construction of power lines would be permitted within year-round Gunnison Sage-grouse 

habitat. The potential increase in grazing in and around sage-grouse leks and other potential 

surface-disturbing activities within year-round habitats would result in greater adverse impacts 

on vegetation resources than under Alternative B but fewer impacts than under Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, MSO and flannelmouth sucker habitat in Arch Canyon would have OHV 

use limited to designated routes to the end of the State Section (closed from there to the end of 

the National Forest boundary), and have a maximum group size of 12 people per day. These 

restrictions would reduce surface disturbance in Arch Canyon associated with human visitation 

more than under Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.12.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, special status species management decisions on vegetation resources would 

include the following impacts in addition to those discussed in Alternative A. For Gunnison 

Sage-grouse, year-round critical habitat would be designated on 2,877 acres of BLM land in the 

Monticello FO (see Map 76). In lek habitat (within 0.25 miles of an active strutting ground), 

there would be no surface-disturbing activities allowed, with the exception of seasonal grazing. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-657 

These restrictions would help mitigate the adverse impacts of seasonal grazing on vegetation 

resources in lek habitat. Within 6 miles of lek habitat, sagebrush treatments, fence construction, 

oil and gas leasing with standard stipulations, and year-round grazing would be allowed (except 

seasonally in Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage-grouse, and Dry Farm). Sagebrush treatments 

would help mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on vegetation resources 

within the 6 mile lek habitat buffer. The reduced area of protected habitats and allowances for 

surface-disturbing activities would result in greater adverse impacts on vegetation resources 

under Alternative D than would occur under any of the other alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Under this alternative, MSO and flannelmouth sucker habitat in Arch Canyon would have OHV 

use limited to designated routes and have a maximum group size of 12 people per day. These 

restrictions would reduce surface disturbance in Arch Canyon associated with human visitation 

more than under Alternative A but less than Alternatives B and C. 

4.3.17.2.12.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of special status species management decisions on vegetation 

resources would be the same as discussed under Alternative B with the following additions. NonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as closed to mineral leasing, 

closed to OHV use, proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry, ROW exclusion area, closed to 

disposal of mineral materials, closed to private and commercial woodland harvest, and managed 

as VRM I. Management of these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would decrease 

surface disturbance to vegetation within these areas, and would thereby provide more beneficial 

protection to vegetation resources than any of the other management alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan. 

4.3.17.2.12.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of special status species management decisions on 

vegetation resources would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B, except that 

within 0.6 miles of active sage-grouse strutting grounds oil and gas leasing would be subject to 

no surface occupancy restrictions. Furthermore, the construction of power lines, wind power 

turbines, or other above ground structures would be avoided rather than prohibited within 4 miles 

of active Gunnison Sage-grouse strutting grounds from May 16 to March 19. Overall, special 

status species decisions in the Proposed Plan would result in fewer impacts to vegetation than 

under Alternative A due to greater restrictions placed on surface-disturbing activities. 

Under the Proposed Plan, MSO and flannelmouth sucker habitat in Arch Canyon would have 

OHV use limited to designated routes up to the National Forest boundary. There would not be 

any group size limits on non-mechanized, non-motorized group size. These decisions are the 

same as Alternative A and therefore the impacts would be the same. 

4.3.17.2.13. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

4.3.17.2.13.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, any new trail designations would consider sensitive species habitat, which 

would reduce surface-disturbing activities in critical native vegetation. In addition, National 

Scenic Byways and Backways would be designated in the Monticello FO. These roads already 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-658 

exist, so there is not likely to be an appreciable impact on vegetation resources resulting from 

these designations. 

A number of trails would be managed for non-mechanized travel (see Summary Table of 

Alternatives and the Proposed Plan – Table 2.1). Because these trails are already established, 

there is not likely to be an appreciable impact on vegetation resources resulting from trail 

maintenance. There would also be trails and areas open to OHV use under all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan. OHV use can cause an increased level of surface disturbance because of the 

weight of the machines and speed of travel. This surface disturbance would have short- and longterm direct and indirect impacts on vegetation resources in the Monticello FO, as discussed in 

previous sections. 

Under Alternative A, the impact of travel management decisions on vegetation resources would 

include the following additional impacts: There are a total of 611,310 acres open to OHV use 

under this alternative, which is more than under any of the other alternatives and the Proposed 

Plan. Further, 540,260 acres would be limited to designated routes subject to seasonal 

restrictions, 570,390 acres would be limited to existing roads and trails, and 218,780 would be 

limited to designated roads and trails (1,329,430 total acres). 

This alternative would have 276,430 acres closed to OHV use, which is more than Alternative D, 

but less than Alternatives B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan. These closures would reduce 

adverse impacts on native vegetation in these protected areas by eliminating surface disturbance 

associated with OHV use. A list of closed areas is located in the Summary Table of Alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan. Closed areas include some ACECs and vegetation study areas. This 

action helps protect ecologically important vegetation communities from surface disturbance and 

weed introduction associated with OHV use. In Tables 4.184–4.186, the acreage closed to OHV, 

acreage of limited OHV use, and acres open to OHV use are listed by vegetation type for each 

alternative and the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-659 

Table 4.223. Acreage of Closed OHV Use for All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative 

Conifer/mountain shrub 856 1,074 1,074 0 0 Desert shrub 53,097 69,957 67,238 0 251,680 Invasive species and weeds 

159 236 235 0 0 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 

218,188 317,500 315,524 0 648,062 

Riparian/wetland 3,524 3,977 3,676 0 8,779 Sagebrush/perennial grass 

12,256 30,838 30,802 0 57,050 

Total 288,0801 423,582 418,549 0 965,571 1 Acres of each vegetation type were determined using the Southwest ReGAP terrestrial ecological classification system (USGS 2004). Because vegetation types overestimated in the SWReGAP coverages, total acres of vegetation may exceed the total acres of the area being analyzed. Furthermore, acreage numbers of eaappear under Alternative A in the Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan were based on the 1991 San Juan RMP. Acreage numbers for calculatiocoverages generated between approval of the 1991 San Juan RMP and the completion of this document. 

Table 4.224. Acreage of Limited OHV Use for All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative 

Conifer/mountain shrub 3,236 9,728 9,728 10,802 8,Desert shrub 218,564 350,720 351,592 418,829 168,Invasive species and weeds 

1,284 3,154 3,154 3,390 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 

572,435 828,766 830,534 1,145,957 498,

Riparian/wetland 6,302 16,458 16,623 20,300 11,Sagebrush/perennial grass 

88,073 134,739 134,770 165,571 108,

Total 889,8941 1,343,565 1,346,401 1,764,849 795,1 Acres of each vegetation type were determined using the Southwest ReGAP terrestrial ecological classification system (USGS 2004). Because vegetation types overestimated in the SWReGAP coverages, total acres of vegetation may exceed the total acres of the area being analyzed. Furthermore, acreage numbers of eaappear under Alternative A in the Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan were based on the 1991 San Juan RMP. Acreage numbers for calculatiocoverages generated between approval of the 1991 San Juan RMP and the completion of this document. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-660 

Table 4.225. Acres Open to OHV Use for All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternatives 

B and E 

Alternatives C 

and D Proposed Plan 

Conifer/mountain shrub 6,709 0 0 0

Desert shrub 150,188 0 1,847 0

Invasive species and weeds 1,986 0 0 0

Pinyon-juniper woodland 356,773 0 321 0

Riparian/wetland 10,870 0 135 0

Sagebrush/perennial grass 65,782 0 6 0

Total 592,308 0 2,309 0

4.3.17.2.13.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternatives B and E, the impacts of travel management decisions on vegetation resources 

would include the following in addition to the qualitative impacts discussed in Alternative A. 

There are no acres open to OHV use under these alternatives, which is 100% less (611,310 acres) 

than under Alternative A. 

In total, there are 600,377 more acres of OHV use limited to designated routes under Alternative 

B than under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 201% more conifer/mountain shrub vegetation, 

60% more desert shrub, 146% more invasive weed vegetation, 45% more pinyon-juniper 

woodland, 161% more riparian/wetland vegetation, and 53% more sagebrush/perennial grassland 

vegetation would have OHV use limited to designated routes. 

Alternative B would close 423,698 acres to OHV use, which is 147,268 acres (53%) more than 

under Alternative A. Alternative E would close 970,436 acres to OHV use, which is 694,006 

acres (251%) more than under Alternative A. Table 4.226 provides the percent difference in 

acres closed to OHV use in each vegetation type between Alternatives A and B and Alternatives 

A and E. 

Table 4.226. Percent Difference Acres Closed to OHV Use 

between Alternative A and Alternative B 

Vegetation Type 

Percent difference of 

Alternative B Compared 

with Alternative A 

Conifer and mountain shrub 25% 

Desert shrub 32% 

Invasive species and noxious weeds 48% 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 46% 

Riparian and wetland 13% 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland 152% 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-661 

These closures and limitations would decrease the adverse impacts of this alternative on native 

vegetation by reducing surface disturbance associated with OHV use. A list of closed areas is 

located in the Summary Table of Alternatives. Closed areas include vegetation study areas, some 

SRMAs, some CSMAs, and some WSAs. These closures would protect more acres of 

ecologically important vegetation communities from the surface disturbance and weed spread 

associated with OHV use than Alternative A. The impacts of management decisions under these 

alternatives are comparable to the impacts of Alternative C. There are fewer acres of native 

vegetation subject to adverse surface-disturbing impacts under these alternatives than under 

Alternative D. 

4.3.17.2.13.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of travel management decisions on vegetation resources would 

include the following impacts in addition to the qualitative impacts discussed in Alternative A. 

There are a total of 2,311 acres open to OHV use under this alternative, which is 608,999 acres 

less than under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, approximately 99% to 100% less of each 

vegetation type would be open to OHV use than under Alternative A. 

In total, there are 603,102 more acres of OHV use limited to designated routes under Alternative 

C than under Alternative A. When quantified by vegetation type, this difference breaks down as 

follows: 201% more conifer/mountain shrub vegetation, 61% more desert shrub, 146% more 

invasive weed vegetation, 45% more pinyon-juniper woodland, 164% more riparian/wetland and 

53% more sagebrush/perennial grassland vegetation would have OHV use limited to designated 

routes. 

This alternative would have 418,667 acres closed to OHV use, which is 142,237 acres (51%) 

more than under Alternative A. Table 4.227 provides the percent difference in acres closed to 

OHV use in each vegetation type between Alternative A and C. 

Table 4.227. Percent Difference Acres Closed to OHV Use 

between Alternatives A and C 

Vegetation Type Percent Difference Compared 

with Alternative A 

Conifer and mountain shrub 25% 

Desert shrub 27% 

Invasive species and noxious weeds 48% 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 45% 

Riparian and wetland 4% 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland 151% 

These closures would decrease the adverse impacts of this alternative on native vegetation by 

eliminating surface disturbance associated with OHV use. A list of closed areas is located in the 

Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. Closed areas include vegetation study 

areas, some SRMAs, and some WSAs. These closures would protect more acres of ecologically 

important vegetation communities from the surface disturbance and weed introduction associated 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-662 

with OHV use than Alternative A. Impacts under this alternative are comparable to impacts 

under Alternatives B and E. There are fewer acres of native vegetation subject to adverse 

surface-disturbing impacts under this alternative than under Alternative D. Under Alternative C 

there would be 7 ways that would continue to provide motorized access to existing trailheads. 

4.3.17.2.13.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of travel management decisions on vegetation resources would 

include the following in addition to the qualitative impacts discussed in Alternative A. There are 

a total of 2,311 acres open to OHV use under this alternative, which is 608,999 acres less than 

under Alternative A. 

In total, there are 1,021,767 more acres of OHV use limited to designated routes under 

Alternative D than under Alternative A. When quantified by vegetation type, this difference 

breaks down as follows: 234% more conifer/mountain shrub vegetation, 92% more desert shrub 

vegetation, 164% more invasive weed vegetation, 100% more pinyon-juniper woodland, 222% 

more riparian/wetland vegetation, and 88% more sagebrush/perennial grassland vegetation 

would have OHV use limited to designated routes. 

This alternative has no acres closed to OHV use, which is 276,430 acres less than under 

Alternative A. Because of the lack of closures, adverse impacts associated with this alternative 

would be greater than under Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.17.2.13.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of travel management decisions on vegetation resources would 

include the following in addition to the qualitative impacts discussed in Alternative A. There are 

no acres open to OHV use under this alternative, which is 100% less (611,310 acres) than under 

Alternative A. 

In total, there are 53,639 more acres of OHV use limited to designated routes under Alternative E 

than under Alternative A. Under Alternative E 100% less conifer/mountain shrub vegetation, 

374% more desert shrub, 100% less invasive weed vegetation, 197% more pinyon-juniper 

woodland, 149% more riparian/wetland vegetation, and 365% more sagebrush/perennial 

grassland vegetation would have OHV use limited to designated routes. 

Alternative E would close 970,436 acres to OHV use, which is 694,006 acres (251%) more than 

under Alternative A. Table 4.228 provides the percent difference in acres closed to OHV use in 

each vegetation type between Alternatives A and E. 

Table 4.228. Percent Difference Acres Closed to OHV Use 

between Alternative A and Alternative E 

Vegetation Type 

Percent difference of 

Alternative E Compared 

with Alternative A 

Conifer and mountain shrub -100% 

Desert shrub 374% 

Invasive species and noxious weeds -100% 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 197% 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-663 

Table 4.228. Percent Difference Acres Closed to OHV Use 

between Alternative A and Alternative E 

Vegetation Type 

Percent difference of 

Alternative E Compared 

with Alternative A 

Riparian and wetland 149% 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland 365% 

These closures and limitations would decrease the adverse impacts of this alternative on native 

vegetation by reducing surface disturbance associated with OHV use. A list of closed areas is 

located in the Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. Closed areas include 

vegetation study areas, some SRMAs, some CSMAs, WSAs, and non-WSAs with wilderness 

characteristics. These closures would protect more acres of ecologically important vegetation 

communities from the surface disturbance and weed spread associated with OHV use than 

Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.13.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of travel management decisions on vegetation resources 

would include the following impacts in addition to the qualitative impacts discussed above. 

There are no acres open to OHV use under the Proposed Plan, which is 100% less (611,310 

acres) than under Alternative A. 

In total, there would be 605,316 more acres of OHV use limited to designated routes under the 

Proposed Plan than under Alternative A. When quantified by vegetation type, this difference 

breaks down as follows: 201% more conifer/mountain shrub vegetation, 63% more desert shrub, 

146% more invasive weed vegetation, 48% more pinyon-juniper woodland, 168% more 

riparian/wetland and 56% more sagebrush/perennial grassland vegetation would have OHV use 

limited to designated routes. 

The Proposed Plan would have 393,895 acres closed to OHV use, which is 117,465 acres (42%) 

more than under Alternative A. Table 4.229 provides the percent difference in acres closed to 

OHV use in each vegetation type between Alternative A and the Proposed Plan. The Proposed 

Plan would establish 4 or fewer ways that would continue to provide motorized access to 

existing trailheads. 

Table 4.229. Percent Difference Acres Closed to OHV Use 

between Alternative A and the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation Type Percent Difference Compared 

with Alternative A 

Conifer and mountain shrub 24% 

Desert shrub 21% 

Invasive species and noxious weeds 43% 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 36% 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-664 

Table 4.229. Percent Difference Acres Closed to OHV Use 

between Alternative A and the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation Type Percent Difference Compared 

with Alternative A 

Riparian and wetland <1% 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland 129% 

4.3.17.2.14. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

4.3.17.2.14.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on vegetation resources 

would be the same as those discussed in Section 4.3.17.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan. There would be 232,130 acres open to vegetation treatments each year 

under this alternative. This is significantly greater than under any of the other alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan. Due to the cost of vegetation treatments, it is likely that only a small portion of 

this area would be treated in a given year. The numbers of acres of vegetation treatments in each 

vegetation type for each alternative and the Proposed Plan are provided in Table 4.230. 

Table 4.230. Acres of Vegetation Treatment per Year by Vegetation Type for Each 

Alternative and the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B 

Alternative C 

and the 

Proposed Plan

Alternative D Alternative E 

Sagebrush 1,000 1,500 2,000 1,000 

Weed treatments 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 

Pinyon-juniper 

woodland 2,000 3,000 4,000 2,000 

Riparian 500 100 100 500 

Greasewood 100 200 200 100 

Unspecified 15,475 1,000 1,500 2,000 1,000 

Total 15,475 7,600 9,300 11,300 7,600 

4.3.17.2.14.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on vegetation resources 

would include the following impacts in addition to those discussed in Section 4.3.17.1 Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. There would be 7,600 acres of vegetation 

treatments per year under this alternative, including an estimated 1,000 acres/year of existing 

unspecified land treatments, which is 51% fewer acres of treatment per year than under 

Alternative A. This alternative would have fewer long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation 

resources than Alternative A due to considerably fewer acres of vegetation treatments. The 

adverse impacts of trampling and crushing of vegetation associated with treatment would be 

substantially reduced under this alternative compared with Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-665 

4.3.17.2.14.3. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on 

vegetation resources would include the following impacts in addition to those discussed in 

Section 4.3.17.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. There would be 

9,300 acres of vegetation treatments per year under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, 

including an estimated 1,500 acres/year of existing unspecified land treatments, which is 40% 

fewer acres of treatment per year than under Alternative A. Compared to Alternative B, there 

would be 500 additional acres of sagebrush treatment, 1,000 additional acres of pinyon-juniper 

woodland treatment, 400 fewer acres of riparian vegetation treatment, and 100 additional acres 

of greasewood (desert shrub) vegetation treatment (see Table 4.230). Overall, Alternative C and 

the Proposed Plan would provide greater long-term beneficial impacts for sagebrush, pinyonjuniper woodland, and greasewood vegetation types than Alternative B. Alternative C and the 

Proposed Plan would provide fewer long-term beneficial impacts for riparian vegetation than 

under Alternative B and for all vegetation types under Alternative A. However, Alternative C 

and the Proposed Plan would limit potentially severe short-term adverse impacts associated with 

vegetation treatments. 

4.3.17.2.14.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on vegetation resources 

would include the following impacts in addition to those discussed in Section 4.3.17.1 Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. There would be 11,300 acres of vegetation 

treatments per year under this alternative, including an estimated 2,000 acres/year of existing 

unspecified land treatments, which is 27% fewer acres of treatment per year than under 

Alternative A. Compared to Alternative B, there would be 1,000 additional acres of sagebrush 

treatment, 2,000 additional acres of pinyon-juniper woodland treatment, 400 fewer acres of 

riparian treatment, and 100 additional acres of greasewood (desert shrub) treatment under this 

alternative (see Table 4.230). Overall, this alternative would provide greater long-term beneficial 

impacts for sagebrush, pinyon-juniper woodland, and greasewood (desert shrub) vegetation than 

Alternatives B and E, as well as for sagebrush and pinyon-juniper woodland vegetation than 

Alternative C. It would provide fewer long-term beneficial impacts for riparian habitat than 

would occur under Alternative B. This alternative would have fewer potentially severe shortterm adverse impacts associated with vegetation treatments than would occur under Alternative 

A. 

4.3.17.2.14.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on vegetation resources 

would be the same as discussed under Alternative B with the following additions. Non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to decrease surface disturbance to 

vegetation within these areas, and would thereby provide more beneficial protection to 

vegetation resources than any of the other management alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.17.2.15. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan lands in the Monticello FO would be managed as 

one of four visual resource management classes (see VRM Section 3.19). All WSAs and Wild 

and Scenic River segments would be managed as VRM I or II. Very limited and limited 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-666 

management activities, respectively, would be allowed in areas designated as VRM Classes I or 

II. Short-term vegetation treatments and other surface-disturbing activities designed to enhance 

native vegetation would be allowed in VRM Class I or II areas. These types of disturbances 

could have minor, short-term, adverse impacts on native vegetation in the Monticello FO. 

In areas designated as VRM Classes III or IV, changes to the landscape could be moderate or 

major, respectively. Most types of vegetation treatments and other surface-disturbing activities 

would be allowed in VRM Class III or IV areas. These types of disturbances could have longterm adverse impacts on native vegetation in the Monticello PA, but long-term benefits in 

restoration of native and other desired vegetation communities. Alternative A, the No Action 

Alternative, also describes the acreages assessed under the Monticello FO VRM inventory, 

which represents the level of scenic quality within the planning area. 

4.3.17.2.15.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A the qualitative impacts of visual resource decisions on vegetation would 

consist of those discussed above for each area under each VRM class. Of the five alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan, Alternative A would have the smallest area subject to VRM Class I, but 

the largest area subject to VRM Class II restrictions (see Map 66 for VRM locations). Tables 

4.190–4.193 show the acres of each vegetation type in VRM Classes I, II, III, and IV for the 

Proposed Plan and each alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-667 

Table 4.231. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in VRM Class I by Alternative and the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative 

Conifer/Mountain shrub 767 1,156 1,144 14 2Desert shrub 97,493 115,751 88,711 62,131 266Invasive species and weeds 187 360 230 229 1Pinyon-juniper woodland 252,374 342,926 302,084 295,521 659Riparian/Wetland 4,749 5,888 4,320 3,159 9Sagebrush/Perennial grass 14,714 30,985 28,126 28,110 57Total 370,284 497,066 424,615 389,164 996

Table 4.232. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in VRM Class II by Alternative and the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative 

Conifer/Mountain shrub 1,629 1,376 104 0 Desert shrub 86,234 54,896 47,496 2,681 23Invasive species and weeds 569 449 171 0 Pinyon-juniper woodland 238,942 176,060 83,447 3,304 76Riparian/Wetland 7,485 5,342 4,259 2,137 4Sagebrush/Perennial grass 15,274 11,267 6,186 0 5Total 350,133 249,390 141,663 8,122 110
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4.

4-668 

Table 4.233. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in VRM Class III by Alternative and the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative 

Conifer/Mountain shrub 392 503 1,787 1,892 Desert shrub 92,977 109,609 132,231 204,910 53Invasive species and weeds 761 743 1,084 1,258 Pinyon-juniper woodland 250,688 245,913 321,699 409,884 152Riparian/Wetland 5,400 6,530 7,730 11,365 4Sagebrush/Perennial grass 62,667 57,055 51,657 57,601 46Total 412,885 420,353 516,188 686,910 259

Table 4.234. Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in VRM Class IV by Alternative and the Proposed Plan 

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative 

Conifer/Mountain shrub 7,888 7,764 7,765 7,766 6Desert shrub 143,623 140,930 152,747 151,574 76Invasive species and weeds 1,872 1,893 1,962 1,961 1Pinyon-juniper woodland 402,812 381,012 438,681 437,266 256Riparian/Wetland 2,729 2,645 4,095 3,722 2Sagebrush/Perennial grass 71,160 66,355 79,679 79,947 55Total 630,084 600,599 684,929 682,236 399
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-669 

4.3.17.2.15.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of visual resource management decisions on vegetation 

resources would be more beneficial than under Alternative A in the long-term, as more 

vegetation acreage would be managed as VRM I and protected from surface disturbances in 

order to preserve scenic qualities. Alternative B would protect more vegetation resources than 

the Proposed Plan and any of the other alternatives except Alternative E, which would manage 

nearly twice as many acres as VRM Class I (see Table 4.231). 

4.3.17.2.15.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of visual resource management decisions on vegetation 

resources would include the qualitative impacts discussed above, as well as the following 

additions: some ACECs would also be managed as VRM Class I or II. Of the five alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan, Alternative C would have the second smallest area subject to both VRM 

Class I and II restrictions. It would have the second largest area subject to VRM Class III 

restrictions, and the largest area subject to class IV restrictions (see Map 68 for VRM locations). 

Because more acres would be classified as VRM I, this alternative would do more to reduce 

negative impacts on vegetation resources than Alternative A, and would have greater impacts 

than Alternatives B and E. 

4.3.17.2.15.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of visual resource management decisions on vegetation 

resources would include the qualitative impacts discussed above. Of the five alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan, Alternative D would have the second smallest area subject to VRM Class I 

restrictions and the smallest area subject to VRM Class II restrictions. It would have the largest 

area subject to VRM Class III restrictions and the second largest area subject to class IV 

restrictions (see Map 69 for VRM locations). Because more acres would be classified as VRM I, 

this alternative would do more to reduce negative impacts on vegetation resources than 

Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.15.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 582,357 additional acres would be managed as VRM I to 

protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. As shown in Table 4.191, 996,889 acres 

of vegetation resources would receive protection from surface disturbances under this alternative 

(56% of the planning area or 270% more VRM I area than under Alternative A). Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have greater beneficial impacts because more area would be 

protected from the adverse impacts of minerals development, access road construction, OHV 

use, and woodland harvesting; however, these areas would also be protected from vegetation 

treatments and fire treatments, which would have adverse impacts on vegetation resources 

because of increased risks of wildland fire from fuel loading and invasive species encroachment. 

Overall, this alternative would have greater direct beneficial impacts from protection of nonWSA lands and greater indirect adverse impacts from exclusion of vegetation treatments than 

any of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-670 

4.3.17.2.15.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of visual resource management decisions on vegetation 

resources would include the qualitative impacts discussed above. The Proposed Plan would 

designate 52,396 more acres (14% more) as VRM Class I than Alternative A. On the other hand, 

the Proposed Plan would designate 122,903 fewer acres (35% less) as VRM Class II than 

Alternative A. VRM Class III restrictions under the Proposed Plan would apply to 88,145 more 

acres (21% more) than under Alternative A, while VRM Class IV restrictions would apply to 

15,110 fewer acres (2% less) (see Map 71 for VRM locations). Because more acres would be 

classified as VRM I and II (73,035 more total acres, or 7% more, under VRM Classes I and II 

combined under the Proposed Plan), the Proposed Plan would do more to reduce negative 

impacts on vegetation resources than Alternative A. 

4.3.17.2.16. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

4.3.17.2.16.1. Alternative A 

In occupied priority migratory bird habitat, no surface disturbance would be allowed from May 

1–July 30. Maintenance and improvement of lowland riparian habitats, wetlands, and low and 

high desert scrub communities would be prioritized in the Monticello FO. In addition, the spread 

of invasive plant species would be prevented in these four vegetation types. These three 

requirements would benefit both migratory birds and native vegetation communities. These 

actions would have long-term beneficial impacts on native vegetation in lowland riparian, 

wetland, and desert scrub communities in the Monticello FO. 

Bighorn sheep habitat on the five mesa tops (56,740 acres) would be prioritized for habitat 

improvement because of potential loss of habitat caused by surface disturbance in these areas. 

On-site mitigation would be required for projects that disturb or remove forage and browse 

species used by desert bighorn sheep. These requirements would help mitigate the adverse 

impacts of surface-disturbing activities on vegetation resources critical to bighorn sheep survival. 

There would be 17,300 acres allotted as wildlife habitat on slopes of Peter's Canyon and East 

Canyon under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Under Alternative A, specific restrictions would be in place for wildlife habitat during parts of 

the year. This alternative would have the least amount of wildlife habitat subject to special 

wildlife conditions of any of the management alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Tables 4.194–4.197 provide acreage comparisons of wildlife habitat subject to special conditions 

in each vegetation type for the Proposed Plan and each alternative. 

Table 4.235. Alternative A–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject to 

Special Conditions 

Vegetation Type Bighorn Sheep Pronghorn Deer Elk 

Conifer/mountain shrub 356 0 226 0 

Desert shrub 66,103 2,548 6,041 0 

Invasive species and weeds 346 0 387 0 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 168,890 2,880 139,178 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-671 

Table 4.235. Alternative A–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject to 

Special Conditions 

Vegetation Type Bighorn Sheep Pronghorn Deer Elk 

Riparian/wetland 435 0 1,244 0 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 11,808 8,526 33,013 0 

Total 247,938 13,954 180,089 0 

4.3.17.2.16.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, the impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on 

vegetation resources would include those discussed in Alternative A, as well as the restrictions in 

place for wildlife habitat during parts of the year. Seasonal wildlife protection areas would have 

special conditions for all land-use activities with the exception of woodland harvest. These 

special conditions include: no oil and gas leasing activities, no geophysical work, and no OHV 

use. These seasonal wildlife protection area designations, however, can be overturned by the 

Field Manager if it can be shown that legal rights would be curtailed, animals are not present in 

the specific project location, or the activity can by conducted so as not to adversely affect 

wildlife species. In addition, maintenance and operation activities for mineral production and 

hunting would be allowed during seasonal restrictions. Therefore, these restrictions would offer 

only minor mitigation potential for the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on 

vegetation resources allowed in wildlife habitat. Under these alternatives, there would be 

205,070 (83%) more acres subject to bighorn sheep special wildlife conditions, 15,401 (110%) 

more acres of protected pronghorn habitat, 594,165 (330%) more acres of protected deer habitat, 

and 184,248 more acres of elk habitat subject to special conditions than under Alternative A (see 

Table 4.236). 

Table 4.236. Alternatives B and E–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject 

to Special Conditions 

Vegetation Type Bighorn 

Sheep Pronghorn Deer Elk 

Conifer/mountain shrub 211 1 4,379 9,168 

Desert shrub 139,069 4,359 32,058 1,882 

Invasive species and weeds 996 17 1,377 702 

Pinyon-juniper 289,494 10,434 636,489 155,866 

Riparian/wetland 3,627 14 7,011 1,380 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 19,611 14,530 92,940 15,250 

Total 453,008 29,355 774,254 184,248 

4.3.17.2.16.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on vegetation 

resources would include those discussed in Alternative A, as well as the restrictions in place for 

wildlife habitat during parts of the year. Seasonal wildlife protection areas would have the same 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-672 

special conditions as under Alternative A, with the exception of OHV restrictions in which the 

number of OHV users may be limited. Under this alternative, there would be 52,218 (21%) more 

acres subject to bighorn sheep special wildlife conditions, 15,401 (110%) more acres of 

protected pronghorn habitat, 80,242 (45%) more protected deer habitat, and 93,104 more acres of 

elk habitat subject to special conditions than under Alternative A (see Table 4.237). Because of 

these differences, this alternative would provide greater protection for vegetation resources in the 

wildlife protection areas of the Monticello FO than Alternative A, but would be more likely to 

adversely affect vegetation resources than Alternatives B and E. 

Table 4.237. Alternative C–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject to 

Special Conditions 

Vegetation Type Bighorn Sheep Pronghorn Deer Elk 

Conifer/mountain shrub 125 1 825 6,915 

Desert shrub 95,466 4,359 6,085 774 

Invasive species and weeds 777 17 452 693 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 186,181 10,434 206,807 74,103 

Riparian/wetland 1,427 14 1,581 319 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 16,180 14,530 44,581 10,300 

Total 300,156 29,355 260,331 93,104 

4.3.17.2.16.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on vegetation 

resources would include those discussed in Alternative A, as well as the restrictions in place for 

wildlife habitat during parts of the year. Seasonal wildlife protection areas would have the same 

special conditions as under Alternative A with the exception of OHV restrictions. Under this 

alternative, OHV use would only be allowed on designated routes. Additionally, there would be 

65,179 (26%) fewer acres subject to bighorn sheep special wildlife conditions, the same number 

of acres of protected pronghorn habitat, 30,826 (17%) fewer acres of protected deer habitat, and 

60,103 more acres of elk habitat subject to special conditions than under Alternative A (see 

Table 4.238). Because of these differences, this alternative would be more likely to adversely 

affect vegetation resources in the wildlife protection areas of the Monticello FO than 

Alternatives B, C, and E, but less likely to adversely impact vegetation resources than 

Alternative A. 

Table 4.238. Alternative D–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject to 

Special Conditions 

Vegetation Type Bighorn sheep Pronghorn Deer Elk 

Conifer/mountain shrub 111 0 185 6,155 

Desert shrub 54,511 2,548 3,711 116 

Invasive species and weeds 256 0 358 0 

Pinyon-juniper 117,798 2,880 114,742 47,845 

Riparian/wetland 895 0 1,092 313 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-673 

Table 4.238. Alternative D–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject to 

Special Conditions 

Vegetation Type Bighorn sheep Pronghorn Deer Elk 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 9,188 8,526 29,175 5,674 

Total 182,759 13,954 149,263 60,103 

4.3.17.2.16.5. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on 

vegetation resources would include those discussed in Alternative A, as well as the restrictions in 

place for wildlife habitat during parts of the year. Seasonal wildlife protection areas would have 

the same special conditions as under Alternative A, with the exception of OHV restrictions in 

which the number of OHV users may be limited. Under the Proposed Plan, there would be 

205,071 (83%) more acres subject to bighorn sheep special wildlife conditions, 15,401 (110%) 

more acres of protected pronghorn habitat, 195,803 (109%) more protected deer habitat, and 

93,104 more acres of elk habitat subject to special conditions than under Alternative A (see 

Table 4.237). Because of these differences, the Proposed Plan would provide greater protection 

for vegetation resources in the wildlife protection areas of the Monticello FO than Alternative A, 

but would be more likely to adversely affect vegetation resources than Alternatives B and E. 

Table 4.239. Proposed Plan–Acres of Wildlife Habitat by Vegetation Type Subject to 

Special Conditions 

Vegetation Type Bighorn Sheep Pronghorn Deer Elk 

Conifer/mountain shrub 211 1 5,533 6,915 

Desert shrub 139,070 4,359 10,917 774 

Invasive species and weeds 996 17 586 693 

Pinyon-juniper woodland 289,494 10,434 298,273 74,103 

Riparian/wetland 3,627 14 3,335 319 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 19,611 14,530 57,248 10,300 

Total 453,009 29,355 375,892 93,104 

4.3.17.2.17. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION 

4.3.17.2.17.1. Alternative A 

The Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 would be 

implemented under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. In addition, numerous sites would be 

excluded from wood product use except for limited on-site collection of deadwood for campfires 

(see Summary Table of Alternatives). These actions would help mitigate the adverse impacts of 

woodland product use on vegetation resources in areas of the Monticello FO open to wood 

harvesting. Short-term, adverse impacts include trampling and removal of native trees. Longterm, indirect impacts include the potential introduction of weedy, non-native species during 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-674 

wood harvesting operations. Under this alternative, all 1,147,407 acres of the FO would be open 

to woodland harvest.

4.3.17.2.17.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of woodlands management decisions on vegetation resources 

would include those discussed in Alternative A. There would be 504,666 acres of pinyon-juniper 

woodland vegetation open to woodland product harvest, which is 56% fewer acres open to 

harvest than under Alternative A. In addition, limitations on off-road travel and seasonal 

restrictions on wood collection would help mitigate the adverse impacts of woodland product 

collection and harvest on vegetation resources. 

4.3.17.2.17.3. Alternatives C and D and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternatives C and D and the Proposed Plan, the impacts of woodlands management 

decisions on vegetation resources would include those discussed in Alternative A. There would 

be 597,086 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland vegetation open to woodland product harvest, 

which is 48% fewer acres open to harvest than under Alternative A. There would not be any 

seasonal restrictions on wood collection, as would occur under Alternative B. The Proposed Plan 

would differ from Alternatives C and D in that OHV use would be limited to designated routes. 

4.3.17.2.17.4. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts of woodlands management decisions on vegetation resources 

would be the same as those outlined under Alternative B with the following differences: Under 

this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be available for 

woodland product use. This would close all pinyon-juniper woodland areas with non-WSA 

wilderness characteristics to surface-disturbing activities associated with woodland harvest. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have fewer adverse impacts to native 

vegetation resources because more area would be protected. 

4.3.17.3. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 contains a summary of impacts of management decisions on vegetation 

resources. 

4.3.17.4. MITIGATION MEASURES

The protective measures for vegetation described in the management common to all sections in 

Chapter 2 and Appendices A and I would serve to avoid and/or minimize impacts to native 

vegetation resources in the Monticello FO. 

4.3.17.5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

There will be unavoidable adverse impacts to vegetation resources in the Monticello FO 

resulting from surface-disturbing activities associated with the resource management decisions 

detailed in the PRMP/FEIS. Adverse impacts include temporary damage to individual native 

plants due to trampling and grazing by wildlife and livestock, trampling and weed introduction 

by human visitors (motorized and non-motorized) and vegetation treatment crews, and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.17 Vegetation Resources 

4-675 

permanent removal of native plants due to clearing activities such as oil well pad installation and 

woodland harvest. 

4.3.17.6. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Impacts to vegetation occurring in the Monticello FO's arid to semi-arid climate could affect 

long-term productivity due to the limited annual growth of many of the plants found in this 

ecosystem. Recovery periods of up to 50 years may be required to return desert vegetation 

communities to their original vegetation cover and species composition following disturbance 

(Guo 2004). A period of 75 to 100 years may be required for reestablishment of mature pinyonjuniper woodlands. The recovery of cryptobiotic soil communities and associated vegetation is 

extremely slow (up to 250 years) following soil disturbance (BLM 2001b). Changes in other 

vegetation community compositions, and the resulting productivity and forage value, may also 

take decades. 

As discussed throughout this section, some of the short-term multiple uses of the Monticello FO 

would adversely impact the short- and long-term productivity of native vegetation. These uses 

include oil and gas development, improper livestock grazing, camping, off-road vehicle travel, 

and woodland harvest. These activities, however, provide economic benefits, and would be 

partially mitigated by the protective measures discussed in the Management Common to All 

Alternatives and the Proposed Action sections for each management decision. Effective 

implementation of these protective measures would prevent these uses from substantially 

impacting the long-term productivity of vegetation resources in the planning area. 

4.3.17.7. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

The protective measures detailed in the Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

and Chapter 2 require that disturbed areas be reclaimed following completion of the management 

action (i.e., well pad deconstruction, reseeding, and weed eradication in disturbed areas). 

Because vegetation resources would be restored or rehabilitated after proposed disturbance 

and/or development, there would be no anticipated irreversible impacts on native vegetation 

resources associated with the management decisions proposed for the Monticello FO. There 

would, however, be irretrievable impacts associated with surface-disturbing activities proposed 

throughout the planning area. Native vegetation removed or disturbed when roads or trails are 

cut, oil pads installed, or other surface disturbance is implemented, is an irretrievable loss until 

successful restoration takes place. The acreage of this irretrievable disturbance would be 

identical to that described above for unavoidable adverse impacts. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-676 

4.3.18. VISUAL RESOURCES

The assumptions for analyzing the impacts to visual resources are 1) that the greater the size 

and/or severity of surface disturbance and/or degree of air quality degradation, the greater the 

impact there would be to scenic quality, and 2) that all Monticello PA resources with 

management decisions that would permit surface disturbances or degrade air quality would have 

adverse impacts on visual resources to some degree. Surface disturbances would introduce new, 

potentially noticeable, visual elements onto the landscape or intensify existing visual elements 

that would alter the line, form, color, and/or texture that characterize the existing landscape. 

Changes in air quality, either from smoke, dust, or other pollutants, could potentially reduce or 

degrade scenic quality by obscuring distant views in the short-term or long term. 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) class designations are defined in Section 3.19.2. While 

reviewing the analysis of impacts, it should be noted that under VRM Class I visual resource 

objectives, landscape scenic quality would be maintained in its pristine, undeveloped, and natural 

state, permitting very minor changes to the landscape that should not be noticeable. Visual 

objectives under VRM Class II would also retain scenic quality within the natural landscape, but 

would allow minor man-made changes to the landscape, though these changes should not be 

noticeable to the casual viewer. The VRM Class III objectives would allow a moderate degree of 

man-made change to the landscape that would be visible, but the changes and contrasts with the 

natural should not dominate the natural landscape. Under VRM Class IV, major modifications of 

the natural landscape would be permitted and allowed to dominate the natural landscape. So, 

based on the above range of allowed changes to scenic quality, the visual resources analysis of 

impacts assumes that areas designated for management under VRM Class I objectives would 

receive the highest level of visual resource protection, that areas designated and managed under 

VRM Class II objectives would receive a high level of visual resources protection, and that VRM 

Class III and IV-designated areas would receive less visual resources protection. Thus, the 

analysis logically assumes that areas managed under VRM Classes III and IV would allow more 

surface-disturbing impacts and potentially have greater adverse impacts on visual resources than 

those areas managed under VRM Class I and II objectives. 

The BLM's VRM class objectives (see Section 3.19.2 and above) were used in analyzing surface 

disturbance and air quality impacts on visual resources. These objectives provide a consistent 

basis for determining how much a particular action would affect scenic quality, as well as 

determining the level of disturbance an area could support while still meeting designated visual 

resource objectives. 

Before VRM classes were designated under the proposed RMP, a visual resource inventory was 

conducted to assess current scenic quality and viewer sensitivity to viewscapes within the 

Monticello PA. This inventory process assists the Monticello FO in considering visual values in 

the RMP process. The inventory does not provide management direction and would not be used 

to limit or constrain surface-disturbing activities within the planning area. For the Monticello 

PA, the acreage results of the visual resource inventory are the same as the VRM class 

designation acreages under the current RMP (i.e., Alternative A). That is, there have been no 

substantial changes in viewer sensitivity or scenic quality since VRM class designations were 

assigned during the 1991 RMP process. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-677 

The determination and assignment of VRM class designations are based on the management 

decisions made during the RMP process. Once the RMP is completed and the VRM class 

designations are approved, the VRM class objectives are applicable to all land management 

actions; that is, once a VRM class designation has been assigned to an area, resource 

management and planning decisions that could impact visual quality are required to consider and 

to comply with the designated VRM class objectives of that area. Thus, analyses of the impacts 

of management decisions for other resources on visual resources were not discussed in this visual 

resources section because all potential impacts to visual resources that would be produced by the 

RMP management decisions would be required to comply with the designated and approved 

VRM class objectives. 

It should be noted that, during the RMP process, other proposed land management objectives and 

management decisions affect the assignment of VRM class designations. For example, WSAs 

would be managed as VRM Class I in order to maintain their pristine and undeveloped 

landscapes, and their suitability for designation by Congress as wilderness; areas considered 

eligible for recommendation under the NWSRS would be managed as VRM Class I, II, or III 

depending on the resources considered for protection (wild, scenic, or recreation, respectively); 

areas with high mineral resources potential may be designated as VRM Class III or IV to allow 

surface-disturbing minerals exploration and development. Therefore, the VRM class 

designations that are proposed under the PRMP/FEIS are the result of a synthesis and balance of 

other proposed resource and land management actions (e.g., livestock grazing, minerals, 

recreation, special designations) with the visual resource inventory of scenic quality, visual 

resource values, and viewer sensitivity within the Monticello PA. 

In this analysis of impacts of proposed management decisions on visual resources, a "macro" and 

"micro" approach was taken to analyze impacts to visual resources. At the macro scale, the acres 

of proposed VRM classes under the action alternatives were compared to Alternative A to 

determine the increase or decrease of acres proposed for protection of scenic quality under VRM 

Classes I and II. At the micro scale of analysis, representative visually sensitive areas with high 

scenic quality were selected within the Monticello PA and were analyzed for the impacts of the 

proposed management decisions on visual resources and scenic quality. These were areas where 

the proposed alternatives varied in their VRM class designations, and they are Lockhart Basin, 

Indian Creek, and Valley of the Gods. The analytical methodology of determining the impacts to 

these areas was a comparison of the area's visual resource inventory class (Alternative A) with 

the proposed VRM class designation for the area under each action alternative (Alternatives B–

E) and the Proposed Plan. 

Table 4.240 below shows the proposed VRM acreages managed under each VRM class 

designation for each of the alternatives, and the combined acreages of VRM Classes III and IV. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-678 

Table 4.240. VRM Class Designation Acreages by Alternative

VRM Class 

Alternative 

A (Visual 

Resource 

Inventory) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

VRM Class I 371,575 497,668 425,179 390,424 998,370 422,989

VRM Class II 355,112 250,641 132,001 8,838 111,478 228,041

VRM Class III 416,806 426,350 531,920 692,741 264,369 507,583

VRM Class IV 637,875 608,463 693,995 691,119 407,459 623,002

Subtotal Classes I and 

II 

726,687 748,309 557,180 399,262 1,109,848 651,030

Subtotal Classes III 

and IV 

1,054,681 1,034,813 1,225,915 1,383,860 671,828 1,130,585

Total* 1,781,368 1,783,122 1,783,095 1,783,122 1,781,676 1,781,615

Source: BLM 2007d. 

*

Acreage figures may vary by alternative due to the changes in GIS technology and variances in GIS shapefiles. 

4.3.18.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, VRM class objectives would be applicable to all 

land management decisions within the Monticello PA. Specifically, all designated VRM Class I 

areas would apply NSO leasing stipulations or would be closed to leasing, and Controlled 

Surface Use leasing stipulations would include requirements to meet VRM Class II objectives. 

All WSAs would be managed under VRM Class I objectives. These specific management actions 

would be generally beneficial because they would maintain and/or protect scenic quality to the 

extent allowable under the designated VRM class objectives. 

4.3.18.2. ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PLAN IMPACTS

4.3.18.2.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

As mentioned above, the Monticello FO visual resource inventory resulted in visual inventory 

classes that are the same as the current VRM class designations under Alternative A. Under this 

alternative, 371,575 acres (21% of the planning area) would be designated for the highest level 

of visual resource protection under VRM Class I, 355,112 (20% of the planning area) would be 

designated for a high level of protection under VRM Class II, and 1,054,681 acres (the remaining 

59% of the area) would be designated for lower levels of visual resource protection under VRM 

Classes III and IV objectives. 

4.3.18.2.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would designate 497,668 acres for management under VRM Class I objectives 

(28% of the planning area would be managed for pristine, very high quality natural landscapes), 

250,641 acres would be designated for management under VRM Class II objectives (14% of the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-679 

planning area would be managed for high-quality, natural landscapes). Approximately 1,034,813 

acres (the remaining 58% of the planning area) would be designated for management under 

VRM Class III and Class IV objectives that would permit moderate to major changes to the 

landscape. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would designate 126,093 more acres as 

VRM Class I, 104,471 fewer acres as VRM Class II (a decrease of 6%), and 19,868 fewer acres 

as VRM Class III and IV (a decrease of 1%). This would have more direct, beneficial, long-term 

impacts on scenic resources and fewer potentially adverse surface-disturbance-related impacts on 

the resource than Alternative A because 7% more acreage under VRM Class I objectives would 

be managed for higher levels of visual resource protection and preservation than indicated by the 

visual resource inventory. Also, this alternative would designate fewer acres for management 

under VRM Class III and IV objectives, a 1% reduction in acreage managed for visual resource 

modification than indicated by the visual resource inventory. 

4.3.18.2.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, 425,179 acres would be managed under VRM Class I objectives to 

maintain 24% of the planning area as undeveloped, pristine landscape, and 132,001 acres would 

be designated and managed under VRM Class II objectives (with 7% of the Monticello PA 

managed for high-quality landscapes). Visual resource designation and management under VRM 

Classes III and IV objectives would encompass 1,225,915 acres (69% of the PA where moderate 

to high levels of visual resource impacts would be allowed). Compared to the Alternative A, this 

alternative would manage 53,604 more acres for the highest level of visual resource preservation 

under VRM Class I than indicated by the visual resource inventory (an increase of 3%), and 

223,111 fewer acres of high-visual quality protection under VRM Class II objectives (a decrease 

of 13%). Management under VRM Class III and VRM Class IV objectives for this alternative 

would increase the number of acres under these management classes by 171,234 (a 10% 

increase, when compared to the visual resource inventory). This would result in greater adverse 

impacts to visual resources than Alternative A because, while there would be long-term, 

beneficial impacts on visual resources by managing more acres at the highest level of resource 

protection under VRM Class I than indicated by the visual resource inventory, fewer acres within 

the planning area would be managed to preserve high-quality scenic landscapes under VRM 

Class II and more acres within the Monticello PA would be managed to permit surface 

disturbances, development, and man-made alterations of the existing landscape under VRM 

Class III and VRM Class IV than indicated by the visual resource inventory. 

4.3.18.2.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

Alternative D would manage 390,424 acres under VRM Class I objectives (22% of the 

Monticello PA) and 8,838 acres under VRM Class II objectives (0.5% of the planning area), and 

1,383,860 acres (the remaining 77.5% of the planning area) under VRM Classes III and IV 

objectives. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative D would manage 18,849 more acres (an 

increase of 1%) under VRM Class I objectives for preservation of pristine, very high quality 

visual resources, but 346,274 fewer acres would be managed under VRM Class II objectives (a 

reduction in acreage of 19.5% for landscapes inventoried as having high scenic quality). This 

alternative would manage 329,179 more acres under VRM Class III and IV objectives (an 

increase of 18.5%) than indicated by the visual resource inventory. Under this alternative, there 

would be long-term, adverse impacts to visual resources because more acres would be managed 

at lower levels of visual resource and scenic quality protection and fewer acres within the PA 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-680 

would be managed at the higher levels of visual resource protection and preservation under this 

alternative than under Alternative A. 

4.3.18.2.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 998,370 acres would be designated and managed under 

VRM Class I objectives in order to preserve scenic quality and visual resources, including 

582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. So, 56% of the PA would be 

managed as VRM Class I (an increase in VRM Class I-managed acreage of 268% when 

compared to Alternative A). Approximately 111,478 acres would be designated and managed 

under VRM Class II objectives (a decrease of 69% when compared to Alternative A). This 

alternative would manage a combined acreage of 671,828 under VRM Classes III and IV 

objectives (a 36% decrease when compared to Alternative A). Under Alternative E, over 62% of 

the planning area would receive the highest levels of visual resource protection under VRM 

Class I and II objectives. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more 

beneficial, long-term, preservation-related impacts to scenic quality than Alternative A because 

more acres within the PA would be protected to preserve scenic quality. 

4.3.18.2.6. PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, 422,989 acres would be managed under VRM Class I objectives to 

maintain 24% of the planning area as undeveloped, pristine landscape, and 228,041 acres would 

be managed under VRM Class II objectives (with 13% of the Monticello PA managed for highquality landscapes).Visual resource management under VRM Class III and IV objectives would 

total 1,130,585 acres (with 63% of the planning area managed for moderate to high levels of 

visual resource impacts). Compared to the Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would manage 

51,414 more acres for the highest level of visual resource preservation under VRM Class I than 

indicated by the visual resource inventory (an increase of 3 %), and 127,071 fewer acres of highvisual quality protection under VRM Class II objectives (a decrease of 7%). Management under 

VRM Class III and VRM Class IV objectives for the Proposed Plan would increase the number 

of acres under these management classes by 75,904 (a 4% increase, when compared to the visual 

resource inventory under Alternative A). This would result in greater adverse impacts to visual 

resources than Alternative A because, while there would be long-term, beneficial impacts on 

visual resources by managing more acres at the highest level of resource protection under VRM 

Class I than indicated by the visual resource inventory, fewer acres within the planning area 

would be managed to preserve high-quality scenic landscapes under VRM Class II. Also, more 

acres within the Monticello PA would be managed to permit surface disturbances, development, 

and man-made alterations of the existing landscape under VRM Class III and VRM Class IV 

than indicated by the visual resource inventory under Alternative A. 

4.3.18.3. VISUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

4.3.18.3.1. LOCKHART BASIN

The area proposed as the Lockhart Basin ACEC was visually inventoried as VRM Class II and is 

currently designated as VRM Class III, with an objective of partially retaining the existing 

character of the landscape, permitting a moderate level of change to the landscape that does not 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-681 

dominate the view of the casual observer. Portions of the basin lie within the 8,642-acre Indian 

Creek ACEC (managed under VRM Class I objectives for scenic values). 

Management decisions under Alternative A would have visual resource-related impacts on the 

area because surface-disturbing activities and viewscape changes would be allowed. Under this 

alternative, the RFD of mineral resources, based on geophysical surveys of the Paradox Fold and 

Fault Belt that includes Lockhart Basin, predicts that an average of 25 natural gas exploration 

wells could be drilled within the belt during a 15-year period after approval of the RMP. If 

natural gas exploration and/or other mineral resource development projects were conducted 

within Lockhart Basin, then the VRM objectives that permit moderate levels of change to the 

landscape would have long-term, adverse impacts to visual resources from surface disturbance 

and visual resource degradation for those viewing Lockhart Basin within the Monticello PA. The 

impacts would include short-term surface-disturbance-related impacts to visual resources caused 

by drilling rigs, seismic exploration lines, and natural gas or oil exploration well pads. Long-term 

impacts would include increased visual contrasts caused by soil and vegetation surface 

disturbances, and visual contrasts from pipelines, well pad access roads, exploration and/or 

production well pads, natural gas extraction and compression infrastructure and facilities, and 

minerals-related vehicle traffic. 

When viewed from the points of view looking down into the basin (from Island in the Sky in 

Canyonlands National Park, from Dead Horse Point in Dead Horse Point State Park, and from 

the Canyon Rims SRMA in the Moab FO planning area), the potentially adverse short-term and 

long-term impacts to visual resources from minerals-related surface disturbances would be the 

same as when viewed from within the Basin, but to a greater degree. The impacts to scenic 

quality would be greater because of: 1) the likelihood that standard BLM visual resource impacts 

mitigation and minerals BMPs (e.g., camouflaged and/or low profile structures, edge feathering, 

topographically hidden disturbances or visual intrusions, reclamation of well drilling pads and 

roads) would not be effective when viewed from above the Basin; 2) the angle of view looking 

down into the Basin would likely show more adverse, surface-disturbance impacts and visual 

contrasts than when viewed from ground-level within the Basin; and 3) the high level of scenic 

quality within Lockhart Basin (as determined by the visual resource inventory), when viewed 

from the surrounding elevated points of view, would likely heighten the potential surfacedisturbance-related contrasts created by minerals development. 

Under Alternatives B and E, Lockhart Basin would be managed as a 47,783-acre ACEC for 

protection of scenic values under VRM Class I designation, with the objective of preserving the 

existing character of the landscape. A very low level of visual change would be permitted under 

this VRM management objective, and the level of change would be to a degree that would not 

attract casual viewer attention. The impacts on scenic quality under these alternatives would be 

beneficial in the long-term because surface-disturbing activities, visual intrusions, and potential 

visual contrasts would be greatly restricted or prohibited. Any proposed natural gas well drilling 

and minerals resource development within the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt area would likely not 

impact the Lockhart Basin because of the VRM restrictions placed on potential changes to the 

existing scenic quality of the area. From points of view within the Basin and above the Basin, the 

impacts on visual resources would be negligible to minor. Compared to Alternative A, these 

similar alternatives would be more beneficial to visual resources within Lockhart Basin because 

of the increased protection of visual resources (comparable to visual resource inventory Class I 

even though the area was visually inventoried as having a Class II level of scenic quality). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-682 

It should be noted that under Alternative E, approximately 21,298 acres of area managed under 

VRM Class I objectives as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would lie within the 

proposed ACEC boundary, but because the area would be protected as VRM Class I under 

Special Designation Area management decisions for both alternatives, the impacts to visual 

resources would the same. 

Management decisions under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would not designate Lockhart 

Basin as an ACEC for protection of scenic values. This alternative would designate the area that 

abuts the Moab FO planning area as VRM Class II (10,573 acres or approximately 22% of the 

basin) and the rest of the basin as VRM Class III. The VRM Class II management objectives 

would retain the existing character of the landscape, permitting a low level of change to the 

landscape that should not attract the attention of the casual observer. The impacts on visual 

resources in the area managed under VRM II would be beneficial in the short-term and long-term 

because visual resource objectives would maintain scenic quality at levels consistent with the 

area's inventoried scenic quality and viewer sensitivity. The impacts to visual resources in the 

area designated as VRM Class III would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, the area would be open for mineral leasing, subject 

to Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface Use lease stipulations. An estimated 24 natural 

gas exploration wells could be drilled within the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt within 15 year after 

approval of the RMP. If natural gas exploration and/or development activities were conducted 

within Lockhart Basin, then there would be the likelihood of short-term and long-term surfacedisturbance and visual intrusion-related impacts to visual resources within the designated VRM 

Class III areas of the basin the same as those described under Alternative A. The designated 

VRM Class II areas would require more impacts mitigation in order to meet the VRM Class II 

objectives, so the impacts to visual resources would be minor. For those viewing the Basin from 

within the Monticello PA and at points looking down into the basin, the impacts within the 

designated VRM Class III area would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A 

because the VRM objectives would be the same. For viewers looking into the designated VRM 

Class II area of the Basin from the Monticello PA perspective, there would be minor impacts to 

visual resources from minerals-related surface disturbances because a small degree of visual 

contrasts and visual degradation would be permitted. For those viewers looking down into the 

Basin from elevated points of view within the VRM Class II area, the short-term and long-term, 

adverse impacts to scenic quality (as discussed under Alternative A) would be reduced because 

of the reduced level of permitted disturbances to scenic quality, but the impacts would be visible 

to the viewers for the same reasons as discussed under Alternative A: the angle of view would 

more clearly expose surface disturbances and contrasts, and mitigation would not likely be 

effective at reducing visual contrasts and intrusions. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative C 

and the Proposed Plan would be similarly adverse to visual resources in the VRM Class III area 

because the proposed VRM Class III objectives would allow scenic quality within the Basin to 

be degraded to a greater level than indicated by the visual inventory's VRM Class II rating. The 

area designated as VRM Class II would be more beneficial to visual resources because it would 

be managed for greater scenic quality protection, consistent with the visual resource inventory. 

Alternative D would not designate Lockhart Basin as an ACEC. The area would be designated as 

VRM Class III, with the same impacts as those discussed under Alternative A because the 

management decisions are similar. Under this alternative, the area would be open for mineral 

leasing, subject to Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface Use lease stipulations. An 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-683 

estimated 25 natural gas exploration wells could be drilled within the Paradox Fold and Fault 

Belt within 15 years after approval of the RMP, with short-term and long-term impacts on visual 

resources as discussed under Alternative A. 

4.3.18.3.2. INDIAN CREEK

Under Alternative A, the Indian Creek ACEC was visually inventoried and is currently 

designated as VRM Class I, with visual resource impacts similar to those discussed under 

Lockhart Basin Alternative B: the visual resource class objectives of preserving the existing 

character (and high scenic quality) of the landscape would limit impacts to visual resources to a 

very low level. Alternatives B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan would also manage the proposed 

ACEC as VRM I, with negligible impacts to visual resources, comparable to Alternative A. 

Alternatives A, B and E would manage the ACEC within 8,510 acres; Alternative C and the 

Proposed Plan would manage the area as a 3,908-acre ACEC. Note that for Alternative E, 

approximately 3,887 acres designated as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be managed under VRM Class I objectives; however, the impacts to visual resources would not 

change as the proposed ACEC would be managed under VRM Class I management objectives 

through Alternative E special designation management decisions. 

Management decisions under Alternative D would not designate Indian Creek as an ACEC. The 

area would be designated as VRM Class III, allowing moderate changes to the characteristic 

landscape from activities that attract attention but do not dominate the landscape, and with the 

objective of partially retaining the landscape's existing character. Portions of the area would be 

open to mineral leasing under Timing stipulations, with minerals RFD in the Paradox Fold and 

Fault Belt the same as discussed under Alternative D for Lockhart Basin. The potential shortterm and long-term impacts to visual resources would be similar to those discussed under 

Lockhart Basin, except that there would be no distinction between points of view looking down 

versus across the area of disturbance. 

Compared to Alternative A, there would be more adverse, long-term impacts to visual resources 

under Alternative D within the Indian Creek area because a 1) a higher degree of surface 

disturbances and visual contrasts would be allowed under VRM Class III management 

objectives, and 2) the proposed VRM Class III objectives would permit scenic quality to be 

degraded to a greater level than indicated by the visual resource inventory Class I level for the 

area. 

4.3.18.3.3. VALLEY OF THE GODS

Under Alternative A, the 31,387-acre Valley of the Gods was visually inventoried and is 

designated as VRM Class I, with surface disturbance impacts required to be compatible with the 

very low degree of visual resource change allowed under this class objective. Valley of the Gods 

is currently designated as a special emphasis area for scenic values within the Cedar Mesa 

ACEC. The valley lies within the Monument Upward mineral resources survey area, and the 

predicted RFD average number of natural gas exploration wells within this survey area for this 

alternative during a 15-year period after approval of the proposed RMP would be 9 wells. Visual 

resource values are high in this area, and the Open minerals leasing category would require NSO 

stipulations. Any exceptions to these stipulations would require that visual mitigation measures 

reduce impacts to meet the current VRM I Class objectives. Thus, the impacts to visual resource 

values under this alternative would be negligible. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-684 

The impacts under Alternatives B, C, and E, and the Proposed Plan would be the same as those 

discussed for Alternative A because the VRM Class I objectives would also be applied under 

these alternatives and under the Proposed Plan: the valley would be designated as the 22,863-

acre Valley of the Gods Scenic ACEC. 

As noted above for Lockhart Basin regarding lands with non-WSA wilderness characteristics, 

the Valley of the Gods under Alternative E would contain approximately 20,743 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, as previously discussed, Special 

Designation Area management decisions would apply VRM Class I objectives to the area under 

Alternative E, so management of these VRM Class I non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would not affect visual resource management because VRM Class I objectives 

would be applied to all of the proposed ACEC. 

Under Alternative D, the Valley of the Gods area would not be designated as an ACEC and the 

VRM Class III designation and management objectives would be applied, as described under 

Lockhart Basin Alternatives C and D above. Under this alternative, the area would be open to 

mineral leasing with standard stipulations; however, as discussed above, the average predicted 

RFD of mineral resources would be 9 natural gas exploration wells within the Monument 

Upwarp minerals survey area after approval of the proposed RMP. If mineral resource 

development was conducted within the Valley of the Gods area, the short-term and long-term 

impacts from mineral development would be similar to those discussed for Lockhart Basin 

Alternatives C and D, with the exception that there would be no distinction between points of 

view looking down versus across the area of disturbance. 

4.3.18.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

The visual resources analysis assumed that VRM Class I and II areas would receive the highest 

level of visual resources protection, and that VRM Class III and IV areas would receive less 

visual resources protection. So, VRM Classes III and IV would allow more surface-disturbing 

impacts and potentially have greater adverse impacts on visual resources than those areas 

managed under VRM Classes I and II. Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 shows the impacts to visual 

resources in terms of acreages affected for each alternative. 

The impacts to visual resources within selected visually sensitive areas within the Monticello PA 

would be as follows. 

4.3.18.4.1. LOCKHART BASIN

Under Alternative A the visual impacts from potential surface disturbances and visual intrusions 

would be moderately adverse in the long-term when viewed within and from areas surrounding 

the basin because of the current VRM Class III designation and management objectives for the 

area that would permit visible surface disturbances to and degradation of visual resources that 

have been inventoried as having VRM Class II scenic quality. Alternatives B and E would permit 

minor to negligible changes to visual quality under proposed VRM Class I designation and 

management objectives, thus retaining the existing scenic quality when viewed from within and 

from surrounding points of view. Alternatives C and D and the Proposed Plan would manage the 

area under VRM Class II and Class III objectives, which would allow moderate change to the 

characteristic landscape, with permitted changes to visual resources from potential oil and gas 

activities. The impacts to visual quality under Alternatives C and D and the Proposed Plan would 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-685 

be the most adverse, when compared to Alternatives A, B, and E by allowing substantial visual 

quality degradation within an area of high scenic quality. 

4.3.18.4.2. INDIAN CREEK

Under Alternative A, the visual resource class objectives of preserving the existing character 

(and high scenic quality) of the landscape would limit impacts to visual resources to a very low 

level. Alternatives B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan would also designate the proposed ACEC 

as VRM Class I, with negligible to very minor impacts to visual resources, comparable to 

Alternative A. Alternative D would designate the area as VRM Class III Class, with management 

objectives that would allow moderate changes to the characteristic landscape, with a greater 

degree of permitted degradation of visual resources than the other alternatives and the Proposed 

Plan. 

4.3.18.4.3. VALLEY OF THE GODS

Under Alternative A, this highly scenic ACEC was visually inventoried and is designated as 

VRM Class I, with surface disturbance impacts required to be compatible with the very low 

degree of permitted visual resource change. Alternatives B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan 

would have impacts similar to those for Alternative A because the VRM Class I designation and 

resource objectives would be applied under these alternatives and the Proposed Plan. Alternative 

D would not designate the area as an ACEC and VRM Class III designation and class objectives 

would be applied, with permitted impacts to and potential degradation of the area's visual 

resources. 

4.3.18.5. MITIGATION MEASURES

Based on visual resource mitigation techniques described in BLM Manual H-8431-1, mitigation 

to minimize visual impacts resulting from facility development would include (but are not 

limited to): 

• modifying facility design to reduce profile or height; 

• applying appropriate coloring to facilities and structures as camouflage; 

• planning and placement of roads and facilities to take advantage of local landscape features 

to hide these man-made features; and 

• using local topography to hide surface-disturbing impacts or reduce visual contrasts. 

All surface-disturbing activities would be subject to the VRM class objectives of the area where 

surface-disturbing activities would be proposed. The VRM visual contrast rating system would 

be used to assess the potential site-specific impacts of project surface disturbances, and to guide 

facility placement and facility design to mitigate the impacts to visual resources. 

4.3.18.6. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Woodland harvesting, vegetation treatments for control of exotic species and fire management, 

the development of energy and communication sites, cross-country (open) OHV travel, and 

minerals resources exploration and development would likely cause short-term and long-term, 

unavoidable, adverse impacts on visual resources that would not be completely mitigated by 

camouflage coloring, facility placement or design, topographic screening of construction-related 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-686 

surface disturbance impacts or structures, or other site-specific visual resources mitigation 

techniques. 

4.3.18.7. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Disturbance due to vegetation treatments for fire management, facility/campground construction, 

range improvements, mineral development and exotic species control would have short-term 

impacts on visual resources. However, some of these activities, such as vegetation treatments, 

exotic species control, and fire management would also have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

visual resources and scenic quality by reducing the potential for visual quality degradation from 

wildland fire, or by producing variations in vegetation communities that would create a more 

diverse (and a potentially more visually interesting) landscape. Accordingly, these short-term 

resource uses would not result in a loss in the long-term productivity of visual resources in the 

planning area. 

The short-term impacts of exploratory well pad and associated access road construction would 

also likely cause a long-term loss or degradation of scenic quality in those areas where 

vegetation re-growth and establishment is slow or difficult. Additionally, the bulk of this 

development and its associated impacts to visual resources would be visible in the long term. 

However, the relatively small amount of predicted oil and gas drilling is unlikely to result in a 

loss of the long-term productivity of visual resources in the Monticello PA. 

4.3.18.8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Irreversible impacts to visual resources would be produced if visual resource-related cultural 

resources, such as pictographs, petroglyphs, and prehistoric and historic structures were damaged 

or destroyed by other resource use activities (e.g., minerals exploration and development, 

recreation, OHV cross-country travel, fire management). However, substantial impacts of this 

type are unlikely due to the protection afforded these resources by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Irretrievable impacts to visual resources would also be produced by 

surface disturbances such as mineral development, access road construction, facility 

construction, fire management, and vegetation treatments. This irretrievable loss would be most 

apparent in those areas of particular visual sensitivity noted above and under those alternatives 

that propose lower visual protections for those areas. The visual resources impacted by such 

developments would be irretrievably lost until those areas are rehabilitated or restored. However, 

because they can be restored, these impacts would not be irreversible. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-687 

4.3.19. WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

This chapter provides the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons of alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan. The probable consequences of each alternative and the Proposed Plan on wildlife 

resources are discussed in this section, beginning with impacts common to all alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan and proceeding to a discussion of the Proposed Plan’s and each alternative's 

impact on wildlife and fisheries resources. All acreages and percentages reported in this Wildlife 

and Fisheries section are approximations.

Table 4.241 summarizes where wildlife species are found in the Monticello PA by habitat type. 

These representative species were chosen for their high public interest, such as deer and elk, or 

because they represent an important ecological group, such as neotropical birds. The Wildlife 

and Fisheries section in Chapter 3 (Section 3.20) explains the connection between specific 

habitat types and associated wildlife in more detail. The quantitative analyses in this section 

reflect impacts by habitat type, since the wildlife species in the PA are too numerous to analyze 

for individual species. 

Table 4.241. Grouping of Wildlife Species by Native Habitat Type 

Vegetation/ Habitat Type Wildlife Associations 

Aquatic* Amphibians, fish. 

Cliff/Rock* Raptors, desert bighorn sheep, reptiles. 

Conifer/Mountain shrub Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, black bear (primarily old 

growth), neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles. 

Desert scrub Pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, elk (winter), raptors, 

neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles. 

Pinyon-juniper Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, mountain lion, neotropical birds, 

upland game birds, reptiles. 

Riparian/Wetland* Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, neotropical birds, upland 

game birds, amphibian and fish species, reptiles. 

Sagebrush/Perennial grass Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, neotropical birds, upland 

game birds, reptiles. 

* Aquatic and Cliff / Rock habitats are not generally discussed in subsequent analyses. Most impacts to wildlife 

species are terrestrially based, and there are only a few acres of cliff/rock habitat in the Monticello PA. 

4.3.19.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the BLM would continue to cooperate with the 

UDWR to benefit native and naturalized fish and wildlife species in the long term by 

introducing, transplanting, augmenting, or reintroducing the species to historic or suitable ranges. 

Wildlife would benefit from guzzler installation and/or spring development in areas lacking 

proper water distribution or natural water sources. Habitat objectives would be considered in all 

reclamation activities, and priority given to meeting Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 

1997). The BLM would continue to allot 17,300 acres to wildlife, which would include parts of 

the slopes of Peter's Canyon and East Canyon. In addition, BLM would adhere to fence standards 

to allow wildlife movement when fences are being developed or maintained and adhere to BLM 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-688 

Habitat Management Guidelines for the American Pronghorn Antelope (BLM 1981 as revised). 

Predator management would continue to be coordinated with APHIS-Wildlife Services and 

UDWR under the existing MOU with APHIS-Wildlife Services. 

In seasonal wildlife protection areas wildlife would benefit from special conditions regulating 

use during certain seasons. These special conditions would not affect maintenance and operation 

activities for mineral production or hunting during recognized hunting seasons. 

Most of the acreages listed describe areas to be protected with timing stipulations. These 

protections will benefit the four big game species for which the protections are designed by 

reducing surface disturbance and other human-related disturbances; they will also benefit other 

wildlife species such as birds, small mammals, and reptiles that use the same habitats. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, protections for deer and elk habitat occur primarily 

in sagebrush/perennial grass and pinyon-juniper woodlands, while those in pronghorn habitat 

occur primarily in desert shrubland. Land protected for desert bighorn is dominated by both 

desert shrub and pinyon-juniper woodland. Therefore, wildlife species that occur in sagebrush 

perennial grass, pinyon-juniper, and desert shrub habitats (see Table 4.241 at the beginning of 

this section) would be likely to benefit most from the special protection of big game habitats. 

The BLM would pursue appropriate NRHP designation of eligible sites under current policy and 

guidelines as management decisions for cultural resources under all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan. New field inventories would be identified based upon probability for unrecorded 

significant cultural resources. In all land and resource use authorizations, the BLM would 

comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (NAGPRA), and other federal and state laws specific to cultural resource management. In so 

doing BLM would consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribes, and other 

interested parties. Any impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources would be mitigated. Sites, 

structures, objects, and traditional use areas that are important to Tribes would be protected to 

maintain the viewshed, intrinsic values, and the auditory, visual, and esthetic settings of the 

resources. Finally, since McLoyd Canyon-Moon House Management Zone and Grand Gulch 

National Historic District are within WSAs these areas would be managed under the IMP though 

management prescriptions for cultural resource protection vary between alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan. All these management decisions would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

wildlife since they generally result in avoidance or mitigation of surface-disturbing activities in 

potential habitat. Impacts common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan related to the Cedar 

Mesa Cultural SRMA are discussed in Section 4.3.19.3.12 Impacts of Recreation Decisions on 

Wildlife and Fisheries. 

The following lands and realty decisions would impact wildlife and fisheries in the Monticello 

PA: access, easements, leases and permits, utility/transportation systems, exchanges, disposals, 

and withdrawals. The Monticello FO AMS Chapter 7 contains a complete list of common realty 

issues the Monticello FO can expect (BLM 2005c). Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, 

lands adjacent to Recapture Lake and land for two water treatment facilities and two airports 

would be identified for disposal in the Monticello PA. Total acreage of the land disposal would 

be approximately 8,879 acres. Because of the proposed uses of the areas identified for disposal, 

there is the potential for adverse impacts on wildlife resources on these lands due to loss of 

habitat. These adverse impacts would be reduced by required revegetation and/or minimization 

of surface disturbance in sensitive habitats. In addition, this disposal would lead to the potential 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-689 

acquisition of sensitive species habitat and relict vegetation areas as part of the exchange 

program, which would decrease the magnitude of the adverse impacts associated with the loss of 

native habitat in the Monticello PA. The implementation of the lands and realty program would 

have both short- and long-term adverse impacts on wildlife resources in the Monticello PA due 

to the surface-disturbing activities associated with land and realty decisions. Some adverse 

impacts would be reduced because of the many withdrawals and excluded areas that help 

preserve and protect sensitive environmental resources and areas. Other protection measures that 

would help to reduce the adverse impacts of this program on wildlife resources would include 

the acquisition and retention of any TES habitat, quality riparian areas, and key productive 

ecosystems. 

Applications for lands and realty-related filming permits would have to meet the following 

criteria for approval: no impact to sensitive species habitat, no use of exotic species, no use of 

pyrotechnics or explosives, no more than temporary impacts to land, air, and water, and no 

adverse impact on relict environments or riparian areas. Applications for filming permits for 

activities in WSAs, WSR corridors, NRHP-eligible sites, and Native American sacred sites 

would have to meet additional criteria for approval (no significant use of livestock and a 

maximum of 15 vehicles and 75 people in the sensitive area). The increased human traffic, with 

attendant trampling of habitat and vegetation removal associated with filming operations could 

result in short- and long-term adverse impacts on vegetation resources and consequently, wildlife 

habitat. Filming operations also result in noise and visual disturbance to wildlife from the 

presence of humans. Adverse impacts would be reduced by adherence to the minimum impact 

criteria listed above. 

For all alternatives' and Proposed Plan impacts from lands and realty decisions, Monticello FO 

AMS Chapter 7 contains a list of ACECs and SRMAs closed to ROWs in the Monticello PA. 

These closures would benefit wildlife by reducing human traffic and habitat disturbance. 

However, all areas not identified as avoidance or exclusion would be available for ROWs and 

could be subject to multiple-use terms on a case-by-case determination (BLM 2005c). The use of 

ROWs for utility and communication infrastructure could have direct, short- and long-term 

adverse impacts on wildlife due to loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, and short-term human 

disturbance during construction activities. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, livestock grazing would be managed according to 

the Guidelines for Grazing Management to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health, which 

would benefit wildlife by maintaining or restoring the proper functioning condition (PFC) of 

riparian and wetland wildlife habitat, maintaining desired species (including native and special 

status species) at a level appropriate to the site and conditions, and maintaining or improving 

aquatic habitat by ensuring that all state and federal water quality standards are met. Grazing 

would continue to be unavailable on 125,356 acres (specific areas identified in Table 2.1) and 

17,300 acres in Peter's Canyon and East Canyon would continue to be allotted to wildlife. 

Management decisions common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan would make livestock 

grazing unavailable on certain allotments, directly benefiting big game by making more forage 

available. Alternatives that make fewer areas unavailable to livestock grazing would expose big 

game to the adverse impacts of competition for forage and cover. Livestock grazing in riparian 

areas could have adverse impacts on riparian-associated wildlife species (see Table 4.241). 

Direct adverse impacts would include competition with wildlife for forage, and possible 

trampling of individual animals or nests. Indirect adverse impacts of livestock use of riparian 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-690 

areas include an increased susceptibility to invasion by noxious weeds, which reduce the value of 

forage, and reduction of cover species for sensitive wildlife (Popolizio et al. 1994; Kauffman et 

al. 1983; Sarr et al. 1996). Bird species that rely on native riparian trees for nesting and roosting 

sites and protection from predators would be adversely affected by the replacement of native 

vegetation with introduced species (Saab et al. 1995). Fish, amphibian, and other aquatic species 

would be adversely impacted if improper livestock grazing caused erosion in saline soils. This 

would contribute to increased salinity in surface waters in the Monticello PA, which could 

modify species composition within an ecosystem (Galindo-Bect and Glenn 1999; Hart et al. 

1998) and cause mortality of freshwater species (Nelson and Flickinger 1992). Sedimentation 

can have similarly adverse impacts. Soil compaction due to grazing in riparian areas would result 

in less rainwater infiltration into soils and more overland flow. The result would be large, shortlived flows rather than small, perennial flows (Trimble and Mendel 1995). This would reduce the 

duration of seasonal water availability for a wide range of wildlife species. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan adverse long-term impacts from minerals decisions 

on wildlife and their habitats would include habitat loss and fragmentation and subsequent 

occupation of areas for oil and gas well pads, open pit mines, and associated roads and 

infrastructure. These long-term impacts would also result in wildlife avoidance of these areas, 

reducing their value as habitat. Many species of wildlife avoid areas with high or inconsistent 

levels of noise, roads with frequent automobile/truck traffic, areas that are brightly lit at night, 

and areas surrounding human-built structures. Adverse short-term impacts include degradation 

resulting from the removal of vegetation (surface disturbance) and wildlife avoidance of 

disturbed areas. Surface disturbance would also increase the potential for invasion of undesirable 

plant species, including noxious weeds (Piemeisel 1951). The loss of native vegetation would 

result in long-term adverse impacts on wildlife by decreasing the amount of available habitat and 

degrading existing habitat. Wildlife species that use pinyon-juniper habitat would likely be the 

most heavily impacted by surface disturbance and related impacts due to oil and gas well 

development since pinyon-juniper habitat is the most common habitat type in the Monticello PA. 

Wildlife species that use desert scrub would likely be the next most heavily impacted by surface 

disturbance related impacts since desert scrub is the next most common habitat type in the 

Monticello PA (see Table 4.242 below). 

Adverse impacts of minerals decisions on wildlife resources would be reduced by the 

implementation of BMPs outlined in Section 2.1 and Appendix M. These include NSO 

stipulations in riparian habitat, required revegetation of oil and gas well sites upon project 

completion, and land management decisions that meet or move toward meeting Utah's Standards 

for Rangeland Health. In addition, the implementation of BMPs for the benefit of wildlife and 

their habitats (e.g., centralization of drill rigs and storage tanks, reduction of the number of 

access roads, and interim and final reclamation practices) would also reduce some of the shortand long-term adverse impacts listed above. Interim reclamation occurs during the operational 

phase of a project and consists of revegetating all areas surrounding wells and roads that are not 

actively used during oil or gas production. Final reclamation occurs when a well has been 

decommissioned and includes the practices of recontouring soil surfaces to match surrounding 

landforms, replacing topsoil, and reseeding with native plant species. The number of years 

required for successful final reclamation would depend on the habitat type; grasslands recover 

more quickly than sagebrush or desert shrub, which recover more quickly than forested areas 

such as pinyon-juniper or conifer habitat. A commonly used average value and goal for 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-691 

reclamation across the project is 10 years. Following the successful reclamation of a well site or 

road, the long-term adverse impacts to wildlife species would be largely eliminated. 

Table 4.242. Percentages of Vegetation/Habitat Types that Occur 

in the Monticello PA 

Vegetation Types Monticello PA 

Agriculture 0.3% 

Conifer and Mountain Shrub 0.6% 

Desert Scrub 23.6% 

Developed 0.0%* 

Disturbed 0.4% 

Invasive Species / Noxious Weeds 0.2% 

Pinyon-Juniper 64.3% 

Riparian / Wetland 1.2% 

Sagebrush / Perennial Grasslands 9.3% 

Water 0.1% 

Total 100.0% 

*Values have been rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. A value of 0.0% does not necessarily indicate 

that there are no acres of that vegetation type on the land – only that they are less than 0.1% of the total 

acres. 

The amount of land that is open to oil and gas leasing or other mineral use is not necessarily 

indicative of the number of acres that will be directly disturbed. Areas managed under Standard 

or Timing and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations allow minerals development, but all of 

those acres would not be subjected to surface disturbance. Areas categorized as NSO or Closed 

exclude all surface-disturbing minerals development. Riparian and wetland habitat, lands with a 

slope greater than 40%, and VRM Class I areas have been excluded from analysis because they 

have been assigned the leasing category of NSO, which excludes them from all surface 

disturbance. The impacts of minerals decisions are analyzed for the entire Monticello PA rather 

than for each individual RFD area for the purposes of comparison. Impacts may be concentrated 

in particular RFD areas, however. Depending on the distribution of wildlife habitat across 

particular RFD areas with high levels of disturbance, the amount of particular habitats disturbed 

may not match the composition of vegetation in the Monticello PA. The Blanding Sub-basin and 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt RFD areas are projected to experience the greatest minerals 

development-related disturbances, and therefore impacts to wildlife and their habitat. These RFD 

areas contain predominantly pinyon-juniper habitat with desert scrub habitat as the second most 

common habitat. Of the three oil and gas development areas within the Monticello PA, wildlife 

habitat in the Blanding Sub-basin RFD area is expected to be most intensely impacted by 

minerals decisions because it has the highest predicted levels of oil and gas well development 

(41 wells total for 15 years under Alternative A). Site-specific analysis would be necessary to 

determine the exact impacts to wildlife from oil and gas development. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan the primary impacts of recreation on wildlife would 

include surface disturbance of wildlife habitat by vehicles and non-motorized recreationists, the 

introduction and spread of noxious weeds, and direct mortality through wildlife collisions with 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-692 

motor vehicles, and crushing of eggs or nests. In addition, many wildlife species (birds in 

particular) are sensitive to traffic and other human-caused noise. Traffic noise has been shown to 

directly interfere with bird vocal communication, which affects territorial behavior and mating 

success (Reijnen and Foppen 1994). Increased road traffic also increases the risk of direct 

mortality of wildlife species due to vehicle impacts; carrion-eating raptors and mule deer 

attempting to cross roads are especially vulnerable. Where designated, Special Recreation 

Management Areas (SRMAs) would reduce adverse impacts on wildlife by restricting recreation 

and reducing dispersed recreational activities in some habitat areas. In general, the impact of 

recreation decisions on wildlife and fisheries are expected to be minimal since areas used by 

recreationists are generally previously disturbed and recreationists are limited to and have a 

tendency to use established routes. Also, adverse impacts of recreation decisions would be 

partially mitigated by the required reclamation of disturbed areas to meet the Utah Standards for 

Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management and protective measures outlined 

for federally listed species under Impacts Common to All Alternatives and the Proposed Plan. In 

addition, careful recreation management through decisions on woodland harvesting and 

gathering, permit number limits, camping and travel controls, implementation of fees, alternation 

of when use takes place, group size limits, pet regulations, designated camping sites, and other 

similar decisions would help to mitigate some impacts. 

Though the Comprehensive Travel Plan and OHV Area Designations are discussed under 

Recreation (Table 2.1) the impacts of recreation decisions on wildlife and fisheries resources are 

discussed in Section 4.3.19.3.17 Impacts of Travel Management Decisions on Wildlife and 

Fisheries. The impacts of general policy for issuance and management of Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) are not discussed as these impacts would be negligible. The impacts of recreation 

decisions dealing with the ERMA also are not discussed. Assuming that recreationists in the 

ERMA use established routes and either camp in previously disturbed areas only or stay within 

150–300 feet of these routes (as specified under each alternative and the Proposed Plan) the 

difference between alternatives and the Proposed Plan in terms of the impacts of recreation 

decisions on wildlife and fisheries would be negligible. The impacts of recreation decisions 

regarding SRMAs are discussed below. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, riparian areas would be managed as NSO for oil 

and gas leasing. They would be open to mineral entry and disposal of mineral materials, but not 

in active floodplains or within 100 m of riparian areas. Woodland product collection would be 

prohibited in all riparian areas. In addition, the Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing and Recreation would be followed to achieve proper functioning 

condition (PFC). The BLM would avoid degradation of habitats that could result in the loss of 

riparian vegetation, and would implement the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWFL) 

Recovery Plan where appropriate. These restrictions would decrease the intensity of surface 

disturbance in riparian habitat, which would benefit wildlife species that are found in riparian 

areas in the Monticello PA. However, because livestock grazing would be allowed in riparian 

areas under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, there would be some direct and indirect 

adverse impacts to riparian-dependent wildlife resulting from trampling and knocking nests out 

of shrubs and trees, and impacts to riparian vegetation, soils, and water quality. Improper 

livestock grazing has been shown to have adverse impacts on riparian ecosystems (Armour et al. 

1994) and it may be necessary to remove livestock from an area if it is determined that the site is 

"Functioning at Risk." 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-693 

Soils and watershed decisions under all of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan would comply 

with Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing and Recreation. In 

addition, all floodplains and riparian/wetlands would be managed in accordance with Executive 

Order 11988, which would protect the quality of stream water and federally listed species 

habitat. Uses in the Monticello PA would be managed to minimize and mitigate damage to soils, 

and activities located in areas with sensitive soils would be subject to site-specific NEPA 

analysis. These restrictions would decrease the number of acres in the Monticello PA subject to 

the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on wildlife habitats, including surface water 

contamination and sedimentation by runoff from disturbed soils. 

For impacts common to special designation areas under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, 

special designation areas, such as ACECs, WSRs, and WSAs would generally have long-term 

beneficial impacts on the wildlife and fisheries that occur within their boundaries by limiting or 

preventing surface disturbance, human activities, and associated habitat degradation and 

fragmentation. Possible adverse impacts to wildlife that are associated with special designations 

decisions include restrictions on or the exclusion of habitat improvements, watershed 

improvements, and vegetation treatments in wildlife habitats included within ACECs, WSRs, or 

WSAs. The restriction of these decisions could adversely impact wildfire prevention practices 

(e.g., by preventing the thinning of young, fire-ladder trees) or adversely affect the ability to 

provide high value forage in a steep part of an eroding watershed. These restrictions could also 

potentially prevent the effective management of an area for wildlife habitat (e.g., preventing the 

encroachment of pinyon-juniper forest on sagebrush or grassland habitat). However, not all 

vegetation treatments would be beneficial to all wildlife species, as some species prefer 

woodlands while others depend on more open habitat for their survival. So, the exclusion of 

vegetation treatments in special designations areas would benefit some wildlife and adversely 

affect others. ACECs designated specifically to protect wildlife and vegetation would directly 

benefit wildlife species and their habitats. ACECs designated to preserve historic, cultural, and 

scenic values (as opposed to wildlife or vegetation) would indirectly benefit wildlife by limiting 

human and surface disturbance, preserving habitat or preventing noise. All ACECs are assumed 

to be beneficial to wildlife. Like ACECs, WSAs are assumed to beneficially impact wildlife 

resources through focused management. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, WSAs 

would be managed under the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under 

Wilderness Review (IMP), and are designated as VRM Class I. Also, 2,155 acres of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics contiguous to the Butler Wash WSA would be managed so 

as to maintain their wilderness values. Where ACECs overlap WSAs, WSA management would 

take precedence. The designation of a river as suitable for WSR status would beneficially impact 

wildlife that utilize habitats directly associated with the river (e.g., riparian, wetlands, open 

water) by mandating the protection of the river's "free-flowing character" and applying an NSO 

stipulation within 1/4 mile of the river. 

For impacts common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan pertaining to special status species 

decisions, no activities would be permitted on public lands that would jeopardize the continued 

existence of plant or animal species that are listed, officially proposed, or candidates for listing 

as Threatened and Endangered (T&E). The BLM would commit to current and future 

conservation agreements, management plans, and recovery plans specific to T&E and BLM 

Sensitive Species, as described in Table 2.1. Although meant to protect and conserve special 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-694 

status species, the decisions would also benefit other wildlife species that share habitat with the 

targeted special status species. 

Under all travel alternatives and the Proposed Plan, non-mechanized travel would be limited to 

designated routes and would continue to be managed under the 1991 San Juan RMP and under 

closure and restriction notices published in the Federal Register. Also under all alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan, three National Scenic Byways and three National Scenic Backways would be 

established (Table 2.1). These management prescriptions are not likely to result in appreciable 

impacts on wildlife or wildlife habitat since they are existing routes already in use. 

Under vegetation decisions impacts common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, seed 

gathering and plant collection would be allowed in all areas meeting Utah's Rangeland Health 

Standards. This could have short-term, direct, adverse impacts on wildlife species and habitat 

due to trampling and human disturbance during collection activities, and in some cases depletion 

of food sources for some species. The spread of noxious, invasive, and non-native weed species 

would be controlled through implementation of the BLM weed management policies and action 

plans and by requiring pack stock and riding stock users to use certified weed-free feed. 

Restoration/rehabilitation activities would also be required to use certified weed-free seed mixes, 

mulch, fill, etc. Actions taken to help slow/stop the spread of weeds in the Monticello PA would 

help reduce the adverse impacts of surface disturbance associated with stock use, oil and gas 

development, and other activities that result in an adverse alteration of wildlife habitat. 

Sagebrush habitat would be managed under the Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 

(BLM 2004d), which would have long-term beneficial impacts on wildlife species that utilize 

sagebrush habitat (Monsen 2004). 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan for decisions related to visual resources, lands in the 

Monticello PA would be managed under one of four visual resource management classes 

(described in Section 3.19). All WSAs would be designated and managed as VRM Class I. 

Limited and very limited management activities would be allowed in these areas including nonmechanized short-term vegetation treatments and other surface-disturbing activities designed to 

enhance wildlife habitat. Similar restrictions on surface disturbances apply in designated VRM 

Class II areas. These types of disturbances could have minor short-term adverse impacts on 

wildlife habitats due to human traffic and temporary habitat disruption, but in the long-term these 

impacts benefit wildlife. Some areas that are classified as VRM Class I or II may be late 

succession areas with a monoculture of plant species. Not allowing vegetation treatments in these 

areas would have a long-term adverse impact on some wildlife species that benefit from a midsuccession habitat type with more understory or varying types of plant species. In areas 

designated as VRM Class III or IV, changes to the landscape could be moderate or high. Most 

types of vegetation treatments and other surface-disturbing activities would be allowed in these 

areas. These types of disturbances could have long-term adverse or beneficial impacts on wildlife 

habitats in the Monticello PA, depending on the extent or type of treatment. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan for woodlands, the Healthy Forest Initiative and the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 would be implemented. In addition, National BLM 

Forest Health and Forest Management Guidelines would be followed. These decisions would 

partially mitigate the adverse impacts of woodland harvesting on wildlife species and their 

habitats in areas of the Monticello PA open to wood harvesting. Woodland treatments would be 

prioritized in high value/high risk areas including FRCC III, Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-695 

and developed recreation facilities. These projects would allow for harvest of woodland 

products. Further, live woodland harvest would be allowed in areas with pinyon pine and juniper 

encroachment with a focus on creating sagebrush steppe communities. This action would result 

in short-term adverse impacts on mule deer and elk summer habitats due to temporary human 

disturbances, but in creating sagebrush steppe communities, it would have long-term beneficial 

impacts on mule deer and elk winter habitats. Finally, all non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to woodland product use, with long term, beneficial impacts on 

habitat from reduced human disturbance. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan adherence to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and 

Executive Order 13186 "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds" would 

have beneficial impacts on migratory birds including priority species identified on the current 

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern list (2002 and as updated) and the Partners-in-Flight 

priority species list (as updated). The use of adaptive management strategies would more 

effectively conserve habitat and avoid impacts to these species. Avoidance of surface-disturbing 

activities and vegetation-altering projects, including broad-scale use of pesticides, during nesting 

season (May 1-July 30) would reduce adverse impacts on birds and their nesting habitats in the 

Monticello PA in the short-term. In the long-term vegetation-altering projects may improve 

habitat by providing more food sources and/or cover for birds or by helping to reduce fire risk. 

Further, the prioritization of habitat types most commonly used by migratory birds (lowland 

riparian, wetlands, and low and high desert shrub) for maintenance and improvement would 

increase the availability of high-quality habitat and reduce the adverse impacts of invasive plants 

(e.g., cheatgrass, tamarisk, Russian olive). Finally, in the Coordinated Implementation Plan for 

Bird Conservation in Utah, several Bird Habitat Conservation Areas were identified that would 

receive priority bird habitat conservation projects through cooperative funding initiatives that 

would benefit bird species (Martinsen et al. 2005). 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan raptors would benefit from the use of "Best 

Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah" (BLM 2006c; see also 

Appendix M) and from adherence to USFWS Guidelines for Raptor Management. Seasonal and 

spatial buffers, as well as mitigation, would be used to maintain and enhance raptor nesting and 

foraging habitat, while allowing other resource uses. BLM would also cooperate with utility 

companies, UDWR, and USFWS to prevent raptor electrocution, and close areas near raptor 

nests to recreational and other activities if those activities might result in nest abandonment. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan bighorn sheep would benefit primarily from 

prioritized habitat improvement projects on the five mesa tops (56,740 acres) within crucial 

habitat where potential conflict occurs between bighorn sheep and surface-disturbing activities. 

Further, livestock grazing and associated range improvement projects would not be allowed in 

these areas and mitigation to replace lost forage would be required for projects that disturb or 

remove forage and browse species used by bighorn sheep. Domestic sheep would not be allowed 

to replace cattle in crucial bighorn habitat to prevent disease transmission and competition for 

forage. Bighorn sheep would benefit from BLM adherence to the recommendations of the BLM 

Bighorn Sheep Rangeland Management Plan (BLM 1993b, as revised) and the 1996 (as revised) 

Utah BLM Statewide Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-696 

4.3.19.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Management decisions for all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan for cultural resources 

would implement specific plans, Cultural Resource Management Plans (CRMPs), and a plan for 

the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA (discussed in Section 4.3.19.3.12, Impacts of Recreation 

Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries) would be developed. These plans would include protective 

measures; Native American consultation; regulatory compliance; cultural monitoring systems; 

identification of sites needing stabilization and protective measures; development of research 

designs; designation of sites for interpretive/educational development; identification of areas for 

cultural inventory; and development of specific mitigation measures. Plans would also designate 

sites, districts, landmarks, and landscapes that would be nominated for inclusion on the NRHP. 

These management efforts would result in beneficial long-term impacts on wildlife as they 

would help prevent disturbance-causing activities. 

Also under all cultural resources action alternatives and the Proposed Plan, BLM would: 

proactively manage wildlife risk around susceptible archaeological and cultural sites, reduce or 

eliminate threats from natural or human-caused deterioration or conflict with other resource use, 

and promote collaborative partnerships to help meet management goals and objectives for 

cultural resources. Further, identified at-risk cultural properties would be off limits to visitors 

with pets, climbing aids would be prohibited for access to ruins/cultural sites (except for 

emergencies or administrative needs), and cultural sites may be closed to visitation if they are at 

risk or pose visitor safety hazards. 

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan decisions for lands and realty, new avoidance 

and exclusion areas and transportation and utility corridors would be established (see Table 2.1). 

Avoidance and exclusion areas would have a long-term beneficial impact on wildlife by 

preventing surface disturbance in these areas. Transportation and utility corridors, on the other 

hand, would have short- and long-term adverse impacts on wildlife by allowing surface 

disturbance, associated noise and disruption during surface-disturbing activities, and from habitat 

fragmentation. 

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan, livestock grazing season of use changes 

would be implemented on several allotments (specific areas are identified in Table 2.1) 

throughout the Monticello PA. Also, desired utilization levels for key forage species would be 

identified, as needed, to achieve desired future conditions (DFC). In areas where utilization 

levels are not established, the level of use would be consumption of 50% of the current year's 

forage production. 

Recreation decisions, under all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan, would not allow 

camping within 200 feet of springs, Benefits Based Management (BBM) goals would be in effect 

for each SRMA, and selected recreation sites would be developed or improved on a prioritized 

basis (see Table 2.1). Further, all SRMAs would be designated as special areas under the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund definition, which could translate into permit requirements and fee 

payments for use of these areas. Long-term, beneficial impacts to wildlife would result from each 

of these decisions from habitat preservation, except the recreation site development and 

improvements decisions, whereby further surface disturbance and loss of habitat would be 

expected from development and use of these sites. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-697 

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan for special designation areas, cultural 

resource management plans would be written for Alkali Ridge, Cedar Mesa, Hovenweep, and 

Shay Canyon ACECs. These management plans would result in long-term benefits to wildlife 

since they would focus on protection of the cultural resources in these areas resulting in 

additional protection of wildlife resources by avoidance of surface disturbance and other 

disrupting activities. 

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan for travel, designated routes would be 

categorized for type of travel and adjustments to these categories would be made based on 

recreational demand and potential conflict. Impacts of adjustments would be analyzed and 

disclosed on the activity planning level. All non-motorized travel would be allowed on 

designated routes, and OHV travel would be allowed on the same routes unless otherwise 

designated. Routes in riparian areas classified as Functioning at Risk would be closed based on 

site-specific analysis of OHV impacts. A number of trails (Table 2.1) would be managed for 

non-mechanized use including foot travel, stock overnight use, and stock day use. These 

management prescriptions are likely to result in minor impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat 

because they pertain to existing routes already in use. 

Under vegetation action alternatives and the Proposed Plan, 30,000 to 50,000 acres of vegetation 

treatments in FRCC III areas would occur over a 15-year period. Certain sagebrush communities 

(Table 2.1) would be prioritized for treatment. These treatments would have short-term adverse 

impacts on wildlife by removing forage and cover and by causing noise and other human 

disturbance during treatment activities, but long-term beneficial impacts on wildlife by reestablishing the historic fire regime in treated areas. Also under all action alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan, greasewood would be removed in a number of areas (Table 2.1), which would 

have short-term adverse impacts on wildlife habitats in the treatment areas, but long-term 

beneficial impacts as a whole by removing undesirable, non-native plant species, and allowing 

the establishment of a diverse native vegetation community. 

For visual resources, areas open to oil and gas leasing would be managed as VRM Class III or 

IV. Wild and scenic segments of WSRs would be managed as VRM Class I and II, respectively, 

while recreation segments would be managed under the same VRM Class as the surrounding 

lands. 

Under all action alternatives and the Proposed Plan for woodlands, numerous sites (listed in 

Table 2.1) would be excluded from woodland harvesting except for limited onsite collection of 

dead wood for campfires. These exclusions would mitigate the adverse impacts of woodland 

product use on wildlife resources in areas of the Monticello PA open to woodland harvesting 

(see alternatives and Proposed Plan analysis below for a discussion of these adverse impacts). 

4.3.19.3. ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PLAN IMPACTS

Impacts varying between the alternatives and the Proposed Plan would primarily result from 

varying temporal and spatial restrictions on oil and gas leasing activities, geophysical work, and 

permitted or commercial OHV use in BLM managed wildlife habitats. These protections would 

benefit big game species by reducing surface disturbance and other human-related disturbances 

in critical locations and during critical times of the year. They would also benefit other wildlife 

species such as birds, small mammals, and reptiles that use the same habitats for the same 

reasons. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-698 

Management decisions related to air quality, health and safety, and paleontology would have a 

negligible impact on wildlife and fisheries and are excluded from the following analyses. The 

impacts would be negligible because protecting air quality by monitoring and maintaining 

constituent pollutants within established air quality standards, protecting public health and safety 

by reclaiming AML sites and managing hazardous materials within the PA, and allowing 

recreational and scientific fossil collecting would not affect wildlife species habitat protection 

and/or management. 

4.3.19.3.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A varying acreages of crucial habitat would be closed to oil and gas leasing 

activities, geophysical work, and OHV use during certain times of the year for mule deer, 

pronghorn, and desert bighorn sheep (Table 4.243; Maps 78 and 100). These decisions would 

benefit these species by preventing disturbance in crucial habitat during critical use periods. For 

mule deer and desert bighorn sheep, portions of crucial habitat fall within ROS P-Class 

(recreation primitive areas) or SPNM-Class (semi-primitive non-motorized recreation areas) 

designated areas, which impose stricter conditions that take precedence over the temporal 

closures described. These conditions would benefit these species by further restricting surfacedisturbing activities in crucial habitat. Additional measures affecting each species are discussed 

on a species by species basis below. Overall, Alternative A would provide the least amount of 

wildlife habitat subject to special wildlife conditions (540,260 acres) and therefore would benefit 

wildlife and fisheries the least. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-699 

Table 4.243. Acreage Closed and Season of Closure for Mule Deer, Elk, Pronghorn, and Desert Bighorn S

Alternatives 

Species Special Conditions A B C D E 

Acres Closed 197,550 785,921 266,406 182,315 78Timing 12/15-4/30 11/1-5/15 11/15-4/15 12/1-4/15 11/1

Mule Deer 

Days Closed 137 196 152 136 

Acres Closed N/A 191,173 97,471 62,484 19Timing N/A 11/1-5/15 11/15-4/15 12/1-4-15 11/1

Elk 

Days Closed N/A 196 152 136 

Acres Closed 12,960 29,365 29,365 13,961 2Timing 5/15-6/15 5/1-6/15 5/1-6/15 5/1-6/15 5/1

Pronghorn 

Days Closed 32 46 46 46 

Acres Closed1 329,750 453,388 453,390 299,009 45Timing a. 4/1-7/15 

b. 10/15-12/31

a. 4/1-7/15 

b. 10/15-12/31

a. 4/1-6/15 

b. 10/15-12/15 

a. 4/1-6/15 

b. 10/15-12/15

a. 4/1

b. 10/15-

Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Days Closed a. 106 

b. 78

a. 106 

b. 78

a. 76 b. 62 

a. 76 b. 62

a

1 The letter “a” denotes the acreage and timing for lambing and the letter “b” is for rutting.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-700 

4.3.19.3.1.1. Mule Deer 

Proposed land treatments would be considered on a case-by-case determination on 

approximately 9,800 acres of sagebrush parks within crucial deer winter range. These sagebrush 

parks have been identified as providing a concentrated food source for wintering deer and land 

treatments in these areas would benefit deer by maintaining this food source. 

4.3.19.3.1.2. Elk 

Under Alternative A, no crucial elk habitat is identified. Excluding elk habitat considerations 

from management decisions would have an adverse impact on elk since there would be no 

consideration given to the species' minimum requirements for healthy herds and individuals. 

4.3.19.3.1.3. Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Under Alternative A, competition for forage and transmission of disease from domestic to wild 

sheep would be prevented by denying changes in kind of livestock from cattle to sheep in crucial 

desert bighorn sheep habitat. Desert bighorn sheep would benefit from these measures through 

increased forage and decreased incidence of disease within the population. 

4.3.19.3.2. ALTERNATIVES B AND E 

Under Alternatives B and E seasonal wildlife protection areas would have special conditions for 

all land-use activities except woodland harvest. All seasonal wildlife protection areas would be 

closed to oil and gas leasing activities, geophysical work, permitted or commercial OHV use, 

and low-flying aircraft during the established season. Noise impacts from pyrotechnics, shooting 

and similar activities during permitted filming would also not be allowed. Acreages subject to 

these special conditions vary by species, as do seasons of closure (see Table 4.243; Maps 79 and 

101). All species would benefit from special conditions by protecting habitat during critical use 

periods. Additional measures affecting pronghorn are further discussed below. Total acreage 

subject to special wildlife conditions would be greater under Alternatives B and E than under 

Alternative A (Table 4.244). 

Table 4.244. Total Acres Subject to Special Wildlife Conditions by Alternative and the 

Proposed Plan 

Alternatives 

A B C D E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Acres 540,260 1,459,847 808,637 

and

846,632

557,769 1,459,847 963,322 

4.3.19.3.2.1. Mule Deer 

Alternatives B and E would have more beneficial impacts on mule deer than Alternative A 

because of greater forage availability given the expanded seasonal wildlife protection area and 

the lengthened season of closure. The length of timing stipulations are of particular importance 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-701 

because mule deer migration timing may vary each season due to weather severity and seasonal 

changes in the energy needs of the animal (Garrott et al. 1987). 

4.3.19.3.2.2. Elk 

Alternatives B and E would have greater beneficial impacts on elk than Alternative A because 

Alternatives B and E establish seasonal wildlife protection areas and timing stipulations for elk 

whereas Alternative A contains no prescriptions for elk. 

4.3.19.3.2.3. Pronghorn 

Alternatives B and E would be more beneficial to pronghorn than Alternative A since the 

seasonal protection area for pronghorn would be more than doubled under this alternative. Also, 

the pronghorn timing stipulations are lengthened by 14 days, a 43.75% increase, over the 

stipulations under Alternative A, benefiting pronghorn during fawning season. Additionally, 

spring grazing (April 15 – June 15) would be eliminated in the Mail Station, Upper Mail Station, 

Dry Valley/Deer Neck, Lone Cedar, Tank Draw, and Hart Draw grazing allotments within 

pronghorn habitat. This would benefit pronghorn by increasing available coverage for new born 

fawns in these areas and providing more forage for pregnant and lactating females, thereby 

increasing fawn survival. 

4.3.19.3.2.4. Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Alternatives B and E would have greater beneficial impacts on desert bighorn sheep than 

Alternative A by expanding the seasonal wildlife protection area for desert bighorn sheep 

thereby allowing more area for foraging, reducing habitat fragmentation caused by disturbance 

and reducing disturbance to sheep and lambs during the sensitive times of their life cycles. These 

alternatives would also provide more food for pregnant and lactating females, which would be 

expected to increase recruitment. Singer et al. (2001) concluded that management with goals to 

restore or increase bighorn sheep populations should focus on large habitat patches located at 

least 23 km from domestic sheep herds. By adding acreage to the bighorn seasonal wildlife 

protection area Alternatives B and E are consistent with this conclusion. 

4.3.19.3.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C is the same as Alternatives B and E except that Alternative C allows for a limited 

number of permitted or commercial OHV users. Permitted or commercial OHV use in seasonal 

wildlife protection areas would have an adverse impact on wildlife due to habitat fragmentation 

and increased noise. Also, under Alternative C pronghorn would be impacted by the continuation 

of current livestock-grazing prescriptions. Where opportunities exist livestock-grazing would be 

adjusted to enhance forb production on pronghorn ranges including the grazing allotments listed 

under Alternative B. However, this method of forb enhancement does not ensure that habitat 

would be improved for pronghorn since cattle have been shown to eat forbs during times of grass 

dormancy (McCollum and Galyean 1985). 

In terms of the acreage of seasonal wildlife protection areas Alternative C is more beneficial than 

Alternative A for mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and desert bighorn sheep since these areas are larger 

under Alternative C (see Table 4.244; Maps 80 and 102). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-702 

In terms of timing stipulations Alternative C is more beneficial than Alternative A for mule deer 

elk, and pronghorn since the timing stipulations are longer under this alternative. For desert 

bighorn sheep Alternative C is less beneficial than Alternative A because the timing stipulations 

are shorter under Alternative C (see Table 4.244). 

Total acreage subject to special wildlife conditions is less under Alternative C than Alternative B 

but greater than Alternative A (see Table 4.244). 

4.3.19.3.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

Alternative D decisions would be the same as Alternatives B and E with the exception of OHV 

restrictions (Maps 81 and 103). Under this alternative, permitted or commercial OHV use would 

be restricted to designated routes. Restricting OHV use to designated routes would be beneficial 

to wildlife by concentrating surface disturbance and noise in these locations. However, OHV use 

in general would have an adverse impact on wildlife by increasing noise disturbance and human 

presence in seasonal wildlife protection areas and fragmenting habitat. Also, under Alternative D 

pronghorn would be beneficially impacted by the use of prescriptive livestock grazing to favor 

forb production on pronghorn ranges in grazing allotments identified under Alternatives B and C. 

In terms of acreage of seasonal wildlife protection areas Alternative D is less beneficial than 

Alternative A for mule deer and desert bighorn sheep because it would provide the smallest area. 

For elk Alternative D would provide more area than Alternative A and therefore would be more 

beneficial. Pronghorn would benefit from 1,001 acres more seasonal wildlife protection area 

under Alternative D than Alternative A. 

With respect to timing stipulations Alternative D and Alternative A are similar for mule deer 

(136 compared to 137 days) and identical for desert bighorn sheep. For elk and pronghorn 

Alternative D is more beneficial than Alternative A. 

4.3.19.3.5. PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan is the same as Alternatives B and E except that the Proposed Plan allows for a 

limited number of permitted or commercial OHV users. Permitted or commercial OHV use in 

seasonal wildlife protection areas would have an adverse impact on wildlife due to habitat 

fragmentation and increased noise. Also, under the Proposed Plan pronghorn would be impacted 

by the continuation of current livestock-grazing prescriptions. Where opportunities exist 

livestock-grazing would be adjusted to enhance forb production on pronghorn ranges including 

the grazing allotments listed under Alternative B. However, this method of forb enhancement 

does not ensure that habitat would be improved for pronghorn since cattle have been shown to 

eat forbs during times of grass dormancy (McCollum and Galyean 1985). 

In terms of the acreage of seasonal wildlife protection areas the Proposed Plan is more beneficial 

than Alternative A for mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and desert bighorn sheep since these areas are 

larger under the Proposed Plan (see Table 4.244; Maps 82 and 104). 

In terms of timing stipulations the Proposed Plan is more beneficial than Alternative A for mule 

deer, elk, and pronghorn since the timing stipulations are longer under the Proposed Plan. For 

desert bighorn sheep the Proposed Plan is the same as Alternative A because the timing 

stipulations are the same (see Table 4.244). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-703 

Total acreage subject to special wildlife conditions is less under the Proposed Plan than 

Alternative B but greater than Alternative A (see Table 4.244). 

4.3.19.3.6. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

Impacts varying between alternatives and the Proposed Plan primarily involve the establishment 

of Cultural Special Management Areas (CSMAs), Special Recreation Management Areas 

(SRMAs), and Management Zones (MZs) within SRMAs where identified cultural resources can 

be protected over the long-term from potentially destructive practices such as minerals 

extraction, geophysical activities, permitted or commercial OHV use, and uncontrolled visitation. 

Decisions to establish or expand CSMAs, SRMAs, and MZs are generally directly beneficial to 

wildlife as they prevent some or many of these activities, which are also detrimental to wildlife 

habitat integrity and population viability. 

Though human visitation to cultural sites would likely deter wildlife from using these areas, 

impacts on wildlife are expected to be negligible since visitation would be controlled through 

management prescriptions and/or sites are already being impacted by visitation. Other possible 

adverse impacts to wildlife that are associated with cultural resource decisions include 

restrictions on or the exclusion of habitat improvements, watershed improvements, and 

vegetation treatments in wildlife habitats included within CSMAs, SRMAs, and/or MZs. While 

helping to preserve an area's cultural resources, the restriction of these decisions could adversely 

impact wildfire prevention practices (by preventing the thinning of young, fire-ladder trees) or 

the ability to provide high value forage in a steep part of an eroding watershed. These restrictions 

could also potentially prevent the effective management of an area for wildlife habitat (e.g., 

preventing the encroachment of pinyon-juniper forest on sagebrush or grassland habitat). 

However, not all vegetation treatments would be beneficial to all wildlife species, as some 

species prefer woodlands while others depend on more open habitat for their survival. So, the 

exclusion of vegetation treatments in CSMAs, SRMAs, and/or MZs would benefit some wildlife 

and adversely affect others. 

Impacts varying between alternatives and the Proposed Plan resulting in notable differences in 

impacts to wildlife and fisheries are described below by proposed CSMA/SRMA/MZ, the Grand 

Gulch National Historic District, and Historic Trails. Habitat types by CSMA/SRMA/MZ and 

the Grand Gulch National Historic District are described in Table 4.245 to provide an indication 

of which species would be most affected by management decisions. 

Table 4.245 Acreage of each Cultural Area by Vegetation Cover Type and Associated 

Wildlife 

Vegetation Type Wildlife Associations Comb 

Ridge 

Tank 

Bench 

Beef 

Basin 

McLoyd 

CanyonMoon 

House 

Grand 

Gulch 

National 

Historic 

District 

Conifer/ 

mountain shrub 

Mule deer, elk, mountain 

lion, neotropical birds, 

upland game birds. 

15,884 0 20 0 13
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-704 

Table 4.245 Acreage of each Cultural Area by Vegetation Cover Type and Associated 

Wildlife 

Vegetation Type Wildlife Associations Comb 

Ridge 

Tank 

Bench 

Beef 

Basin 

McLoyd 

CanyonMoon 

House 

Grand 

Gulch 

National 

Historic 

District 

Desert scrub Pronghorn, desert bighorn, 

elk (winter), raptors, 

neotropical birds, upland 

game birds. 

0 858 181 0 7,154 

Pinyon-juniper Mule deer, elk, mountain 

lion, neotropical birds, 

upland game birds. 

17,576 1,564 15,796 1,408 26,902 

Riparian and 

wetland 

Mule deer, elk, mountain 

lion, neotropical birds, 

upland game birds, 

amphibian and fish species.

3,378 225 17 3 860 

Sagebrush and 

perennial 

grassland 

Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, 

desert bighorn, mountain 

lion, neotropical birds, 

upland game birds. 

1,147 0 4,285 196 2,434 

Total Vegetated Acres 37,985 2,647 20,299 1,607 37,363 

4.3.19.3.6.1. Comb Ridge 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no specific management restrictions at Butler east of Comb 

Ridge limiting or mitigating against the adverse impacts of visitation as described above. 

Further, the area would be open to permitted or commercial OHV use and grazing. OHV use and 

grazing would have adverse impacts on wildlife as described in Section 4.3.19.3.17, Impacts of 

Travel Management Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries, and Section 4.3.19.3.9, Impacts of 

Livestock Grazing on Wildlife and Fisheries, respectively. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the Comb Ridge CSMA would be managed as a CSMA for heritage 

tourism and traditional cultural values. It would be closed to woodland product collection and 

geophysical work, disposal of mineral materials and locatable mineral entry. It would be open to 

oil and gas leasing subject to NSO and would only be available for non-surface-disturbing 

vegetation treatments. The area would also be available for range, wildlife habitat, and watershed 

improvements. Camping would be limited to designated campgrounds and hiking and permitted 

or commercial OHV use would be limited to designated trails with group size limits. Alternative 

B would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative A since Alternative A would allow for 

more surface-disturbing activities than Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-705 

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as Alternative B except that woodland product collection and surfacedisturbing vegetation treatments would be allowed under Alternative C. Vegetation treatments 

could be either adverse or beneficial for wildlife, depending on the treatment under discussion 

and which habitat a species primarily uses. Alternative C would be more beneficial for wildlife 

than Alternative A because of greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities than 

Alternative A. 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D Comb Ridge would not be managed as a CSMA. Instead, the area would be 

managed with the same prescriptions as surrounding lands. Compared to Alternative A, the 

management of Comb Ridge under Alternative D would be more beneficial for wildlife, since 

the impacts related to OHV use would be reduced by limiting OHVs to designated trails. 

Alternative E

Alternative E is the same as Alternative B except that under Alternative E Comb Ridge CSMA 

would be closed to oil and gas leasing and OHV use and range, wildlife habitat, and watershed 

improvements could be maintained with no new improvements permitted. In general Alternative 

E would be more beneficial to wildlife than all other alternatives and the Proposed Plan since it 

places the greatest restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. For some species this alternative 

would have mixed benefits since new range, wildlife habitat, and watershed improvements 

would not be permitted. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan is the same as Alternative C except that the area would be managed as an MZ 

within Cedar Mesa SRMA. The area would be managed as VRM Class II and there would be no 

private group size limit. As with Alternative C, the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial for 

wildlife than Alternative A because of greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities than 

Alternative A. 

4.3.19.3.6.2. Tank Bench 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no specific management prescriptions for Tank Bench. 

Alternatives B and E

Under Alternatives B and E, the Tank Bench CSMA would be managed as a CSMA and would 

have the same surface disturbance restrictions as the Comb Ridge CSMA under Alternative B, 

except that campfires, OHV use, domestic pets, and pack animals would not be allowed. 

Prohibiting campfires would reduce fire risk for wildlife habitat and prohibiting OHV use would 

protect more intact habitat for wildlife species while reducing noise disturbance. Disallowing 

pets would reduce wildlife harassment and noise disturbance caused by these animals. People 

using pack animals are required to bring their own weed-free hay as animal feed so there would 

be no discernible difference in forage availability and therefore no impact on wildlife from 

prohibiting pack animals. Alternatives B and E would be more beneficial to wildlife than all 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-706 

other alternatives since these alternatives place greater restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities. 

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as Alternative B except that the following surface-disturbing activities 

would be allowed: oil and gas leasing under standard lease terms; locatable mineral entry, 

disposal of mineral materials, and geophysical work; hiking off trail; and surface-disturbing land 

treatments. However, in comparison to Alternative A, the management of Tank Bench CSMA 

under Alternative C would be more beneficial to wildlife and their habitats, since Alternative C 

would still allow fewer surface-disturbing activities. 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D the Tank Bench area would not be managed as a CSMA. There would be no 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities as in other alternatives; therefore Alternative D would 

result in greater adverse impacts on wildlife than all other alternatives. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan is the same as Alternative C except that the area would be managed as an 

SRMA and it would available for campfires and open to domestic pets and pack animals though 

use may be limited if damage occurs to cultural resources. In comparison to Alternative A, the 

management of Tank Bench SRMA under the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial to 

wildlife and their habitats, since the Proposed Plan would still allow fewer surface-disturbing 

activities. 

4.3.19.3.6.3. Beef Basin 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no specific management restrictions at Beef Basin. Impacts 

would be of the nature described above under Alternative and Proposed Action Impacts. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, Beef Basin CSMA would be managed as a CSMA for heritage tourism, 

traditional cultural values, and scientific research of prehistoric cultural landscapes. Under this 

alternative, Beef Basin would be subject to a number of human disturbance restrictions. These 

restrictions would have beneficial impacts on wildlife resources in the area by reducing human 

disturbances. Alternative B would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative A. 

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as Alternative B except that groups could be up to 20 people, open 

campfires would be allowed (fire pan required), and additional areas for primitive car camping 

would be established as needed. This alternative would be more beneficial to wildlife than 

Alternative A due to increased restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D Beef Basin would not be managed as a CSMA. It would be managed the 

same as under Alternative A except that it would be closed to woodland products harvest. The 

fact that Beef Basin would not be managed as a CSMA under Alternative D should have no 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-707 

bearing on impacts to wildlife if the logistics of management remain the same as under 

Alternative A. 

Alternative E

Alternative E is the same as Alternative B except that additional restrictions would be in place to 

avoid impacts in areas with non-WSA wilderness characteristics. Alternative E would be more 

beneficial to wildlife than all other alternatives since it would result in the fewest surfacedisturbing activities. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan is the same as Alternative C except that the area would be managed as an MZ 

within the Cedar Mesa SRMA and it would be available for private and/or commercial use of 

woodland products and open to campfires without a fire pan. The Proposed Plan would be more 

beneficial to wildlife than Alternative A due to increased restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities. 

4.3.19.3.6.4. McLoyd Canyon-Moon House 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, no public travel would be allowed on the northern section of spur road 

D4798 except for the purpose of BLM site maintenance. This decision would affect very little 

habitat area and likely would have very little impact on wildlife resources in the area. Under this 

alternative there are no additional management prescriptions for protection of cultural resources. 

Alternatives B–E

Under Alternatives B–E, McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA would be subject to a number of 

surface disturbance restrictions which vary slightly between each alternative. Further, Utah State 

Section 2, Township 39S Range 19E, would be acquired. Under each of these alternatives 

surface disturbance restrictions and the acquisition of the aforementioned land area would have 

long-term beneficial impacts on wildlife resources in the area by reducing human disturbances. 

Though management prescriptions do vary this variation is minor and is therefore not expected 

to result in appreciable differences between alternatives in terms of impacts on wildlife. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan is the same as Alternatives B-E except that McLoyd Canyon-Moon House 

would be managed as an MZ within the Cedar Mesa SRMA under the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.19.3.6.5. Grand Gulch National Historic District 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the Grand Gulch National Historic District would be closed to mineral 

leasing and disposal of mineral materials, and excluded from commercial use of woodland 

products except for limited on-site collection of deadwood for campfires. No motorized or 

mechanized equipment would be allowed, including OHVs. Because the site would be managed 

as an ROS P, only primitive recreation opportunities would be allowed, and even primitive 

recreation could be limited if cultural resources or scenic values become impacted. The area 

would be open to livestock use except for 9,000 acres in and around Grand Gulch Canyon and its 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-708 

tributaries. With the possible exception of the livestock use provision, these management 

decisions would have beneficial impacts to wildlife by limiting surface-disturbing activities. 

Alternatives B and E

Under Alternatives B and E, the Grand Gulch National Historic District would be closed to all 

surface disturbances with the exception of designated trails and camping areas. These restrictions 

would beneficially impact wildlife species and their habitats in the area by reducing human 

disturbances. The greater restrictions associated with Alternatives B and E would have more 

beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A. 

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as Alternatives B and E except that non-motorized habitat 

improvements, watershed improvements, and vegetation treatments as well as pack animals 

would be permitted. As stated above vegetation treatments would have short-term adverse 

impacts to wildlife (during the active phase of removing vegetation—though impacts would be 

less with non-motorized techniques than motorized) though wildlife would benefit in the longterm. The presence of pack animals would have a negligible impact on most wildlife species, 

since horses and mules are not known to harass wildlife, and since they would feed on weed-free 

hay rather than forage. In comparison to Alternative A, the management of Grand Gulch 

National Historic District under Alternative C would be more beneficial to wildlife and their 

habitats. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as Alternative C except that the area would be open to oil and gas 

leasing subject to NSO and open to "casual use" geophysical exploration if the WSA is released 

by Congress. Provided Congress releases the WSA, Alternative D would impose more harmful 

impacts on wildlife than all other alternatives. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan is the same as Alternative C except that Grand Gulch National Historic 

District would be managed as a management zone within the Cedar Mesa SRMA. Also, pets and 

pack animals may be limited or prohibited in canyons requiring permits if cultural or natural 

resources or the visitors’ experiences are impacted. The Proposed Plan would be more beneficial 

to wildlife and their habitats than Alternative A owing to greater restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities. 

4.3.19.3.6.6. Historic Trails 

Alternatives A–E and the Proposed Plan

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan the Old Spanish National Historic Trail would be 

managed to protect the resource values for which it was designated. Protection of these resource 

values would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife since surface-disturbing activities would be 

prevented or curtailed. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-709 

4.3.19.3.7. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

The impacts of fire management on wildlife would be the same under all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan, with all decisions guided by the Utah Land-use plan Amendment (LUP 

Amendment) for Fire and Fuels Management (BLM 2005g). Adherence with the LUP 

Amendment (which mandates the maintenance of existing healthy ecosystems and the protection 

of threatened, endangered, and special status species) would have beneficial impacts on wildlife 

habitat in the Monticello PA wherever wildlife habitat overlaps with that of protected special 

status species, and would ensure that healthy ecosystems are not adversely impacted by fire 

management and fuels reduction. Wildland fire use would not be authorized in areas that are 

known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or other weed invasion, important 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and non-fire adapted vegetation communities unless reasonable 

Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) were in place. These RPMs would have beneficial 

impacts on wildlife habitat by reducing the spread of weeds and preserving native plant species, 

thereby maintaining suitable wildlife forage, cover, and habitat. 

Fuels management decisions include fuels-reduction treatments on 5,000 to 10,000 acres 

annually. These fuels-reduction treatments include: mechanical and manual treatments, 

prescribed fire, chemical or biological vegetation control, and aerial/ground seeding. These fuels 

management decisions would likely have a beneficial long-term impact on wildlife and fish 

populations by helping to restore the natural fire regime, which would improve habitat health 

(Lewis and Harshbarger 1976), forage, nesting opportunities, and cover. Restoring the natural 

fire regime would also reduce the chance of wildland fire, and the subsequent loss of major 

ecosystem components. In the short-term, vegetation treatments could result in trampling or 

removal of wildlife forage and/or habitat, and human-caused wildlife disturbance. 

4.3.19.3.7.1. Terrestrial Species 

Short-term adverse impacts to terrestrial wildlife from fire management decisions include 

mortality, habitat destruction, and habitat displacement. Fire management decisions would likely 

affect habitat used by raptors, migratory birds, small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and big 

game species. Direct impacts from wildfire suppression could include habitat corruption from 

fire retardant and aviation fuel, soil erosion from fireline construction on steep slopes, and 

damaged vegetation and soils from heavy equipment and fire camps. 

The adverse impacts of fuels management decisions include the short-term disturbance of 

wildlife habitat while it regenerates and the thinning and removal of ecologically desirable 

species. Short-term impacts of treatments would include the mortality of non-target plants due to 

herbicide use and from seeding methods that cause soil surface disturbance. These decisions 

could result in a reduction of native species diversity and consequently a reduction in wildlife 

habitat. 

However, managed wildfire and prescribed burns provide long-term benefits to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. Fire produces a varied mosaic of habitats and results in the regeneration of old 

and decadent vegetation, which can be favorable to big game. Fuel reduction treatments also 

reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, which otherwise could cause the long-term loss of wildlife 

habitat. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-710 

4.3.19.3.7.2. Aquatic and Amphibious Species 

Adverse impacts to fish, amphibians, and other aquatic species would include an increase risk of 

contaminating water sources with fire retardant or vehicle fluids; soil erosion following surfacedisturbing fire suppression measures; damage to riparian vegetation and soils by heavy 

equipment; and reduced stream flow where water for fire suppression is drawn directly from 

streams and water bodies. Erosion would increase the sedimentation of surface waters, which 

affects water temperature, turbidity, and chemistry. These changes in water quality would 

generally have adverse impacts on aquatic species. In the long-term, fish, amphibians, and other 

aquatic species would benefit from fire management decisions by an overall reduction in erosion 

and soil loss and sedimentation of surface waters, and an increase in ground cover. 

4.3.19.3.8. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Impacts that vary between alternatives and the Proposed Plan largely result from variation in the 

acreage of right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas and the acreage and location of areas that 

would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Locatable mineral entry, 

where allowed, would result in loss of wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation, human disturbance 

during construction and mineral extraction activities, and the potential introduction of invasive 

plant species by construction equipment and construction and mineral extraction personnel. 

ROW avoidance and exclusion areas would have direct, long-term beneficial impacts by 

reducing surface disturbance in these areas therefore resulting in less habitat loss and 

fragmentation and human disturbance. Under the Proposed Plan and all action alternatives ROW 

avoidance areas would include Indian Creek and Lavender Mesa ACECs; Dark Canyon nonWSA with wilderness characteristics; Alkali National Historic Landmark; Comb Ridge; San 

Juan River SRMA Segments 1 and 2; Colorado River Segment 3; and Hovenweep ACEC (880 

acre Visual Emphasis Zone). ROW exclusion areas would include WSAs; non-WSA with 

wilderness characteristics areas Nokai Dome East, Nokai Dome West, Grand Gulch, and Mancos 

Mesa; developed recreation sites; San Juan River Segments 3 and 5, and Valley of the Gods 

ACEC. Other ROW avoidance and exclusion areas vary by alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

Development associated with wind and solar energy would have direct, long-term, adverse 

impacts on wildlife where installation occurs. These impacts would result from loss of wildlife 

habitat, habitat fragmentation, human disturbance during construction and maintenance, and the 

potential introduction of invasive plant species by construction equipment and construction and 

maintenance personnel. ROW applications for wind and solar development would Incorporate 

BMPs and provisions contained in the Wind Energy or Solar Programmatic EIS documents, once 

these documents become final. 

4.3.19.3.8.1. Alternative A 

Impacts associated with Alternative A would be the same as impacts discussed above and under 

impacts common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. ROW exclusion areas under 

Alternative A would include Cedar Mesa ACEC, a portion of Grand Gulch, Dark Canyon 

ACEC, the ROS SPM area of San Juan River SRMA, and developed recreation sites (120,800 

total acres). ROW avoidance areas under Alternative A would include Alkali Ridge ACEC, 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC, Butler Wash ACEC, Cedar Mesa ACEC (partial), Hovenweep ACEC, 

Indian Creek ACEC, Lavender Mesa ACEC, Pearson Canyon Hiking Area, Scenic Highway 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-711 

Corridor ACEC, Shay Canyon ACEC, and most ROS P-class areas (253,790 total acres). The 

total area recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry would be approximately 

132,380 acres.

4.3.19.3.8.2. Alternative B 

Impacts associated with Alternative B would be the same as impacts discussed above and under 

impacts common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. Under Alternative B approximately 

125,105 acres would be ROW avoidance areas. This is 51% less than under Alternative A. On 

the other hand, Alternative B would establish 416,612 acres of ROW exclusion areas (245% 

more than under Alternative A). Under Alternative B approximately 251,710 acres (119,330 

more acres, or 90% more, than under Alternative A) would be recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry in areas listed in the Summary Table of Alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan (Table 2.1) 

4.3.19.3.8.3. Alternative C 

Alternative C is the same as Alternative B except that approximately 39,323 and 395,329 acres 

would be ROW avoidance and exclusion areas, respectively, under this alternative. This is 

approximately 85% less acreage as ROW avoidance and 227% more acreage as ROW exclusion 

than under Alternative A. Approximately 121,912 acres would be recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. This would be 10,468 (8%) fewer acres than under Alternative A. 

Areas that would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry are listed in the 

Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan (Table 2.1). 

4.3.19.3.8.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D is the same as Alternatives B and C except that approximately 14,175 and 386,853 

acres would be ROW avoidance and exclusion areas, respectively, under this alternative. This is 

approximately 94% less acreage as ROW avoidance and 220% more acreage as ROW exclusion 

than under Alternative A. Approximately 46,131 acres would be recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. This would be 86,249 (65%) fewer acres than under Alternative A. 

Areas that would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry are listed in the 

Summary Table of Alternatives and the Proposed Plan (Table 2.1). 

4.3.19.3.8.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, 834,070 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

This is 701,690 (530%) more acres than under Alternative A. Also, under Alternative E 

approximately 53,915 and 974,463 acres would be ROW avoidance and exclusion areas, 

respectively. This is approximately 79% less acreage as ROW avoidance and 707% more 

acreage as ROW exclusion than under Alternative A. 

4.3.19.3.8.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of lands and realty decisions on wildlife and fisheries 

resources would be the same as under Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E except that approximately 

133,293 and 416,115 acres would be ROW avoidance and exclusion areas, respectively, under 

this alternative. This is approximately 47% less acreage as ROW avoidance and 244% more 

acreage as ROW exclusion than under Alternative A. There would be 50,665 acres 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-712 

(approximately 81,715, or 62%, less than under Alternative A) withdrawn from locatable mineral 

entry under the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.19.3.9. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Impacts that vary between alternatives and the Proposed Plan result from variation in the number 

of areas that would be unavailable for grazing. Impacts would be the same in nature as those 

common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. Where more areas are unavailable for grazing 

there would be fewer adverse impacts on wildlife, and where fewer areas are unavailable for 

grazing there would be more adverse impacts on wildlife. 

4.3.19.3.9.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the Comb Wash Allotment side canyons including Mule Canyon below U95, Arch, Fish, Owl, and Road Canyons are currently unavailable (and would remain unavailable 

for grazing under all of the proposed alternatives) based on an Interior Board of Land Appeals 

(IBLA) court decision. A portion of Comb Wash's 73,614 acres are included in this closure (side 

canyon acreages are not available). These closures would decrease the magnitude of the potential 

adverse impacts associated with livestock grazing in the Monticello PA by removing acreage 

available for livestock grazing. Other areas unavailable for livestock grazing would include 

Bridger Jack Mesa (near relict vegetation); Grand Gulch area (within the canyon) of Cedar Mesa; 

Dark Canyon Area (partial); Lavender Mesa (relict vegetation); Five identified mesa tops (White 

Canyon Area); Pearson Canyon (hiking area boundary); developed recreation sites; and parts of 

the slopes of Peter’s Canyon and East Canyon (wildlife habitat). 

4.3.19.3.9.2. Alternatives B and E 

Alternatives B and E would be the same as Alternative A with the addition of the following areas 

as unavailable for grazing: Slickhorn Canyon (146,144 acres), Rone Bailey Mesa (1,162 acres), 

Dodge Canyon Allotment (1,638 acres), Mule Canyon (1,984 acres), Arch Canyon (2,562 acres), 

Fish and Owl Canyon (7,252 acres), Road Canyon (4,801 acres), Rodgers Allotment (40 acres), 

portions of West Butler Wash Canyons, and Horsehead Canyon (4,904 acres) within the 

Montezuma Canyon allotment. Additional areas (Moki Canyon, Lake Canyon, Harts Canyon, 

and Indian Creek from Kelly Ranch vicinity to the USFS boundary) would be restricted to 

livestock trailing only. Also, under these alternatives the BLM would develop seasonal 

restrictions, closures, and/or forage utilization limits on grazing in riparian areas functioning at 

risk. The closures and restrictions associated with these alternatives would decrease the 

magnitude of the potentially adverse impacts associated with livestock grazing decisions more 

than under all other alternatives. 

4.3.19.3.9.3. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan 

Alternative C is the same as Alternatives B and E, except that Mule Canyon would only be 

unavailable for grazing south of U-95 under this alternative. The Proposed Plan is the same as 

Alternative C except for the U-95 closure listed above. The closures and restrictions associated 

with Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would decrease the magnitude of potentially adverse 

impacts associated with livestock grazing more than under Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-713 

4.3.19.3.9.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D is the same as Alternatives B and E except that Horsehead Canyon within 

Montezuma Canyon allotment, Dodge Canyon allotment, and Mule Canyon north of U-95 would 

be available for grazing and no areas would be restricted to livestock trailing only. The 

unavailability of these areas to livestock grazing that would be in effect under Alternative D 

would decrease the magnitude of the potentially adverse impacts associated with livestock 

grazing in the Monticello PA compared with Alternative A, but would still allow for more 

adverse impacts related to habitat disturbance than Alternatives B and E. 

4.3.19.3.10. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

The impacts of minerals decisions on wildlife resources would be of the same nature under all 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan but would vary in the acreage over which those decisions 

would impact wildlife and wildlife habitat (Tables 4.204–4.207). The below discussion of 

impacts of minerals decisions on wildlife and fisheries pertains primarily to oil and gas leasing, 

mineral material disposal, mineral entry, and geophysical activity. The discussion of impacts due 

to oil and gas leasing and geophysical activity includes surface disturbance approximations due 

to these activities. Surface disturbances for other mineral activities would also occur; under the 

Proposed Plan and all alternatives there would be approximately 851 acres of surface disturbance 

total for 15 years as a result of uranium and vanadium activities (300 acres), placer gold 

activities (10 acres), limestone activities (50 acres), sand and gravel activities (360 acres), 

building stone activities (113 acres), and clay activities (18 acres). This disturbance would have 

adverse impacts (as described below) on wildlife and fisheries resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-714 

Table 4.246. Estimated Surface Disturbance (in acres) for Oil and Gas Well Development, by Vegetation 

Type

Alternatives 

Habitat Type Associated Wildlife 

A B C D 

Conifer and Mountain Shrub 

Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, black bear (primarily old growth), neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles. 

4 4 4 4 

Desert Scrub Pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, elk (winter), 

raptors, neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles. 

165 150 168 170 

Pinyon-Juniper Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, mountain lion, 

neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles. 

449 409 457 464 

Sagebrush/ Perennial Grasslands 

Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles. 

65 59 66 67 

Invasive Species/ Noxious Weeds 

N/A 1 111

Total Acres of Disturbance* 699 636 710 721 *Acreages do not add up to the Total Acres of Disturbance in any category because agriculture, disturbed, developed, riparian/wetlands and water categ

analysis since they represent a small percentage of the total lands that are not relevant to this analysis.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-715 

Table 4.247. Estimated Surface Disturbance (in Acres) on BLM Lands Associated with Geophysical Explo

Vegetation (Wildlife Habitat) Type

Alternatives Habitat Types Associated Wildlife A B C D E 

Conifer and Mountain Shrub 

Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, black bear (primarily old growth), neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles. 

5 5 5 6 

Desert Shrub 

Pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, elk (winter), raptors, neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles. 

209 187 213 218 

Pinyon-Juniper Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, mountain lion, neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles. 570 511 581 594 Sagebrush/ Perennial Grasslands 

Mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, mountain lion, neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles. 

82 74 84 86 

Invasive Species/ Noxious Weeds N/A 2 2 2 2 Total Acres of Disturbance* 886 794 903 924 *Acreages do not add up to the Total Acres of Disturbance in any category because agriculture, disturbed, developed, riparian/wetlands and water categ

the analysis since they represent a small percentage of the total lands that are not relevant to this analysis.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-716 

Table 4.248. Acreage of Each Vegetation Cover Type (and Associated Wildlife) Open and Closed to Surf

by Alternative and the Proposed Plan

Vegetation Alternative A Alternative B 

Type Associated Wildlife Open* Closed** Open Closed Open 

Pinyonjuniper Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, mountain lion, neotropical birds, upland game 

birds, reptiles 

767,879 379,201 

(33%)

783564 363,405 

(32%)

840

Desert scrub 

Pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, elk (winter), raptors, neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles 

298,661 125,306 

(30%)

289,102 131,744 

(31%)

330

Sagebrush/ Perennial grassland 

Mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, mountain lion, neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles 

137,420 36,098 (21%) 98131 67,724 (41%) 137

Conifer/ Mountain shrub 

Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, black bear (primarily old growth), neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles 

9695 1,108 (10%) 9595 1207 

(0.11)

9

Total 1,213,655 541,713

31.0%)

1,180,392 564,080

(32.0%)

1,317
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-717 

Table 4.248. Acreage of Each Vegetation Cover Type (and Associated Wildlife) Open and Closed to Surf

by Alternative and the Proposed Plan

Vegetation Alternative D Alternative E 

Type Associated Wildlife Open Closed Open Closed Open 

Pinyonjuniper Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, mountain lion, neotropical birds, upland game 

birds, reptiles 

848,550 298,417 

(26%)

475,518 671,449 

(59%)

763

Desert scrub 

Pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, elk (winter), raptors, neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles 

355,136 64,712 (15%) 145,021 275,826 

(66%)

293

Sagebrush/ Perennial grassland 

Mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, mountain lion, neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles 

137,613 28,244 (17%) 107,510 58,346 (35%) 131

Conifer/ Mountain shrub 

Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, black bear (primarily old growth), neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles 

9,752 1,606 7,985 2,817 9

Total 1,351,051 392,979 (22%) 736,034 1,008,438 (58%) 1,197*"Open" includes Standard, Timing, Controlled Surface Use and CST lease stipulations. **"Closed" includes NSO and Closed leasing stipulations. The percent of the total designated habitat closed is listed in parentheses. Note: The percentage was derived by adding the open and closed numbers and dividing by the total. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-718 

Table 4.249. Acres of Big Game Habitat (Crucial Winter, Lambing/Rutting, and Crucial Fawning UDWR 

Managed) Open and Closed to Surface Disturbance by Alternative and the Proposed Plan.

Alternatives 

A B C D E Big Game 

Species Agency Designating / Managing 

Habitat Open* Closed** Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Clo

UDWR Designated 

783,267 302,785 

(28%) 

784,574 300,860 

(28%) 

816,326 269,108 

(25%) 

820,374 265,060 

(24%) 

588,793 49

(

Mule Deer (Crucial Winter) BLM 

Managed 

170,630 11,685 

(6%) 

607,035 178,886 

(23%) 

264,312 2,101 

(1%) 

150,496 961 

(1%) 

431,504 35

(

UDWR Designated 

234,233 57,457 

(20%) 

244,139 47,393 

(16%) 

244,296 47,236 

(16%) 

246,647 44,885 

(15%) 

151,688 13

(

Elk (Crucial Winter) BLM 

Managed 

N/A N/A 169,140 22,028 

(12%) 

39,478 11,093 

(22%) 

4,491 0 

(0%) 

125,816 6

(

UDWR Designated 

29,363 0 

(0%) 

29,368 37 

(0.1%) 

29,405 0 (0%) 29,404 0 

(0%) 

26,581 

(

Pronghorn (Crucial Fawning) BLM 

Managed 

13,961 0 

(0%) 

29,328 37 

(0.1%) 

29,365 0 (0%) 13,961 0 

(0%) 

26,541 

(

UDWR Designated 

135,977 31,213 

(19%) 

140,689 26,479 

(16%) 

146,198 20,971 

(13% 

147,965 19,204 

(11%) 

42,661 12

(

Desert Bighorn Sheep (Lambing/ Rutting) 

BLM Managed 

155,149 92,833 

(37%) 

257,358 196,122 

(43%) 

297,706 1,497 

(1%) 

228,946 70,063 

(23%) 

90,900 36

(

*"Open" includes Standard, Timing, Controlled Surface Use and CST lease stipulations. **"Closed" includes NSO and Closed leasing stipulations. The percent of the total designated habitat closed is listed in parentheses.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-719 

4.3.19.3.10.1. Alternative A 

Leasable Minerals

Under Alternative A, 40 wells (approximately 699 acres of surface disturbance) are expected in 

the Monticello PA total for 15 years. Further, approximately 379,201 acres of pinyon-juniper 

habitat would be managed as either NSO or Closed, while approximately 125,306 acres of desert 

scrub would be managed under the same designations. A total of 547,713 acres (of all habitat 

types) would be managed as NSO or Closed. 

Mule Deer. Under Alternative A, UDWR designated mule deer habitat that would fall under 

Closed leasing types (302,785 acres) would comprise 28% of the total designated deer habitat 

established by UDWR. Six percent (11,685 acres) of BLM managed mule deer habitat would be 

considered Closed to leasing. 

Elk. Under Alternative A, the BLM would not specifically manage habitat for elk. 

Approximately 57,457 acres (20%) of UDWR designated elk habitat would fall under Closed 

leasing types. 

Pronghorn. Under Alternative A, all of the UDWR designated and BLM managed pronghorn 

habitat would fall under Open leasing types. 

Desert Bighorn Sheep. Under Alternative A approximately 19% (31,213 acres) of UDWR 

designated habitat and 37% (92,833) of BLM managed habitat would fall under Closed leasing 

types. 

Geophysical Activity

Under Alternative A, approximately 886 acres (59 acres per year for the next 15 years) of 

wildlife habitat would be temporarily impacted by geophysical exploration. Impacts to wildlife 

habitat associated with exploration would include short-term impacts such as noise and 

disturbance from people working in the area to long-term impacts such as the potential spread of 

invasive and weedy plant species within the areas directly disturbed by geophysical drilling. 

Salable Minerals 

The exploration and development of salable minerals would have similar impacts to wildlife as 

other development described above. Under Alternative A, 584,270 acres of land in the 

Monticello PA would be available for disposal of mineral materials subject to standard terms and 

conditions. That is approximately 33% of the 1,784,724 acres in the Monticello PA. There are 

821,070 acres (approximately 46% of the Monticello PA) subject to special conditions under 

Alternative A and 373,850 acres (approximately 21% of the Monticello PA) closed to disposal of 

mineral materials. 

Locatable Minerals

Under Alternative A, 1,652,743 acres (approximately 93%) of land in the Monticello PA would 

be open to mineral entry. There are currently 132,380 acres (approximately 7% of the Monticello 

PA) recommended to Congress for withdrawal from mineral entry. Because withdrawals require 

congressional approval and are extremely difficult to obtain, these areas only have the potential 

to be exempt from impacts related to open pit mining activities. Impacts resulting from locatable 

mineral exploration and development would be similar to those discussed above. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-720 

4.3.19.3.10.2. Alternative B 

Leasable Minerals

Under Alternative B 66 wells (approximately 636 acres of surface disturbance) are expected in 

the Monticello PA total for 15 years. Alternative B would result in 63 (9%) fewer acres of oiland gas-related surface disturbance than Alternative A. Overall, Alternative B would include 

fewer oil- and gas-related adverse impacts to wildlife than would Alternative A, since less 

surface disturbance would mean more intact habitat, fewer roads, and a lower level of human 

presence. 

Under Alternative B across the Monticello PA approximately 363,405 acres of pinyon-juniper 

habitat would be managed as either NSO or Closed, while approximately 131,744 acres of desert 

scrub would be managed under the same designations. The total number of acres (of all habitat 

types) to be managed under NSO or Closed designations would be approximately 564,080 under 

Alternative B. Approximately 5% more land would be managed under Closed designations under 

Alternative B than Alternative A. 

Mule Deer. There is less than 1% difference between Alternatives B and A in terms of the 

acreage of UDWR designated deer habitat falling under Closed leasing types. BLM managed 

deer habitat falling under Closed leasing types would increase by 167,201 acres (93%) under 

Alternative B. Alternative B would be more beneficial for mule deer than Alternative A. 

Elk. Under Alternative B 47,393 acres (16%) of UDWR designated elk habitat would fall under 

closed leasing types. This is 4% less than under Alternative A. Approximately 22,028 acres 

(12%) of BLM managed elk habitat would fall under Closed leasing types. This is an 

improvement over Alternative A since no elk habitat is identified by BLM under that alternative. 

Pronghorn. Alternative B would be more beneficial to pronghorn than Alternative A since the 

BLM would manage more than two times as much pronghorn habitat under this alternative than 

under Alternative A. In terms of UDWR designated pronghorn habitat there is a 5-acre 

difference between Alternatives B and A. Approximately 37 acres of BLM managed and UDWR 

designated pronghorn habitat would fall under Closed leasing types under Alternative B, 

compared to zero acres under Alternative A. 

Desert Bighorn Sheep. Under Alternative B, more than twice as much BLM managed desert 

bighorn sheep habitat (196,122 acres compared to 92,833 acres) would fall under Closed leasing 

types as under Alternative A. Fewer acres of UDWR designated desert bighorn sheep habitat 

would fall under these leasing stipulations under Alternative B (26,479) than Alternative A 

(31,213). Overall, there are more beneficial impacts to desert bighorn sheep under Alternative B 

than Alternative A since considerably more BLM managed habitat falls under Closed leasing 

types. 

Geophysical Activity

Under Alternative B there would be approximately 794 acres of surface disturbance associated 

with geophysical exploration. This is approximately 12% fewer acres of disturbance than would 

be expected under Alternative A, which could result in a slightly smaller impact overall due to 

the decreased acreage open to exploration. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-721 

Salable Minerals

Under Alternative B, 219,102 (38%) fewer acres would be open to mineral disposal subject to 

standard terms and conditions than under Alternative A. Overall, more land would be protected 

under special conditions (876,736 acres vs. 821,070 acres) or closed altogether (542,402 acres 

vs. 373,850 acres) to mineral disposal under Alternative B than under Alternative A, which 

would beneficially impact wildlife species by protecting more of their habitats from potential 

surface-disturbing activities and their associated impacts. 

Locatable Minerals

Under Alternative B, 1,598,561 acres of land in the Monticello PA would be open to mineral 

entry. That is 3% less than under Alternative A. Also, under Alternative B 186,562 acres would 

be recommended to Congress for withdrawal from mineral entry (41% more than under 

Alternative A). 

4.3.19.3.10.3. Alternative C 

Leasable Minerals

Under Alternative C, 74 oil and gas wells are expected across the Monticello PA total for 15 

years. Oil and gas development under Alternative C would result in the direct removal of wildlife 

habitat from approximately 710 acres. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative C plans for 11 

(2%) more acres of oil- and gas-related surface disturbance. This translates into more adverse 

impacts to wildlife than under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C across the Monticello PA, approximately 306,107 acres of pinyon-juniper 

habitat would be managed as either NSO or Closed, while approximately 90,817 acres of desert 

scrub would be managed under the same designations. The total number of acres (of all habitat 

types) to be managed under NSO or Closed designations approximate 426,762 under Alternative 

C. This is more than 115,000 fewer acres than under Alternative A. 

Mule Deer. Less UDWR designated and BLM managed mule deer habitat falls under Closed 

leasing types under Alternative C than under Alternative A. Because fewer acres of mule deer 

habitat fall under Closed leasing types under this alternative it would be more adverse to mule 

deer than Alternative A, which protects more habitat from surface disturbance through Closed 

leasing type designations. 

Elk. Under Alternative C, 47,236 acres (16%) of UDWR designated elk habitat would fall under 

closed leasing types. This is 4% less than under Alternative A. Approximately 11,093 acres 

(22%) of BLM managed elk habitat would fall under Closed leasing types. This is an 

improvement over Alternative A since no elk habitat is identified by BLM under that alternative. 

However, under Alternative C only 50,571 acres of elk habitat would be managed by BLM 

compared to 191,168 acres under Alternative B. Also, 22,028 acres (12%) of BLM managed elk 

habitat would fall under Closed leasing types under Alternative B. Overall, the prescriptions 

include in Alternative C would be more beneficial to elk than Alternative A but less beneficial 

than Alternative B. 

Pronghorn. Under Alternative C neither BLM managed nor UDWR designated pronghorn 

habitat fall under Closed leasing types. Total acres of BLM managed pronghorn habitat are the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-722 

same as Alternative B. There is a negligible difference between Alternatives C and A in terms of 

impacts to pronghorn. 

Desert Bighorn Sheep. Under Alternative C, 1,497 acres (1%) of BLM managed and 20,971 

acres (13%) of UDWR designated desert bighorn sheep habitat fall under Closed leasing types. 

For desert bighorn sheep, Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative A 

since 91,336 (98%) fewer acres of BLM managed and 10,242 (33%) fewer acres of UDWR 

designated desert bighorn sheep habitat would fall under Closed leasing types. 

Geophysical Activity

Under Alternative C, there would be approximately 903 acres of surface disturbance associated 

with geophysical exploration. This is approximately 2% more acres of disturbance than under 

Alternative A. Therefore, compared to Alternative A, Alternative C would likely result in a 

larger adverse impact to wildlife overall due to the increased acreage open to exploration. 

Salable Minerals

Under Alternative C, 40,464 (7%) more acres would be available for disposal of mineral 

materials subject to standard terms and conditions than Alternative A. Acreage available for 

mineral disposal subject to special conditions would be 12% (96,836 acres) less than under 

Alternative A. Finally, acreage closed to mineral disposal would be 16% (61,488 acres) more 

than under Alternative A. This would beneficially impact wildlife species by protecting more of 

their habitats from potential surface-disturbing activities and their associated impacts. Though 

Alternative C would close more acres to mineral disposal than Alternative A, overall, Alternative 

C would be less beneficial to wildlife species than Alternative A because it would protect fewer 

habitats with special stipulations for disposal and open more acres to disposal under standard 

stipulations. 

Locatable Minerals

Under Alternative C, 1,663,221 acres of land in the Monticello PA would be open to mineral 

entry. That is 10,478 more acres (1%) than under Alternative A. Under this alternative 

approximately 121,912 acres would be recommended to Congress for withdrawal from mineral 

entry. That is 10,468 acres (8%) less than what is recommended for withdrawal from mineral 

entry under Alternative A. Alternative C would be less beneficial to wildlife than Alternative A, 

because Alternative C would open more acres to mineral entry and recommend fewer acres for 

withdrawal. 

4.3.19.3.10.4. Alternative D 

Leasable Minerals 

Under Alternative D, 75 oil and gas wells are expected in the Monticello PA total for 15 years. 

Oil and gas development under Alternative D would result in the direct removal of wildlife 

habitat from approximately 721 acres. This is 22 (3%) more acres of oil- and gas-related surface 

disturbance than under Alternative A. Overall, Alternative D would include the most oil- and 

gas-related adverse impacts to wildlife when compared to Alternatives A, B, C, and E since more 

surface disturbance translates to less intact habitat, more roads, and a higher level of human 

presence. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-723 

Under Alternative D across the Monticello PA, approximately 298,417 acres of pinyon-juniper 

habitat would be managed as either NSO or Closed, while approximately 64,712 acres of desert 

scrub would be managed under the same designations. The total number of acres (of all habitat 

types) to be managed under NSO or Closed designations approximate 392,979 under Alternative 

D. Alternative D would set aside approximately 149,000 fewer acres of habitat for management 

under NSO and Closed designations than Alternative A. 

Mule Deer, Elk, and Pronghorn. Less UDWR designated and BLM managed mule deer, elk, and 

pronghorn habitat falls under Closed leasing types under Alternative D than under any other 

alternative. Alternative D would be the most adverse to these species of all alternatives because 

less habitat would be protected under Closed leasing types. 

Desert Bighorn Sheep. Less UDWR designated desert bighorn sheep habitat falls under Closed 

leasing types under Alternative D than under any other alternative. BLM managed desert bighorn 

sheep falling under Closed leasing types is greater under Alternative D than Alternative C but 

less than all other alternatives. Desert bighorn sheep, like mule deer, elk, and pronghorn, would 

be subject to more adverse impacts from oil and gas leasing under Alternative D than under all 

other alternatives. 

Geophysical Activity

Under Alternative D, there would be approximately 924 acres of surface disturbance associated 

with geophysical exploration. This is approximately 4% more acres of disturbance than would be 

expected under Alternative A, 16% more than Alternative B, 2% more than Alternative C, and 

56% more than Alternative E. Compared to all other alternatives, Alternative D would likely 

result in the largest impact overall due to the increased acreage open to exploration. 

Salable Minerals

Under Alternative D, 378,009 (39%) more acres would be open to mineral disposal subject to 

standard stipulations than under Alternative A. Approximately 400,072 (49%) fewer acres would 

be open to mineral disposal subject to special conditions and 27,177 (7%) more acres would be 

closed to mineral disposal than under Alternative A. Though Alternative D would close slightly 

more acres to mineral disposal than Alternative A, overall, Alternative D would be less 

beneficial to wildlife species than Alternative A as it would protect fewer habitats with special 

stipulations for disposal and open more acres to disposal under standard stipulations. 

Locatable Minerals

Under Alternative D, 1,738,992 acres of land in the Monticello PA would be open to mineral 

entry. That is 86,249 acres (5%) more than would be open under Alternative A. Under this 

alternative, approximately 46,131 acres would be recommended to Congress for withdrawal 

from mineral entry. This is 86,249 acres (65%) less than would be recommended for withdrawal 

from mineral entry under Alternative A. Alternative D would also recommend fewer acres for 

withdrawal from mineral entry than Alternatives B, C, and E, and the Proposed Plan. Therefore, 

Alternative D would be the least beneficial for wildlife and their habitats of all alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan as it opens more acres to mineral entry and recommends fewer for withdrawal. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-724 

4.3.19.3.10.5. Alternative E 

Leasable Minerals

Under Alternative E, 54 wells (approximately 518 acres of surface disturbance) are expected to 

be drilled in the Monticello PA total for 15 years. This alternative would result in about 118 

(23%) fewer acres of oil- and gas-related surface disturbance than Alternative B, and between 

181 and 203 (35%–39%) fewer acres of surface disturbance than any other alternative, resulting 

in fewer adverse impacts to wildlife since less surface disturbance translates to more intact 

habitat, fewer roads, and a lower level of human presence. 

Under Alternative E, throughout the Monticello PA approximately 617,449 acres of pinyonjuniper habitat would be managed as either NSO or Closed, while approximately 275,826 acres 

of desert scrub would be managed under the same designations. The total number of acres (of all 

habitat types) to be managed under NSO or Closed designations (1,008,439 acres) is greater 

under Alternative E than under all other alternatives. 

Mule Deer, Elk, and Desert Bighorn Sheep. Under Alternative E more UDWR designated and 

BLM managed mule deer, elk, and desert bighorn sheep habitat falls under Closed leasing types 

than under any other alternative, offering these species more protection from adverse impact than 

other alternatives.

Pronghorn. The acreage of UDWR designated and BLM managed pronghorn habitat that would 

be closed to leasing or NSO (2,823 acres) is greater under Alternative E than under any other 

alternative. This alternative would be more beneficial to pronghorn than other alternatives due to 

the protection from disturbance offered by closed and NSO designations. 

Geophysical Activity

There would be approximately 591 acres of surface disturbance associated with geophysical 

exploration under Alternative E. This is approximately 34% fewer acres of disturbance than 

would be expected under Alternative B, which is the next most beneficial alternative in terms of 

expected wildlife impacts due to geophysical exploration. All other alternatives would result in 

more surface disturbance (between 50% and 56% more than Alternative E) associated with 

geophysical exploration than Alternative E. 

Salable Minerals

Under Alternative E, 370,980 (63%) fewer acres would be open to mineral disposal subject to 

standard terms and conditions than under Alternative A. On the other hand, less land (34%) 

would be protected under special conditions (545,641 acres vs. 821,070 acres) for mineral 

disposal. Almost three times (174%) more land would be closed to mineral disposal under 

Alternative E than under Alternative A. The decrease in acreage open to mineral disposal subject 

to standard terms and conditions coupled with the increase in acreage closed to mineral disposal 

mean that Alternative E would more beneficially impact wildlife species than Alternative A by 

protecting more wildlife habitats from potential surface-disturbing activities associated with 

mineral disposal. 

Locatable Minerals

Under Alternative E, 1,598,561 acres of land in the Monticello PA would be open to mineral 

entry. That is 3% less than under Alternative A. Also, under Alternative E 186,562 acres would 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-725 

be recommended to Congress for withdrawal from mineral entry (41% more than under 

Alternative A). 

4.3.19.3.10.6. Proposed Plan 

Leasable Minerals

Under the Proposed Plan, 72 oil and gas wells are expected across the Monticello PA total for 15 

years. Oil and gas development under the Proposed Plan would result in the direct removal of 

wildlife habitat from approximately 688 acres. Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan 

plans for 11 (2%) more acres of oil- and gas-related surface disturbance. This translates into 

more adverse impacts to wildlife than under Alternative A. 

Under the Proposed Plan across the Monticello PA, approximately 382,989 acres of pinyonjuniper habitat would be managed as either NSO or Closed, while approximately 127,809 acres 

of desert scrub would be managed under the same designations. The total number of acres (of all 

habitat types) to be managed under NSO or Closed designations approximate 547,077 under the 

Proposed Plan. This is about 5,364 more acres (1%) than under Alternative A. 

Mule Deer. More UDWR designated and BLM managed mule deer habitat falls under Closed 

leasing types under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative A. Because more acres of mule 

deer habitat fall under Closed leasing types under the Proposed Plan it would be less adverse to 

mule deer than Alternative A, which protects less habitat from surface disturbance through 

Closed leasing type designations. 

Elk. Under the Proposed Plan, 56,620 acres (19%) of UDWR designated elk habitat would fall 

under closed leasing types. This is 1% less than under Alternative A. Approximately 15,014 

acres (15%) of BLM managed elk habitat would fall under Closed leasing types. This is an 

improvement over Alternative A since no elk habitat is identified by BLM under that alternative. 

Overall, the prescriptions included in the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial to elk than 

Alternative A. 

Pronghorn. Under the Proposed Plan neither BLM managed nor UDWR designated pronghorn 

habitat fall under Closed leasing types. Total acres of BLM managed pronghorn habitat are the 

same as Alternative B. There is a negligible difference between the Proposed Plan and 

Alternative A in terms of impacts to pronghorn. 

Desert Bighorn Sheep. Under the Proposed Plan, 174,504 acres (38%) of BLM managed and 

39,537 acres (24%) of UDWR designated desert bighorn sheep habitat fall under Closed leasing 

types. For desert bighorn sheep, the Proposed Plan would result in fewer adverse impacts than 

Alternative A since 81,671 (88%) more acres of BLM managed and 8,324 (27%) more acres of 

UDWR designated desert bighorn sheep habitat would fall under Closed leasing types. 

Geophysical Activity

Under the Proposed Plan, there would be approximately 903 acres of surface disturbance 

associated with geophysical exploration. This is approximately 2% more acres of disturbance 

than under Alternative A. Therefore, compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would likely 

result in a larger adverse impact to wildlife overall due to the increased acreage open to 

exploration. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-726 

Salable Minerals

Under the Proposed Plan, 40,464 (7%) more acres would be available for disposal of mineral 

materials subject to standard terms and conditions than Alternative A. Acreage available for 

mineral disposal subject to special conditions would be 12% (96,836 acres) less than under 

Alternative A. Finally, acreage closed to mineral disposal would be 16% (61,488 acres) more 

than under Alternative A. This would beneficially impact wildlife species by protecting more of 

their habitats from potential surface-disturbing activities and their associated impacts. Though 

the Proposed Plan would close more acres to mineral disposal than Alternative A, overall, the 

Proposed Plan would be less beneficial to wildlife species than Alternative A because it would 

protect fewer habitats with special stipulations for disposal and open more acres to disposal 

under standard stipulations. 

Locatable Minerals

Under the Proposed Plan, 1,734,458 acres of land in the Monticello PA would be open to mineral 

entry. That is 81,715 (5%) more acres than under Alternative A. Under the Proposed Plan 

approximately 50,665 acres would be recommended to Congress for withdrawal from mineral 

entry. That is 81,715 (62%) acres less than are recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry 

under Alternative A. The Proposed Plan would be less beneficial to wildlife than Alternative A, 

because the Proposed Plan would open more acres to mineral entry recommend fewer acres for 

withdrawal. 

4.3.19.3.11. IMPACTS OF NON-WSAS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

4.3.19.3.11.1. Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, no areas within the Monticello PA would be managed as 

non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.19.3.11.2. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 582,357 acres of non-WSA lands wilderness characteristics 

would be managed to preserve their wilderness values. Proposed decisions to protect wilderness 

values would include managing the areas under VRM I objectives, closing the area to oil and gas 

leasing and locatable mineral development, closing the areas to off-route OHV use and new road 

construction, designating the areas as ROW exclusion areas, and closing the areas to woodland 

harvest and wood gathering. These proposed decisions would have long-term beneficial impacts 

on wildlife and fisheries and their habitat by reducing the potential for surface disturbances, 

noise, and alteration of habitat. 

4.3.19.3.11.3. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 88,871 acres would be managed for their wilderness characteristics. 

These areas would include Dark Canyon (11.540 acres), Grand Gulch (13,657 acres), Mancos 

Mesa (30,068 acres), and Nokai Dome East (18,618 acres and Nokai Dome West (14,988 acres). 

Proposed decisions to protect wilderness values would include: 1) managing the areas under 

VRM II objectives; 2) closing most units to oil and gas leasing and establishing the Dark Canyon 

unit as NSO; 3) limiting OHV use to designated roads/trails; 4) establishing units as ROW 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-727 

avoidance areas; 5) maintaining existing improvements within units; 6) unavailable for private 

and commercial wood harvest; 7) available for non-ground disturbing treatments; 8) not 

proposed for mineral withdrawal; 9) available for mineral materials disposal if the oil and gas 

leasing category is standard or timing/controlled surface use, otherwise closed to mineral 

materials disposal; and 10) unavailable for coal and geothermal leasing. These proposed 

decisions would have long-term beneficial impacts on wildlife and fisheries and their habitat by 

reducing the potential for surface disturbances, noise, and alteration of habitat. 

4.3.19.3.12. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Impacts varying between alternatives result primarily from variations in the level of mineral 

exploration and development allowed and specific recreation prescriptions for SRMAs. 

Assuming that recreationists in SRMAs use established routes and, where dispersed camping is 

allowed, either camp in previously disturbed areas only or stay within 150–300 feet of these 

routes, the difference between alternatives in terms of the impacts of these recreation decisions 

on wildlife and fisheries would be negligible. Impacts would generally be of the nature described 

above and would vary slightly depending on the specific management prescriptions in each 

alternative. Key differences between alternatives resulting in notable differences in impacts to 

wildlife and fisheries are described below by proposed SRMA. 

4.3.19.3.12.1. San Juan River SRMA 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the San Juan River SRMA would encompass 15,100 acres. Motorized 

boating would be allowed downstream while upstream travel would only be allowed for 

emergency purposes. Approximately 40,000 user/days (private and commercial trips combined) 

per year would be permitted with groups no larger than 25 people for private trips and 25 people 

plus 8 crew for commercial trips. Commercial use would be allowed up to 50% of total use while 

administrative and research use would not be included in launch limits. Camping would be 

allowed in 9 designated campsites (available for reservation) in the Slickhorn Canyon to Clay 

Hills area. Camping in this area would be limited to 1 or 2 nights depending on the season. 

Vehicle camping in the SRMA would not be restricted. Grazing prescriptions for this area would 

remain as in the current RMP (see Table 2.1 Livestock Grazing). No management prescriptions 

would be in place for minerals or watersheds. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B the total acreage of the San Juan River SRMA would be 10,203 acres 

(approximately 32% smaller than Alternative A). No motorized boating would be allowed except 

in emergency situations. Approximately 30,000 user/days per year would be allowed with a trip 

size limit of 20 people (including crew for commercial trips). Commercial use would be 

restricted to up to 30% of total use and administrative and research use would be limited to that 

which can be accommodated within the launch limits. Camping would be allowed per 

Memorandum of Understanding between the NPS/GCNRA and the Navajo Nation. Vehicle 

camping in the SRMA would be limited to areas upstream of Comb Wash except along Lime 

Creek Road, the Mexican Hat Rock area, and the Mexican Hat Boat Ramp. The area would be 

open to oil and gas leasing subject to NSO and closed for mineral entry and disposal. Seasonal 

grazing restrictions would be in place not to exceed PFC. Watershed prescriptions would include 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-728 

surface restrictions for watershed control structures to protect bighorn sheep lambing and rutting 

areas and vehicle access would be limited to designated routes. OHV use would be limited to 

designated roads and trails throughout the SRMA. These management prescriptions would place 

further restrictions on surface disturbance and visitor generated noise and visual disturbance than 

under Alternative A; therefore, Alternative B would be more beneficial to wildlife than 

Alternative A. 

Alternatives C and E and the Proposed Plan

Under Alternatives C and E and the Proposed Plan the total acreage of the San Juan River 

SRMA would be about 9,859 acres, or 5,241 fewer acres than Alternative A. Management 

prescriptions related to motorized boating and administrative and research use would be the same 

as Alternative A except under Alternative E where non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing and OHV use. Management prescriptions 

related to designated campsites, vehicle camping, minerals, grazing, and OHV use would be the 

same as Alternative B. Launch limits would be the same as Alternative A except that the 

commercial trip size limit of 25 people would include crew members. Commercial use would be 

restricted to up to 40% of total use. In general, Alternatives C and E and the Proposed Plan 

would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative A, as Alternatives C and E and the 

Proposed Plan would more closely limit visitor numbers and minerals-related activities. 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D the total acreage of the San Juan River SRMA would be about 6,365 acres, 

or 8,735 fewer acres than Alternative A. Management prescriptions related to motorized boating 

and administrative and research use would be the same as Alternative A. Management 

prescriptions related to designated campsites, minerals, and grazing would be the same as 

Alternative B. All other management prescriptions would be less restrictive of disturbancegenerating activities than any other alternative. Alternative D would be less beneficial to wildlife 

than any other alternative due to the decreased SRMA acreage proposed under this alternative, 

and fewer restrictions on visitors groups and group sizes. 

4.3.19.3.12.2. Cedar Mesa SRMA 

The proposed Cedar Mesa SRMA would include the Grand Gulch Plateau Mesa Top Day Use, 

Grand Gulch Plateau Mesa Top Camping, Grand Gulch Plateau In-canyon Private/Commercial 

Day Use, and Grand Gulch Plateau In-Canyon Permitted Overnight Camping areas. While 

management prescriptions for these areas vary between alternatives these variations represent 

negligible impacts on wildlife and only negligible differences between alternatives. All 

management prescriptions are intended to limit or curtail disturbance-causing activities. 

Management prescriptions for the area as a whole are discussed below by alternative. 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A the proposed Cedar Mesa SRMA (385,000 acres) would remain the Grand 

Gulch SRMA. Management prescriptions (see Table 2.1) for camping, campfires, areas for day 

use only, pets, stock use, group size, and disposal of human waste would be implemented to 

allow for private and commercial use of the area while protecting resource values. Impacts to 

wildlife would be the same as those discussed under Impacts Common to All Alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-729 

Alternative B

Alternative B is the same as Alternative A except that further restrictions would be placed on 

pets and stock as well as camping activities and the acreage of the SRMA would be 375,739 

acres (9,261 acres of 2% less than under Alternative A). Also, watershed, range, and wildlife 

improvements and vegetation treatments would be allowed. Alternative B would be more 

beneficial to wildlife than Alternative A due to the increased restrictions on disturbance-causing 

activities and the potential for watershed, range, and wildlife improvements and vegetation 

treatments. 

Alternative C

In terms of pets and stock Alternative C is the same as Alternative A except that restrictions on 

pets and stock would be greater under Alternative C. In terms of other activities Alternative C is 

the same as Alternative B except that campfires would be allowed on mesa tops only (with fire 

pans) and commercial and private use of woodland products would be allowed. The Cedar Mesa 

SRMA under Alternative C would be 375,739 acres as under Alternative B. Impacts associated 

with Alternative C would be less than Alternative A due to increased restrictions but greater than 

Alternative B. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as Alternative C except that pets or stock may be limited or prohibited 

if resources or the visitor experience are adversely affected. Stock limitations would be the same 

as Alternative A. In general, Alternative D places the fewest restrictions on disturbance-causing 

activities and therefore would be the least beneficial to wildlife of all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan. 

Alternative E

Alternative E is the same as Alternative B except that non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed to protect wilderness values. Alternative E would be the most 

beneficial to wildlife of all alternatives and the Proposed Plan since it places the greatest 

restrictions on disturbance-causing activities. 

Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan the Cedar Mesa SRMA would be approximately 407,098 acres (6%, or 

22,098 acres, larger than under Alternative A). The area would include two management zones—

Comb Ridge (30,752 acres) and McLoyd-Moonhouse (1,607 acres). Under the Proposed Plan the 

SRMA would be managed the same as under Alternative B except that campfires would be 

allowed on mesa tops only with a fire pan required and the area would be available for private 

and/or commercial use of woodland products as under Alternative C. Further, pets and stock 

would be allowed subject to prescriptions as under Alternative C. 

4.3.19.3.12.3. Dark Canyon SRMA 

Alternatives A–E and the Proposed Plan

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan the Dark Canyon SRMA would be managed to limit 

recreational impacts and protect resource values, though under Alternative A Dark Canyon 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-730 

would remain part of the Canyon Basins SRMA (214,390 acres). Variations between alternatives 

and the Proposed Plan relate to: 

• group size limits (range from no limit to 18 people per group); 

• commercial trips allowed per week (range from no limit to 7 commercial trips per week); 

• camping restrictions (range from open dispersed camping in any location to camping only in 

designated campsites); 

• campfire restrictions (range from no restrictions to allowed on mesa tops only); 

• limits on collection of woodland products (range from no restrictions to prohibiting 

collection of woodland products); and 

• pet restrictions (range from no pets allowed to pets allowed without restrictions). 

Variations in pet restrictions are the main difference between alternatives and the Proposed Plan 

in terms of impacts on wildlife. Pets create additional noise disturbance that can result in 

avoidance behavior amongst wildlife. Also, pets off leash wander from designated routes 

creating additional surface disturbance and potentially threaten individual animals. Alternatives 

B and E would be most beneficial to wildlife as they would prohibit pets. Alternatives C and D 

would allow pets on leash and under control, which would limit pet-created disturbance but not 

prevent it. Finally, Alternative A would allow pets without further restrictions. This alternative 

would result in the greatest pet-caused wildlife disturbances. 

Remaining variations between alternatives and the Proposed Plan are negligible and would result 

in negligible impacts to wildlife since all prescriptions would limit or curtail disturbance-causing 

activities. 

4.3.19.3.12.4. Indian Creek SRMA 

Alternatives A–E and the Proposed Plan

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan the Indian Creek SRMA would be managed to limit 

recreational impacts and protect resource values. Alternative A is unique in that the Indian Creek 

SRMA would remain part of the Canyon Basins SRMA (214,390 acres). Other variations 

between alternatives and the Proposed Plan relate to restrictions on camping (i.e., allowing 

dispersed camping versus limiting camping to designated camp sites). In terms of impacts on 

wildlife there is little difference between the alternatives and the Proposed Plan since 

recreationists tend to use designated (or previously disturbed) campsites rather than disturbing 

new sites. Impacts to wildlife associated with management prescriptions in the Indian Creek 

SRMA would be minimal since these management prescriptions are designed to limit or curtail 

disturbance-causing activities. 

4.3.19.3.12.5. White Canyon SRMA 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, White Canyon SRMA would be managed using minimal management 

prescriptions. Permits would be required for commercial use but activities related to private use 

would be unrestricted. The area would not be managed as an SRMA under this alternative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-731 

Alternatives B–E and the Proposed Plan

Under Alternatives B–E and the Proposed Plan, White Canyon SRMA (2,828 acres) would be 

managed to limit recreational impacts. Management prescriptions vary by alternative and the 

Proposed Plan though these variations would not result in appreciable differences between the 

alternatives and the Proposed Plan nor appreciable impacts on wildlife since all alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan would implement prescriptions designed to limit or curtail disturbancecausing activities. 

4.3.19.3.13. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

4.3.19.3.13.1. Alternatives A and D 

Under Alternatives A and D BLM would manage riparian areas to reduce resource loss from 

floods and erosion; maintain water quality; and preserve, protect, and restore natural functions. 

All lands would be managed in accordance with laws, executive orders, and regulations on 

floodplains and wetlands. These decisions would mitigate some of the adverse impacts caused by 

mineral leasing (discussed in Section 4.3.19.3.10), grazing (discussed in Section 4.3.19.3.9), and 

recreation (discussed in Section 4.3.19.3.12) on wildlife species that utilize riparian habitat. 

Alternatives A and D would provide no additional restrictions on actions in riparian areas outside 

of management common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. These alternatives would be 

less beneficial to wildlife than all other alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.19.3.13.2. Alternatives B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternatives B, C, and E and the Proposed Plan OHV routes in selected riparian areas 

would be closed where site-specific analysis determines that OHV use is contributing to these 

areas Functioning At Risk. In addition, some riparian areas would be closed to livestock grazing, 

while others would be subject to seasonal restrictions and forage utilization limits if areas are 

found to be Functioning At Risk. Riparian areas identified as Functioning At Risk would be 

closed to motorized camping until PFC is restored. These restrictions would decrease the amount 

of wildlife habitat subject to the adverse impacts of surface disturbance in sensitive riparian areas 

and therefore these alternatives and the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial to wildlife than 

Alternatives A and D. 

4.3.19.3.14. IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

4.3.19.3.14.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the impacts of soils and watershed management decisions on wildlife 

resources would be the same as impacts common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan.

4.3.19.3.14.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E if surface-disturbing activities could not be avoided on slopes 

between 21 and 40%, a plan would be required which would include an erosion control strategy. 

No surface disturbance would be allowed on slopes greater than 40%, excluding 87,601 total 

acres of land in the Monticello PA from surface disturbance and preventing the adverse impacts 

associated therewith. Though surface-disturbing activities may still occur on slopes between 21 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-732 

and 40% (218,790 acres) erosion control strategies and approved survey and design would be 

expected to mitigate adverse impacts. Pinyon-juniper habitat makes up 88% of slopes greater 

than 40% and 83% of slopes between 21 and 40%. The species associated with this habitat 

would benefit from the large number of acres protected from surface-disturbing activities (Table 

4.250). The decisions associated with Alternatives B and E would have less adverse impacts on 

wildlife than Alternative A. 

Table 4.250. Acreage and Percentage of Slopes by Cover Type and Associated Wildlife 

Vegetation Type Wildlife Associations Slope 

> 40% 

% of 

Total 

acres 

Slope 

21–40% 

% of 

Total 

acres 

Pinyon-juniper Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, 

neotropical birds, upland game 

birds. 

77,331 88.3 180,954 82.7 

Desert Scrub 

(Saltbush and 

Blackbrush) 

Pronghorn, desert bighorn, elk 

(winter), raptors, neotropical birds, 

upland game birds. 

6,390 7.3 27,473 12.6 

Sagebrush and 

Grassland 

Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, 

mountain lion, neotropical birds, 

upland game birds. 

1,684 1.9 5,534 2.5 

Riparian Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, 

neotropical birds, upland game 

birds, amphibian and fish species. 

683 0.8 1,461 0.7 

Conifer/mountain 

shrub 

Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, 

neotropical birds, upland game 

birds. 

1,323 1.5 2,662 1.2 

Other cover types 188 0.2 708 0.3 

Total Acres 87,599 100 218,792 100 

4.3.19.3.14.3. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan 

Alternative C and the Proposed Plan are the same as Alternatives B and E except that for slopes 

greater than 40% surface disturbance would still be allowed if other placement alternatives 

would cause undue or unnecessary degradation. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would have 

greater adverse impacts on wildlife resources than Alternatives B and E because they would not 

rule out surface disturbance on 87,601 acres of habitat (slopes greater than 40%). 

4.3.19.3.14.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D would only require a plan for slopes greater than 40%, and would not rule out 

surface disturbance on slopes of any grade. Among all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, 

Alternative D would be the most adverse to wildlife because of the increased potential for 

erosion and habitat destruction. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-733 

4.3.19.3.15. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Within the Monticello PA, there are 12 proposed ACECs and 12 reviewed WSR segments. Not 

every proposed ACEC or WSR segment would be designated under each alternative (Table 

4.251 and Table 4.252). Other than stipulating that WSAs would be managed according to IMP 

and as VRM Class I there are no blanket management prescriptions within proposed ACECs, so 

the impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources from ACEC designations would vary depending 

on the management stipulations for each area under each alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

Table 4.251. Proposed ACEC Acreage under the Proposed Plan and Each Alternative 

Alternatives 

ACEC 

Aa

 B C D E 

Proposed 

Pan 

Alkali Ridge 39,202 39,196 39,196 0 39,196 39,196

Bridger Jack Mesa 6,260 6,225 0 0 6,225 0

Butler Wash North 17,464 17,365 0 0 17,365 0

Cedar Mesa 295,336b 306,742 0 0 306,742 0

Dark Canyon 61,660 61,660 0 0 61,660 0

Hovenweep 1,798 2,439 2,439 0 2,439 2,439

Indian Creek 8,510 8,510 3,908 0 8,510 3,908

Lockhart Basin N/A 47,783 0 0 47,783 0

Lavender Mesa 649 649 649 0 649 649

Shay Canyon 3,561 119 119 0 119 119

San Juan River 0 7,590 7,590 0 7,590 4,321

Scenic Highway 57,637c 0 0 0 0 0

Valley of the Gods 0d 22,863 22,863 0 22,863 22,863

Total 492,077 521,142 73,495 0 521,141 73,495

a

 GIS technology has changed since the last RMP. Acres listed under this alternative may be slightly different even though the 

polygon is the same size under other alternatives. 

b

 Includes Pine and Step Canyons 21,280 acres of the Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC 

c Does not include 21,380 acres that overlaps with the Cedar Mesa ACEC. 

d Acreage included in Cedar Mesa ACEC (31,387 acres).

Table 4.252. Acreage of WSR Segment Recommended for Designation by Alternative 

Alternatives 

WSR Segment A B C D E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Colorado River Segment 1 

(Recreational) 

No evaluation 352 0 0 352 0

Colorado River Segment 2 

(Scenic) 

Suitable, 

acreage not 

specified 

880 880 0 880 880

Colorado River Segment 3 

(Scenic) 

Suitable, 

acreage not 

specified 

1,040 1,040 0 1,040 1,040

Indian Creek (Recreational) No evaluation 1,536 0 0 1,536 0
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-734 

Table 4.252. Acreage of WSR Segment Recommended for Designation by Alternative 

Alternatives 

WSR Segment A B C D E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Fable Valley (Scenic) No evaluation 2,176 0 0 2,176 0

Dark Canyon (Wild) No evaluation 2,048 2,048 0 2,048 2,048

San Juan River Segment 1 

(Recreational) 

No evaluation 1,360 0 0 1,360 0

San Juan River Segment 2 

(Recreational) 

Suitable, 

acreage not 

specified 

1,600 0 0 1,600 0

San Juan River Segment 3 

(Wild) 

Suitable, 

acreage not 

specified 

2,128 0 0 2,128 0

San Juan River Segment 4 

(Recreational) 

Suitable, 

acreage not 

specified 

672 0 0 672 0

San Juan River Segment 5 

(Wild) 

Suitable, 

acreage not 

specified 

2,768 2,768 0 2,768 2,768

Arch Canyon (Recreational) No evaluation 2,208 0 0 2,208 0

Total N/A 18,768 6,736 0 18,768 6,736

4.3.19.3.15.1. Alternative A 

Ten of the 12 proposed ACECs would continue to be managed as ACECs under Alternative A 

(approximately 489,480 acres in total). This includes Valley of the Gods, which would be a 

Special Emphasis Area for scenic value within the Cedar Mesa ACEC as well as Pine and Step 

Canyons, which would be managed with the same prescriptions as Cedar Mesa ACEC. The 

proposed Lockhart Basin ACEC is not currently an existing ACEC but a portion of it includes 

the Indian Creek ACEC (8,642 acres). This portion would continue to be managed as an ACEC 

and is included in the total acreage above. The proposed San Juan River ACEC would continue 

to be managed under SRMA status (15,100 acres). Approximately 25% of the land under ACEC 

designation would be managed as open to mineral leasing, while approximately 75% would be 

managed as closed. 

Under Alternative A, 6 of the 12 river segments reviewed for WSR status would be designated as 

suitable for WSR status. The remaining six segments were not evaluated for WSR eligibility in 

the 1991 San Juan RMP. 

4.3.19.3.15.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E, all 12 of the proposed ACECs (approximately 521,141 acres in 

total) would be designated and managed as ACECs. Alternatives B and E would designate more 

land as ACECs than all other alternatives and the Proposed Plan, which would indirectly benefit 

wildlife by providing protections from surface disturbance. Approximately 28% of the land 

under ACEC designation would be managed as open to mineral leasing, while approximately 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-735 

72% would be managed as closed. Under Alternatives B and E approximately 3% fewer acres 

would be closed to mineral leasing than under Alternative A. This is a negligible difference 

between alternatives given the larger acreage managed as ACECs under Alternatives B and E. 

Under Alternatives B and E, all 12 of the river segments reviewed for WSR status would be 

recommended as suitable for WSR status (18,768 acres in total). Management prescriptions vary 

from river segment to river segment (see Table 2.1 for specific prescriptions by segment) but this 

variation does not represent a notable difference between alternatives and the Proposed Plan in 

terms of the impacts of WSR designation since Alternatives B and E recommend more river 

segments for WSR status than all other alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.19.3.15.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, seven of the proposed ACECs (approximately 73,495 acres in total) would 

be recognized and managed as ACECs. Alternative C would designate approximately 85% less 

land as ACECs than Alternative A, limiting protections from surface disturbance compared to 

Alternative A. Under Alternative C approximately 53% of the land under ACEC designation 

would be open to minerals leasing, while approximately 47% would be managed as closed. 

Approximately 12% more land would be open to mineral leasing under Alternative C than under 

Alternative A. 

Four of the 12 river segments reviewed for WSR status would be designated as suitable for WSR 

status under Alternative C (6,736 acres in total). The remaining segments would not be 

recommended as suitable for WSR status. Alternative C would include two-thirds as many WSR 

recommended river segments as Alternative A.

4.3.19.3.15.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, none of the 12 proposed ACECs would be designated and approximately 

43% of the land within the areas proposed for ACEC designation would be managed as open to 

mineral leasing, while approximately 57% would be managed as closed. Fewer acres would be 

closed to surface-disturbing activities under Alternative D than under all other alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan. 

Under Alternative D, none of the river segments reviewed for WSR status would be 

recommended as suitable for WSR status. This is fewer than all other alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan. 

4.3.19.3.15.5. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, seven of the proposed ACECs (approximately 73,492 acres in total) 

would be designated and managed as ACECs. The Proposed Plan would designate 

approximately 85% less land as ACECs than Alternative A, limiting protections from surface 

disturbance compared to Alternative A. Under the Proposed Plan approximately 53% of the land 

under ACEC designation would be open to minerals leasing, while approximately 47% would be 

managed as closed. Approximately 70% and 90% less land, respectively, would be open and 

closed to mineral leasing under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative A. 

Four of the 12 river segments reviewed for WSR status would be designated as suitable for WSR 

status under the Proposed Plan (6,736 acres in total). The remaining segments would not be 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-736 

recommended as suitable for WSR status. The Proposed Plan would include two-thirds as many 

WSR recommended river segments as Alternative A. 

4.3.19.3.16. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

The alternatives and the Proposed Plan vary in terms of the acreage of crucial year-round habitat 

that would be established for Gunnison Sage-grouse as well as specific management 

prescriptions for Gunnison Sage-grouse, Mexican Spotted Owl, and flannelmouth sucker. Under 

Alternative A, the impacts of special status species management decisions on wildlife would be 

the same as impacts common to all alternatives and the Proposed Plan. Alternatives B and E 

would provide more protection for special status species than all other alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan, and indirectly other wildlife and fish populations. Alternative D would provide 

the least protection for these species. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would provide similar 

levels of protection for special status species, though Alternative C would provide more 

protection in some respects such as protections for Gunnison Sage-grouse in year-round habitat 

(Alternative C would prescribe a 6-mile zone around active strutting grounds from May 16 to 

March 19 while the Proposed Plan would prescribe a 4-mile zone). 

4.3.19.3.17. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

The impacts of travel management decisions on wildlife would primarily depend on the number 

of acres open and closed to OHV use and where OHV use is limited to designated roads and/or 

trails under each alternative and the Proposed Plan. Table 4.253 details acres open, closed, and 

limited to designated roads and/or trails for OHV use by vegetation type and in total for each 

alternative and the Proposed Plan. Areas that are classified as developed, disturbed, characterized 

by invasive/noxious weeds, or characterized as water are not included since their acreages are 

small. 

Table 4.253. Wildlife Habitat (acres) Open, Limited, and Closed to OHV Use by Vegetation 

Type and Alternative/Proposed Plan*

Vegetation Alternatives 

Type 

Status

A B C D E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Open 6,709 0 0 0 0 0

Limited 3,236 9,728 9,728 10,802 8,029 9,740

Conifer/Mountain 

Shrub 

Closed 856 1,074 1,074 0 2,774 1,061

Open 150,188 0 1,847 1,847 0 0

Limited 218,564 350,720 351,592 418,829 168,996 356,351

Desert Shrub 

Closed 53,096 69,957 67,238 0 250,403 64,276

Open 356,773 0 321 321 0 0

Limited 572,435 828,766 830,534 1,145,957 498,214 849,664

Pinyon-Juniper 

Closed 218,188 317,500 315,524 0 648,062 296,553

Open 10,870 0 135 135 0 0

Limited 6,302 16,458 16,623 20,300 11,656 16,894

Riparian/Wetland 

Closed 3,525 3,977 3,676 0 8,779 3,539
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-737 

Table 4.253. Wildlife Habitat (acres) Open, Limited, and Closed to OHV Use by Vegetation 

Type and Alternative/Proposed Plan*

Vegetation Alternatives 

Type 

Status

A B C D E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Open 65,782 0 6 6 0 0

Limited 88,073 134,739 165,517 165,571 108525 137,439

Sagebrush/ 

Perennial Grass 

Closed 12,256 30,838 0 0 57,050 28,122

Open 590,322 0 2,309 2,309 0 0

Limited 888,610 1,340,411 1,373,994 1,761,459 795,420 1,370,088

Total 

Closed 287,921 423,346 387,512 0 967,068 393,551

*Note that acreages in Table 4.253 do not add up to acreages referenced in the text. Acreages included in the table are only for key 

wildlife habitats. Acreages in the text include areas open, limited, and closed to OHV use for agricultural, disturbed, invasive species 

and noxious weeds, water, developed, and barren land use/land cover types. 

OHV use can cause damage to vegetation used as wildlife forage and cover, as well as cause 

noise disturbance. OHV use therefore generally has long- and short-term adverse impacts on 

wildlife species, especially birds, in the Monticello PA (Reijnen and Foppen 1994; Gelbard and 

Belnap 2003). OHV use also contributes to habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation, 

including the spread of noxious weeds. These would have long-term adverse impacts to wildlife. 

Greater acreage open to OHV use would result in more short- and long-term adverse impacts to 

wildlife than less acreage open to OHV use. Likewise, more acreage closed to OHV use would 

be more beneficial to wildlife than less acreage closed to OHV use. Areas closed to OHV use 

would include some ACECs, WSAs, SRMAs, vegetation study areas, and non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics (a list of closed areas under each alternative and the Proposed Plan is 

provided in Table 2.1). 

4.3.19.3.17.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, a total of 611,310 acres would be open to OHV use, which is more than 

under any other alternative. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and/or trails on 

approximately 1,329,430 acres and approximately 276,430 acres would be closed to OHV use. 

4.3.19.3.17.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E zero acres would be open to OHV use while 1,359,417 acres would 

be limited to designated routes under Alternative B and 812,679 acres would be limited to 

designated routes under Alternative E. Alternatives B and E would close 423,698 and 970,436 

acres, respectively, to OHV use. For Alternative B this is 147,268 acres (53%) more than under 

Alternative A. For Alternative E this is 694,006 acres (251%) more than under Alternative A. 

Further, under Alternatives B and E Arch Canyon would be closed to OHV use to protect 

wildlife. These alternatives would prevent more surface disturbance and weed spread associated 

with OHV use than any other alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-738 

4.3.19.3.17.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C a total of 2,311 acres would be open to OHV use while approximately 

1,362,142 acres would be limited to designated routes. Alternative C would close 418,667 acres 

to OHV use, which is 142,237 acres (51%) more than under Alternative A. This alternative 

would prevent approximately the same amount of surface disturbance and weed spread 

associated with OHV use as Alternative B except that this alternative allows for 7 designated 

“ways” in corridors to reach trailheads whereas Alternative B does not allow these routes. The 

designated “ways” associated with Alternative C would result in impacts, as described above, in 

these areas. These impacts would not be sustained under Alternative B. Alternative C would also 

include seasonal restrictions on 3.8 miles of trail in Arch Canyon to protect wildlife, though 

OHV use would otherwise be permitted limited to designated routes. 

4.3.19.3.17.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D a total of 2,311 acres would be open to OHV use while 1,780,807 acres 

would be limited to designated routes. Alternative D would close no land to OHV use (including 

Arch Canyon). The lack of closures would make the adverse impacts to wildlife species and their 

habitats of this alternative greater than under all other alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.19.3.17.5. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan zero acres would be open to OHV use while approximately 1,388,191 

acres would be limited to designated routes. OHV use in Indian Creek would be limited to 

designated roads/trails. Also, the Arch Canyon route would be opened for the entire length of the 

canyon to within 0.5 miles of the USFS boundary with seasonal restrictions. The Proposed Plan 

would close 393,895 acres to OHV use, which is 117,465 acres (42%) more than under 

Alternative A. The Proposed Plan would prevent approximately the same amount of surface 

disturbance and weed spread associated with OHV use as Alternatives B except that the 

Proposed Plan would allow for 4 or fewer designated "ways" in corridors to reach trailheads 

whereas Alternative B does not allow these routes. The designated "ways" associated with the 

Proposed Plan would result in impacts, as described above, in these areas. These impacts would 

not be sustained under Alternative B. 

4.3.19.3.18. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Impacts varying between alternatives and the Proposed Plan result from varying treatment 

acreages (Table 4.254). Though vegetation treatments would likely cause short-term adverse 

impacts to all wildlife in the area, impacts would vary over the long-term; depending on what 

sort of habitat is removed and what habitat type is encouraged to regenerate, some species would 

benefit and others would experience adverse impacts due to loss of forage or cover. Vegetation 

treatments focused on removing non-native plants would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

the treated wildlife habitats as a whole; removing undesirable, non-native plant species, would 

allow the establishment of a diverse, native vegetation community. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-739 

Table 4.254. Acres of Annual Vegetation Treatments by Vegetation Type and Alternative 

Alternatives 

Vegetation Type A B C D E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Existing treatments on various vegetation 

types U1

 1,000 1,500 2,000 1,000 1,500

Sagebrush U 1,000 1,500 2,000 1,000 1,500

Invasive Weeds U 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Pinyon/juniper U 2,000 3,000 4,000 2,000 3,000

Riparian U 500 100 100 500 100

Greasewood U 100 200 200 100 200

Total U 7,600 9,300 11,300 7,600 9,300

 U=Unspecified. Total land treatments for Alternative A = 9,320 acres

4.3.19.3.18.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, existing land treatments would be maintained and new land treatments 

would be provided applying RMP stipulations and special conditions through NEPA 

documentation. Treatments would occur on a dispersed basis on 232,130 acres. Impacts to 

wildlife would be of the nature described above. 

4.3.19.3.18.2. Alternatives B and E 

Under Alternatives B and E there would be a total of approximately 7,600 acres of vegetation 

treatments annually. Of all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, this is the smallest acreage of 

annual vegetation treatments. Thus, short-term adverse impacts to wildlife would be least 

pronounced under these alternatives but long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife would also be 

least pronounced. 

4.3.19.3.18.3. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan there would be a total of approximately 9,300 acres 

of vegetation treatments annually. Impacts on wildlife would be intensified under this alternative 

and the Proposed Plan compared to Alternative A since a greater number of acres would be 

treated per year. 

4.3.19.3.18.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D there would be a total of approximately 11,300 acres of vegetation 

treatments annually. The acreage of vegetation treatments is greater under this alternative than 

under any other alternative and the Proposed Plan, therefore the impacts to wildlife would be 

most pronounced under this alternative. 

4.3.19.3.19. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

The impacts to wildlife from visual resources decisions are generally associated with whether or 

not lands are protected from surface disturbance (due to the visual impacts of such disturbance). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-740 

If lands are considered to have high scenic quality, they will likely be inventoried and designated 

as VRM Class I or II. Landscapes with lower scenic quality are likely inventoried and designated 

as VRM Class III or IV. Usually VRM Classes I and II are most beneficial to wildlife and their 

habitats because lands with such ratings are more carefully protected from surface disturbance 

and its associated adverse impacts to animals. 

Impacts that vary between alternatives and the Proposed Plan result from varying acreages that 

would be designated as VRM Classes I, II, III, or IV (Table 4.255). 

Table 4.255. Total Acreage in Monticello PA Designated Under Each VRM Class by 

Alternative 

Alternatives 

VRM Class 

A B C D E Proposed Plan 

I 371, 575 

(21%) 

497,668 

(28%)

425,179 

(24%)

390,424 

(22%)

998,370 (56%) 422,989 (24%)

II 355,112 

(20%) 

250,641 

(14%)

132,001 

(7%)

8,838 

(<1%)

111,478 (6%) 228,041 (13%)

III 418,006 

(23%) 

426,350 

(24%)

531,920 

(30%)

692,741 

(39%)

264,369 (15%) 507,583 (28%)

IV 637,875 

(36%) 

608,463 

(34%)

693,995 

(39%)

691,119 

(39%)

407,459 (23%) 623,002 (35%)

Total1 1,783,368 1,783,122 1,783,095 1,783,122 1,781,676 1,781,615

1

 Total acreages vary due to slight differences in GIS shapefiles.

4.3.19.3.19.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, 41% of land in the Monticello PA would be designated as VRM Class I or 

II. The wildlife species that use these lands would benefit from the increased protection from 

surface-disturbing activities that management under these VRM Classes affords, but may 

adversely impact some species that benefit from vegetation treatments that are designed for 

wildlife. 

4.3.19.3.19.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B 42% of land in the Monticello PA would be designated as VRM Class I or 

II. This alternative would be the more beneficial to wildlife and their habitats than Alternative A 

since a slightly greater percentage of land would be managed under the most restrictive VRM 

Classes. Some species may be adversely impacted in the long-term by greater restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities, which includes habitat improvements and vegetation treatments. 

4.3.19.3.19.3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C approximately 31% of land in the Monticello PA would be designated as 

VRM Class I or II. This alternative would be less beneficial to wildlife and their habitats than 

Alternative A since 10% less of the land area in the Monticello PA would be managed under the 

most restrictive VRM Classes. On the other hand, fewer restrictions also allow for more habitat 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-741 

improvements and vegetation treatments which would translate into greater benefits for some 

species. 

4.3.19.3.19.4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D 22% of land in the Monticello PA would be designated as VRM Class I or 

II. This alternative would be the least beneficial to wildlife compared to all other alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan since it manages the least amount of land under the most restrictive VRM 

Classes. Some species would benefit more under this alternative since more habitat 

improvements and vegetation treatments could occur. 

4.3.19.3.19.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E 62% of land in the Monticello PA would be designated as VRM Class I or 

II. This alternative would be the most beneficial to wildlife compared to all other alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan since it manages the greatest amount of land under the most restrictive VRM 

Classes. Some species may experience more adverse impacts due to lack of habitat 

improvements and vegetation treatments, which would be restricted or prohibited under this 

alternative. 

4.3.19.3.19.6. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan approximately 37% of land in the Monticello PA would be designated 

as VRM Class I or II. The Proposed Plan would be less beneficial to wildlife and their habitats 

than Alternative A since 4% less of the land area in the Monticello PA would be managed under 

the most restrictive VRM Classes. On the other hand, fewer restrictions also allow for more 

habitat improvements and vegetation treatments which would translate into greater benefits for 

some species. 

4.3.19.3.20. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Impacts from woodlands decisions on wildlife vary depending primarily upon the number of 

acres of wildlife habitat open to woodland harvest under each alternative and the Proposed Plan 

(Table 4.256). Adverse impacts to wildlife from woodland harvest include direct habitat loss, 

habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation. Indirect, adverse impacts of wood gathering on 

wildlife species and their habitats include trampling and removal of native vegetation, which 

results in habitat degradation that can include reduction of prey species, forage species, and 

cover. All areas open to woodland harvest in each alternative and the Proposed Plan are 

woodland vegetation types. 

Table 4.256. Acres in the Monticello PA Open to Woodland Harvesting 

Alternatives 

A B C D E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Total Open Areas 1,309,894 730,074 841,938 841,938 548,477 841,938 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-742 

4.3.19.3.20.1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, more acres would be open to woodland collection with fewer restrictions 

than under any other alternative making Alternative A the most adverse to wildlife. 

4.3.19.3.20.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B there would be 579,820 fewer acres (a 44% decrease) open to woodland 

harvesting than under Alternative A. This alternative would be less adverse to wildlife than 

Alternative A since it closes more land to harvest of woodland products. Further, limitations on 

off-road travel and seasonal restrictions on wood collection would help mitigate the adverse 

impacts of woodland product collection and harvest, where it occurs, on wildlife resources. 

4.3.19.3.20.3. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, 467,956 fewer acres (a 36% decrease) would be 

open to woodland harvesting than under Alternative A. Also, seasonal restrictions on wood 

collection would not apply in any area and wood collection in certain areas would be restricted to 

within 150 feet of designated routes and permitted off-road travel. Despite the lack of seasonal 

restrictions on wood collection Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would have fewer adverse 

impacts on wildlife resources than Alternative A due to the decreased acreage open to wood 

collection.

4.3.19.3.20.4. Alternative D 

Alternative D impacts would be the same as Alternative C and the Proposed Plan except that 

wood collection in certain areas would not be restricted to any buffer zone along designated 

routes or permitted off-road travel. Alternative D would have greater adverse impacts on wildlife 

than Alternative C and the Proposed Plan since it places the fewest restrictions on wood 

collection. However, impacts associated with Alternative D would be less than Alternative A due 

to the greater acreage open to woodland product use under Alternative A. 

4.3.19.3.20.5. Alternative E 

Under Alternative E there would be fewer acres open to woodland harvest than under any other 

alternative (761,417 fewer acres—a 58% decrease–available for harvesting than under 

Alternative A). This alternative would be the least adverse to wildlife of all alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan since it would open the least amount of land to woodland collection. 

4.3.19.3.21. IMPACTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ON WILDLIFE 

In addition to directly disturbing wildlife habitat, roads associated with minerals and travel 

decisions also fragment adjacent (undisturbed) habitat, thereby degrading its value to wildlife. 

Habitat fragmentation may be less obvious than direct impacts such as vehicle collisions with 

wildlife or vegetation removal, but often carries considerable consequences for long-term 

population and reproductive success. Large expanses of habitat may be required to meet the 

minimum habitat requirements of the largest, most widely roaming species, including top 

carnivores and large migrating herd animals. 

The impacts of habitat fragmentation from foreseeable oil and gas development were analyzed 

for deer and elk, desert bighorn sheep, sage-grouse, and migratory birds (discussions of impacts 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-743 

to sage-grouse are provided in Section 4.3.15, Special Status Species). These species were 

selected for analysis for three reasons: 1) they are species of high interest; 2) published studies 

were available that provided suitable fragmentation thresholds to assess impacts to the species; 

and 3) GIS data were available to support the analyses. Other wildlife species (e.g., amphibians, 

reptiles, small game, and raptors) would likely also be impacted by habitat fragmentation, but did 

not meet the analysis criteria above. 

The impacts of habitat fragmentation on various animal species are difficult to quantify. Even 

with site-specific, peer-reviewed ecological research on the impacts to particular wildlife species 

from habitat fragmentation, many variables that contribute to the severity of the impacts to 

nearby wildlife remain difficult to predict. Such variables include vehicle use per hour and day, 

vehicle speed, noise per vehicle, how often drivers leave their vehicles, etc. Unless otherwise 

stated, for the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that all roads in the Monticello PA (existing 

and proposed) would have equal impact on a wildlife species. 

4.3.19.3.21.1. General Methodology 

GIS models were created to analyze the degree of habitat fragmentation under each alternative 

and the Proposed Plan. The models were based on the BLM's best available GIS data for existing 

roads within the Monticello PA. To facilitate comparisons between alternatives and the Proposed 

Plan the model utilized the same baseline habitat acreages (for mule deer, elk, and bighorn sheep 

2006 UDWR habitat coverages for all seasons were used) for the analysis of impacts under each 

alternative and the Proposed Plan. Within areas of the Monticello PA that would be open to oil or 

gas well development (under Standard, Controlled Surface Use, or Controlled Surface Use and 

Timing Stipulations), the number of wells expected under the RFD scenario were randomly 

distributed by RFD area. Only roads effects were considered in the models; individual wells 

were assumed to have no area and no impact on fragmentation. 

Once the wells had been distributed within the network of existing roads, the model generated 

new roads that connected each well to the nearest existing road. Roads were generated as the 

shortest straight line from well to existing road, without consideration for topography or ease of 

travel. The habitat fragmentation analysis considered the effects of all BLM-identified existing 

roads and new computer-generated roads on the habitat of each wildlife species examined. 

Several potential sources of error affect these analyses. First, not all existing roads were included 

in the GIS database utilized in the models due to unofficial and uninventoried roads. Therefore, 

these analyses may slightly underestimate some adverse impacts from habitat fragmentation. 

Second, many roads in the Monticello PA are rarely traveled by vehicles (personal 

communication, Katie Stevens), and therefore would have little contribution to habitat 

fragmentation. Including roads with little travel would tend to overestimate the impacts of roads 

on wildlife habitat. Because the effects of under- and over-estimation would be consistent across 

all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, the results presented should be useful for comparative 

purposes. 

4.3.19.3.21.2. Analysis of Impacts to Wildlife 

Mule Deer and Elk

Methodology 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-744 

Habitat fragmentation for mule deer and elk was assessed by determining the proportion of 

habitat where road densities would exceed 0.16 km/km2. Habitat where this threshold would be 

exceeded was considered unfavorable, following Sawyer et al. (2006), who found that mule deer 

preferentially use habitat where road densities are </= 0.16 km/km2 in a natural gas field in 

western Wyoming. Because elk are thought to experience similar impacts to mule deer when 

disturbed, and as they often occur in similar habitat types as mule deer (Sawyer et al. 2006) this 

information was also used to predict the spatial distribution of elk since there were no 

comparable elk data. Road density was calculated per square km of UDWR-designated habitat in 

the Monticello PA.

Results

Table 4.257 presents the proportion of UDWR-designated mule deer and elk habitat that would 

be considered unfavorable to each species due to fragmentation by roads under each alternative 

and the Proposed Plan. Fragmentation of elk habitat under each alternative and the Proposed 

Plan is shown in Maps 95–99, and mule deer habitat fragmentation is shown in Maps 100– 104. 

Table 4.257. Percent of Mule Deer and Elk Habitat Considered Unfavorable After 

Fragmentation by Roads (Road Density < 0.16 km/km2) 

Species Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Mule Deer 53.2% 50.1% 52.9% 54.4% 50.1% 52.9% 

Elk 49.9% 49.2% 52.2% 52.9% 49.2% 52.2% 

Under each alternative and the Proposed Plan approximately half of the mule deer and elk 

habitats in the Monticello PA would be unfavorable to mule deer due to existing roads and those 

expected due to reasonably foreseeable minerals development. The small difference (4.3%) 

between the most and least favorable alternatives and the Proposed Plan seems to indicate that 

existing roads in the Monticello PA cause most of the habitat fragmentation for mule deer and 

elk. The number of new roads to be built under each alternative and the Proposed Plan, as 

modeled, varies considerably, but in comparison to existing roads, new roads only contribute a 

few percentage points to habitat fragmentation. 

Desert Bighorn Sheep

Methodology 

The impacts of habitat fragmentation on desert bighorn sheep were assessed using habitat patch 

size, rather than road density (as with mule deer and elk). This assessment assumed that patch 

sizes smaller than 159 km2 were generally unsuitably fragmented, following Singer et al. (2001), 

who found that bighorn sheep released into habitat patches of at least 158.7 km2 ± 60.3 km2 

colonized an average of one neighboring patch, while bighorn sheep released in smaller patches 

did not colonize neighboring areas and eventually left the area. Patch colonization is a necessary 

precursor to reproduction and population maintenance. Desert bighorn sheep are more sensitive 

to encroachment and habitat fragmentation than are other ungulates in the Monticello PA (Singer 

et al. 2001). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-745 

Desert Bighorn Sheep Results 

Table 4.258 presents the acres of UDWR-designated desert bighorn sheep habitat that would be 

found in patches larger or smaller than 159 km2 under each alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

Table 4.258. Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat Fragmentation Analysis

Alternative Road Corridor Habitat Patch 

<158.7 

Habitat Patch 

>=158.7 Total 

A 3,873 261,751 879,033 

B 2,995 253,611 888,051 

C 3,697 333,632 807,328 

D 3,908 380,348 760,401 

E 2,995 253,611 888,051 

Proposed Plan 3,617 333,632 807,409 

1,144,658 

Alternatives E, B, and A are the most favorable alternatives for unfragmented habitat within the 

Monticello PA. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would allow for roughly 80,000 fewer acres 

of isolated habitat for desert bighorn sheep than these alternatives. 

Migratory Birds

Methodology 

Fragmentation of migratory bird habitat was assessed by calculating the acreage of migratory 

bird habitat that would be impacted by vehicle and pedestrian traffic for all lands within the 

Monticello PA. All lands within the Monticello PA were used for these calculations to avoid 

falsely introducing fragmentation due to land ownership. The potential area of impact was 

assumed to be a 400-m buffer along each side of all roads in designated migratory bird habitat. 

This buffer represents an average distance based on applicable literature (Clark and Karr 1979, 

Connelly et al. 2000, Crawford et al. 2004, UDWR 2002). 

Because numerous migratory bird species use various habitats in the Monticello PA, impacts 

were analyzed based on habitat types, which could then be extrapolated to specific bird species. 

Results 

Table 4.259 presents the acreage of each habitat type that falls within the 400-m buffer 

surrounding roads in the Monticello PA by alternative and the Proposed Plan, as well as 

representative bird species that would be impacted. Although other birds utilize these habitats, 

these migratory birds were selected for analysis because many of them are found on lists of 

sensitive species (Partners in Flight and Birds of Conservation Concern). The presence of roads 

can have numerous adverse impacts on avian communities, including displacement, loss of 

habitat, and vehicular-related mortalities. Vehicles often hit and kill birds that are attracted to 

roadside vegetation, spilled grain, or dead animals (Forman and Alexander 1998).
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

4

4-746 

Table 4.259. Acres of Vegetation Habitat Types Impacted by Roads and Buffers 

Vegetation Alternatives 

Type Associated Species A B C D E 

Conifer and Mountain Shrub 

Clark's Nutcracker, Flammulated Owl, Grace's Warbler, Gray Vireo. 

92,333 109,518 110,535 110,860 1

Desert Scrub Ash-throated Flycatcher, 

Brewer's Sparrow, Golden Eagle. 

479,823 454,789 473,849 484,668 4

Pinyon-Juniper Black-throated Gray 

Warbler, Gray Vireo, Juniper Titmouse, Pinyon Jay. 

619,620 535,820 599,590 627,324 5

Riparian and Wetland 

Blue Grosbeak, Cooper's Hawk, Hermit Thrush, Peregrine Falcon, Northern Harrier. 

27,974 27,056 27,867 28,603 

Sagebrush and Perennial Grassland 

Horned Lark, Brewer's Sparrow, Sage Thrasher, Western Meadowlark. 

174,899 162,975 171,214 176,480 1

Total 1,394,649 1,290,158 1,383,055 1,427,935 1,2
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-747 

Under each of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, birds that use pinyon-juniper woodlands 

would experience the most habitat fragmentation. Migratory birds that utilize desert scrub 

habitats would be the next most heavily impacted by road effects and habitat fragmentation. 

Of all the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, Alternative D would cause the most fragmentation 

by allowing approximately 137,777 more acres of disturbance than Alternatives B and E, 44,880 

more than Alternative C, 50,109 more than the Proposed Plan, and 33,286 more than Alternative 

A. Alternatives B and E would cause the least amount of road-related disturbance to migratory 

bird habitat (104,491 fewer acres of disturbance, in total, than Alternative A). 

4.3.19.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 contains a summary of impacts of management decisions on wildlife and fisheries 

resources. 

4.3.19.5. MITIGATION MEASURES

The protective measures for wildlife described in Table 2.1, Management Common to All 

Alternatives and the Proposed Plan in Chapter 2, Appendix M (Raptor Best Management 

Practices), and Appendix I (SOPs) in addition to BMPs for other resources would serve to avoid 

and/or minimize impacts to wildlife resources in the Monticello PA. 

4.3.19.6. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts to wildlife would include short-term reductions in cover due to 

trampling and grazing by livestock, trampling and weed introduction by human visitors 

(motorized and non-motorized), and noise disturbance of individual animals associated with 

human presence. Permanent alteration of wildlife habitat due to clearing activities such as oil 

well pad installation and woodland harvest would constitute long-term adverse impacts on 

wildlife. 

4.3.19.7. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

As discussed throughout this section, some of the short-term, multiple uses of the Monticello PA 

would adversely impact wildlife habitats. These uses include oil and gas development, livestock 

grazing, dispersed and developed camping, off-road vehicle travel, and woodland harvest. Most 

of these impacts, however, are accompanied by economic benefits, and would be partially 

mitigated by the protective measures discussed in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan sections for each management decision. Effective implementation of these 

protective measures would prevent these uses from substantially impacting the long-term 

productivity of wildlife and fisheries resources. 

4.3.19.8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There would be no anticipated irreversible impacts to wildlife, fisheries, or wildlife habitat 

associated with the management decisions proposed for the Monticello PA. There would, 

however, be irretrievable impacts associated with surface-disturbing activities proposed 

throughout the planning area. The native vegetation that would be removed or disturbed when 

roads or trails are cut, oil pads installed, or areas are over-grazed would be irretrievably lost until 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries 

4-748 

successful restoration occurs. The effects of habitat fragmentation due to roads and other 

disturbances would also persist until removed and successfully reclaimed. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-749 

4.3.20. WOODLANDS

The management of high-use recreation areas, some ACECs, non-WSA land with wilderness 

characteristics, and all WSAs prohibits the harvesting of woodland products. Most woodland 

harvesting within the Monticello PA is by individuals for use as firewood, fence posts, Christmas 

trees, landscaping, and greenwood cutting (see Section 3.21.3, Woodlands, for a description of 

resource demand and use). Thus, it was assumed that areas within the PA that were open to 

woodlands harvesting would have beneficial impacts on the resource because 1) opportunities 

would be available to the public to harvest wood for a variety of uses, and 2) managed woodland 

harvesting (harvesting-related fuel load reductions) would reduce wildland fire risks in dense 

woodland stands and potentially improve woodland ecosystem health. The quantitative criteria 

for impacts analysis were the number of acres available and unavailable for woodland harvesting 

within the Monticello PA.

4.3.20.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan and all of the alternatives, 391,599 acres in 13 WSAs (approximately 

22% of the planning area) would be excluded from woodland harvesting and product use, which 

would have long-term, restriction-related, adverse impacts on opportunities for woodland 

harvesting until Congress makes a final determination on the wilderness suitability of these 

areas. The impacts to opportunities for woodland resources use would be minor because, while 

these areas are currently and would continue to be closed to harvesting, they are also relatively 

inaccessible to woodland harvesting because of topography and/or the lack of OHV access 

routes. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to woodland resources harvesting opportunities under all of the 

proposed alternatives would include: (1) allowing woodland harvesting in coordination with fire 

management fuels treatments projects, and (2) and allowing pinyon and juniper harvesting in 

areas where these woodland species are encroaching on the sagebrush steppe vegetation 

community. 

Implementing the Healthy Forest Initiative and the 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act under 

the Proposed Plan and all of the alternatives would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

woodland resources by improving the health and ensuring the sustainability of the resource for 

long-term harvesting and product use. 

Allowing woodland harvesting as part of fuel treatment projects would provide beneficial 

opportunities for woodland products use while also beneficially reducing the risks stand-altering 

wildland fire. 

Restricting riparian woodland species harvesting (cottonwood and willow) to Native American 

ceremonial use-only in order to maintain or achieve healthy riparian ecosystems would have 

long-term, beneficial impacts to riparian woodland resources because these restrictions would 

ensure the health and sustainability of this resource. 

4.3.20.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Managing OHV used for wood gathering would ensure that woodland resources remain 

sustainable, reduce potential resource impacts, and/or to accommodate OHV use for wood 

gathering in areas where impacts are not a serious concern would be beneficial in the long term 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-750 

for woodland resources. This is because managed OHV use would limit OHV-caused soil 

impacts, reduce the development of unwarranted roads, and reduce the opportunities for the 

establishment and spread of invasive, non-native, weedy species. Also, allowing OHV use for 

wood gathering would create beneficial opportunities for woodland resource harvesting by 

allowing greater access. 

4.3.20.3. ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PLAN IMPACTS

For the Proposed Plan and all of the alternatives, woodland resource use and management would 

be required to meet VRM Class objectives. All of the alternatives would designate acreages 

within the PA as VRM Class I through VRM Class IV, with VRM Class I management 

objectives having the most restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and VRM Class IV 

objectives having the least (see Sections 3.19 and 4.3.18 for a discussion of VRM). For analysis 

purposes, it was assumed that the more protective VRM classes (VRM Classes I and II) would 

place more restrictions on woodland harvesting opportunities because harvesting is a surfacedisturbing activity that could create visual contrasts and impact scenic quality. Thus, in general, 

VRM Class I and II designations would potentially have long-term, adverse impacts on 

opportunities for woodland harvesting by restricting these surface-disturbing activities in visually 

protected areas. It was assumed that VRM Classes III and IV would likely have the least longterm, adverse impacts on opportunities for woodland harvesting because the VRM management 

objectives under these classes would be the least restrictive on surface-disturbing activities. 

It was also assumed that OHV areas that are designed as open to cross-country use and limited to 

designated routes would provide adequate access to woodland resources areas for harvesting and 

transporting woodland products. Consequently, it was assumed that closing an area to OHV 

motorized travel would essentially preclude woodland harvesting in that area. 

The following resource management decisions would have negligible to minor impacts on 

woodland resources and will not be analyzed further in this section: 

• Air Quality 

Air quality management decisions would have negligible impacts on woodland resources 

because timing prescribed burns and managing emissions to prevent air quality degradation 

and comply with state and federal air quality standards would not interfere with woodland 

harvesting and gathering, woodland restoration, and compliance with the Healthy Forest 

Initiative. 

• Health and Safety 

Health and safety management decisions for all the alternatives that would identify and 

address abandoned minelands safety concerns, respond to hazardous waste releases, and 

protect public hearth and safety would have negligible impacts on woodland resources 

management and woodland harvesting for products use. The hazardous materials 

management decisions would not interfere or restrict woodland harvesting and gathering, 

woodland sustainability, and woodland restoration. 

• Lands and Realty 

Management decisions common to all alternatives for lands and realty for access, permits, 

transfer, acquisition, or exchange of lands within the Monticello PA would have negligible 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-751 

impacts on woodland resources or woodland harvesting for wood products. The impacts 

would be negligible because there are no lands and realty management decisions that address 

woodlands resources management or specifically identify woodland harvest areas. 

• Livestock Grazing 

Grazing management decisions would have negligible to minor impacts on woodland 

resources because grazing restrictions and exclusions and authorized grazing use within the 

planning area do not impinge on woodland resources management and woodland harvesting 

for products use. 

• Paleontology 

Management decisions common to all alternatives for paleontological resources would have 

negligible impacts on woodland resources because the collection of fossils for personal, 

commercial, and scientific use and the protection of this resource would not affect woodland 

resources harvesting or gathering or woodlands resource management for sustainable 

woodland products use. 

• Special Status Species 

The impacts of special status species management decisions common to all alternatives on 

woodland resources would be negligible because temporary seasonal or spatial buffers and 

restrictions for roosting or nesting birds and habitat enhancement to protect special status 

species would not restrict woodland harvesting or woodlands management. 

4.3.20.3.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.20.3.1.1. Impacts of Cultural Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

The Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area/National Historic District (37,433 acres) would be 

excluded from woodland harvesting because it lies within a WSA, which is approximately 3% of 

the total area open to woodland harvesting under this alternative. Closing this area would have 

long-term, adverse impacts on the opportunities for woodland products use because the area 

would not be open to harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.1.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Woodlands 

No areas or acreages are specified for fire management under this alternative, except for fuels 

treatments on an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 acres per year. Woodland resources would be subject 

to fire management fuels treatments at the site-specific level to reduce the risk of wildland fire. It 

is impossible to quantitatively analyze the potential impacts of these treatments since it is not 

known how much, where, or when they would occur. The impacts of these treatments would be 

analyzed through site-specific NEPA analyses. However, it is likely that these treatments would 

have an adverse, short-term impact on woodlands because of the loss of vegetation (including 

woody vegetation), and surface disturbances caused by managed, naturally ignited wildland fire, 

prescribed fire, fuel load reductions, fuels treatments, and fire suppression. This vegetation loss 

and soil disturbance would likely result in some soil erosion and compaction, as well as 

increasing the potential for noxious weed and exotic species invasion and establishment. Fire 

treatments would also have short-term, adverse impacts on woodlands harvesting by potentially 

restricting entry into treated areas until vegetation re-growth and establishment, typically for two 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-752 

years (personal communication between Daryl Trotter, Moab FO, and David Harris, SWCA, 

2006). However, fire management decisions (including managed, naturally ignited wildland fire) 

under this alternative would have long-term, beneficial impacts on woodland resources because 

they would reduce the risk of wildland fire due to reduced fuel loads and would improve fire 

condition classes, resulting in sustainable yields of woodland products. 

4.3.20.3.1.3. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Woodlands 

Minerals management decisions for the exploration and development of leasable, locatable, and 

salable minerals under Alternative A would have potential long-term, adverse impacts on 

woodland resources through surface disturbances (e.g., access road and well pad construction, 

seismic and geophysical exploration) that would remove or trample woodland resources, which 

would reduce woodland resources productivity and reduce the opportunities for woodland 

harvesting and gathering in developed areas. These impacts would be the same under all of the 

alternatives. 

Under Alternative A, approximately 1,238,230 acres would be available under standard 

(Category 1) and timing and controlled surface use (Category 2) leasing category stipulations for 

oil and natural gas exploration and development. However, it should be noted that an estimated 

total of 73 wells would be drilled within 15 years after Plan approval, with a potential total 

surface disturbance of 699 acres. Predicted geophysical exploration would impact approximately 

886 acres within 15 years after approval of the plan. Thus, the expected potential surface 

disturbance from oil and natural gas exploration and development would be less than 0.1% of the 

area available for minerals leasing and development. Under this alternative, locatable and salable 

minerals impacts are expected to total 851 acres of surface disturbances. These minerals 

activities would include gold, uranium, and vanadium mining, and the mining of sand, gravel, 

limestone, building stone, and clay. The impacts from these activities would be minor because 

the potential loss of woodlands and woodland productivity would be within a relatively small 

area. Based on the expected level of oil and gas development in the PA and the relatively small 

area of impact, the potential loss of woodland resource productivity from oil and gas 

development would also be minor. 

4.3.20.3.1.4. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Woodlands 

Under Alternative A, there would be no restrictions from recreation management decisions on 

woodland resource harvesting, and wood collecting within the designated Canyon Basins, Grand 

Gulch Plateau, and San Juan River SRMAs. There would be no harvesting restrictions within the 

ERMA, except for the 1,280-acre Pearson hiking area, approximately 196,040 acres of ROS PClass areas, and 250 acres of developed recreation sites where harvesting would be excluded. 

This would have long-term, beneficial impacts on harvesting opportunities in undeveloped 

recreation areas because relatively few acres would have harvesting prohibitions from recreationrelated decisions (11% of the Monticello PA); however, under this alternative, there would also 

be direct, long-term, adverse impacts caused by unrestricted, unlimited harvesting of the resource 

that could reduce long-term woodland resource productivity and threaten the long-term 

sustainability of resource harvesting. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-753 

4.3.20.3.1.5. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Woodlands 

Management decisions under this alternative would exclude riparian areas from private and 

commercial woodland harvesting, except for Native American traditional purposes as site 

specifically determined. Additionally, fire suppression would be conducted in riparian areas to 

protect riparian resources and habitat. This would have long-term, beneficial impacts on riparian 

woodland resources (i.e., cottonwood and willow) by ensuring the sustainability and stability of 

riparian-woodland resources. Although the limitations on woodland harvesting within riparian 

areas would have some long-term adverse impact on opportunities for resource harvesting, this 

impact would be minor because riparian vegetation (e.g., cottonwood and willow) are typically 

not highly sought after for private or commercial harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.1.6. Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Woodlands 

Alternative A soils and watershed decisions would have negligible impacts on woodlands 

resources management or woodland harvesting because there are no vegetation or watershed 

treatments proposed that would affect woodlands or access to woodland resources. 

4.3.20.3.1.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Woodlands 

ACECs 

Under Alternative A, approximately 137,275 acres would be closed to harvesting in the 

following existing ACECs: Bridger Jack Mesa, Butler Wash, Dark Canyon, Hovenweep, Indian 

Creek, Lavender Mesa, Shay Canyon ACECs, and the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area 

portion of Cedar Mesa ACEC. This would have long-term, adverse, but minor impacts on 

woodland resources use because less than 8% of the Monticello PA would be closed to 

harvesting opportunities because of ACEC special designation decisions. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Under this alternative, river segments encompassing approximately 7,168 acres of the San Juan 

River and 1,920 acres along the Colorado River were determined to be eligible for suitability 

determination under the NWSRS, and thus excluded from woodland products harvesting and use. 

This would have long-term, adverse, but minor impacts to woodland resources harvesting for 

reasons as discussed under WSAs above. 

4.3.20.3.1.8. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Woodlands 

Under Alternative A, OHV use would be designated as open, limited to existing or designated 

routes, or closed. Areas that are closed to OHV use would have long-term, adverse impacts on 

woodland harvesting because opportunities for harvesting access to woodland resources would 

be limited or prohibited. 

Under this alternative, 276,430 acres would be closed to OHV use (or 21% of the acreage 

available for woodland harvesting), with long-term, adverse impacts on opportunities for 

woodland harvesting as discussed above. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-754 

4.3.20.3.1.9. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Woodlands 

Under Alternative A, vegetation treatments would be applied to approximately 232,130 acres. 

These treatments would reduce fuel loading and control of non-native, invasive species, with 

long-term, indirect, beneficial impacts on woodland productivity by reducing the risk of wildland 

fire and reducing the likelihood of displacement of woodlands by non-native, exotic, invasive 

species. Potential short-term impacts to woodlands would be the same as those discussed under 

Fire Management because the methods used for vegetation treatments would be similar: shortterm, minor, direct and indirect impacts that would cause woody vegetation productivity losses 

and soil compaction in treatment areas. 

4.3.20.3.1.10. Impacts of Visual Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

Alternative A would designate approximately 726,687 acres as VRM Class I and Class II ([41% 

of the Monticello PA]; 371,575 acres would be managed under VRM Class I objectives and 

355,112 acres under VRM Class II objectives). See Table 4.240 in Visual Section 4.3.18 for 

proposed acreages of the designated VRM classes, by alternative. The impacts would be longterm and adverse on woodlands harvesting opportunities from likely restrictions on the amount 

and type of harvesting to preserve scenic quality; however the impacts would be minor because: 

(1) non-mechanized harvesting could be allowed within VRM Class I areas if the management 

class objectives were met, and (2) mechanized harvesting would be allowed in VRM Class II if 

the degree of harvesting related surface disturbances met VRM Class II scenic quality objectives. 

Approximately 1,054,681 acres would be managed under VRM Class III and IV objectives, with 

negligible impacts on woodland harvesting opportunities because few restrictions would be 

applied under these VRM class objectives to limit harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.1.11. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Woodlands 

Under this alternative, general management decisions for the improvement of riparian habitat 

areas, control of invasive and non-native plants to maintain migratory bird habitat, and decisions 

that encourage the regeneration of cottonwood and willows would beneficially protect and 

improve woodland ecological conditions for sustainable riparian woodlands harvesting. These 

impacts would be applicable to all of the alternatives. 

Under Alternative A, the impacts of specific wildlife and fisheries management decisions on 

woodland resources use would be negligible because management decisions for wildlife and fish 

species would not restrict or prohibit woodland harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.1.12. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Woodlands 

Management decisions under Alternative A would allow commercial and private woodland 

harvesting within the Monticello PA, except for approximately 473,282 acres within WSAs and 

the woodland harvesting exclusion areas described in the current RMP (see Map 83). 

Accordingly, approximately 1,309,894 acres (73% of the planning area) would be open to 

harvesting and the remaining 27% would be closed because of WSA protection constraints under 

the IMP and other management decisions to protect resource values. There would be few other 

restrictions on harvesting woodland resources under this alternative. This would allow many 

harvesting opportunities and represents a generally beneficial impact on woodland harvesting 

and product use in the Monticello PA. The relatively small area closed for woodland harvest 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-755 

under this alternative would not substantially limit woodland harvesting opportunities. Based on 

GIS GAP data acreage calculations of pinyon and juniper within the PA, these woodland species 

cover approximately 793,757 acres (61%) of the 1,309,894 acres available for harvesting. Table 

4.260 shows a comparison of available woodland acreages under each alternative. 

Table 4.260. Woodland Available for Woodland Harvesting, by Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Available for 

Woodland 

Harvesting in 

Monticello PA 

(Acres) 

1,309,894 730,074 841,938 841,938 548,477 837,939

Percentage of 

Monticello PA 

Available for 

Harvesting 

73% 41% 47% 47% 31% 47%

Percentage of 

Pinyon-Juniper 

Coverage in 

Available Areas 

61% 69% 71% 71% 13% 71%

Acres of 

Pinyon- Juniper 

in Available 

Areas 

793,757 504,666 597,086 597,086 73,428 597,086

4.3.20.3.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.3.20.3.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

Planned reductions of hazardous fuels or mitigation of potential fuel load hazards around 

archaeological sites would reduce the risk of wildland fire in the long-term, thus beneficially 

reducing the risk of loss of woodland productivity and preserving the resource for sustainable 

harvesting. Specific acreages for these fuel reduction treatments around archaeological sites are 

not known, but would be analyzed through site-specific NEPA processes when treatments areas 

are proposed. These impacts would be the same for Alternatives B, C, D, E and the Proposed 

Plan. 

Under this alternative, approximately 99,955 acres would be excluded from woodland harvesting 

(except for harvesting in the Tank Bench CSMA for traditional cultural uses) within the Comb 

Ridge, McLoyd Canyon-Moon House, Tank Bench and Beef Basin CSMAs, and in the Grand 

Gulch National Historic District, with adverse restriction-related impacts on woodland 

harvesting opportunities. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would close more than two 

and one-half times more acres to woodlands harvesting (62,522 more acres) than Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-756 

4.3.20.3.2.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A because the management 

decisions are the same. 

4.3.20.3.2.3. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Woodlands 

Under Alternative B, approximately 1,241,910 acres would be available under standard and 

timing and controlled surface use leasing category stipulations for oil and natural gas exploration 

and development. The potential impacts of mineral exploration and development on woodland 

resources would be the same as those discussed above under Alternative A because the predicted 

minerals development within the planning area would be the same. Under this alternative, it is 

estimated that an average of 66 wells would be drilled during within 15 years after approval of 

the proposed RMP, causing surface disturbances on approximately 636 acres, with 794 acres of 

impacts from geophysical exploration. Compared to Alternative A, the expected potential 

disturbance from oil and natural gas exploration and development would be the same (less than 

0.1% of the area available for minerals development), with impacts to woodland resources as 

discussed under Alternative A. The impacts of salable and locatable minerals development 

would also be the same as discussed under Alternative A because the predicted acreages of 

disturbance from these activities would be practically the same 

4.3.20.3.2.4. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Woodlands 

Recreation management decisions under Alternative B would close existing and future 

recreational facilities to private and commercial woodland harvesting, including the collection of 

deadwood for campfires. The San Juan River SRMA (10,203 acres) would be closed to 

woodland harvesting, except for limited, on-site campfire wood collecting and permitted wood 

gathering by Native Americans. Cottonwood and willow harvesting would be allowed for Native 

American ceremonial use only. The long-term impacts of these management decisions on 

woodland resource uses along this high-use river corridor would be to beneficially maintain a 

sustainable yield of riparian woodland resources. The 375,739-acre Cedar Mesa C-SRMA, 

Indian Creek SRMA (89,271 acres), White Canyon SRMA (2,828 acres), and the Dark Canyon 

SRMA (30,820 acres), totaling 498,658 acres, would be closed to all woodland resource use, 

which would have long-term, adverse impacts on woodland resources because opportunities for 

harvesting and wood gathering would be reduced. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would have more adverse impacts on woodlands by excluding or restricting woodland harvesting 

on more acres within the Monticello PA. 

4.3.20.3.2.5. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts to woodland resources would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A 

for riparian resources, except that: (1) riparian woodland harvesting (cottonwood and willow) for 

traditional purposes would be allowed, and (2) OHV use in specified riparian areas would be 

designated as closed. Native American harvesting of riparian woodlands for traditional purposes 

would have negligible or minor impacts on riparian woodland resources because restrictions on 

harvesting would be applied as necessary to protect, improve, and maintain the riparian 

woodland resource at a proper functioning condition. Closing riparian areas to OHV use would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts on riparian woodlands sustainability by directly protecting the 

resource from surface disturbance-related degradation of this resource, and indirectly protecting 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-757 

riparian soils. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more adverse in the shortterm on woodland harvesting by restricting resource use, but also more beneficial in the longterm by managing sensitive riparian woodland resources for sustainable resource harvesting and 

wood gathering. 

4.3.20.3.2.6. Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Woodlands 

Under Alternative B, vegetation treatments to reduce tamarisk in watersheds would have shortterm and long-term impacts on woodland resources the same as those discussed under Fire 

Management for Alternative A because the impacts of vegetation treatments would be the same 

as fuel reduction treatments. This alternative would potentially restrict woodland harvesting on 

up to 1,000 acres per year because of proposed vegetation treatments (see Section 4.3.20.3.2.9, 

below), with adversely reduced opportunities for harvesting. Compared to Alternative A, the soil 

and watershed decisions under this alternative would be less adverse to woodlands because fewer 

acres would be affected by vegetation treatments. 

4.3.20.3.2.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Woodlands 

ACECs 

Under Alternative B, approximately 521,141 acres (29% of the Monticello PA) would be closed 

to woodland harvesting within proposed ACECs. The impacts would be the same as discussed 

under Alternative A, but to a greater degree because this alternative would restrict woodland 

harvesting on 383,866 more acres, with similar impacts on opportunities for harvesting, but to a 

greater degree, because more acres of woodlands would be affected by harvesting prohibitions. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

This alternative would exclude approximately 17,888 acres from woodlands harvesting to 

preserve eligible river corridors. The adverse impacts would be the same as those discussed 

under Alternative A, but to a greater degree because more area (8,800 more acres than 

Alternative A) would be excluded from woodland harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.2.8. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Woodlands 

Under Alternative B, 423,698 acres would be closed to OHV use, with long-term, adverse 

impacts to harvesting opportunities in the OHV closed areas because access to and transport of 

woodland products would be prohibited. When compared to Alternative A, this alternative would 

close approximately 147,268 (53%) more acres to harvesting and collection, with more adverse 

impacts on harvesting opportunities from reduced OHV access to woodlands. 

4.3.20.3.2.9. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Woodlands 

In general, the impacts to woodlands resources from vegetation decisions would be the same as 

those discussed under Fire Management because the treatments for vegetation fuel load 

reductions, noxious weed control, and modification of fire condition classes would be the same 

treatments used for woodlands. These impacts would be applicable under all of the action 

alternatives. 

Alternative B would treat approximately 2,500 acres per year in pinyon-juniper and riparian 

areas, totaling approximately 37,500 acres. This alternative would have short-term and long-term 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-758 

impacts in these treated areas, as discussed under Fire Management. Compared to Alternative A, 

this alternative would be more beneficial in the long-term to woodland resources because 

vegetation treatments in pinyon-juniper and riparian woodlands would reduce fuel loads, thus 

increasing the likelihood for sustained use of the resource and reducing the likelihood of standdestroying wildland fire. 

4.3.20.3.2.10. Impacts of Visual Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

This alternative would designate approximately 748,309 acres (42% of the PA) as VRM Class I 

(497,668 acres) and VRM Class II (250,641 acres), with the same impacts as discussed under 

Alternative A. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would designate 21,622 more acres 

for higher levels of visual resource protection, which would likely restrict the amount and type of 

woodland harvesting on more acres in these areas than under Alternative A, with greater longterm, adverse impacts on opportunities for harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.2.11. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of this alternative on woodlands sustainability and harvesting opportunities would 

be the same as those as discussed under Alternative A because the management decisions are 

essentially the same. 

4.3.20.3.2.12. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Woodlands 

Alternative B would potentially allow commercial and private woodland products harvesting 

(with permitted off-road travel to collect wood) on a total of 730,075 acres within designated 

woodlands harvesting zones (see Map 84). This would permit woodland harvesting on 

approximately 41% of the PA, with 59% of the planning area (1,055,053 acres) closed to 

woodland harvesting. It should be noted that, based on GIS acreage calculations of pinyon and 

juniper GAP data for the woodland zones, these woodland species cover approximately 504,666 

acres (69%) of the designated 730,075 acres within the woodland zones available for harvesting. 

Under this alternative, the impacts to woodland resources would include: (1) permitted 

harvesting of woodlands on a substantial portion of the PA, and (2) controlled use of OHVs to 

collect wood, which would reduce the direct impacts from soil compaction and the indirect, longterm impacts to woodland resources from OHV-caused surface disturbances that create the 

conditions for exotic plants establishment and soil erosion. Compared to Alternative A, 

Alternative B would have the same impacts on woodland resources, but to a less beneficial 

degree, because fewer total acres would be open to woodland harvesting. This alternative would 

have long-term, potentially adverse impacts on woodland resources through restrictions on 

selective harvesting on 65,807 acres in the non-WSA portion of the Cedar Mesa Zone. As 

discussed in Section 3.21.3, the Cedar Mesa area is currently in need of fuel load reductions, and 

restrictions on commercial and private selective woodland harvesting would potentially maintain 

the excessive fuel loading conditions in the area and maintain the risks of wildland fire. 

Prohibiting OHV use on Cedar Mesa would likely have some beneficial impacts on long-term 

woodland sustainability and productivity by reducing the OHV impacts to woodland soils caused 

by soil and surface disturbances and soil erosion. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-759 

4.3.20.3.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.3.20.3.3.1. Impacts of Cultural Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

Under this alternative, approximately 61,943 acres would be excluded from woodland harvesting 

and product use (except for traditional cultural use in Tank Bench) within the Tank Bench, Beef 

Basin, McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMAs, and in the Grand Gulch National Historic 

District. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would exclude one and one-half times more 

acres (24,510 acres) from harvesting within the Monticello PA because of cultural management 

decisions, with resultant decreases in opportunities for woodland harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.3.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Woodlands 

No areas or acreages are specified for fire management under this alternative, so the impacts 

would be the same as those described under Alternative A. 

4.3.20.3.3.3. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Woodlands 

Under Alternative C, approximately 1,348,973 acres would be available under standard 

stipulations and timing and controlled surface use leasing categories for oil and natural gas. The 

potential impacts on woodland resources would be the same, as discussed above under 

Alternative A, because the RFD forecast for minerals development within the planning area 

would be the same. Under this alternative, an estimated 74 wells would be drilled in 15 years, 

with total surface disturbances of approximately 710 acres. Predicted geophysical exploration 

impacts under this alternative would be approximately 903 acres. The expected potential 

disturbance from oil and natural gas exploration and development would 

be the same as Alternative A (less than 0.1% of the area available for minerals development) and 

the impacts to woodland resources would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. 

Also, the impacts from salable and locatable minerals activities would be the same as discussed 

under Alternative A because the expected acreages of development would be practically the 

same. 

4.3.20.3.3.4. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Woodlands 

Alternative C would have the same impacts on woodland resources from San Juan River SRMA 

decisions as discussed under Alternative B because the decisions would be similar: no woodland 

harvesting except for on-site wood gathering, cottonwood and willow harvesting allowed for 

Native Americans, for ceremonial use only. The Dark Canyon, White Canyon, and Indian Creek 

SRMAs (with the same acreages as Alternative B) would be closed to all woodland resource use. 

These decisions would adversely reduce the opportunities for woodland harvesting in the longterm, with impacts the same as discussed under Alternative B. Areas outside of canyon bottoms 

and outside of WSAs within the 407,098-acre Cedar Mesa C-SRMA would be available for 

private and commercial harvesting, so there would be beneficial impacts to woodland resources 

within this SRMA. However, compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more 

restrictions on harvesting opportunities in the long-term on more acres. 

4.3.20.3.3.5. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because the management 

decisions are the same. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-760 

4.3.20.3.3.6. Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of this alternative would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B 

because the management decisions are similar. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B, but to a greater degree 

because potentially more acres in riparian woodlands would be subjected to riparian vegetation 

treatments (1,500 acres per year). 

4.3.20.3.3.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Woodlands 

ACECs 

Approximately 34,006 acres would be closed to woodland harvesting within proposed ACECs 

under this alternative (2% of the PA). This alternative would have the same impacts as 

Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, because 103,269 fewer acres would be adversely excluded 

from harvesting opportunities. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

This alternative would exclude approximately 6,736 acres from woodlands harvesting along 

eligible and recommended river segments, with adverse impacts on harvesting opportunities. The 

impacts would be less adverse for harvesting opportunities in the long-term when compared to 

Alternative A because less area (2,352 fewer acres than Alternative A) would be excluded from 

woodland harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.3.8. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Woodlands 

Under Alternative C, 418,667 acres would be designated as Closed to OHV use. This would have 

similar impacts to those discussed under Alternative A, but to a greater adverse degree, because 

this alternative would effectively close approximately 51% more acres to OHV harvesting and 

collection. 

4.3.20.3.3.9. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Woodlands 

As discussed under Alternative B, vegetation treatments under Alternative C would have the 

same impacts on woodland resources because the treatments would be the same. Alternative C 

would treat approximately 3,100 acres per year in pinyon-juniper and riparian areas, totaling 

approximately 46,500 acres. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have the same 

impacts as discussed under Alternative B: more beneficial in the long-term to woodland 

resources because vegetation treatments in pinyon-juniper and riparian woodlands would reduce 

fuel loads, thus reducing the risks of stand-destroying wildland fire. 

4.3.20.3.3.10. Impacts of Visual Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

This alternative would designate 425,179 acres as VRM Class I and 132,001 acres as VRM Class 

II (totaling 557,180 acres), with the same impacts as discussed under Alternative A, but to a less 

adverse degree, because fewer acres would have harvesting restrictions under VRM Classes I 

and II objectives. Compared to Alternative A, 169,507 fewer acres (designated as VRM Class I 

and Class II) within the PA would have potential restrictions placed on surface-disturbing 

woodland harvesting in order to protect visual and scenic resources and meet VRM class 

objectives, which would have fewer long-term, adverse impacts on opportunities for woodlands 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-761 

harvesting and woodland treatments to improve woodland ecological conditions and fire 

conditions. 

4.3.20.3.3.11. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of this alternative on woodlands would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative A because the management decisions are similar. 

4.3.20.3.3.12. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Woodlands 

Alternative C would permit woodland harvesting on 841,936 acres within designated woodland 

harvesting zones (encompassing approximately 47% of the Monticello PA) (see Map 85). 

Approximately 53% of the PA (943,189 acres) would be closed to woodland harvesting. As 

noted in the Alternative B analysis, GAP data were used to determine that pinyon and juniper 

woodland species cover approximately 597,086 acres (71%) of the designated 841,936 acres 

within the proposed woodland zones. The impacts on woodland resources would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A, but to a less beneficial degree because 467,958 fewer acres 

(26% less of the PA) would be open to opportunities for woodland harvesting. The indirect, 

potentially adverse impacts on woodland resources and soils would be greatly reduced when 

compared to Alternative A because of additional restrictions and management prescriptions on 

off-road OHV travel in woodland areas: 2,311 acres would be designated as Open to crosscountry OHV use (0.1% of the planning area, but in previously disturbed areas without woodland 

resources) and limited off-route travel would be allowed to collect harvested wood, so the 

indirect impacts on woodlands from cross-country OHV use (e.g., from surface disturbancecaused soil erosion and soil compaction) would be minor. 

4.3.20.3.4. ALTERNATIVE D 

4.3.20.3.4.1. Impacts of Cultural Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

Under this alternative, approximately 59,297 acres would be excluded from woodland harvesting 

in the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA, in Beef Basin (approximately 20,302 acres), and 

on the 37,388 acres of the Grand Gulch National Historic District. These exclusions would 

reduce the opportunities for woodland harvesting with the same impacts as described under 

Alternative C because the number of acres within which harvesting would be prohibited are 

similar. Compared to Alternative A, approximately 21,864 acres (approximately one and onehalf times more acres than Alternative A) within the PA would be adversely excluded from 

woodland harvesting opportunities because of management prescriptions to protect cultural 

resources. 

4.3.20.3.4.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of fire management on woodland resources would be the same to as those described 

under Alternative A because the management decisions are similar. 

4.3.20.3.4.3. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Woodlands 

Under Alternative D, approximately 1,383,283 acres would be available under standard and 

timing and controlled surface use leasing categories stipulations for oil and natural gas. The RFD 

potential disturbance from oil and natural gas exploration and development would have the same 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-762 

impacts as those discussed under Alternative A (less than 0.1% of the area available for minerals 

leasing would be impacted by oil and gas surface disturbances) because the estimated 

development would be similar to that discussed under Alternative A: an average of 75 wells 

drilled in 15 years, with approximately 721 total acres of surface disturbances and predicted 

geophysical exploration impacts totaling 924 acres. The impacts from salable and locatable 

minerals development would be the same as discussed under Alternative A because the predicted 

surface disturbances from these activities would be the same. 

4.3.20.3.4.4. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Woodlands 

Alternative D would have the same impacts on woodland resources from recreational decisions 

for the San Juan River SRMA as discussed under Alternative B, except under this alternative the 

SRMA would encompass 6,365 acres. Under this alternative, the Dark Canyon SRMA (30,820 

acres), Indian Creek SRMA (89,271 acres), and the White Canyon SRMA (2,828 acres), and the 

canyon bottoms within the 375,739-acre Cedar Mesa C-SRMA would be closed to all woodland 

resource use, with impacts as discussed under Alternative C. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would be less beneficial for woodland harvesting opportunities because more acreage 

would be excluded from harvesting opportunities. 

4.3.20.3.4.5. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative A because the management 

decisions are the same. 

4.3.20.3.4.6. Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of this alternative on woodland resources would be the same as those discussed 

under Alternative B because the same erosion control strategies and similar surface disturbance 

mitigation would be applied. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would apply vegetation 

treatments to more acres within the planning area (2,000 acres per year) with the same impacts as 

those discussed under Alternative B, but to a greater degree because more acres would be 

managed for vegetation treatments. 

4.3.20.3.4.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Woodlands 

ACECs 

Under this alternative, approximately 2,146 acres within the Alkali Ridge Historic Landmark 

(within the Alkali Ridge ACEC) would be closed to woodland harvesting. The impacts to 

woodland harvesting opportunities would be minor, as special designations decisions for ACECs 

would allow harvesting in the other proposed ACECs. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would have more beneficial impacts on woodland resources because more area with 

ACECs would be available for harvesting. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

This alternative would not recommend any river segments as suitable for Wild and Scenic River 

designation. Accordingly, the impacts under this alternative would be beneficial in the long-term 

on woodland resources use because no acres would be excluded from resource use within the 

Monticello PA area river corridors, except for protection of riparian resources. Compared to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-763 

Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial impacts to woodland harvesting 

because it would provide more opportunities for woodland resource use. 

4.3.20.3.4.8. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Woodlands 

Under Alternative D, no acres would be closed to OHV use, and the PA (1,783,118 acres) would 

be accessible in OHV open areas and along designated OHV travel routes. This alternative 

would have negligible impacts on woodland resources areas because there would be very few 

limitations or restrictions on OHV access to woodland resources in those areas open to woodland 

harvesting within the Monticello PA. When compared to Alternative A, this alternative would 

have more beneficial impacts to woodland resource harvesting opportunities because more acres 

(all of the PA, with the exception of the 391,599 acres of WSAs) would be accessible to OHV 

use for woodland harvesting along designated OHV routes. 

4.3.20.3.4.9. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Woodlands 

Alternative D would treat approximately 4,100 acres annually in pinyon-juniper and riparian 

areas, totaling approximately 61,500 acres. The impacts on woodlands would be the same as 

those discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions are similar. 

4.3.20.3.4.10. Impacts of Visual Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

This alternative would designate 399,262 acres (22% of the planning area) as VRM Class I 

(390,424 acres) and VRM Class II (8,838 acres), with the same impacts as those described under 

Alternative A. However, compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be less adverse in the 

long-term on harvesting opportunities because 327,425 fewer acres within the PA would be 

managed under VRM Class I and II objectives that could limit or restrict woodland harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.4.11. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of this alternative on woodlands would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative A because the management decisions are similar. 

4.3.20.3.4.12. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of woodland management decisions under this alternative would be similar to the 

impacts described under Alternative C because the acreages available for woodland resource 

harvesting within woodland zones would be the same (see Map 85). Compared to Alternative A, 

the impacts on woodland harvesting would be less beneficial because of the fewer number of 

acres potentially available for woodland harvesting (47% of the PA compared to 73% under 

Alternative A). The indirect, potentially adverse impacts on woodland resources and soils from 

OHV use would also be similar to those discussed under Alternative C. 

4.3.20.3.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts on woodland resources would be very similar to the impacts 

discussed under Alternative B because the management decisions are similar, except that this 

alternative would manage 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for 

the protection of wilderness values. Protection-related management decisions applicable to these 

areas would partially include VRM Class I designation, prohibitions on fire and vegetation 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-764 

treatments, closure to wood gathering and harvesting, and closure to OHV use. These areas 

would also be closed to minerals leasing and new road construction. 

4.3.20.3.5.1. Impacts of Cultural Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts within the Cedar Mesa, Tank Bench, and Beef Basin CSMAs for the protection of 

cultural resources would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because the management 

decisions are the same. Approximately 8,514 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics lie within the proposed Cedar Mesa C-SRMA (and would be off limits to 

woodland harvesting). However, Alternative E cultural resource management decisions would 

also prohibit woodland harvesting within the proposed C-SRMA, so protection of wilderness 

values within this area (including prohibitions on woodland harvesting and gathering) would 

have no impact on woodland harvesting opportunities beyond those discussed under Alternative 

B. 

4.3.20.3.5.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of fire management would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A, 

except under this alternative "light on the land" impacts fire suppression methods would be 

allowed within the 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Vegetation 

treatments would also be allowed in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas for 

fuel load reduction, but would be required to meet VRM Class I objectives. It is likely that nonmechanical methods (e.g., limited, prescribed burning and/or chemical treatments) would meet 

these objectives because these methods would cause minimal long-term surface disturbances. So, 

the impacts of fire treatments under this alternative to reduce fuel loads in woodlands and in nonWSA wilderness areas would be beneficial in the long term because wildland fire risks would be 

reduced, particularly within pinyon-juniper woodlands in the Cedar Mesa area where the risks 

are high, as discussed above under Alternative B. This alternative would prohibit more area from 

woodland harvesting than Alternative A, which would be more adverse than the No Action 

alternative because of reduced opportunities for harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.5.3. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of oil and gas minerals decisions under Alternative E would be the same as those 

discussed under Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, because leasing would be available under 

standard and timing and controlled surface use stipulations on 758,931 acres. Leasing would be 

allowed on the 582,360 acres on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The reduction 

of lands available for leasing with surface disturbances would still have impacts on woodland 

harvesting and woodland resources productivity similar to those discussed under Alternative A 

because the expected reduction in minerals activities (and surface disturbances) would likely be 

less than 20 wells within the planning area: oil and gas leasing minerals disturbances under 

Alternative E would total approximately 519 acres from an expected drilling of 54 wells, with 

geophysical exploration impacts occurring on an estimated 761 acres. This would be less than 

0.2% of the land available for oil and gas leasing under all leasing categories. The impacts of 

salable and locatable minerals on woodland resources would be slightly less than Alternative A 

because the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to minerals disposal 

(i.e., sand, gravel); however, the impacts of locatable minerals disturbances on woodlands would 

be the same as Alternative A because the expected level of mining would be the same. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-765 

4.3.20.3.5.4. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of wilderness characteristics decisions on woodland resources under Alternative E 

would be adverse in the long term, as approximately 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics within the PA would be protected from surface disturbances, including 

private and commercial woodland harvesting to preserve their wilderness values and to meet 

VRM Class I objectives. However, non-mechanical methods to reduce fuel loading and improve 

woodland health (and meet VRM objectives) would be beneficial because wildland fire risks 

would be reduced, and exotic species encroachment concerns would be addressed. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would have more adverse impacts on woodland resources because 

(1) of the greater restrictions on surface disturbances in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that would prevent woodland resource management from, fully responding to 

wildland fire risks and applying the full range of treatments-related improvements to woodland 

ecosystem health, and because (2) of the reduced opportunities for woodland harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.5.5. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of SRMA recreation management decisions would be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B, but to a more adverse degree, on woodland resources because woodland 

harvesting would be prohibited within all of the proposed SRMAs, including limited harvesting 

of riparian woodland species (cottonwood and willow) for ceremonial purposes in those areas 

determined to have non-WSA wilderness characteristics. Within the ERMA, approximately 

416,526 acres have non-WSA wilderness characteristics, with the same adverse impacts on 

woodlands harvesting. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more adverse 

impacts because more area within the proposed SRMAs, the C-SRMA, and the ERMA would 

have woodland harvesting prohibitions. 

4.3.20.3.5.6. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Woodlands 

Under this alternative, the impacts of wilderness characteristics areas that lie within riparian 

areas on woodland resources would be similar to those discussed under the Alternative B, but to 

a greater adverse degree, because no cottonwood and willow harvesting for ceremonial purposes 

would be permitted within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed under 

this alternative. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more adverse impacts 

because more area would be excluded from woodland harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.5.7. Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Woodlands 

Soils and watershed decisions on woodland resources within non-WSA wilderness 

characteristics areas would allow vegetation treatments (including tamarisk treatments). The 

impacts of this decision on woodland resources would be beneficial in the long-term because 

treatments for tamarisk vegetation would be applied to control its encroachment into riparian 

woodland species habitat and the replacement of riparian woodland species by this exotic, nonnative species. This alternative would have more adverse impacts on riparian woodland species 

than Alternative A because greater restrictions would be placed on controlling exotic, non-native 

species that encroach on riparian woodlands. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-766 

4.3.20.3.5.8. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of ACEC and WSR special designation decisions on woodlands would be the same 

as those discussed under Alternative B (521,141 acres of proposed ACECs would be excluded 

from woodland harvesting). Under this alternative, 109,205 acres of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics that lie within the ACECs would have prohibitions on woodland 

harvesting for protection of wilderness values, but this would have no impacts on harvesting 

opportunities because, as discussed, the ACECs would have prohibitions applied as part of the 

special designation management prescriptions. The impacts on woodland resources would be 

adverse in the long-term, and when compared to Alternative A, because these areas would not be 

available for harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.5.9. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Woodlands 

Under this alternative, travel decisions would close 970,436 acres to OHV travel, including 

582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to all motorized OHV travel 

(and approximately 179 miles of D-Class OHV routes within non-WSA wilderness 

characteristics lands). These decisions would have long-term, adverse impacts on woodland 

resources within and adjacent to the non-WSA wilderness characteristics lands because of the 

OHV inaccessibility of these areas and the potential difficulty in accessing adjacent woodland 

harvesting areas. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more adverse impacts 

on harvesting opportunities because: (1) 761,417 more acres or 42% more of the PA would be 

closed to harvesting within the PA to preserve non-WSA wilderness and other resource values, 

and (2) OHV access to adjacent woodland harvesting zones or areas would be impeded or 

prevented on 694,006 more acres and travel route miles (959 more miles of D-Class OHV 

routes) under this alternative than Alternative A (see Section 4.3.16, Travel Management, for a 

detailed comparison of the travel alternatives). 

4.3.20.3.5.10. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Woodlands 

Management decisions under this alternative would be the same as Alternative B, except this 

alternative would impose some limitations on vegetation treatments within non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics to meet VRM Class I objectives in these areas. The impacts on the 

resource would be adverse in the long-term in these protected areas because limited efforts 

would be applied within 582,360 acres to restore pinyon-juniper ecosystem health and/or reduce 

fuel loading through vegetation treatments. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would 

have more adverse impacts on woodlands because more woodland acreage would be managed to 

limit vegetation treatments-related surface disturbances that would improve woodland ecosystem 

health and sustainability. 

4.3.20.3.5.11. Impacts of Visual Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

As mentioned above, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be designated as 

VRM Class I under this alternative. The objectives of this VRM class would prohibit or greatly 

restrict woodland harvesting within these areas. This would have long-term, adverse impacts on 

harvesting opportunities because under this alternative 998,370 acres would be designated as 

VRM Class I and 111,478 acres would be designated as VRM Class II. When combined, these 

VRM classes would encompass 1,109,848 acres or 62% of the PA, with VRM objectives that 

would either restrict or prohibit woodland harvesting and vegetation and fire treatments in order 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-767 

to preserve scenic quality and to preserve wilderness values within non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would manage visual 

resources with greater degrees of restriction on harvesting and more adverse impacts on 

woodland resources because more area (383,161 more acres) would be impacted by VRM Class 

I and Class II management objectives to restrict or prohibit woodland harvesting and/or 

treatments. 

4.3.20.3.5.12. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts on woodland resources would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A 

because the management decisions are similar. 

4.3.20.3.5.13. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Woodlands 

Under this alternative, approximately 608,476 acres within the Monticello PA would be available 

for woodland harvesting (or 34% of the planning area) (see Map 86). Of the areas available for 

harvesting, GAP vegetation data indicate that 73,428 acres (or 12% of available acres) would 

have pinyon-juniper coverage. The adverse impacts of woodland decisions under this alternative 

would be the same as those impacts discussed above in Section 4.3.20.3.5.4, Impacts of NonWSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions on Woodlands, for the same reasons: the 

approximately 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be 

available for woodland harvesting; however, limited treatments or improvements in woodland 

health through vegetation treatments would be allowed if they met VRM Class I objectives and 

retained wilderness values. Closing the Cedar Mesa Zone to woodland harvesting would have the 

same adverse and beneficial impacts to woodland harvesting as discussed above under 

Alternative B. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have greater adverse impacts 

on woodland harvesting for the reasons discussed: a smaller area (701,418 fewer acres) would be 

available under Alternative E for harvesting because of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics prohibitions and preservation of other resource values from surface disturbances 

that could degrade wilderness and other natural resource values. 

4.3.20.3.6. PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.20.3.6.1. Impacts of Cultural Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

Under the Proposed Plan, 41,641 acres would be excluded from woodland harvesting and 

product use within the Tank Bench SRMA, the McLoyd Canyon-Moon House Management 

Zone, and in the Grand Gulch National Historic District. These decisions would have long-term, 

adverse impacts on the opportunities for woodland products use because the areas would not be 

open to harvesting. Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would exclude 4,208 more 

acres from commercial and private harvesting within the Monticello PA because of cultural 

management decisions, so the adverse impacts to woodlands would be the same. 

4.3.20.3.6.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Woodlands 

The fire management decisions under the Proposed Plan would be the same as those for the 

alternatives (fuel reduction treatments of 5,000 – 10,000 acres/year), so the short term and longterm impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A. Under the Proposed 

Plan, 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed under 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-768 

VRM Class II objectives that would limit the level of allowable vegetation treatments to meet 

visual management objectives. However, it is likely that some non-mechanical treatment 

methods (chemical and/or limited prescribed burning) would meet visual objectives because of 

the minimal long-term surface disturbances caused by these methods. 

4.1.1.3.6.1 Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Woodlands 

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 1,224,811 acres would be available under standard and 

timing and controlled surface use leasing categories stipulations for oil and natural gas 

development. The potential impacts on woodland resources would be the same as discussed 

above under Alternative A because the RFD forecast for minerals development within the 

planning area would be very similar. Under the Proposed Plan, an estimated 72 wells would be 

drilled within 15 years after approval of the proposed RMP, with total surface disturbances of 

approximately 692 acres. Predicted geophysical exploration impacts under the Proposed Plan 

would be approximately 903 acres, and expected surface disturbances from salable and locatable 

minerals development would be the same under Alternative A (851 acres). The expected 

potential disturbance from oil and natural gas exploration and development would be the same as 

Alternative A (less than 0.1% of the area available for minerals development) so the impacts to 

woodland resources would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. 

4.3.20.3.6.3. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Decisions on Woodlands 

Under the Proposed Plan, 88,871 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be managed to preserve their wilderness values. Management decisions to retain scenic quality 

under VRM Class II objectives, permit OHV travel along designated routes, prohibit woodland 

harvesting, and allow fire suppression and vegetation treatments would have beneficial and 

adverse impacts. Allowing fire and vegetation treatments would have beneficial impacts in these 

areas by reducing fuel loads and controlling natural wildland fires that would either destroy 

woodland stands or create conditions for increased fire risks. Prohibiting woodland harvesting 

would be have long term, adverse impacts on woodland resources because opportunities for 

harvesting would not be available. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more 

adverse impacts on woodlands because more area would be unavailable for harvesting and open 

to a full range of treatments techniques. 

4.3.20.3.6.4. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Woodlands 

The Proposed Plan would have the same impacts on woodland resources from designation of the 

9,859-acre San Juan River SRMA as discussed under Alternative B because the decisions 

affecting woodland harvesting would be the same. The Dark Canyon SRMA (30,820 acres), the 

Indian Creek SRMA (89,271 acres), and the White Canyon SRMA (2,828 acres) and the canyon 

bottoms within the 375,734-acre Cedar Mesa SRMA (including the 13,600 acres of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics within the SRMA) would be closed to all woodland 

harvesting and resource use. The 75,271 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

that lie within the ERMA would be unavailable for private or commercial woodland harvesting 

(though wood gathering for campfires would be allowed). These decisions would adversely 

reduce the opportunities for woodland harvesting in the long-term in these areas. Compared to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-769 

Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would exclude and adversely reduce harvesting opportunities in 

the long-term on more acres because of recreation decisions. 

4.3.20.3.6.5. Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative B because the management 

decisions are the same. 

4.3.20.3.6.6. Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of the Proposed Plan would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B 

because the management decisions are similar. Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan 

would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B, but to a greater degree 

because potentially more acres would be subjected to riparian vegetation treatments (1,500 acres 

per year). 

4.3.20.3.6.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Woodlands 

ACECs 

Approximately 34,006 acres would be closed to woodland harvesting within ACECs under the 

Proposed Plan (the same as Alternative C). The Proposed Plan would have the same impacts as 

discussed under Alternative C because 103,269 fewer acres would be adversely excluded from 

harvesting opportunities, when compared to Alternative A. The impacts would be long-term, 

adverse, but minor on woodland resources use because 2% of the Monticello PA would be closed 

to harvesting opportunities from ACEC special designation decisions. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Proposed Plan would exclude approximately 6,736 acres from woodlands harvesting along 

eligible and recommended river segments, with long term, adverse impacts on harvesting 

opportunities. The impacts would be more beneficial for harvesting opportunities in the longterm when compared to Alternative A because less area (3,200 acres or 55% of the acreage under 

Alternative A) would be excluded from woodland harvesting. 

4.3.20.3.6.8. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Woodlands 

Under the Proposed Plan, 393,895 acres would be designated as Closed to OHV use. This would 

have similar impacts to those discussed under Alternative B because the acres closed to OHV use 

would be similar. Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would have more adverse 

impacts to harvesting opportunities because the Proposed Plan would effectively close 

approximately 51% more acres to OHV harvesting and collection than the No Action alternative. 

4.3.20.3.6.9. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Woodlands 

As discussed under Alternative B, vegetation treatments under the Proposed Plan would have the 

same impacts on woodland resources because the treatments would be the same. The Proposed 

Plan would treat approximately 3,100 acres per year in pinyon-juniper and riparian areas, 

totaling approximately 46,500 acres. Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would have 

the same impacts as discussed under Alternative B: more beneficial in the long-term to woodland 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-770 

resources because vegetation treatments in pinyon-juniper and riparian woodlands would reduce 

fuel loads, thus reducing the risks of stand-destroying wildland fire. 

4.3.20.3.6.10. Impacts of Visual Resources Decisions on Woodlands 

The Proposed Plan would designate approximately 651,030 acres (37% of the PA) as VRM 

Class I (422,989 acres) and VRM Class II (228,041 acres), with the same impacts as discussed 

under Alternative A, but to a less adverse degree, because fewer total acres would have 

harvesting restrictions under VRM Classes I and II management objectives (see Table 4.198 in 

Visuals section 4.3.18). Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would designate 75,657 

fewer acres within the PA would with potential restrictions placed on surface-disturbing 

woodland harvesting to protect visual and scenic resources and meet VRM Class I and Class II 

objectives. Therefore, the Proposed Plan would have fewer long-term, adverse impacts on 

opportunities for woodlands harvesting and woodland treatments to improve woodland health. 

4.3.20.3.6.11. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Woodlands 

The impacts of the Proposed Plan on woodlands would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative A because the management decisions are similar. 

4.3.20.3.6.12. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Woodlands 

The Proposed Plan would permit woodland harvesting on 841,936 acres within designated 

woodland harvesting zones (encompassing approximately 47% of the Monticello PA, the same 

as Alternative C) (see Map 85). Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 4,000 acres of 

woodlands would be unavailable for private and commercial harvesting within non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Approximately 53% of the PA (947,188 acres) would be closed 

to woodland harvesting. As noted in the Alternative C analysis, GAP data were used to 

determine that pinyon and juniper woodland species cover approximately 597,086 acres (71%) 

of the designated 841,936 acres within the proposed woodland zones. The impacts on woodland 

resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A, but to a less beneficial 

degree, because 467,958 fewer acres (26% less of the PA) would be open to opportunities for 

woodland harvesting. The indirect, potentially adverse impacts on woodland resources and soils 

would be greatly reduced when compared to Alternative A because of additional restrictions and 

management prescriptions on off-road OHV travel in woodland areas: under the Proposed Plan, 

97 acres would be designated as Open to cross-country OHV use (less than 0.1% of the planning 

area, but in previously disturbed areas without woodland resources) and limited off-route travel 

would be allowed to collect harvested wood, so the indirect impacts on woodlands from crosscountry OHV use would be minor. 

4.3.20.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 contains a summary of impacts of management decisions on woodland 

resources. 

4.3.20.5. MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation measures to reduce the impact to woodland resources would include: 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-771 

• Prioritizing vegetation treatments in woodland areas that have been impacted through 

disturbances by prescribed fire, OHV access, fire suppression, woodland harvesting, and 

other surface disturbances to prevent exotic species growth and establishment that could 

otherwise inhibit or prevent re-growth of woodland species; and 

• Reclaiming trails or mitigate the impacts (i.e., apply soil erosion techniques) of OHV access 

routes used for woodland harvesting, recreation, fire suppression, or vegetation treatments to 

reduce soil erosion and soil compaction that could indirectly affect woodland productivity. 

4.3.20.6. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Treatments of woodland areas to reduce fuel loading through prescribed burning, to control 

woodland insect infestations or disease, and to control the spread of exotic species or other 

activities to improve woodland resources would have unavoidable short-term, adverse impacts 

on woodland resources. Long-term, unavoidable adverse impacts would be produced by minerals 

development within woodland areas (e.g., construction of production well pads, access roads, 

and infrastructure) that would impact woodland resources. 

Impacts to woodland resources from woodland harvesting would be unavoidable. However, if 

managed properly, this use could result in long-term benefits by preventing fuel loading and 

associated wildland fire. 

4.3.20.7. SHORT-TERM USE VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short-term uses that could produce long-term losses of woodland resources productivity would 

include short-term woodland harvesting without adequate control or prevention of exotic 

vegetation growth and establishment in disturbed areas. This would have long-term adverse 

impacts on woodland productivity by preventing or slowing woodland re-growth, altering fire 

regimes, and/or altering the successional pattern of vegetation re-growth to favor exotic 

vegetation rather than woodland species. 

Adequate management of woodland harvest and effective restoration of areas affected by fire or 

surface disturbance would ensure the long-term productivity of this resource. 

4.3.20.8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There are no proposed management decisions that would irreversibly remove woodlands or 

prevent woodland re-growth. Proposed management decision impacts that would cause the 

irretrievable loss of woodland resources would include: woodland harvest, construction or 

minerals-related activities that would cause the loss of productivity until areas are rehabilitated 

or reclaimed; prescribed fire, vegetation, or woodland treatments that would cause the short-term 

loss of productivity until woodland re-growth; uncontrolled wildland fire that would cause the 

short-term loss of productivity until woodland re-growth; and recreation and travel-related 

activities (e.g., OHV use in woodland resource areas) that could affect vegetation undergrowth 

and soil stability. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-772 

4.4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts occur when there are multiple impacts on the same resources. These are 

incremental impacts of proposed activities or projects when combined with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. As stated in 40 CFR 1508.7 (1997), a "cumulative impact" 

is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

Resource decisions from this RMP could combine with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions to produce cumulative impacts to resources within the planning area. 

These resources could include air quality, livestock grazing, mineral development, wildlife 

habitat, and recreation use. 

Co-occurring planning projects in the region that would contribute to cumulative impacts include 

the Manti-La Sal National Forest, the BLM Moab RMP, the Trail of the Ancients, and 

Hovenweep National Monument. Also, similar management direction and resource uses would 

occur in the adjacent BLM Field Offices in Colorado. Activities on Utah School and Institutional 

Trust Land Administration lands (SITLA), private lands, and city and county use plans for 

surrounding communities could have cumulative impacts where land is developed adjacent to 

BLM lands. 

Past actions that have affected the resources in the Monticello planning area are reflected in the 

“Affected Environment” section in Chapter 3 of the Proposed RMP/FEIS. Present, ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable actions are included in the “Reasonably Foreseeable Actions” described 

below. 

The following reasonably foreseeable actions were identified that may contribute cumulative 

impacts to the project. Reasonably foreseeable actions are planned or proposed, not speculative 

or in the distant future. They also include continuation of recent trends in use. The following 

actions are identified as reasonably foreseeable: 

• Land and Resource Management planning in the planning area and surrounding adjacent 

areas. 

• Residential growth and business development throughout the planning area 

• Expansion of mineral extraction activities on BLM lands within the planning area and 

surrounding adjacent areas along with state and private lands 

• Utility corridor development 

• Increase in recreational use, both motorized and non-motorized, on BLM lands 

• National Fire Plan activities for federal and state land management agencies 

• Continuing implementation of Utah BLM’s Rangeland Health Standards and Guides 

• BLM’s 13 Western States Vegetation Environmental Impact Statement 

• Planning for streams not meeting state water quality standards 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-773 

• Continued noxious weeds infestation 

• Continued human-caused, including prescribed burning, and natural ignitions 

• Vegetation treatments and sagebrush restoration 

• New coal-fired power plans 

4.4.1. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY 

The cumulative impacts on air quality discussed here should be considered in addition to those 

discussed in previous chapters and under the related resource sections. Activities contributing to 

cumulative impacts to air quality include prescribed burning; construction, equipment operation, 

and surface-disturbing activities related to oil and gas development; and OHV activity 

throughout most of the MPA. 

Short-term cumulative impacts from the activities proposed for all resource decisions on air 

quality are projected to be minimal to negligible under all alternatives. Direct and indirect shortterm impacts include increases in airborne particulate and gaseous emissions from prescribed 

burning, construction sites, and/or OHV trails/use areas. Reasonably foreseeable future projects 

or actions have the potential to add to the impacts of any of the management decisions currently 

being considered. 

The primary source of air quality impacts from mineral resource development decisions in the 

Monticello FO is the production of oil and gas. The magnitude of air quality impacts associated 

with these activities is directly related to the density and intensity with which extraction 

proceeds. It is reasonable to assume that oil and natural gas exploration and development would 

continue within the project area over the next 15 years. Accordingly, it is likely that potential air 

quality impacts from non-project and project-related mineral development in the project area will 

continue at the current level for the next 15 years. Assuming appropriate application of control 

measures and strict adherence to existing regulatory and permitting processes, no appreciate 

cumulative, short-term, adverse air quality effects can be projected specific to oil and gas 

development 

Long-term cumulative impacts from the activities proposed for all resource decisions on air 

quality are also projected to be minimal to negligible under all alternatives and under the 

Proposed Plan. Direct and indirect long-term cumulative impacts include increases in particulate 

and gaseous emissions from equipment specific to oil and gas development, and associated use 

of service roads. Detrimental effects from oil and gas development are expected to be small as 

emissions and fugitive dust control would be a required part of the permitting process. No 

appreciable cumulative, long-term adverse air quality effects are projected for oil and gas 

development assuming the conditions described under short term cumulative impacts. 

Implementing the national Fire Plan across Utah would cause additional short-term localized 

increases in particulate emissions from planned ignitions. However, a long-term reduction I the 

risk of violations of air quality standards from large, uncontrolled smoke emissions would occur. 

Increased motorized recreational use, ongoing growth and development, and new coal-fired 

power plants would contribute particulate matter emissions and fugitive dust emissions. The 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-774 

incremental contribution of emissions from activities occurring under the Proposed Plan and the 

alternatives to past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions will not cause concentrations of 

Co, Sox, PM or NoX to exceed national standards. 

OHV-related, air quality impacts are expected to be very short-term and site-specific in nature 

and are not projected to affect the wider planning area. 

4.4.2. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Impacts associated with resource decisions from this PRMP/FEIS, combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, could produce cumulative impacts on cultural 

resources and resources of religious or traditional importance to Native American tribes 

associated with the decision area. The potential for cumulative impacts includes neighboring 

lands with connected cultural resources including adjoining BLM Field Offices, state and private 

lands within the planning area, Navajo and White Mountain Ute?Reservations, and the MantiLaSal National Forest. The same management direction and resource uses occur in both planning 

areas. Surface disturbance associated with consumptive uses such as oil, gas, and other minerals 

development, and forage use could result in cumulative impacts over a larger landscape scale 

than what is analyzed in this Monticello RMP. However, planning decisions related to the Moab 

Field Office and other federal lands are also subject to federal cultural resource laws and 

application of the Section 106 process of the NHPA. Further, general planning decisions of 

adjacent federal lands have the potential to impact cultural resources on adjacent lands within the 

planning area (i.e., fire fuels reduction, erosion reduction through effective vegetation 

management, etc.), and would generally have a positive effect on cultural resources within the 

planning area. 

Oil and gas development and mineral exploration and development has occurred across this 

region in the past and would continue into the future. However, the cumulative impacts of these 

activities on cultural resources in the general vicinity of planning area would likely be less than 

the potential impacts from the continually increased recreational visitation that cultural sites in 

the region will be subject to. The advent of the Internet has resulted in the wide publicizing of 

the locations and types of cultural resources in and around the planning area. This combined with 

the easy and rapid access afforded by the substantial increase in OHV ownership and recreational 

use will continue to subject cultural resources in the region to heightened risk of damage, 

vandalism, and/or looting. 

Many decisions related to visual resource management, special designations, and restrictions on 

surface disturbance have the potential to provide a net positive benefit to cultural resources 

within the Monticello PA. These decisions would reduce or control the frequency and extent of 

ground-disturbing activities that present the greatest threat to maintaining the use values of 

cultural resources. In general, all minerals and recreation decisions under all alternatives have the 

potential to increase or at least maintain current levels of adverse impacts to cultural resources. 

Decisions for minerals and recreation generally increase or maintain current levels of surface and 

subsurface disturbance, and have as an indirect impact an increase in human activity within those 

areas of minerals development and recreational use. Increased human activity tends to equate 

with increased adverse impacts on cultural resources, even if these impacts are inadvertent. 

In general, implementation of the array of resource decisions under Alternative E would have the 

lowest degree of potential negative impact on cultural resources within the Monticello FO, and in 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-775 

many cases Alternative E has the highest overall benefit for cultural resources. Overall, fewer 

acres of land would be open for ground-disturbing activities under this alternative than under any 

other alternative. Although no direct correlation exists between acres of surface and subsurface 

disturbance and numbers of cultural resources impact, this general trend holds true. By 

comparison, Alternative D and Alternative A (No Action) have the potential for roughly 

comparable levels of potential adverse impact to cultural resources. Decisions under Alternative 

C and under the Proposed Plan would have a potential for adverse impacts between those in 

Alternatives B and E and those in Alternative D. Under all alternatives, specific undertakings 

that could result in surface and subsurface disturbance and have the potential to impact cultural 

resources are subject to the Section 106 process of the NHPA, which calls for the identification 

of historic properties (i.e., NRHP-listed sites or sites determined eligible for listing on the 

Register) within the area of potential impacts and the consideration of alternatives to the planned 

undertaking that could avoid impacts to said properties. In the event that avoidance is not 

possible, mitigation of the impacts is to be considered. 

The incremental contribution of the Proposed Plan and the alternatives on the cumulative 

impacts to cultural resources is anticipated to be minimal since cultural resources are managed in 

compliance with federal laws, regulations, and policies. 

4.4.3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Cumulative impacts are a combination of impacts from each alternative with the past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions associated with the project and surrounding area. The 

entire area is managed according to the Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan, which was 

recently revised. Based on the impetus that the federal fire management agencies are placing on 

implementing the Federal Wildland Fire Policy, the Healthy Forests Initiative, and the National 

Fire Plan, these revisions include vegetation management to decrease fuel loading and, 

consequently, decreased fire risk. 

4.4.4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Minerals development within surrounding areas would increase the use, generation, and 

transportation of hazardous materials. City and County use plans for surrounding communities 

could have cumulative impacts, whereby mineral resources are developed adjacent to BLM 

lands. State lands that are surrounded by BLM land could have impacts from inholding 

development. 

Hazardous materials are regulated by the EPA and administrated by state agencies regardless of 

land status. The incremental contribution of the Proposed Plan and the alternatives on the 

cumulative impacts to health and safety is anticipated to be minimal if all applicable laws, 

regulations, safeguards, and procedures are followed. 

4.4.5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON LANDS AND REALTY 

The number of land-use authorizations, particularly rights-of-way and permits, is a function of 

demand for these uses. Additional future development of adjacent federal, state, and private 

lands would likely result in additional requests for and approval of land-use authorizations for 

facilities such as roads, utilities, and communication sites. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-776 

City and County use plans could have cumulative impacts where land is developed adjacent to 

BLM lands. Both the Grand and San Juan County Use Plans have no net loss of private land as a 

result of government agency land ownership adjustments. Even though land exchange would be 

the preferred means of land ownership adjustment, such a position could affect the land 

ownership adjustment program by more strongly favoring land exchanges and outright disposals 

of public land over purchases of private land. 

The designation of right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas on BLM lands, along with similar 

restrictions on right-of-way development on adjacent lands, particularly National Forest lands, 

would have a cumulative impact of reducing routing options for right-of-way facilities such as 

utilities and roads. Alternative E has the most avoidance and exclusion areas, followed by 

Alternative B, followed next by Alternative C and the Proposed Plan. 

4.4.6. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING 

Cumulative impacts to livestock and grazing could result from activities on adjacent private 

lands, activities scheduled for State and Institutional Trust Land Administration lands, and 

administrative actions on adjacent National Forest Service lands on the Manti-La Sal National 

Forest. These cumulative impacts have been considered as part of the direct and indirect impacts 

analysis, as the calculated AUMs include current and reasonably foreseeable grazing on state, 

private, and tribal lands. 

It is likely that adjacent lands would see an increase in land uses (such as development and 

recreation) that may influence available resources within the Monticello PA in the future. These 

factors may increase the demand for BLM lands available for grazing. However, this increased 

demand would not be met because the number of acres available for grazing is fixed for the next 

15 years. Proper grazing would ensure rangeland quality. 

The incremental contribution of the Proposed Plan and the alternatives on the cumulative 

impacts to livestock grazing is minimal. 

4.4.7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON MINERALS 

Past and present mineral resource development management actions that have affected the 

mineral resources in the Monticello FO are listed in the Mineral Potential Report and in Section 

3.8 of Chapter 3. Reasonable foreseeable future mineral resource development management 

actions include those listed in the RFD scenario as occurring on all lands in the Monticello FO, 

including USFS, NPS, state, private, and tribal lands; according to the RFD, an average of 195 

oil and gas wells is expected on all lands in the Monticello FO over the next 15 years. Some past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future mineral resource development includes lands 

administered by two or more agencies, including those already listed and the Moab, Richfield, 

Kanab, Hassayampa, Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, and Dolores Field Offices of the BLM 

(BLM 2005a; BLM 2005b). These cumulative mineral resource management actions result in 

beneficial impacts to mineral resource knowledge, yields, and royalties in the Monticello FO, as 

described in Section 4.3.7.3, Summary of Locatable RFD and Salable RFD. By the same token, 

continued extraction of mineral resources, over time, reduces the finite quantities of these 

resources in the Monticello FO. 

Past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future management actions regarding other resources 

would also impact mineral resource development: 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-777 

• Non-discretionary management of WSAs under the IMP precludes most surface-disturbing 

activities. Impacts of designation of WSAs are discussed in Section 4.3.7.4. 

• VRM decisions on Monticello FO lands adjacent to the other BLM lands (i.e., Moab, 

Richfield, Kanab, Hassayampa, Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, and Dolores planning areas) 

may be based in part on viewsheds looking into those other BLM lands. As consistent VRM 

decisions would be made across these boundaries, VRM decisions for the Moab, Richfield, 

Kanab, Hassayampa, Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, and Dolores planning areas would 

likely result in cumulative impacts to mineral resources—either beneficial if VRM III or IV, 

or adverse if VRM I or II. 

• Wildlife habitat decisions made by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (e.g., crucial 

habitat for a given sensitive species, habitat fragmentation) have the potential to impact 

mineral resource development in the Monticello FO. These decisions would result in 

generally adverse impacts in the form of controlled surface use or timing limitation 

stipulations on mineral resource development activities. 

Generally, resource decisions occurring on multiple-use, non-Monticello FO lands managed by 

state and federal agencies (e.g., SITLA, USFS, the BLM Moab Field Office) would have 

cumulative impacts similar in type to those on Monticello FO lands. Individual private land 

parcels represent a full spectrum of impacts, from full mineral resource development/use 

(beneficial) to resource preservation (adverse). 

4.4.8. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON NON-WSAS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Resource decisions from this RMP could combine with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions to produce cumulative impacts to wilderness characteristics associated 

with the planning area. Resource decisions for other lands adjacent to the Monticello PA could 

result in cumulative impacts. The same management direction and resource uses occur in all of 

the above planning areas. Resource management on adjacent federal lands (including USFSadministered land and NPS land), private land, and state lands would also affect wilderness 

characteristics in the area. USFS management would generally have a similar management focus 

as BLM decisions. NPS decisions would generally enhance wilderness characteristics, because 

its lands are managed under a preservation rather than multiple-use mandate. Surface disturbance 

associated with consumptive uses such as oil, gas, and other minerals development would result 

in cumulative impacts over a larger landscape scale than analyzed in this document. Private and 

state lands have a different mandate for management. Activities and management of these lands 

would negatively impact non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics found on public land. 

In addition to the acreage currently being managed to protect and preserve their wilderness 

characteristics, BLM Utah is considering management options for 2,847,156 additional acres of 

non-WSA lands (5.4% of Utah lands) with wilderness characteristics in six ongoing land-use 

planning efforts. This includes the 582,357 acres in the Monticello PA. There are other federal 

lands with wilderness characteristics in Utah that are currently being managed to protect those 

values. These are identified in Table 4.261 below. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-778 

Table 4.261. Federal Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in Utah that are 

Currently Being Managed to Protect Those Values 

Land Administrator Administrative Unit Acres Percent of Land in 

Utah* 

BLM Designated Wilderness 127,700 0.24 

BLM Wilderness Study 

Areas 

3,214,740 6.12 

National Park Service Recommended 

Wilderness 

1,467,082 2.79 

U. S. Forest Service Designated Wilderness 773,124 1.47 

U. S. Forest Service Recommended 

Wilderness 

83,390 0.16 

Total 5,666,036 10.78 

*The percentage figures shown in this table are based on a total land area of 52,541,440 acres in Utah.

Oil and gas development has occurred across this region in the past and will continue at an 

increasing rate into the future. The combined amount of surface disturbance of these past, 

present, and future actions would be detrimental to areas surrounding non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics (depending on their location). 

The overall cumulative impact of activities proposed for all resource decisions on non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics includes short-term detrimental impacts and long-term 

improvements to habitat. Major contributors to detrimental impacts include OHV activities 

throughout most of the area, surface degradation from mineral development related activities, all 

other surface-disturbing activities, and vegetation treatments such as sagebrush removal. Direct 

impacts would be due to loss of naturalness, including loss of individual plants or animals, from 

mineral development or other surface-disturbing activities. Indirect impacts would also occur 

with habitat fragmentation due to mineral development, and changes in OHV use due to 

increased roads or use of roads. These activities would concentrate recreation use on non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. The cumulative impacts of all these uses could lead to loss 

of naturalness in the future. 

4.4.9. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Unauthorized activities such as OHV use, dispersed recreation, and vandalism would continue to 

have adverse impacts on paleontological resources under all alternatives. These impacts would 

be reduced under Alternative B and E and to a lesser extent under Alternative C and the 

Proposed Plan because they provide more constraints on OHV use and dispersed recreation 

activities. Alternative A showed 611,310 acres open to OHV travel. All action alternatives have 

only a small open area (from 0-2,311 acres). There would also be impacts as a result of permitted 

surface-disturbing activities such as mineral development in areas containing significant 

paleontological resources. The potential for inadvertent adverse impacts to paleontological 

resources from surface-disturbing activities would be greater under Alternatives A and D. The 

cumulative impacts of alternatives that include surface-disturbing activities within areas 

containing fossils have the potential to damage this fragile, nonrenewable resource. However, 

existing laws, regulations, and policies provide ample opportunity to mitigate adverse impacts 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-779 

through avoidance or collections of specimens and data. While it is expected that some fossils 

will be destroyed in the course of other legitimate uses of public lands, mitigation measures will 

bring consultant paleontologists to areas in the Monticello FO where no researchers are currently 

studying fossils. Thus fossils that would otherwise have disintegrated over time due to 

weathering and erosion will be collected, placed in repositories, and preserved in perpetuity. 

4.4.10. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON RECREATION 

Recreational visitation within and around the project area will likely continue to increase steadily 

over the long-term. Past and present actions that have had and are having impacts on recreation 

include mineral development, wildland fire suppression and fuels treatments, OHV travel, utility 

corridor development, grazing and recreational activities in riparian areas, and management 

within existing SRMAs and the ERMA. Recreational uses that are expected to have the greatest 

growth would be OHV use, cultural visitation, river running, and motorized visitation of adjacent 

scenic areas such as Canyonlands National Park, Monument Valley, Valley of the Gods, and 

Arches National Park. This increased visitation will satisfy more recreational needs but may 

result in a cumulative loss in the recreational experience by increasing crowding and resulting in 

long-term impacts to natural and cultural resources that are integral to this experience. In as 

much as energy development and other surface-disturbing activities increase, there will be a 

negative impact to recreationists. Based on the RFD for oil and gas, negative impacts are 

expected to be largely contained in or near existing fields. 

The potential cumulative impacts on recreation from actions within the Monticello PA and 

adjacent and local administrative agencies are as follows: 

• Oil, gas, locatable, and salable minerals exploration and development could have a longterm, cumulative effect on the recreational viewshed from surface disturbances and facilities. 

VRM mitigation would reduce these effects, but it is likely that the activities would remain 

visible from points of view within the MPA and from viewpoints within the adjacent national 

parks. 

• Wildland fire suppression would temporarily affect recreation use in or adjacent to areas 

where prescribed fire or other vegetation treatments are being conducted. The long-term 

cumulative effects would reduce fire risks to recreation areas and facilities within the MPA 

and on lands under other administrative agencies. Prescribed burning would temporarily 

degrade air quality (and scenic quality), but with the reduced risks of wildland fire, there 

would be a cumulative decrease in smoke emissions. 

• OHV travel management would have beneficial cumulative effects on recreational 

experiences and resources by reducing surface impacts to soils, cultural resources, riparian 

areas, and wildlife habitat by generally confining travel to designated routes within the MPA. 

The reduction in OHV-related surface disturbances would also cumulatively reduce the 

spread and establishment of exotic, invasive plant species. 

• Riparian areas would be beneficially affected by cumulative actions to improve ecological 

conditions within these sensitive areas, which would improve recreation experiences for 

wildlife viewing, camping, and hiking. 

• The cumulative effect on recreation resources would be enhanced in the long-term by 

managing existing and proposed SRMAs and the ERMA in the Monticello PA and in 

adjacent BLM Moab FO. The designation of SRMAs would help to reduce the conflicts 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-780 

between the different recreation uses. The cumulative effect of managing the Monticello PA 

to respond to the expected increase in visitation, changes in recreational demand, and the 

wide range of recreational activities would have beneficial effects on recreation. 

The incremental contribution to the overall cumulative impacts on recreation opportunities, 

setting and experience would be greatest under Alternatives A and D, as restrictions on surface 

development and protections afforded to natural resources within the planning area would be less 

intensive under these alternatives. Alternative E would provide the greatest protection to natural 

resources and the highest level of non-motorized recreation opportunities. The Proposed Plan 

and Alternative C would contribute an amount in between Alternatives B/E and D to the 

cumulative impacts on recreation 

4.4.11. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

Past and present actions within the MPA and on adjacent USFS-administered lands, state lands, 

and private lands that affect and have affected riparian areas include livestock grazing, 

recreational uses (including OHVs, non-motorized recreation, etc.), mineral exploration and 

development, and upstream water withdrawals and impoundments. In general, these actions have 

all had cumulatively adverse impacts on riparian health. Livestock grazing, recreation, and 

mineral-related activities have led to surface disturbance, soil compaction, removal of riparian 

vegetation, bank trampling, and alteration of riparian areas' physical structure. They have also 

resulted in the widespread introduction of invasive weeds. Water withdrawals and impoundments 

have limited the health and extent of riparian zones by decreasing water availability, and 

encouraged the introduction of invasive plants through the stabilization of formerly dynamic 

sediment deposits, such as bars and banks. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect riparian areas include an expansion of 

recreational use and ongoing mineral exploration, development, and extraction. All of these 

actions could have a potential adverse effect on riparian areas. Beneficial impacts would result 

from USFS planning efforts, which will reduce negative impacts to riparian resources on 

National Forest lands. Future impacts on private lands may include both positive and negative 

impacts as described above. 

Under the Proposed Plan and all alternatives, riparian resources would benefit from management 

for PFC in accordance with the Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Management for BLM in Utah (BLM 1997). Adherence with these plans would mitigate many of 

the adverse impacts from past, present, and future actions. In addition, continuing closure of 

several allotments to grazing with perennial streams and riparian vegetation would continue the 

restoration and enhancement of riparian resources in these areas. 

In terms of project contributions to cumulative impacts, the Proposed Plan and Alternative C 

would present a level of riparian resource protection balanced between Alternatives E and D. 

Alternative D would favor resource development, and more surface-disturbing activities would 

occur than in the other action alternatives. Alternative E would favor riparian resource 

protection, and fewer surface-disturbing activities would occur than in other action alternatives. 

Alternative A (No Action) is such that many of the management guidelines are unspecified with 

respect to riparian and other resources. However, with respect to recreation, cross-country OHV 

use under Alternative A presents the greatest potential risk of adverse impacts to riparian areas 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-781 

and soils. All the action alternatives benefit from removing the large area open to OHV travel 

(611,000 acres) and making essentially all lands either limited or closed. 

Therefore, the incremental contribution of the Proposed Plan and the alternatives to the 

cumulative impacts on riparian resources is expected to be minimal. 

4.4.12. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS 

The master plans for San Juan and Grand Counties set forth a desired direction for the local 

economy of each county. These plans, when taken together with the allowable activities on 

federal lands, could cumulatively increase the economic condition of the region by increasing 

jobs and population. 

The mission of the State of Utah Travel Council is to promote tourism throughout Utah. The 

Travel Council currently promotes the Monticello area as a place where visitors can explore 

cultural and scenic resources through hiking, biking, OHV use, and river running. Cultural 

visitation, OHV use, and river running have become recreational pursuits for which this portion 

of southwestern Utah has become well known. The visitation resulting from this marketing, 

combined with the nationwide increase in OHV use, when considered together with recreational 

activities that would occur on federal lands, could create a beneficial cumulative impact to the 

regional tourism industry. This potential for increased visitation and economic benefits is even 

more probable when one considers that the planning area is surrounded by several other wellknown popular tourist destinations managed by other agencies, including Canyonlands National 

Park, Hovenweep National Monument, Monument Valley, and Valley of the Gods. 

Mineral development outside the Monticello FO's jurisdiction, but within or near the Monticello 

PA, could also impact social and economic conditions. According to the BLM's RFD, the total 

maximum amount of wells predicted to be drilled on all lands within the planning area over the 

next fifteen years is 195 wells (see Table 4.1). According to the Alternative A (No Action), the 

maximum amount of wells projected for BLM lands is 73 (see Table 4.66). Additional 

development of producing oil and gas wells could bring additional tax and royalty revenue to the 

counties. Additional jobs may be created with the increased production. 

Additional mineral development, including the potential increase in uranium mining on federal 

and non-BLM lands and the start up of the White Mesa Mill, will increase working mines and 

provide an economic benefit. A potential increase in uranium extraction throughout the MPA 

could have some short-term beneficial economic impact on local communities; however, 

uranium development is not projected to be extensive, and therefore should not adversely impact 

visitor experience and recreation-related revenues. Additionally, establishment of the Lisbon 

Valley Copper Mine could have short- and long-term beneficial impacts on local economic 

conditions with regard to employment and tax revenue for San Juan County. The Lisbon Valley 

Copper Mine is expected to employ approximately 145 people and produce more than 12,500 

tons of ore per day (BLM 2004e). 

4.4.13. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 

Reasonably foreseeable actions affecting soil and water resources include reasonably foreseeable 

increased oil and gas development on adjacent tribal, private, and state-owned lands, as well as 

non-BLM federal lands located near the planning area. This development would include 

disturbances associated with drilling, building of access roads, and placement of pipelines. Other 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-782 

associated impacts include the increased need for water to support this mineral development. It is 

estimated that a total of 195 wells would likely be developed on non-BLM land in or adjacent to 

the planning area over the next 15 years. This compares with the estimated total of 73, 66, 74, 

and 75 wells that would be developed on BLM lands under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, 

respectively. 

Past and present actions that affect and have affected soil and water resources include livestock 

grazing, recreational uses (including OHVs, non-motorized recreation, etc.), mineral exploration 

and development, woodland harvest, and vegetation treatments (including those for fire 

management on lands managed by both the state and other federal agencies). 

Livestock and recreation resource uses on non-BLM lands would cause both beneficial and 

adverse cumulative impacts to soil resources. With respect to livestock, trampling would be 

adverse to soils, but proper grazing management would preserve vegetation cover, thereby 

reducing soil erosion. With respect to recreation, open OHV use on state and private lands would 

generally be adverse to soils. 

Soil productivity would be primarily impacted by surface disturbance and vegetation loss 

associated with these activities, increasing soil erosion and loss, as well as landslides and 

flooding. Surface water quality would primarily be impacted by increased soil erosion, increased 

salinity, and sedimentation of streams. Changes in the timing and magnitude of surface water 

flows would also reasonably be expected depending on the magnitude of the actions. 

Groundwater quality may be affected through the discharge of saline or hydrocarbon-impacted 

waters during drilling and development of oil and gas wells. Utilization of groundwater as a 

water supply to support resource development may result in decreased aquifer storage and lower 

water levels. Shallow alluvial aquifers may be negatively impacted due to development as well. 

The vertical movement of groundwater along fractures and faults induced by production of 

hydrocarbons and water from oil and gas wells could change salinity concentrations over a short 

or long period of time, depending upon structural controls and rock types. These impacts may 

have an effect on surface water features, such as springs and perennial flows, and may have an 

economic impact on domestic wells through increased pumping costs. 

Under all alternatives, soils and water resources would benefit from management, in accordance 

with the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management of BLM 

Lands in Utah (BLM 1997). Adherence to these standards would reduce many of the adverse 

impacts from future actions. In general, Alternatives A and D would be the least protective of 

soil and water resources, result in the least beneficial impacts on soils and water resources, and 

have the least mitigating effect on past impacts to soils and water resources in the Monticello 

PA. Alternative E would be the most protective and would provide the greatest reductions of 

cumulative impacts by excluding the most areas from surface disturbance. The Proposed Plan 

and Alternative C would provide a level of protection and mitigation of cumulative impacts 

between that of Alternatives B/E and D. 

However, Alternative A (No Action) would likely result in higher contributions to cumulative 

impacts from OHV use and camping due to the lower level of restrictions on cross-country OHV 

travel and dispersed camping. 

Outside of BLM lands, resource decisions occurring on other lands managed by state and federal 

agencies (such as the USFS) would have cumulative impacts similar to the BLM. Private lands 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-783 

present a full spectrum, from full resource development/use (adverse) to resource preservation 

(beneficial). 

4.4.14. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

ACECs and WSRs

There would be negligible cumulative impacts to those areas managed in the Proposed Plan as 

Special Designations for ACECs or WSRs. Cumulative impacts to those areas proposed for 

Special Designations in Alternatives B and E can result from decisions on BLM lands and state 

lands. Adverse impacts would occur mainly from surface-disturbing activities such as mineral 

development and OHV use off existing roads. Direct adverse impacts would be due to the loss of 

vegetation resulting in impacts to soils, wildlife habitat, and visual resources. These cumulative 

impacts could lead to the loss of Relevant and Important values for ACECs and Outstanding 

Remarkable Values (ORVs) for Wild and Scenic Rivers not designated in the Proposed Plan. 

The potential for damage to the important resource values identified within proposed Special 

Designations is greatest for Alternatives A and D, least for Alternative B, and intermediate for 

the Proposed Plan and Alternative C. 

With congressional designation of a Wild and Scenic River, the BLM would continue to manage 

for the ORVs, classification, and free-flowing nature of the river. Congressional designation 

would provide management with mechanisms to maintain free-flowing values, protect or 

enhance water quality, protect ORVs, manage consistently with the wild, scenic, or recreational 

classifications, and where it is a management plan objective, to purchase property as well as 

promote economic development, tourism, or recreational use. 

Congressional designation does not affect existing river compacts, nor does it provide federal 

authority to regulate non-federal lands. On navigable rivers, the bed and banks are state lands, 

and the federal and state governments would collaborate on matters affecting instream flow and 

other river resources. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act implies a federal reserved water right; however, it must be the 

minimal amount necessary for purposes of the Act, it must be adjudicated through state 

processes, and it would be junior to existing water rights. The amount of the federal right would 

vary from river to river, depending on the river's flows, the unappropriated quantities in the river, 

and the values for which the river is being protected. Rather than initiating efforts to secure water 

rights for instream flows, the BLM could develop cooperative or voluntary water-flow 

management strategies with other water users and the state. In some situations, the state may 

have already established minimum stream flows for fish protection or other purposes that may be 

adequate to meet the wild and scenic river needs. 

Designated wild rivers would be closed to mineral location. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) would be prohibited from licensing the new construction of hydroelectric 

facilities "on or directly affecting" a designated WSR. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act also 

prohibits any department or agency of the United States from assisting in the construction of any 

water resources project that would have a "direct and adverse" impact on the values for which 

the river was designated. It also precludes federal assistance to projects below/above a 

designated river that are determined by the administrative agency to invade the area or 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-784 

unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values present as of the date 

of designation. 

Please see the WSR suitability appendix for an evaluation of suitability for each river segment. A 

suitability finding will be made in the record of decision (ROD). 

Those rivers not found suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation in the Proposed Plan 

could be subject to the alteration of their free-flowing character resulting from potential future 

water developments. 

Therefore, the incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts on Special Designations is 

greatest for Alternatives A and D, least for Alternatives B and E, and in between for the 

Proposed Plan. 

Wilderness and WSAs

The Proposed Plan and the alternatives would contribute no adverse cumulative impacts to 

Wilderness Study Areas because they are protected by law, resolution and policy. 

4.4.15. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Resource decisions from this RMP could combine with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions to produce cumulative impacts to special status species associated with the 

planning area. Co-occurring planning projects in the region include the Moab Field Office BLM 

RMP. Resource decisions for the Moab Field Office, which is adjacent to the Monticello FO, 

would likely result in cumulative impacts. The same management direction and resource uses 

occur in both planning areas. The Manti-La Sal National Forest management decisions would 

also overlap regarding several of the same resources. Surface disturbances associated with 

consumptive uses such as forage use as well as oil, gas, and other minerals development would 

result in cumulative impacts over a larger landscape scale than what is analyzed in this 

Monticello RMP. 

Oil and gas development has occurred across this region in the past and will continue into the 

future. The combined amount of surface disturbance of these past, present, and future actions 

would be detrimental to special status plants. The spatial layout of oil and gas facilities disturbs a 

large proportion of vegetation when considered across the landscape. Each disturbed area for a 

well pad or road increases the opportunity for weed invasions, and disrupts the spatial continuity 

of vegetation communities. Other activities such as road construction and increased OHV use 

will increase access to sensitive areas upon which Special Status Species are dependent for 

survival. For example, increased access into prairie dog sites will increase mortality by shooters 

and indirectly impact all the species associated with them. 

The overall cumulative impact of activities proposed for all resource decisions on special status 

plants is projected to be moderate to detrimental at localized areas within the short-term. Major 

contributors include OHV activities throughout most of the area; increased livestock grazing; 

habitat destruction from mineral-development-related activities; some vegetation treatments such 

as sagebrush removal; and possible project developments such as livestock water developments 

resulting in redistribution of livestock into previously unused areas that are sensitive to 

disturbance. Direct impacts would be due to loss of individual plants from mineral-, oil-, and 

gas-related development. Indirect impacts from habitat fragmentation due to development, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-785 

changes in OHV use due to increased roads, and rock/fossil collection would also occur. These 

activities would concentrate grazing pressures and recreation use on habitat sites for some 

species. The cumulative impacts of all these uses could lead to lower populations of Special 

Status plants and animals in the future. However, protections provided by the Endangered 

Species Act would minimize the potential adverse cumulative impacts to listed species. 

Conversely, beneficial impacts would be obtained with BLM designation of proposed ACECs, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and management of non-WSA lands to protect, preserve and maintain 

wilderness characteristics, because numerous plant populations and wildlife habitats would be 

given special management protection within the boundaries of those designated areas. As a result 

of these proposed designations, the incremental contribution of the cumulative impacts on plant 

and animal habitats would be the greatest under Alternatives A and D, the least under 

Alternatives B and E, and in between these two sets of alternatives under Alternative C and the 

Proposed Plan. 

4.4.16. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON TRAVEL 

Other past, present, and foreseeable future actions that would cumulatively impact travel 

opportunities within the Monticello FO planning area include changes in recreational use, both 

within the planning area and in adjacent federally managed areas (the Moab FO planning area, 

Manti-LaSal National Forest, and Canyonlands and Arches National Parks). Trends indicate that 

visitation and recreation are increasing within the Monticello FO planning area and on these 

adjacent, federally administered lands. Increasing recreational use within the region could affect 

travel within the Monticello FO planning, as increasing demands for recreational opportunities 

could require more road signs, more travel kiosks and information booths, and more restrictions 

on roadside parking and camping. 

Transportation and road networks adjacent to BLM lands include routes shared with other 

federal agencies, SITLA, and private landowners. Cumulative impacts to transportation and 

access would occur primarily from actions that facilitate, restrict or preclude motorized access. 

Management actions that restrict OHV use would limit the degree of travel opportunities and the 

ability to access certain portions of the planning area. The continued maintenance of federal and 

state highways would provide arterial connections to BLM roads. County-maintained routes that 

connect federal and state highways to BLM-system routes would maintain and improve access to 

the MPA's resources. 

Past minerals activities produced many of the current travel routes within the planning area, but 

foreseeable minerals exploration and development (primarily oil and gas) within the planning 

areas and on adjacent federal lands, while creating access routes to production wells, would 

probably have minor impacts on travel opportunities within the planning area. New routes would 

generally be short spur roads that would be reclaimed once they no longer serve their intended 

functions. 

Therefore, the incremental contribution of the Proposed Plan and the alternatives to the 

cumulative impacts on Travel Management is expected to be minimal because the designated 

routes under the Proposed Plan and the alternatives provide sufficient travel opportunities 

throughout the Monticello planning area. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-786 

4.4.17. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON VEGETATION 

Past and present actions that affect and have affected vegetation resources include livestock 

grazing, recreational uses (including OHVs, non-motorized recreation, etc.), mineral exploration 

and development, woodland harvest, and vegetation treatments (including those for fire 

management) on adjacent tribal, private and state-owned lands, as well as non-BLM federal 

lands located near the planning area. This development would include disturbances associated 

with drilling, building of access roads, and placement of pipelines. Other associated impacts 

include the increased need for water to support this mineral development. It is estimated that 

approximately 120 wells would likely be developed on non-BLM land in or adjacent to the 

planning area over the next 15 years. This compares with the estimated total of 73, 66, 74, and 75 

wells that would be developed on BLM-lands under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, respectively. 

Other vegetation impacts are associated with recreational uses, including hiking, equestrian, 

camping, and OHV use on lands managed by both the state and other federal agencies. These 

uses have the potential to trample or crush vegetation. Typically hiking and equestrian use occurs 

on existing trails. However, the increased popularity of four-wheelers in the general region poses 

a risk to vegetation on state and private lands where OHV use may not be restricted to existing 

roads and trails. Additionally, the lack of regulations on dispersed camping, combined with the 

increased recreational visitation that the area continues to experience, indicates that the potential 

for long-term vegetation disturbance from dispersed camping and associated recreation will 

increase. 

4.4.18. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES 

Past and present actions causing cumulative impacts on visual resources include fire suppression, 

minimal fuels treatments, and minimal prescribed fire treatments, resulting in a buildup of 

hazardous fuels materials. Minerals exploration, development, and extraction have been and are 

being conducted within the Monticello PA and are producing surface disturbances. The demand 

for recreational opportunities has been and is presently intensifying, resulting in impacts on 

backcountry and frontcountry recreation areas as visitors expand into previously undisturbed 

areas of the MPA. Other management efforts within and outside the planning area boundaries 

could produce long-term cumulative impacts on visual resources. Reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, including planning efforts to locate and develop mineral and hydrocarbon resources 

within the Monticello FO, could have adverse impacts on visual resources. Impacts would be 

caused by surface disturbance from production, exploration, and construction of drilling and 

mining facilities, and OHV use. 

Actions outside of the Monticello FO that could potentially affect visual resources would include 

mineral development on adjacent private lands, as well as the adjacent national forest and the 

Moab Field Office. The impacts on visual resources would be cumulatively beneficial if these 

administrative areas coordinate their planning efforts to preserve scenic quality along their 

boundaries with the Monticello FO. Conversely, if planning efforts are not coordinated, scenic 

quality could be adversely affected for both the Monticello FO and adjacent scenic areas such as 

Deadhorse Point and Canyonlands National Park. 

Therefore, the incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts on Visual Resources is 

expected to be the greatest under Alternative D, the least under Alternatives B and E, and in 

between those options under the Proposed Plan and Alternative C. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-787 

4.4.19. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Resource decisions from this RMP could combine with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions to produce cumulative impacts to wildlife and fisheries populations 

associated with the planning area. Co-occurring planning projects in the region include the Moab 

Field BLM RMP. Resource decisions for the Moab Field Office, which is adjacent to the 

Monticello FO, would likely result in cumulative impacts. The same management direction and 

resource uses occur in both planning areas. Surface disturbance associated with consumptive 

uses such as forage use as well as oil, gas, and other minerals development would result in 

cumulative impacts over a larger landscape scale than what is analyzed in this Monticello RMP. 

Oil and gas development has occurred across this region in the past and will continue into the 

future. Additionally, both copper and uranium mining have occurred and would continue to 

occur in the planning area. The combined amount of surface disturbance of these past, present, 

and future actions would be detrimental to vegetation. The spatial layout of oil and gas facilities 

disturbs a large proportion of vegetation and wildlife habitat when considered across the 

landscape. Each disturbed area increases the opportunity for weed invasions and disrupts the 

spatial continuity of vegetation communities. 

4.4.20. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WOODLANDS 

Other management efforts within the planning area boundaries could produce long-term 

cumulative impacts on woodland resources. Reasonably foreseeable future actions, including 

planning efforts to locate and develop mineral and hydrocarbon resources within the planning 

area, would potentially have adverse impacts on woodland resources by removing the resource 

from production and use in construction and support facility areas. Most foreseeable future 

development within the Monticello FO consists of oil and gas well exploration and development 

and potential uranium mining. Actions outside of the Monticello FO that could potentially affect 

woodlands resources include oil and gas leasing, fire management, and timber sales in the Moab 

FO and Manti-La Sal National Forest. These planning efforts could have cumulative beneficial 

impacts on woodland resources if inter- and intra-agency coordination were included. 

Coordination would be useful in managing wildfires and prescribed burns. Cumulatively, these 

planning efforts would create greater woodland diversity and health through fire and vegetation 

treatments. Conversely, if planning coordination were not included in these management plans, 

the potential for the loss and/or degradation of woodland resources would be increased. Other 

resource use management actions would have adverse impacts on woodland resources by 

restricted resource harvesting (WSAs and Wilderness Areas, ACECs, SRMAs, and wilderness 

characteristics areas), and would continue to restrict resource harvesting in the future; however, 

the area of harvesting restrictions would be relatively small compared to the area managed as 

open to opportunities for resource harvesting. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

4-788 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 PROJECT AREA OVERVIEW

3.1.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Monticello planning area (PA) is located in the southeastern corner of Utah, adjacent to the 

Colorado and Arizona borders. A part of the Colorado Plateau region, the Monticello PA, is 

bounded by the Colorado River to the west, Canyonlands National Park and the Moab PA to the 

north, and the Colorado and Arizona state borders to the east and the south, respectively. The 

Abajo Mountains are situated in the heart of the Monticello PA. Elevations within the Monticello 

PA range between 3,700 at Lake Powell (near Bullfrog) and 11,360 feet at Abajo Peak (located 

in the Manti–LaSal National Forest). 

3.1.2 CLIMATE

The climate of the Monticello PA shows wide seasonal temperature variations and both 

temperature and precipitation vary with elevation. Across the Monticello PA, summer 

precipitation generally comes from brief, heavy thunderstorms. Accumulated winter snow pack 

melts early in the spring and acts to infiltrate dry desert soils and recharge aquifers. 

Precipitation in the southern section of the Monticello PA (near Bluff) averages 8 inches 

annually with most falling as rain in the late autumn months. Spring and summer thunderstorms 

are generally brief and violent, often resulting in flash flooding. Summers are hot, with daytime 

highs averaging 94°F and lows in the high 50s, although extreme highs over 110°F are not 

uncommon. Winters are cold, with highs averaging 46°F, and lows averaging 20°F. 

The western section of the Monticello PA receives an average of 6 inches of precipitation a year, 

mostly in the late fall as snow. However, rain is not uncommon in the spring and late summer. 

Maximum summer temperatures average in the high 90s, while winter highs average 48°F, with 

lows generally in the high 20s. 

The climate of the middle section of the Monticello PA (near Blanding) includes low humidity, 

warm summer temperatures and cool winters. Annual precipitation averages 13 inches, most of 

which comes in the form of fall rains and winter snows (11 inches). Maximum summer 

temperatures average 81°F, while winter temperatures average highs of 38°F and lows of 16°F. 

The northern section of the Monticello PA (near Monticello) receives an average of 15 inches of 

precipitation annually; most of this comes in late summer thunderstorms and fall snows, which 

can leave heavy accumulations in the higher elevations. Maximum summer temperatures average 

in the high 80s during the day and low 50s at night. Winter high temperatures average 42°F, with 

nighttime temperatures in the high teens. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.1 Project Area Overview 

3-2 

Air temperature and precipitation data collected from 1948 through 2003 for 4 locations in the 

Monticello PA are displayed in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 (WRCC 2004). (Peak elevation 

temperature and precipitation information was not available.) 

Table 3.1. Temperature and Precipitation Data for 4 Locations in the Monticello PA 

Temperature (°F) 

Station General Summer Means Winter Means Extremes 

Location 

Elevation 

(feet) High Low High Low High Low 

Blanding Northern 7,066 86.0 54.8 41.6 19.4 110 -23.0 

Monticello Middle 6,105 81.4 50.0 37.9 16.0 101 -22.0 

Bullfrog Western 3,712 96.5 67.5 48.4 27.2 110 0 

Bluff Southern 4,440 93.6 58.6 46.2 20.3 109 -22.0 

Precipitation (inches) 

Station Mean Annual 

Winter Spring Summer Fall Mean High Low 

Monticello 3.8 2.9 4.0 4.3 15.0 23.1 6.6 

Blanding 3.9 2.6 3.0 3.8 13.3 24.4 4.9 

Bullfrog 1.3 1.2 1.1 2.2 5.9 11.5 2.2 

Bluff 2.1 1.5 1.8 2.4 7.8 15.7 3.0 

Source: WRCC 2004. 

- Max. Temp. is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000.

- Ave. Temp. is the average of all daily average temperatures recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000.

- Min. Temp. is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000.

- Precipitation is the average of all daily total precipitation recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000. 

Figure 3.1. Thirty-year precipitation and air temperature plots for Monticello, Utah 

(WRCC 2004). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-3 

The Monticello PA has been experiencing drought for much of the last 5 years. The effects of the 

drought are discussed in detail in Sections 3.2, Air Quality, and 3.18, Vegetation. 

3.2 AIR QUALITY

3.2.1 INTRODUCTION

Meteorological and topographical characteristics within the Monticello PA and the surrounding 

lands affect the transport, deposition and dispersion of emissions within the planning area and 

region. The effects of both emissions and management decisions within the area influence air 

quality throughout the area, not just within the boundaries of the planning area. The area within 

which air resources could be affected by activities within the planning area is referred to as the 

study area. The Monticello RMP study area includes the planning area and other areas such as 

Canyonlands and Zion National Parks. 

The Monticello PA has been experiencing drought for much of the last 5 years, with extremely 

dry conditions occurring during the summer of 2002, when the Palmer Drought Severity Index 

(PDSI) reached near-record severity based on the last 100 years of instrumental data (NCDC 

2004). These dry conditions have resulted in an increase of wind-blown dust and associated 

particulate matter in the Monticello PA and adjacent areas. 

Drought is not the only climatic condition that can affect air quality in the planning area. Winter 

inversions and wind direction and speed can also have a great impact on air quality. When the air 

temperature near the ground is lower than the air temperature above, a phenomenon called a 

surface temperature inversion occurs. Surface inversions form because the ground cools faster 

than the air above. In most areas of the Monticello PA, inversions are fairly typical winter 

occurrences that dissipate rapidly when early morning sunlight warms the air near the ground 

surface. In areas where the local topography acts to pool and trap cold air (deep valleys 

surrounded by steep mountains) however, cold temperatures associated with stationary or slow 

moving high pressure systems can last for days or (rarely) even weeks and create inversions that 

result in poor air quality due to the compression of cold air masses and lack of circulation. 

Inversions can hinder air pollutant dispersion by reducing vertical mixing. The mixing height of 

the plume is the height above the surface through which free vertical mixing occurs. Mixing 

height is often bounded by the inversion layer in the atmosphere. The dispersion of air pollutants 

is confined within the mixing height of the atmosphere. High mixing heights promote emissions 

dispersion and result in low ground level pollutant concentration. On the other hand, low mixing 

heights often trap emissions and result in high ground level concentration. Monticello, Blanding 

and Bluff are not as prone to inversions compared to other parts of the Monticello PA due to 

local topography, minimal snowfall, warmer wintertime low temperatures or other climatological 

conditions. 

Air pollutant dispersion is also dependent on the wind. The pollutant path is determined by the 

wind direction, and the speed of transport is determined by the wind speed. Wind direction in the 

Monticello PA is highly influenced by the local terrain. For example, the winds along the San 

Juan River in San Juan County tend to blow from the west and the northwest in the spring and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-4 

blow from the east and the southeast in the other seasons (Trinity Consultants [Trinity] 2003). In 

the city of Monticello, which is located on the flanks of the Abajo Mountains, the winds 

predominately blow from the south or southwest. 

Figure 3.2 presents the windroses for two cities in the Monticello PA. Windroses are graphical 

representations of wind speed, frequency, and direction for a given location. As can be seen from 

the seasonal windroses, the wind patterns in the area vary widely by season and local terrain. 

Therefore, dispersion and transport of pollutants are also variable in this region depending on the 

locations. 

 Winter Spring Summer Fall 

Monticello 

Bluff 

(San Juan 

River) 

Data Source: 1996 Mesoscale Model (MM5) data processed using the CALMET meteorological model. The observed data from various 

meteorological stations are used to generate these windroses. Meteorological stations include Grand Junction, Montrose County 

Airport, Price/Carbon, etc. 

Figure 3.2. Seasonal windroses1 in the Monticello PA. 

3.2.2 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

in Title 40 of CFR, Part 50 (40 CFR 50). The purpose of primary NAAQS is to protect the health 

of the most sensitive people such as elderly and asthmatic individuals, while the purpose of 

secondary NAAQS is to protect public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects 

associated with the presence of air pollutants, such as damage to property or vegetation. The 

NAAQS apply to 6 pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), ozone (O3), and particulate matter whose diameters are smaller than 10 micrometers 

(PM10) or smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). An area that does not meet the 

NAAQS for one or more of these pollutants would be designated as a non-attainment area on a 

pollutant by pollutant basis. The Monticello PA is located in an area designated as attainment for 

 

1

 Windroses depict the relative frequency of wind direction as defined by the directions on a compass scale. In the diagrams above 8 

directions are used (north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west and northwest, starting from the top of the 

diagram and going clockwise. Each ring on the wind rose represents an increased frequency (percent of the total) as described 

by the values listed at the bottom of the diagram (for example: 8%, 16%, 24%, 32% for winter winds in Monticello). Each 

branch of the rose represents wind coming from that direction. The branches are divided into segments of different thickness 

and color, which represent wind speed ranges from that direction. Speed ranges are identified in the scale to the right of the 

diagram. The length of each segment within a branch is proportional to the frequency of winds blowing within the 

corresponding range of speeds from that direction. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-5 

all pollutants (EPA 2003a). Table 3.2 present the existing ambient air quality in the Monticello 

PA (EPA 2003b). 

The data listed are the most recent available for each pollutant. If there is no monitor located 

within the boundary of the Monticello PA, the data from the nearest representative monitor(s) 

were chosen. Most of the available monitoring stations are located east or southeast of the 

planning area. As outlined in Table 3.2 of this chapter, the air quality in and near the Monticello 

PA meets the NAAQS by a large margin with the exception of ozone which is just under the 8-

hour NAAQS at Canyonlands National Park. 

A recent assessment of air quality in National Parks around the country found that ozone 

concentrations and ammonium deposition increased significantly at Canyonlands National Park 

between 1995 and 2004 (GPRA 2005). The same report, however, found improvements in nitrate 

and sulfate deposition, although these improvements were not found to be statistically significant 

(GPRA 2005). In 2005, Canyonlands National Park did not meet a National Park Service internal 

air quality goal (called Ia3), which incorporates visibility, atmospheric deposition, and ozone 

concentration targets. 

Table 3.2. Ambient Air Quality Data for the MPA 

Pollutant Averaging 

Period a NAAQS Monitored 

Concentration 

Monitored Location 

(City, County, State) 

1 hour 35.0 ppm b 2.8 ppm n Grand Junction, Mesa Co., 

CO 

CO 

 

8 hour 9.00 ppm b

 1.8 ppm n Grand Junction, Mesa Co., 

CO 

0.053 ppm 0.003 ppm k NO2 La Plata Co., CO 

 

Annual 

 0.016 ppm k Bloomfield, San Juan Co., 

NM 

3 hour 0.50 ppm b,c 0.082 ppm i Shiprock, San Juan Co., 

NM 

24 hour 0.14 ppm b 0.013 ppm i Shiprock, San Juan Co., 

NM 

SO2

 

 

Annual 0.03 ppm b

 0.002 ppm k Shiprock, San Juan Co., 

NM 

0.12 ppm d 0.086 ppm i La Plata County, CO 

 0.077 ppm i Mesa Verde NP, 

Montezuma Co., CO 

 0.086 ppm i Farmington, San Juan Co., 

NM 

1 hour 

 

 

 0.082 ppm i Island-in-the-Sky, 

Canyonlands NP, UT 

0.075 ppm e 0.055 ppm j La Plata County, CO 

Ozone 

 

 

 

 

 

8 hour 

 0.073 ppm j Mesa Verde NP, 

Montezuma Co., CO 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-6 

Table 3.2. Ambient Air Quality Data for the MPA 

Pollutant Averaging 

Period a NAAQS Monitored 

Concentration 

Monitored Location 

(City, County, State) 

 0.072 ppm j Farmington, San Juan Co., 

NM 

 

 0.070 ppm j Island-in-the-Sky, 

Canyonlands NP, UT 

24 hour 150 μg/m3 f 25 μg/m3 o Farmington, San Juan Co., 

NM 

PM10

 

Annual 50 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 k Farmington, San Juan Co., 

NM 

24 hour 35 μg/m3 g 13 μg/m3 m Farmington, San Juan Co., 

NM 

PM2.5

 

Annual 15 μg/m3 h

 5.9 μg/m3 k Farmington, San Juan Co., 

NM 

a

 The concentration values listed in this table are based on the monitored concentrations in 2007 provided by the EPA AirData 

database (URL: http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/). 

b

 Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

c

 SO2 3-hour standard is a secondary NAAQS that sets limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased 

visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 

d

 The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations 

above 0.12 ppm is < 1. As of June 15, 2005 EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) areas. 

e

 The 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor 

within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective May 27, 2008). 

f Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 

g

 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented 

monitor within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006). 

h

 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple 

community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3. 

i

 Concentration is the maximum value detected at the monitored location in 2007 according to the EPA AirData database. 

j

 Concentration is the 3 year average of 4th maxima detected at the monitored location in 2005, 2006, and 2007 according to 

the EPA AirData database. 

k

 Concentration is the arithmetic mean at the monitored location in 2007 according to the EPA AirData database. 

m Concentration is the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the 24-hour values collected in 2005, 2006, and 2007 according 

to the EPA AirData database. 

n Concentration is the 2nd maximum value detected at the monitored location in 2007 according to the EPA AirData database.

o Concentration is the 3-year average of the 2nd maxima detected at the monitored location in 2005, 2006 and 2007 according 

to the EPA AirData database. 

3.2.3 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION

Potential air quality impact criteria also include Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

increments. A PSD increment is the maximum increase in ambient concentrations of a certain 

pollutant that is allowed to occur above a baseline concentration for that pollutant. Federal 

Mandatory Class I areas with pristine air quality, such as some wilderness areas, National Parks, 

and Tribal reservation lands, are accorded the strictest protection. Only very small incremental 

increases in concentration are allowed in these areas to ensure the maintenance of their pristine 

air quality. The State of Utah has the authority and responsibility to determine compliance with 

PSD by performing a regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-7 

In Utah, 5 areas have been designated as mandatory Class I areas. These areas are: Arches 

National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National 

Park, and Zion National Park. PSD Class II areas are essentially all areas that are not designated 

Class I, and larger incremental increases in concentration are allowed, although the 

concentrations are not allowed to reach the concentrations set by Federal standards (NAAQS). 

Air quality data for Class I areas within the study area are also included, where available. 

3.2.4 VISIBILITY IN CLASS I AREAS

Visibility is "the clarity with which distant objects are perceived" (EPA 2001), and is affected by 

pollutant concentrations, plume impairment, regional haze, relative humidity, sunlight, and cloud 

characteristics. A typical visual range without any manmade air pollutants would be about 140 

miles in the Western states (EPA 2001). Aerosols (small particles made of solid and/or liquid 

molecules dispersed in the air) are the pollutants that most often affect visibility in the Class I 

areas. Five key contributors to visibility impairments are sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and crustal materials. Their relative contributions to visibility impacts in the 

Canyonlands National Park, a Class I area within the planning area of the FO, are summarized in 

Table 3.3 (EPA 2001). 

Table 3.3. Summary of Visibility Impairment Pollutants Measured in the Canyonlands 

National Park a

Pollutant Contribution b Emission Sources 

Sulfate 34% Fossil fuel combustion and forest fires. 

Crustal Material 27% Fugitive dust from roads, agricultural and forestry 

operations, and wind erosion. 

Organic Carbon 22% Wood burning, open burning, vehicle exhaust, and 

wildfires and prescribed burning. 

Elemental Carbon 10% Vehicle exhaust, wood burning, and wildfires and 

prescribed burning. 

Nitrate 7% Motor vehicle exhaust. Secondary sources include fossil 

fuel combustion and prescribed burning. 

a Data source: U.S. EPA. 2001. 

b Contributions are calculated by pollutant concentrations regularly measured in the Canyonlands National Park. Light extinction 

coefficients and visibility indices are then calculated from these values. 

The 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) included legislation to prevent future and remedy existing 

visibility impairment in Class I areas. In 1985, the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) established a collaborative monitoring program called the Interagency Monitoring 

of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) to monitor visibility in Class I areas. The 

IMPROVE network has operated a monitor in the Canyonlands National Park, located near the 

western boundary of the Monticello PA, since 1988. The most-impaired days in Canyonlands 

National Park exhibit visual ranges between 62 to 90 miles and appears to show an improvement 

over the decade of 1994 to 2004. The mid-range days have visual distances of 78 to 109 miles 

and show no significant change. The least-impaired days have visibility ranges from 107 to 144 

miles and also demonstrate improvements over the decade of approximately 25% (EPA 2003c). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-8 

The visibility trend from 1990 to 2004 in the Canyonlands National Park is summarized in 

Figure 3.3. A more recent assessment of visibility in the Canyonlands National Park indicates 

that the improvement trend in visibility has continued through 2004, although the trend was 

measured in different units and was not found to be statistically significant (GPRA 2005). While 

some visibility impairments are the result of natural sources such as windblown dust and soot 

from wildfires, which cannot be controlled; manmade sources of pollution can also impair 

visibility. These include motor vehicles (organic carbon), electric utility and industrial fuel 

burning (sulfates and particulate), and manufacturing operations (sulfates and fine particulate 

matter). Visibility in Canyonlands National Park is most influenced by sulfates, fine particulate 

matter (i.e., dust), and organic carbon. The visibility improvements seen over the past decade are 

the result of implementing state and federal stationary and mobile source regulations. 

Annual Visibility near the Monticello Planning Area

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Data taken from Inter-Agency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

IMPROVE Canyonlands National Park station: CANY1

Standard Visual Range (miles)

20% cleanest

average

20% haziest

Figure 3.3. Trend in air pollution impacts on visibility observed in Canyonlands National 

Park, Utah, 1990 through 2004 (IMPROVE). 

3.2.5 ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION

Atmospheric deposition refers to the processes by which air pollutants are removed from the 

atmosphere and deposited on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and is reported as the mass of 

material deposited on an area (kilogram per hectare - year). Atmospheric deposition can cause 

acidification of lakes and streams. One expression of lake acidification is change in acid 

neutralizing capacity (ANC), the lake's capacity to resist acidification from atmospheric 

deposition. Acid neutralizing capacity is expressed in units of micro-equivalents per liter (μeq/l). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-9 

3.2.5.1 WET DEPOSITION

Wet deposition refers to air pollutants deposited by precipitation, such as rain and snow. One 

expression of wet deposition is precipitation pH, a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of the 

precipitation (see Figure 3.4). 

There are 5 NADP stations in Utah: Logan, Murphy Ridge, Green River, Bryce Canyon NP and 

Canyonlands NP. The NADP stations in Bryce Canyon NP and Canyonlands NP have assessed 

precipitation chemistry from 1985 and 1997 through to the present. Figure 3.4 shows 

precipitation pH has ranged from 4.95 to 5.69. 

Mean Annual Precipitation pH near the Monticello Planning Area

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

19851986

19871988

1989199019911992

1993199419951996199719981999

20002001

200220032004

20052006

Data taken from National Atmospheric Deposition Program

NADP Canyonlands station: UT09

NADP Bryce Canyon station: UT99

Normal range of precipitation pH:

5.0 - 5.6 (Seinfeld, 1986)

precipitation pH

Canyonlands

Bryce Canyon

Figure 3.4. Mean annual precipitation pH near in Bryce and Canyonlands National 

Parks. Data source: National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 

3.2.5.2 DRY DEPOSITION

Dry deposition refers to the transfer of airborne gaseous and particulate material from the 

atmosphere to the Earth's surface. The Clean Air Status and Trends network (CASTNet) has 

measured dry deposition of ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitric acid (HNO3), sulfate (SO4

--), 

nitrate (NO3

-

), and ammonium (NH4

++), in the United States since the late 1980s. There is one 

CASTNet stations in Utah at Canyonlands NP. 

3.2.5.3 TOTAL DEPOSITION

Total deposition refers to the sum of airborne material transferred to the Earth's surface by both 

wet and dry deposition. Total nitrogen deposition is calculated by summing the nitrogen portion 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-10 

of wet and dry deposition of nitrogen compounds, and total sulfur deposition is calculated by 

summing the sulfur portion of wet and dry deposition of sulfur compounds. 

Total deposition has been measured at Canyonlands National Park from 1995 through the 

present. Total nitrogen deposition has ranged from 1.7 to 2.2 kg/hectare-year since 1996 (Figure 

3.5). Total nitrogen deposition of 3 kg/hectare-year represents the total pollution loading where 

acidification is unlikely and "below which a land manager can recommend a permit be issued for 

a new source unless data are available to indicate otherwise" (Fox, 1989). Studies in Rocky 

Mountain National Park suggest that acidification may occur with wet nitrogen deposition of 1.5 

kg/hectare-year (Baron, 2006). Total sulfur deposition has ranged from 0.66 to 1.1 kg/hectareyear since 1995 (Figure 3.6). 

Figure 3.5. Total nitrogen deposition at Canyonlands National Park. Source: 

National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-11 

Figure 3.6. Total sulfur deposition at Canyonlands National Park. Source: National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program. 

3.2.5.4 LAKE CHEMISTRY

Atmospheric deposition can cause acidification of lakes and streams. One expression of lake 

acidification is change in acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), the lake's capacity to resist 

acidification from atmospheric deposition. Acid neutralizing capacity is expressed in units of 

micro-equivalents per liter (μeq/l). Lakes with ANC values of from 25 to 100 μeq/l are 

considered to be sensitive to atmospheric deposition, lakes with ANC values of from 10 to 25 

μeq/l are considered to be very sensitive, and lakes with ANC value of less than 10 are 

considered to be extremely sensitive. Based on a search of the EPA STORET database, no ANC 

data are currently available for Grand and San Juan County. This could be a future consideration 

in developing monitoring plans. 

3.2.6 STATUS OF EMISSIONS

The Monticello PA covers most of San Juan County. Currently, emission sources within the 

Monticello PA consists mostly of oil and gas development facilities and some mineral processing 

facilities as identified in Table 3.4. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-12 

Table 3.4. 2005 Emissions Inventory for Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah 

2005 Emissions (tons per year) 

County Source 

CO NOxb

 PM10 PM2.5 SOxc VOCd HAPse

Area source 206 16 430 88 3 285 

Non-road 

mobile 2,962 176 37 30 8 905 

On-road 

mobile 8,118 1,042 381 78 16 572 

Point source 225 378 4 4 <1 69 

Biogenics 6,596 - - - - 34,973 

Grand 

County 

 

 

 

 

 Total Grand 

County 18,107 1,611 851 200 27 36,803 19 

Area source 517 35 1,109 224 35 517 

Non-road 

mobile 1,868 59 21 20 11 546 

On-road 

mobile 6,657 1,058 399 89 21 470 

San Juan 

County 

 

 

 

Total San 

Juan County 9,042 1,153 1,529 332 67 1,533 10 

Regional 

Total 27,149 2,764 2,380 532 94 38,337 29 

a Emission inventory data from 2005 State Summary of Emissions by Source. URL: www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05/State_List.htm

b

 Nitrogen oxides - one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground-level ozone. 

c Sulfur oxides - contribute to respiratory illness, atmospheric deposition, and the formation of atmospheric particles that can 

cause visibility impairment. 

d

 VOC (volatile organic compounds) refers to any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic 

acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. Also a 

precursor to ozone. 

e HAPs (hazardous air pollutants) are generally defined as those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause serious health 

problems. Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act identifies a list of 188 pollutants as HAPs. The emissions inventory for HAPs 

available from the State of Utah only includes those reported by stationary industrial sources. 

The 2005 emissions inventory available from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) was used to characterize base-year emissions in San Juan and 

Grand County. Emissions are summarized by source type for criteria pollutants including area 

source, non-road mobile, on-road mobile, point sources, and biogenics. The emission inventory 

for hazardous air pollutants only includes emissions from stationary industrial sources. 

3.2.6.1 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF EMISSIONS

The seasonal windroses presented in Figure 3.2 for Monticello and Bluff (in the Monticello PA) 

show that prevailing wind speeds rarely exceed 5 m per second, and vary seasonally in direction. 

Local topography in the Monticello PA is complex and likely to influence local wind patterns to 

a substantial degree. As meteorological data are not available for all sites within the planning 

area, the stations at Monticello and Bluff were assumed to be representative of dominant trends 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-13 

in prevailing wind direction for the northern and southern sections of the Monticello planning 

area, respectively. Due to the complexity of local topography, this assumption may not hold on a 

site-specific scale but is expected to be representative when applied as an annual average areawide trend. 

As stated previously, current air quality in the Monticello PA is, with the exception of ozone, 

consistently below the NAAQS by a large margin, as shown in Table 3.2 (observed ozone 

concentrations near the Monticello PA is less than, but near, the NAAQS). The Utah DEQ 

indicated that ozone concentrations in Class I areas of the western states have shown significant 

increases in the past decade and are approaching the NAAQS level (personal communication 

between Brock LeBaron, Utah DAQ, and Trinity Consultants on August 8, 2003). Ozone is 

generally not emitted directly, but forms from a chemical reaction between emissions of volatile 

organic carbons (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of heat and sunlight. Sources 

of VOC emissions include automobiles, gasoline stations, compressor emissions, and many other 

sources. Nitrogen oxides are emitted from combustion processes in automobiles, power plants, 

compressors, etc. Although ozone is produced throughout the year, the highest ozone 

concentrations in most urban areas are usually observed in the summer when strong sunlight and 

high temperatures drive the chemical reactions. In rural areas of the Rocky Mountain West such 

as the Monticello PA, high ozone concentrations have been measured in the winter. The 

processes of this winter ozone are not yet well understood. Stagnant meteorological conditions, 

such as inversions in some parts of the Monticello PA, can trap the air in the region for several 

days. Ozone concentrations are generally considered a regional issue. This means that ozone 

concentrations in a given area can result from emissions that are transported into the area from 

distant emissions sources, as well as from local emissions sources . 

Additional concerns address emissions specific to visitation and through-traffic within the 

Monticello PA. Most recreational visitors engage in motorized activities that are emission 

sources in addition to the highway vehicles used for transportation. 

Prescribed fire and naturally caused fires also present a concern to air quality. Prescribed burning 

is a useful tool for resource management and may be used to achieve a variety of objectives such 

as restoring a fire-dependent ecosystem, enhancing forage for cattle, improving wildlife habitat, 

preparing sites for reforestation, or reducing hazardous fuel loads. Fire used for any of these 

management reasons, will produce smoke and other air pollutants. Some short-term air pollutant 

releases are necessary to achieve the benefits of prescribed burning. Short-term effects on air 

quality from prescribed burns include a general increase in particulate matter, CO2 and ozone 

precursor emissions. Land managers recognize that smoke management is critical to avoid air 

quality intrusions over sensitive areas or visibility problems. Vegetation management is an active 

part of fire management techniques and long-term effects of prescribed burning include a 

reduction in particulate matter, CO2 and ozone precursor emissions specific to wildfire in 

unmanaged areas. Prescribed fire management is designed to minimize impacts. 

3.2.7 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

On-going scientific research has identified the potential impacts of climate changing pollutants 

on global climate. These pollutants are commonly called "greenhouse gases" and include carbon 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-14 

dioxide, CO2; methane; nitrous oxide; water vapor; and several trace gas emissions. Through 

complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these emissions cause a net warming effect 

of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the Earth back 

into space. Although climate changing pollutant levels have varied for millennia (along with 

corresponding variations in climatic conditions), recent industrialization and burning of fossil 

carbon sources have caused CO2 concentrations to increase dramatically, and are likely to 

contribute to overall climatic changes, typically referred to as global warming. Increasing CO2

concentrations also lead to preferential fertilization and growth of specific plant species. 

Global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1.0°C (1.8°F) from 1890 to 2006 

(Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2007). However, observations and predictive models 

indicate that average temperature changes are likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. 

Figure 3.7 demonstrates that northern latitudes (above 24° N ) have exhibited temperature 

increases of nearly 1.2°C (2.1°F) since 1900, with nearly a 1.0°C (1.8°F) increase since 1970. 

Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to determine the spatial and 

temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing concentrations of these 

"greenhouse gases" are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently completed a 

comprehensive report assessing the current state of knowledge on climate change, its potential 

impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. At printing of this PRMP/FEIS, this 

assessment is available on the IPCC web site at http://www.ipcc.ch/. According to this report, 

global climate change may ultimately contribute to a rise in sea level, destruction of estuaries and 

coastal wetlands, and changes in regional temperature and rainfall patterns, with major 

implications to agricultural and coastal communities. The IPCC has suggested that the average 

global surface temperature could rise 1 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the next 50 years, with 

significant regional variation. The National Academy of Sciences (2006) has confirmed these 

findings, but also indicated that there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect 

different regions. Computer models indicate that such increases in temperature will not be 

equally distributed globally, but are likely to be accentuated at higher latitudes, such as in the 

Arctic, where the temperature increase may be more than double the global average (BLM 

2007). Also, warming during the winter months is expected to be greater than during the 

summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures is more likely than increases in daily 

maximum temperatures. Vulnerabilities to climate change depend considerably on specific 

geographic and social contexts.

The BLM recognizes the importance of climate change and the potential effects it may have on 

the natural environment. Several activities occur within the planning area that may generate 

emissions of climate changing pollutants. For example, oil and gas development, large fires, and 

recreation using combustion engines, can potentially generate CO2 and methane. Wind erosion 

from disturbed areas and fugitive dust from roads along with entrained atmospheric dust has the 

potential to darken glacial surfaces and snow packs resulting in faster snowmelt. Other activities 

may help sequester carbon, such as managing vegetation to favor perennial grasses and increase 

vegetative cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as "carbon sinks." 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-15 

Figure 3.7. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern Latitudes (24–90° N). 

3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.3.1 OVERVIEW

Cultural resources are non-renewable remains of past human activity. For BLM management 

purposes, these remains take the form of sites, artifacts, buildings, structures, ruins, features, and 

natural landscapes with particular cultural importance. With a few exceptions, these remains 

must be at least 50 years old. In the case of natural landscapes, the period of traditional cultural 

use must also be at least 50 years old to be considered significant or eligible for or listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources also include places identified by 

traditional groups (e.g., Native American tribes) as sacred or otherwise important to the 

maintenance of group identity even if no physical manifestations of past activities are present at 

that location. Such locations are referred to as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). 

Additionally, certain areas of the landscapes have particularly high densities of cultural resources 

and can be designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) with cultural values. 

This section provides an overview to the culture history of the Monticello PA, as background for 

understanding the types of cultural resources present. This is followed by an overview to the 

ethnographic data for the area. Resources are then discussed including a summary of information 

regarding known resources, potential TCPs, and ACECs with cultural values. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-16 

3.3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCE HISTORY OF THE MONTICELLO PA 

The following section contains a brief overview of past human activity on lands under the 

jurisdiction of the Monticello FO. This overview is divided into 3 sections: Prehistory, History, 

and Ethnography. It is intended only to provide a very broad outline within which to understand 

the basic types and affiliations of cultural resources that are present within the boundaries of 

Monticello PA. This overview is not a complete recitation of the entire existing body of 

knowledge regarding past human activity within the PA. It does not incorporate information 

from very recent and ongoing investigations (i.e., the condition assessment project at Moon 

House or excavations in Comb Wash) that are beginning to yield data that may change the 

existing knowledge of prehistoric land-use patterns, cultural affiliations, and timing of events and 

trends. 

An outline of the prehistory and history of the lands incorporated by the Monticello PA is useful 

in understanding the broad patterns of human occupation, land use, and habitation that have 

occurred within the region. Humans of multiple cultures have inhabited, traversed, mapped, and 

developed these lands for greater than 12,000 years and have left evidence of their activities on 

the landscape in the form of archaeological sites, buildings, and structures. It is this material 

evidence that the BLM must consider when making land-use decisions within the PA. 

3.3.2.1 PREHISTORY

Although the precise timing and nature of human entry into North America is currently a matter 

of considerable debate (Dillehay 1997; Swedlund 1999), the first period of significant recognized 

human occupation of the continent occurs toward the end of the Pleistocene when the climate 

was cooler and moister than the present (Jennings 1989:60). This time period is often referred to 

as the Paleoindian Period and represents the oldest time period for which archaeological 

evidence exists of human activitity in the region. The environmental conditions during this 

period supported the presence of large game mammals such as giant bison, mammoth, camel, 

and ground sloth (Grayson 1993). Human populations over much of the continent appear to have 

concentrated, albeit to varying degrees, on the exploitation of these mammals during this period 

(Jennings 1989:59; Simms 1988). Few archaeological sites from this earliest period of known 

human occupation of southeastern Utah have been found within the Monticello PA. The Lime 

Ridge Clovis site, located 15 kilometers (km) southwest of Bluff, Utah, is a siginificant 

archaeological site on the northern Colorado Plateau in Utah (Davis 1989:66). Research 

conducted in Glen Canyon has also demonstrated a limited human presence during the 

Paleoindian period (Geib 1996:7). Archaeological evidence from this period tends to be very 

limited and is often confined to stone tools designed for hunting large game mammals. 

The next period of prehistoric occupation in the Monticello PA is typically referred to as the 

Archaic Period. This period can be subdivided into several phases based on technological (tool 

kit) differences and different approaches the prehistoric peoples used for obtaining food; though 

they were still relying on hunting and gathering, they pursued smaller game animals than the 

previous period. Archaeological sites from this period are more numerous than those from the 

Paleoindian Period and contain a wider variety of artifacts. Stone tools from Archaic Period sites 

tend to be smaller and exhibit evidence of being used differently than the spear points 

Paleoindian peoples used for hunting such animals as mammoth and giant bison. The lands of the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-17 

Monticello PA appear to have been very popular for Archaic peoples as archaeological sites from 

this period are found throughout the FO PA. In fact, the archaeological record for San Juan 

County indicates widespread occupation of the area between 6000 B.C. and A.D. 100 (Geib 

1996:7-9; Nielson 1985). Cedar Mesa, Elk Ridge, and Montezuma Canyon are noted for 

numerous Archaic Period sites of varying size and complexity. Notable sites include Alkali 

Ridge, Cowboy Cave, Old Man Cave, and Dust Devil Cave (Brew 1946; Schroedl 1994; Geib 

1996:117). Because the peoples of this period were still relying on hunting and gathering, they 

had to follow migrating animals and seasonally ripening plants across the landscape, and as a 

result, they left evidence of their activities as numerous small sites located throughout the region. 

Following the Archaic Period was the Formative Period. This period differs from the Archaic 

Period in that Formative Period peoples changed their approach to obtaining food from a strategy 

based on hunting and gathering wild animals and plants to one in which they began to grow their 

own food through an early form of agriculture. In the Monticello PA, the Formative Period lasted 

from A.D. 100 through A.D. 1300. Because the Formative Period peoples spent more time 

farming, they needed to spend less time pursuing animals and plants. As a result, the 

archaeological sites they left behind tend to be much larger and have more complex village sites 

than those of their more nomadic predecessors. Both large village sites and smaller 

archaeological sites representing the activities of Formative Period peoples are found in very 

large numbers throughout the Monticello PA. 

Within southeastern Utah, the Formative Period has one distinct culture occupying San Juan 

County: the Anasazi (or Hisatsinom, as they are called by the Hopi). This group is hereinafter 

referred to as the Ancestral Puebloans. The boundaries for the culture are debated; it is known 

that the Ancestral Puebloans occupied the Four Corners, but the extent of the occupation as far as 

Las Vegas, New Mexico to Las Vegas, Nevada is debated among professional archaeologists 

(Geib 1996:98-88; Cordell 1997:196). Table 3.5 presents the chronology of the region during the 

Formative Period (Jennings 1989:306). 

Table 3.5. Formative Period Chronology 

Period Date Range 

Pueblo IV/V A.D.1300–1700 

Pueblo III A.D.1100–1300 

Pueblo II A.D.900–1100 

Pueblo I A.D.750–900 

Basketmaker III A.D.450–700 

Basketmaker II A.D.1–500 

Two traditions of Ancestral Puebloans are believed to have occupied the southeastern portion of 

Utah: the Kayenta and the Mesa Verde (Geib 1996:531; McVickar 2001:233). Interactions with 

Ancestral Puebloan groups to the east southeast (Chaco Canyon) and west (Virgin River Branch) 

also influenced people in the area. Clear delineation between these groups is difficult due to the 

nature of regional integration during the Formative period (Geib 1996:99, Varien 1996:11). What 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-18 

is now San Juan County was the borderland for these two groups. Archaeological sites in the 

area contain evidence that the two groups interacted with each other (McVickar 2001:232, 233). 

It is also hypothesized that during the latter part of the Formative Period, the peoples 

(Athabaskans) who would later identify themselves as the Navajo and Apache moved into the 

region (Maryboy and Begay 2000:271). This theory is supported by both liguistic and physical 

similarities among Northern and Southern Athabaskan groups (Maryboy and Begay 2000:271). 

3.3.2.2 HISTORY

The written history of the Monticello PA covers a long period from the early Spanish explorers 

to the recent past. While physical evidence of past human activities during the historic period is 

present within the FO, much has been lost as a result of subsequent land uses in the same 

locations. Cultural resource sites from the historic period can be found almost anywhere within 

the FO boundaries, though most are found around the roadways, communities, and developments 

that exist today. 

The primary impetus for early historic period use of southeastern Utah was trade, and as the most 

lucrative markets included slaves, horses, firearms, and other wares illegal to trade with Native 

Americans, few of the earliest expeditions were ever recorded. However, records do exist to 

demonstrate that Spanish traders were among the first, if not the first, Euro-Americans to make 

use of the lands within the Monticello PA. This use primarily took the form of trade routes 

passing through the area, and remnants of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail can still be 

found northeast of Monticello. Such routes were also used and expanded upon by fur trappers 

and traders who used the area during the early 1800s. Archaeological evidence of trading posts 

has been found along these trade routes throughout Utah. 

As the dominance of the fur trade waned, European traffic through the Four Corners Region took 

on a different tone. With the settlement of the Salt Lake Valley by the Mormons in 1847, the 

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) became a prominent religious and political 

player in an area that was being more rapidly divided by boundaries and economic interests. In 

1854, the LDS church dispatched William Huntington and Jackson Stewart to explore the Four 

Corners region for possible expansion of Brigham Young's burgeoning religious state, Deseret. 

As a result of information obtained during the Huntington Expedition, the Elk Mountain Mission 

of 1855 was executed in the La Sal Mountains. As the Elk Mountain Mission spread south into 

the San Juan River drainage to establish relations with the Navajo Nation, the resources of the 

mission were spread thin. Many of the tribes grew disdainful of the LDS presence, and after a 

number of the mission party members were killed the project was generally abandoned. Limited, 

if any, archaeological evidence of these early interactions between the LDS church and Native 

American groups is likely to be present within the FO. 

In 1875, the U.S. made its first real indication of territorial interest in the region by sending U.S. 

Geological Survey teams lead by James L. Gardiner and Henry Gannet, under the direction of 

Ferdinand V. Hayden, to survey the La Sal Mountains. After two weeks, the Hayden Expedition 

of 1875 shifted attention to the Abajo Range whereupon they fell under attack by a band of Utes. 

They were forced to abandon their equipment in Peters Canyon, at an archaeological site that has 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-19 

been identified. Much of their equipment has since been recovered, and is archived at the 

University of Wyoming (Pierson 1980:82). 

By the late 1800s, relatively large numbers of settlers of the LDS church had been sent to 

southeastern Utah to colonize the area. The green valleys of the San Juan River, Colorado River, 

and Green River drainages became attractive destinations for cattlemen seeking to graze herds 

destined for sale in the new markets of the west. The first cattle were grazed in the valleys of the 

region in 1874 (Pierson 1980:88-90). Little archaeological evidence of this early cattle grazing is 

likely to be present on BLM lands in the FO as many such homesteads/ranches now exist on 

private lands. The same such condition would exist for agricultural communities and farmsteads 

established by pioneers who settled the region alongside and after the cattle ranchers. Irrigation 

ditches, holding ponds, and rows of poplar trees planted as wind breaks are scattered across the 

southeastern Utah landscape, though again mostly on private lands. 

By the 1890s, placer mining in the Abajo Mountains began to draw prospectors (Pierson 

1980:91). Within a few short years, silver, copper, and other minerals drew almost equal 

attention. Even uranium and related deposits of vanadium and carnotite attracted some 

speculative interest, but would not be of much regional importance until after atomic weapons 

had been developed. Archaeological evidence of these and later mining efforts are known to 

exist with the Monticello PA. 

Into the twentieth century, growth was slow and steady, limited by the nature and degree of 

industries to which the land was suited. World War I had minor influence upon San Juan 

County's economy, as did the Great Depression, which may have had a positive effect upon the 

towns of the region. Southeastern Utah was sparsely populated and, lacking a well-developed 

economic foundation, there was little to be affected by a national economic downturn. As the 

U.S. pulled out of the Great Depression and resumed normal life, San Juan County started an 

economic transition. World War II had attracted the support of tribal members and European 

Americans alike, but aside from exposing the residents of southeastern Utah to new skills and 

various parts of the world the economy was affected very little. The detonation of two nuclear 

weapons on Japanese soil changed the regional economy in a way far greater than any other 

single factor had to this time. 

Uranium, once a mineral of minimal economic importance, became a commodity in an 

international arms race. In 1952, Charles Steen discovered the Mi Vida mine in Big Indian 

Canyon (McPherson 1995:256). Subsequent discoveries resulted in the opening of a uranium 

mill outside Moab in 1956 (Pierson 1980:100). The population of southeastern Utah multiplied 

exponentially, and as more lands were consolidated under subsurface mineral rights and homes 

were constructed for the new arrivals, farming and ranching industries began to decline. Despite 

the poorly understood, but formidable, health risks associated with uranium mining and milling, 

the economy of the region grew exponentially. 

By this time, more Americans took to the highways than ever before. Interstate roadways 

developed since the 1920s were refined, automobiles were nearly perfected, fuel was 

inexpensive, and families enjoyed surplus incomes. As mining, ranching, and agriculture 

declined, southeastern Utah's tourism industry expanded. Arches National Monument was turned 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-20 

into a National Park, and was joined by Canyonlands (Pierson 1980:101). The completion of the 

Glen Canyon Dam in 1963 created a vast manmade reservoir that attracts fishermen, houseboat 

and water sport enthusiasts. 

With tourism came a need for more federal employees to play host to visitors and, as a result, a 

new economy began to form. Support industries evolved in and around population centers and 

along highways. The trends following the 1950s have not changed dramatically, but continue to 

expand as southeastern Utah becomes an increasingly popular location for residents of Salt Lake 

City, Denver, and surrounding areas who frequently visit the valley for mountain biking, 

climbing, off-road vehicle recreation, and sight seeing. The economy of San Juan County, 

derived primarily from use of public lands, has become more than a regional issue. General 

concern from environmental interest groups, outdoor recreationists, and community leaders 

seeking to enhance the interests of their residents has resulted in numerous attempts to sway 

national law in one direction or another. As these issues are refined through discussion, San Juan 

County's population follows seasonal fluctuations dictated by the peaks and valleys of the tourist 

industry. 

3.3.3 ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA 

The history and concerns of individual tribes and tribal groups are detailed and complex and 

beyond the scope of summary in this document. A separate, comprehensive ethnographic 

overview is being prepared in conjunction with the current updating of the Monticello FO 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) and will provide field office cultural resource specialists and 

managers with in-depth descriptions of the claims to, concerns about, and importance ascribed to 

lands within the Monticello PA (Molenaar et al. [in progress]). This stand-alone document will 

be a companion to the new RMP and will be used in making decisions regarding land uses 

contained in or permitted by the RMP. 

For the purpose of this chapter, ethnographic summaries and a discussion of potential site types 

to which tribes may ascribe religious or cultural values are provided in the following sections. 

These summaries outline what is currently known about concerns individual tribes have 

regarding management of lands within the Monticello PA and note the types of resources that 

have been identified as sacred or of traditional importance to the individual tribes. 

3.3.3.1 UTE MOUNTAIN UTE AND WHITE MESA UTES

The aboriginal territory of the Ute once covered an extensive area that included what is now 

Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. Of the 3 bands that make up the Southern Ute populations 

(Muache, Capote, Weenuche), the Weenuche (Ute Mountain Utes and White Mesa Utes) 

inhabited the Monticello PA. They ranged from the Dolores River in the east, to the Colorado 

River in the north and west, to the San Juan River in the south. There are few diagnostic 

indicators, such as distinctive pottery or wickiup sites, which provide proof of Ute occupation in 

the San Juan region of Utah and Colorado. Utes tended to utilize existing structures and leave 

few cultural markers behind upon leaving an area. However, ethnographic data place the Utes in 

the San Juan region at least since the 1500s. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-21 

Utes place religious and traditional importance on many land features throughout southeastern 

Utah. Significant places of traditional use include Water Canyon or River-Flowing-From the 

Sunrise (San Juan River), Sagebrush Canyon or Crows Canyon (Montezuma Canyon), Slick 

Rock Mound (Comb Ridge), Two Rocks Canyon (Cow Canyon), Where-the-Sun-Sets-Last 

(Mount Tukuhnikivats in the La Sal Mountains). Bitter Root Mountain (Sleeping Ute Mountain) 

and the Colorado River are mythical places. Blue Mountain and Standing-Alone-Mountain 

(Navajo Mountain) are considered to be places of worship to the Utes. Mancos (Jim) Mesa and 

Spanish Mossback Mesas were used in historic times as Ute fortresses in times of conflict 

(McPherson and Yazzie 2000). Historically, the Bear Dance, a spring ceremony symbolic of 

nature's awakening, was performed in Bluff, Montezuma Canyon, and Allen Canyon. Today the 

ceremony takes place in the fall in White Mesa; however, the Utes may ascribe cultural 

significance to these historic ceremony locations. 

3.3.3.2 PAIUTE TRIBES

San Juan County is considered to be on the periphery of traditional Paiute territory that extended 

across southern Utah and Nevada, northern Arizona, and down along the western side of the 

Colorado River into California. The Monticello PA is east and north of traditional Paiute 

territory, although the San Juan Band Paiutes may have used resources along the San Juan River 

in what is now the boundary between San Juan County and the Navajo Reservation (Kelly and 

Fowler 1986; McPherson and Yazzie 2000). There are no known places of religious or 

traditional importance to the Paiute on lands managed by the Monticello FO. The Paiute Indian 

Tribe of Utah has indicated an interest in the traditional plant usage of the San Juan region. 

3.3.3.3 THE HOPI TRIBE

The Hopi have rich oral traditions that tell of Hopi clan migrations throughout the Southwest, 

including southern Utah (Schroeder 1985). Archaeological evidence places the Hopi's ancestors 

originally within the San Juan region of the Southwest. Sometime during the end of the 1200s, a 

prolonged drought forced these people to move away from the area towards the north, west, 

south, and east. After several generations, the people continued their migrations, eventually 

settling on the southern escarpment of Black Mesa in northeastern Arizona. In present times, 

Hopi clans continue to inhabit and practice agriculture in Black Mesa country (Ferguson et al. 

1993; Brew 1979; Courlander 1971). 

Places of religious and traditional importance for the Hopi have not been identified in the 

Monticello PA. However, the Hopi claim to be culturally affiliated with the occupants of 

prehistoric places such as habitation sites, pictograph sites, or petroglyph sites. These occupants 

are known in the scientific community as Paleoindian, Archaic, Fremont, and Anasazi but are 

known to the Hopi as Motisinom (First People) and Hisatsinom (Ancient Ancestors) (Ferguson 

1997; Newton 1999). The Hopi Cultural Preservation Office does claim cultural affiliation to 

archaeological sites within the Monticello PA. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-22 

3.3.3.4 PUEBLO OF ZUNI

The Pueblo of Zuni is located in a part of western central New Mexico that has been inhabited by 

ancestors of the Zuni since A.D. 700 or 800 (Woodbury 1979). Like the Hopi, the Pueblo of Zuni 

claims traditional cultural use of areas far from their present-day reservation (Ferguson and Hart 

1985). The Zuni claim stewardship over all lands upon which they hunted, collected materials 

such as plants and minerals, or traveled regularly to trade. Zuni forbearers especially journeyed 

great distances for the purpose of collecting materials for ceremonial purposes. Traditional 

hunting and gathering areas extended as far south as the Mogollon and Gallo Mountains in 

southwestern New Mexico and westward into Arizona (Ferguson and Hart 1985). It should be 

noted that this area does not extend into present-day Utah; however, like the Hopi, the Zuni 

claim cultural affiliation to the Paleoindian, Archaic, Anasazi, and Fremont peoples (Pueblo of 

Zuni 1995). Therefore, all prehistoric or ancestral Puebloan sites within the Monticello PA are 

considered by the Zuni as places of traditional importance (Panteah and Zuni Cultural Resources 

Advisory Team 1997). 

3.3.3.5 NAVAJO NATION

Navajos are believed to have entered the southwest during the mid-to-late 1500s and into 

southern Utah by the 1700s. Their traditional lands covered the area bounded by the 4 sacred 

mountains that are of primary religious and sacred significance to the Navajo: Blanca Peak, 

Mount Taylor, the San Francisco Peaks, and the La Plata Mountains (Maryboy and Begay 2000). 

Today, the Navajo presently occupy a reservation that is roughly 25,000 square miles and covers 

much of northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and a small portion of southern Utah. 

The northern border of the Navajo Reservation borders the Monticello PA. 

The earliest known Navajo site in San Juan County is a hogan in White Canyon, west of Bear's 

Ears, dating to 1620. Early Navajo expansion into the Monticello PA is also supported by a 

Navajo petroglyph at Bluff, Utah, which is in an eighteenth-century style. Navajos also attach 

cultural significance to 3 mountains in Utah that are mentioned in Navajo rite-myths: Dzil Diloi

(Abajo Peaks), Naatsisaan (Navajo Mountain), and Shash Jaa (Bear's Ears) (Gilpin 2001; 

Packak et al. 1992). Recently, the Navajo claimed the Colorado River watershed, including the 

Green River, as a place of religious and traditional importance based on creation stories 

(Molenaar 2003c). 

3.3.3.6 PUEBLO OF JEMEZ

The Towa-speaking Jemez people are thought to have migrated with the ancestors of the Zia into 

the Jemez Mountains around A.D. 1250, eventually settling into the valley along the Jemez River 

(Ford et al. 1972; Ellis 1956; Sando 1982). Jemez people believe that their ancestors came into 

this world at Hoa-sjela, or Stone Lake, a place located on the present-day Jicarilla Apache 

Reservation in northwestern New Mexico (NAU and SWCA 1996). Although no places of 

religious or traditional importance to the Pueblo of Jemez have been identified in the Monticello 

PA, Jemez religious leaders are thought to have made treks to an emergence shrine at "Banana 

Mountain" which may be another name for Sleeping Ute Mountain (Ellis 1967:40). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-23 

3.3.3.7 PUEBLO OF ZIA

The Zia are thought to have migrated southward from southwestern Colorado into the Greater 

Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon regions and claim both areas as ancestral homes. By the late 

1300s, Zians had settled in a series of sites along the Jemez River, where they eventually settled 

(Ellis 1956, 1967). The Zia pueblo originally consisted of 5 villages in the 1500s, but their 

numbers were reduced following the Pueblo Revolt of 1689. Today, the Zia Pueblo consists of 

one village and two separate land parcels, is presently situated along the Jemez River, 30 miles 

north of Albuquerque. The Pueblo of Zia, like other Puebloans, claim cultural affiliation to 

prehistoric cultures of southeastern Utah based on ancestral migration and origin stories. The 

Pueblo of Zia has consulted with the Monticello FO on cultural resource issues but has not 

identified any places of religious or traditional importance. 

3.3.3.8 PUEBLO OF ACOMA

Acoma is a Keresan-speaking pueblo located 20 miles southeast of Grants in north-central New 

Mexico. Prehistoric Acoma culture ranged from the plains of eastern New Mexico, to the Zuni 

Mountains in the west, to the Rio Puerco in the east, and to the north of Mount Taylor (Holmes 

1989). Like other Puebloans, Acoma oral traditions tell of their ancestors as having emerged 

from under the earth at Shipap, their place of origin in the north. Archaeological data such as 

pottery dating and oral traditions hold that Acoma has been occupied since prehistoric times, 

possibly as early as A.D. 700 (Ruppe 1990; Ruppe and Dittert 1952) with a later mix of migrants 

arriving from Mesa Verde, Chaco Canyon, and possibly the Gila and Cebolleta regions around 

A.D. 1300 (Horr 1974; Ellis 1974). Like other Puebloans, the Pueblo of Acoma claims cultural 

affiliation to prehistoric cultures of southeastern Utah based on their migration stories. The 

Pueblo of Acoma has consulted with the Monticello FO on cultural issues but has not identified 

any places of religious or traditional importance. 

3.3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW

More than 25,000 cultural resource sites have been documented thus far in all of San Juan 

County. An estimated 60–65% of all of these sites are located on public lands, with the majority 

of these being under the jurisdiction of the BLM Monticello FO. The BLM's management 

responsibility for the archaeological record of San Juan County grows significantly each year. 

During the 16 years since the completion of the existing RMP (BLM 1991a), an average of 450 

new cultural resource sites have been documented each year in San Juan County. Most of these 

sites were identified as a result of the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966 (NHPA) associated with applications for use of public lands. In order to make sound 

management decisions regarding land uses, cultural resource specialists and managers within the 

Monticello PA must understand how cultural resources are distributed across the landscape, 

which types of cultural resources are present within the FO PA, and which portions of the FO PA 

have been subject to cultural resource inventories, and which areas have not. At the present time, 

no comprehensive overview of known cultural resource sites and cultural resource survey 

projects conducted to-date within the Monticello PA exists. The Monticello FO recognizes the 

need for such an overview and is currently pursuing its preparation in conjunction with the RMP 

revision. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-24 

While thousands of cultural resource sites may be found eligible for listing on the NRHP, only 

an extremely small percentage are ever actually formally nominated and listed on the Register. 

Of the known sites within the Monticello PA, 7 are listed on the NRHP as either individual 

entities or as part of a larger archaeological district or National Historic Landmark. Table 3.6 

summarizes these sites. 

Table 3.6. National Register–listed Sites and Districts, National Historic Landmarks, and 

National Monuments within the Monticello PA 

Site Number/Name Year 

Designated 

Acreage 

Included Status 

Alkali Ridge 1985 2,340 acres National Historic Landmark 

Big Westwater Ruin 1974 < 1 acre National Register–listed site 

Hole-in-the-Rock Trail, Dance 

Hall Rock 

1980 40,300 acres 

linear corridor 

National Register–listed site 

Sand Island Petroglyph Panel 1980 < 1 acre National Register–listed site 

Newspaper Rock Petroglyph 

Panel 

1976 < 1 acre National Register–listed site 

Butler Wash 1981 2,025 acres National Register–listed 

archaeological district 

Grand Gulch 1982 4,240 acres National Register–listed 

archaeological district 

While there have been many inventories for cultural resources in the Monticello PA, there are 

significant gaps in the database that have increased the difficulty in management of these 

resources. These limitations include large unsurveyed areas where there is no current knowledge 

about cultural resources, gaps in the database of particular site types, and research-related data 

limitations. Despite the many cultural resource inventories within the Monticello FO PA, the 

total percentage of the area covered has been relatively small. While a systematic audit of 

surveyed and as-yet unsurveyed lands within the Monticello PA is beyond the scope of this 

document, a cursory review of previous project location mapping available at the Utah State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) suggests that less than 10% of all BLM lands within the 

Monticello FO PA have been subjected to intensive-level cultural resource inventories. As a 

consequence, there are still large areas for which there is no current information regarding the 

numbers, types, and distribution of cultural resources. 

Further, the majority of previous cultural resource inventories within the FO PA have been 

driven by Section 106 compliance related to specific development or land-use projects. These 

inventories have addressed discrete locations and have typically resulted in the "clearance" of 

small parcels of land and narrow linear corridors. As such, much of the current understanding of 

site types and their distributions, as well as of prehistoric and historical land-use patterns, is 

based on piecemeal information gleaned from this patchwork of small, disparate surveys. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-25 

3.3.5 POTENTIAL TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES 

Consultation with Native Americans can result in the identification of traditional cultural 

properties (TCPs), which are physical locations of importance to the cultural identity or history 

of a living community of people today. Based on previous consultations with tribal 

organizations, the following TCP site types have the potential for being identified in the 

Monticello PA. 

3.3.5.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 

Many Native American groups claim affiliation with prehistoric archaeological sites such as rock 

art, burials, and village sites. The Hopi Tribe, for example, claims that often the exact locations 

of some of these places, such as ancestral archaeological sites and burials, are unknown to tribes 

until these sites are identified by Hopi cultural experts during ethnographic or ethnohistoric 

investigations or by archaeologists during archaeological investigations of a given study area. 

Not only do the Hopi consider these sites to be TCPs, they also believe that they are historic 

properties eligible for inclusion on the National Register under Criteria A, B, C, and D for the 

following reasons: 

• Criterion A because they are associated with the Hopi clan migrations, which have made a 

significant contribution to the broad patterns of Hopi history. 

• Criterion B because they are "associated directly with Ma'saw and the Hopis' covenant to 

leave their footprints across the land." 

• Criterion C because "ancestral archaeological sites, that may be individually anonymous, 

are identified as part of the great clan migration that are central to all that is Hopi." 

• Criterion D because they have yielded or have the potential to yield information important 

to Hopi prehistory (Ferguson 1997; Hopi Cultural Preservation Office 1995). 

Other tribes also consider ancient Native American archaeological sites as places of traditional 

importance. For example, the Zuni have identified all "ancestral" archaeological sites as places of 

traditional importance, as well as being eligible for inclusions on the National Register (Anyon 

1995; Hart 1993:40). They say that these sites meet Criteria A and B (as outlined in National 

Register Bulletin 15) because of their association with the Zuni ancestors and their oral migration 

histories (Panteah and Zuni Cultural Resources Advisory Team 1997). The Utes also consider 

some of these sites to be culturally significant and sacred and maintain that the spirit of their 

ancestors dwell at archaeological sites and will remain as long as the sites are not disturbed 

(Newton 1999; Perlman 1998). Recently, a spiritual leader of the Uintah and Ouray Ute Tribe 

has stated that the disturbance of significant archaeological sites is leading to the destruction of 

Ute religion and diminishing the power of the spirits that remain at these sites (Molenaar 2003a). 

3.3.5.2 ROCK ART SITES

Many tribes have strong spiritual convictions regarding petroglyphs and pictographs and usually 

request that these sites not be disturbed, especially if the site was created with the intention of 

connecting with a spiritual or natural power. Many Ute and Puebloan groups also believe that 

rock art created by their ancestors retains the spirits of their ancestors. The Hopi Cultural 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-26 

Preservation Office has ascribed cultural values to Fremont rock art panels as far north as Nine 

Mile Canyon in the Price Field Office area (Molenaar 2003b). 

Rock art panels are also seen by tribes as physical evidence of Native American land use 

indicating territorial boundaries, hunting and camping sites, and trail or migration markers. It is 

generally accepted by Native Americans that some panels depict tribal stories and legends and 

that only those with special cultural knowledge can interpret them. In the past, Utes have derived 

spiritual powers and authority from special petroglyph panels for their Bear Dances (Spangler 

1995:775). In the course of Section 106 consultations, the Uintah and Ouray Ute Tribe often 

request one-half mile buffers around rock art panels, if possible (Molenaar 2003b). 

3.3.5.3 ROCK SHELTERS

Rock shelters and cave sites located within the Monticello PA can potentially be identified as 

TCPs. These locations include overhangs, crevices, and cave sites and are significant to Native 

Americans as ancestral dwellings. These site types are also potential ancestral grave sites for the 

Ute Tribe (Pettit 1990). These sites also may be identified as places where Native Americans 

communicated with the supernatural world by means of prayer, offerings, and vision quests 

(Molenaar 2003a). 

3.3.5.4 NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TYPES

Non-archaeological site types are distinguished from archaeological site types in order to discuss 

places that are not necessarily associated with prehistoric or historic artifact assemblages and 

collections. These sites are typically identified by tribal representatives during the governmentto-government consultation process that is required of federal agencies. Some common site types 

are lakes and springs, land features, and traditional gathering or collection areas. 

3.3.5.4.1 LAKES AND SPRINGS

Native Americans often claim places of water as places of traditional importance and have 

traditional stories about mythical beings or water spirits that live in lakes, springs, and rivers. 

The Colorado River and its tributaries have sacred significance to the Navajo. The Colorado, 

Green, and Price rivers have been identified as sacred to the Navajo because they come from 

natural spring water and also because the Colorado River flows from the north and can be 

associated with some of the Navajo creation stories. According to the Navajo, when the Green 

River is impacted, the cultural integrity of the spring water is affected, which in turn affects 

traditional procurement use values (Molenaar 2003c). 

3.3.5.4.2 TRADITIONAL GATHERING OR COLLECTION AREAS

Traditional plant or other resource gathering areas may be places of traditional importance to 

Native American groups. These areas are generally places where Native Americans go to collect 

resources such as medicinal plants used and minerals to be used in ceremonies and are often in 

current use when identified. Within the Monticello PA, such resources include green willow 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-27 

found in riparian areas throughout the FO, and a variety of other plant resources, including 

firewood, gathered from Cedar Mesa (Molenaar et al. 2005). 

3.3.5.4.3 LAND FEATURES

Large geographic regions, such as deserts, mountain ranges, and valleys are often identified as 

TCPs but none have been formally documented as such. Examples of such types of places near 

the Monticello PA are Sleeping Ute Mountain and the Henry Mountains. 

3.3.6 DESIGNATED ACECS WITH CULTURAL RESOURCE VALUES

Under the existing RMP (BLM 1991a), approximately 362,920 acres were designated as ACECs 

based upon combinations of the use categories described above (see Table 3.7). Additionally, 

clusters of sites comprising approximately 357,780 acres were identified as desirable for 

nomination to the National Register as archaeological districts, primarily for their scientific and 

conservation use values (Table 3.7). Four cultural resource sites comprising a total of 13 acres 

were identified as desirable for nomination to the National Register as individual listings owing 

primarily to their allocation to the scientific, conservation, and traditional use value categories 

(Table 3.8). 

Management of the Grand Gulch area and Cedar Mesa ACEC is currently governed by the 

Grand Gulch Plateau Cultural and Recreation Area Management Plan (BLM 1993c). This plan 

provides for: 1) the formation of a PA archaeological committee to identify important research 

questions relevant to the archaeological record of the area; 2) active consultation with the Navajo 

Tribe, Ute Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Zuni Tribe, All Pueblo Council, San Juan County Historical 

Society, and Four Corners Heritage Council; 3) archaeological surveys based on the likelihood of 

impacts to National Register eligible sites; 4) stabilization of select ruins; 5) restrictions on and 

issuance of special area use permits for commercial and non-commercial use; 6) the development 

of an interpretive plan to educate visitors about the cultural resources of the area; 7) monitoring 

to assess impacts to archaeological resources; and 8) development of a public affairs plan related 

to the area. Specific management prescriptions are also outlined for individual units within the 

larger FO PA. 

Table 3.7. ACECs with Cultural Resource Values Designated by the Monticello FO 

ACEC 

Name 

Year 

Designated 

Acreage 

Included Justification 

Alkali Ridge 1991 35,890 acres Significant diversity of cultural sites; large Pueblo I 

sites (A.D. 700–900) in this area are part of the Alkali 

Ridge NHL. Large pueblos with complex architecture 

and connecting prehistoric roads are included in this 

diverse cultural landscape. This unique Historic 

Landmark is significant in the history of archaeology 

in the southwestern U.S. This ACEC has high 

scientific and conservation use values. 

Cedar Mesa 1991 323,760 acres This ACEC contains a wide array of cultural 

resources reflecting most of the history of human use 

of southeastern Utah. Basket Maker -Pueblo I 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-28 

Table 3.7. ACECs with Cultural Resource Values Designated by the Monticello FO 

ACEC 

Name 

Year 

Designated 

Acreage 

Included Justification 

interface sites (pre–A.D. 1 to A.D. 700), terminal 

Pueblo III occupations (ca. A.D. 1300), plastered 

rooms in buildings associated with the Pueblo III 

occupations (A.D. 1100 to 1300), prehistoric roads, 

the historic Hole-in-the-Rock Trail, and pioneer era 

sites are all represented within this ACEC. The ACEC 

also has high Native American traditional uses and 

values as well as scientific, conservation, and public 

values. 

Shay 

Canyon 

1991 1,770 acres This ACEC contains significant rock art associated 

with Archaic and Pueblo motifs as well as important 

paleontological resources including at least one 

dinosaur track way. The ACEC has high public and 

conservation use values. 

Hovenweep 1991 1,500 acres This ACEC contains large structural Pueblo II–Pueblo 

III sites (A.D. 850–1300), a terminal Pueblo III 

occupation (ca. A.D. 1300) as well as evidence of 

interaction with the Mesa Verde Anasazi population. 

The ACEC has high scientific, public, and 

conservation use values. 

Table 3.8. Sites and Districts Identified in the 1991 RMP for 

National Register Listing 

Name Acreage Included Site or District 

San Juan Prehistoric Roads 500 acres District 

Cedar Mesa 349,640 acres District 

Fable Valley 5,030 acres District 

Tin Cup Mesa 2,610 acres District 

Ruin Spring 10 acres Site 

Kachina Panel 1 acre Site 

Monarch Cave 1 acre Site 

Three Story Ruin 1 acre Site 

3.4 FIRE MANAGEMENT

3.4.1 INTRODUCTION AND RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The Monticello PA is within the BLM Moab Fire District, which consists of approximately 6.5 

million acres of public land interspersed with state, private, and other federally regulated lands 

throughout Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan counties. The divergent elevations throughout 

the area support a wide range of vegetation and soil types including riparian areas, forested high 

mountain watersheds, grasslands and shrublands, and sparse, arid desert sands. During a normal 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-29 

fire year the entire district averages 100 wildfires resulting in 10,000 to 16,000 acres each year of 

burned and potentially damaged land. Most fire activity occurs in the eastern half of the district, 

although fires can occur in almost all areas of each field office. In the 25-year period between 

1980 and 2005, approximately 74% of wildland fires occurring in the entire Moab Fire District 

were caused by lightning. Prior to 1995, an average of 100 fires per year burned an average of 

10,000 acres per year. The past decade has shown a trend of increasing wildland fire, with an 

average of 130 fires each year burning an average of 16,000 acres each year. 

Wildland fire occurrence and size can depend on a range of factors including elevation, 

vegetative community, fuel moisture, precipitation and/or a lack of precipitation, the ability of 

fire to carry in specific types of vegetation, and other climate dynamics such as dry summer 

weather following a wet spring or extended periods of drought. Human-caused fires in the 

Monticello PA are negligible, but may occur near roads from vehicle ignitions and/or in camping 

areas outside of designated campsites such as along the San Juan River corridor. Resource values 

threatened by fire include recreation sites, oil/gas sites, cultural sites, watersheds, wildlife habitat 

and wildland-urban interface areas. High intensity fires that cover large acreages have occurred 

in almost all areas, although 90% of the wildland fires in the Moab Fire District are less than 10 

acres. Depending on climatic conditions, a typical fire season stretches from March through 

October with the peak occurring in the lightning-prone period from mid-June to mid-August. 

The Moab Fire District has a wide variety of fuel types comprised of numerous species such as 

grassland mixes, sagebrush and sage/grass, brushland/grass, pinyon/juniper, ponderosa pine, 

mountain brush, mixed conifer, and invasive species including cheatgrass, tamarisk and others. 

The affect of wildland fire or the absence of fire in these vegetative communities is closely tied 

to other public lands resources such as watersheds, soils, wildlife, and livestock grazing. 

Historically, fire was essential to a healthy ecosystem, providing the needed regeneration of 

some species and promoting diversity of other species in riparian areas, grasslands, shrublands, 

woodlands, and forests. The exclusion of fire over the past century, in combination with other 

land management practices, has compromised the health of many vegetative communities. Two 

of the predominant issues in the Monticello PA are the loss of shrubland and grassland 

communities to pinyon/juniper encroachment, and the spread of prolific invasive species. 

Communities surrounded by these compromised ecosystems are becoming increasingly 

susceptible to wildland fire with an accompanying threat to lives and property. Communities in 

need of management action to reduce the threat from wildland fire on adjacent public lands are 

identified as wildland-urban interface areas (WUIs). WUIs presently recognized within the 

Monticello PA include the communities of Blue Mountain Ranch, Natural Bridges, Bug Point, 

Cedar Point, Canyon Terrace, Boulder Point, Eastland, Ucolo, Summit Point, Montezuma 

Canyon, Bluff, Peter's Canyon, Blanding, and Monticello. 

Current fire management direction encourages wildland fire use and both fire and non-fire fuel 

reduction treatments to restore natural fire regimes and to promote the overall ecological health 

of public lands. The operational role of the Moab Fire District is multi-faceted and comprises 

wildland fire control and suppression activities, hazardous fuels reduction, wildland fire 

prevention and education, and collaboration with other agencies in suppression activities as well 

as in both WUI and non-WUI fuels reduction projects. The Monticello FO Manager authorizes 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-30 

management response to wildland fires within the Monticello PA, approves decisions for 

prescribed fire and non-fire fuels reduction treatments, and issues restrictions and closures within 

the Monticello PA during periods of high fire activity. 

3.4.2 SPECIFIC MANDATES AND AUTHORITY 

Fire management on BLM lands falls under several broad federal laws and regulations as 

outlined previously in this document (see Chapter 1), and is also directed by more specific 

legislation and policy. The following section discusses those mandates and authorities specific to 

BLM fire management. 

• The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (BLM 1995), revised as Federal Fire Policy 

(U.S. Department of the Interior 2001): Provides for firefighter and public safety first, while 

protecting and improving public lands through fire management activities. Reviewed in 

2001, improvements to implementation actions were recognized as necessary to ensure 

adoption of the Federal Fire Policy (USDI 2001) by all federal agencies. The review 

concluded that while the 1995 Policy is still appropriate, the role of fire should be 

emphasized in land management to improve ecosystem health and sustainability. Also, more 

attention must be given to fire risk in the wildland urban interface, and implementation of the 

Policy could be improved through better interagency and interdisciplinary coordination. 

• The National Fire Plan (USDI 2000): Developed under Presidential direction following the 

fires of 2000, calls for the continued development and support of firefighting resources, to 

restore damaged landscapes, and to rebuild communities, with economic assistance as 

necessary. 

• 2000 Cohesive Strategy (Laverty and Williams 2000): Aims to reduce wildland fire risk to 

communities and to restore and maintain ecosystem health by restoring vegetation to their 

historic fire regime (i.e., fire frequency and intensity). 

• Healthy Forests, An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities (signed by 

the President on August 22, 2002): Designed to improve regulatory processes to ensure more 

timely decisions and greater efficiency in the effort to reduce catastrophic wildland fire, 

especially in the wildland-urban interface. As a result of the initiative, in 2003 the 

Department of the Interior adopted two new categorical exclusions under NEPA: (1) 1.12 for 

hazardous fuel reduction and (2) 1.13 for post-fire rehabilitation of resources and 

infrastructure. 

• Healthy Forests Restoration Act (Public Law 108–148, December 2003): Crafted to improve 

statutory processes for hazardous-fuel reduction projects. Provides authorities and direction 

to help reduce hazardous fuels, especially in the wildland/urban interface, and to restore 

healthy forest and rangeland conditions. Encourages collaboration with other entities, early 

public involvement in the planning process, and monitoring of hazardous fuel reduction 

projects. 

• Southeastern Utah Annual Fire Operation Plan (prepared annually): Coordinates cooperation 

between other BLM districts, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

State of Utah, and NPS. Includes procedures for initial attack of a wildfire. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-31 

• Instruction Memorandum 2004–007: Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan Guidance for 

Wildland Fire Management (BLM 2003c), which supersedes BLM Handbook 1601-1 (BLM 

2005a) Appendix C, Section J, Fire Management. The interim guidance ensures Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy and 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy guidance are 

incorporated into land-use plans. 

• BLM Manual Handbook H-1742-1 (BLM 1999a) (and supplemental guidance 11/27/2002): 

Provides direction for emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR). 

• BLM Prescribed Fire Manual H-9214 (BLM 2000): Provides direction for planning and 

implementation of prescribed fire projects and associated prescribed fire plan content. 

• Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review H-8550-1 USDI (BLM 

1995) Section J, Fire Management: Provides direction for fire management activities in these 

specially managed areas. 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (Utah) Vegetation Treatment 

on BLM Lands in the Thirteen Western States (BLM 1991b): Directs the appropriate use of 

vegetation management techniques. 

• BLM Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management (2005g): Directs and 

coordinates BLM fire and fuels management statewide and amends individual field office 

RMPs. 

3.4.3 FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (FMP) acts as the primary strategic document for 

fire management in the Monticello PA (Map 3). The FMP integrates RMP direction, goals and 

objectives for resources influenced by wildland fire, suppression actions, fuels treatment 

activities, and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ES&R). The overlying goal of the 

FMP is to describe specific actions authorized on the public lands within the Moab Fire District 

to protect life and ensure public safety, target resource goals and objectives, reduce fuel loads, 

and to achieve and maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems. 

3.4.4 DESIRED WILDLAND FIRE CONDITION

The desired wildland fire condition (DWFC), as described in the Utah Land Use Plan 

Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management, incorporates both condition class and fire regime in 

the development of fire management strategies (BLM 2005g). The condition class of a vegetative 

community is defined in terms of its departure from the historic fire regime; determined by 

current vegetative composition including alterations and disturbances, and also by the length of 

fire return intervals within that particular community. Along with one of 3 possible condition 

classes, 5 combinations of fire frequency intervals or "fire regimes" are considered in assigning 

attributes to categorize a vegetative community's current condition. The combination of both of 

these measurements gives a vegetative community a fire regime/condition class rating or 

"FRCC." As the FRCC is an index of ecosystem at-risk conditions, the DWFC is the description 

of the desired condition of a vegetative community as it relates to susceptibility from severe fire 

effects (e.g., the loss of key ecosystem components—soil, vegetation structure, species; or 

alteration of key ecosystem processes—nutrient cycles, hydrologic regimes). For example, a 

healthy ecosystem at low risk of losing key ecosystem components following wildland fire 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-32 

would be considered at optimum DWFC. A lengthy description of fire regime, condition class 

analyses and historic fire return intervals can be found in Appendix D of the Utah Land Use Plan 

Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management (BLM 2005g). 

3.4.5 LANDSCAPE LEVEL MANAGEMENT

Fire management actions authorized for wildland fire activities, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel 

treatments, and ES&R are based on the DWFC. The Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire 

and Fuels Management (BLM 2005g) addresses specific fire management objectives for each 

major vegetation group, designed to result in progress toward the DWFC of public lands under 

the jurisdiction of the BLM. Specific actions designed to meet the DWFC are detailed in Table 

2.1 of the Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management and attached to this 

document as Appendix B. Vegetation groups and fire management objectives are briefly 

summarized below.2

3.4.5.1 SALT DESERT SHRUB

Salt desert shrub occurs over approximately 85,000 acres in the Monticello PA. The DWFC for 

this community is native, open salt desert shrub with little invasive species and fire exclusion 

because of the historical infrequent fire return interval. Management objectives include wildland 

fire suppression, no wildland fire use, a wide array of fuels treatments, and aggressive seeding in 

ES&R treatments. 

3.4.5.2 PINYON AND JUNIPER WOODLAND

Pinyon/juniper woodlands cover a large portion of the Monticello PA, with estimates averaging 

over one million acres on public lands. Objectives differ for those areas where pinyon and 

juniper did and did not occur historically. The DWFC in historic pinyon/juniper areas is open 

stands with grass and shrub understory. These areas historically experienced a fire return interval 

of 15–50 years, which prevented movement of pinyon/juniper into other vegetative communities. 

The DWFC in non-historic pinyon/juniper areas is the restoration of the vegetative community 

previous to pinyon/juniper encroachment. Management objectives include minimal suppression 

where possible to mimic natural fire return interval, wildland fire use where feasible, a wide 

array of fuel treatments, and aggressive seeding in ES&R treatments. 

3.4.5.3 SAGEBRUSH

Healthy sagebrush stands have declined throughout the Monticello PA, with an estimated 

170,000 acres remaining. The DWFC is diverse age class with grass and forbs understory. 

Management objectives involve a balance between invasive species concerns, wildlife habitat, 

and restoration of historic fire return interval. Objectives include wildland fire use when 

appropriate, full-spectrum fuel treatment, and aggressive seeding in ES&R. 

 

2

 Total acres by vegetation type presented in this section vary from those presented in the Vegetation section because the fire 

acreages were calculated using GAP and the vegetation acres were calculated using ReGAP. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-33 

3.4.5.4 GRASSLAND

Grasslands occur over approximately 13,000 acres of the Monticello PA. In historic native 

grassland areas, the DWFC is native grass/forbs community. Dependent upon other resource 

objectives, the DWFC in non-native grasslands is native grassland or shrub community. 

Management objectives consider historic fire return interval of 15–50 years and may include 

wildland fire use, prescribed fire and mechanical and chemical fuel treatments to reduce invasive 

grasses and encroachment by other trees/shrubs, and aggressive seeding in ESR. 

3.4.5.5 BLACKBRUSH

Blackbrush communities in Utah are thought to have poor regeneration following wildland fire. 

These communities cover approximately 300,000 acres of the Monticello PA, and management 

objectives include excluding wildland fire as well as prescribed fire and non-fire fuels 

treatments. 

3.4.5.6 MOUNTAIN SHRUB 

In the Monticello PA, mountain shrub areas cover approximately 6,500 acres. The DWFC in 

mountain shrub would be differing age classes in mosaic patterns with the exception of WUI 

areas. When possible, management objectives allow wildland fire to mimic historic fire return 

intervals. Fuels treatment of all types is encouraged to decrease the potential for high-severity 

fire. 

3.4.5.7 MIXED CONIFER/DOUGLAS FIR/ASPEN

Mixed conifer/Douglas fir and aspen woodlands cover less than 1,000 acres in specific areas 

within the Monticello PA. Healthy forests would include a grass/brush understory as well as 

differing age classes of trees. To achieve this, management objectives include allowing wildland 

fire where it is possible without high-severity fire and encouraging fuels treatment to retain age 

diversity, remove ladder fuels, and to reduce fuels where wildland-urban interface values are at 

risk. Preferred ES&R treatments include tree planting to promote forest regeneration. 

3.4.5.8 PONDEROSA PINE

There are approximately 1,000 acres of ponderosa pine forest in the Monticello PA, most of 

which is considered condition class 3 in need of treatment. The DWFC of a healthy ponderosa 

stand would be open stands with grass/forb understory and a diversity of age classes. 

Management objectives include allowing fire to play a natural role when possible by allowing 

fire, conducting mechanical fuels treatments, and consideration of seeding in ESR treatments. 

3.4.5.9 RIPARIAN WETLAND

Although this vegetative type covers less than 1% of the total acreage in the Monticello PA, 

overall it is a vital component. The DWFC of riparian wetland focuses on the reduction of 

invasives and the retention or restoration of the historic vegetative composition appropriate to the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-34 

site. Management objectives allow low-intensity fire in most riparian areas and encourage 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatment to restore native riparian and wetland species. Active as 

opposed to passive restoration would be the primary focus of ES&R treatments in riparian 

wetland areas. 

3.4.6 FIRE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES

Protection of human life, including the lives of firefighters committed to an incident, is the 

mandated priority for fire management activities. This priority overrides other strategies, actions, 

and RMP resource goals and objectives. The protection of human communities and 

infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources is based on 

human health and safety, and the costs of protection. Balancing priorities in fire management 

decisions considers the protection of WUI areas, the maintenance of existing healthy ecosystems, 

the protection of high priority subbasins or watersheds (HUC 4 or HUC 5), special status species, 

and/or cultural resources and landscapes. 

3.4.7 FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES TO MEET THE DWFC 

All BLM field offices were given national direction to establish general landscape level goals 

and objectives for fire management. Landscape level management goals incorporated into the 

Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management (BLM 2005g) that apply to the 

Monticello PA include: 

1. Establishing firefighter and public safety as the primary goal in all fire management 

decisions and actions. 

2. Using wildland fire to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and when possible allowing 

fire to assume a natural ecological role. 

3. Reducing hazardous fuels to protect human, natural and cultural resources as well as to 

restore ecosystems and protect communities. 

4. Suppressing fires according to resource objectives and with consideration for 

firefighter/public safety and other benefits and values to be protected. 

5. Providing a consistent, safe, and cost-effective fire management program through appropriate 

management of planning, staffing, training, and equipment. 

6. Establishing fire management units (FMUs) for acreages with burnable vegetation on all 

BLM-administered lands. 

7. Providing emergency stabilization, rehabilitation and restoration to protect and sustain 

resources, and to safeguard public health and safety as well as community infrastructure. 

8. Working with partners and other affected groups to reduce risks to communities and to 

restore healthy ecosystems. 

More specific resource objectives are incorporated in FMPs for individual field offices. To 

ascertain the most effective methods for achieving DWFC goals in each of the vegetative 

communities in Utah, fire management activities listed below were discussed and authorized in 

the decision record for the Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management 

(BLM 2005g). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-35 

3.4.7.1 SUPPRESSION

A wildland fire requires an appropriate management response or AMR. The AMR can range 

from full suppression to managing fire for resource benefit (wildland fire use). AMR is guided 

by the resource strategies, goals and objectives of the RMP with an emphasis on firefighter and 

public safety, benefits and values to be protected, and suppression costs. FMU objectives as 

described in the FMP would provide further guidance for an AMR. 

3.4.7.2 WILDLAND FIRE USE FOR RESOURCE BENEFIT

Wildland fire use may be an AMR to a naturally ignited wildland fire to accomplish specific 

resource management objectives in predefined designated areas. Operational management of 

wildland fire use for resource benefit is detailed in a Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP). 

Due to resource condition (FRCC) and proximity to values at risk, wildland fire for resource 

benefits is not acceptable on all BLM lands within the Monticello PA. As the DWFC of 

resources move from a higher FRCC to a lower FRCC, wildland fire use for resource benefits in 

some FMUs may become more practicable. FMUs will be periodically reassessed by fire and 

fuels staff as well as by resource staff to ascertain changes in vegetation and potential for 

wildland fire use as a resource tool. 

3.4.7.3 PRESCRIBED FIRE AND NON-FIRE FUELS TREATMENTS

Prescribed fire and non-fire treatments are used for hazardous fuels reduction and for community 

protection from wildland fire. Treatments are also implemented to accomplish resource goals and 

objectives such as wildlife and range improvements. Treatment projects and acreages are 

determined through RMP goals and objectives. 

Approximately 90% of all non-fire treatment acres are mechanical and/or seedings. Chemical 

and biological treatments comprise less than 10% of total non-fire treatment acreages. 

Limitations in applying prescribed fire to meet fuels reduction targets include the condition of 

vegetation (i.e., aggressive non-native species invasion, or extended periods of drought), air 

quality restrictions, restrictions on motorized access, budget allocations, personnel capabilities, 

risk, policy and guidance, and social acceptability. 

3.4.7.4 EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions following wildland fire may be implemented 

to protect and sustain resources, and to safeguard public health and safety as well as community 

infrastructure. All ES&R activities following wildland fire in the Monticello PA would be 

implemented following the Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Handbook (BLM 1999a) and 

treatments would be designed according to the Normal Year Fire Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

Plan (NFRP) for the Moab Fire District, of which the Monticello Planning Area is a part.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.5 Health and Safety 

3-36 

3.4.7.5 MONITORING

Monitoring actions would quantify results from fire management decisions and activities. 

Monitoring conclusions could be used to determine the need for additional or different activities, 

revisions to the FMP and/or NFRP, or amendments to the RMP. 

3.4.8 SUMMARY

National fire management policy has changed and advanced over the past several years in 

response to increased fatalities, property loss, local economic disruptions and the risk to 

ecosystems associated with severe wildland fire seasons and increasing WUI conflicts. Because 

of the imperative to immediately incorporate national and interagency direction into BLM fire 

management, the Utah BLM amended several BLM land-use plans to include fire management 

direction and current scientific understanding regarding the nature of fire in the ecosystem. The 

Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels (BLM 2005g) is a lengthy document with an 

accompanying biological opinion from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFS). Although it 

remains a separate document, fire and fuels management direction contained within the 

amendment is incorporated by reference in this RMP in its entirety, along with all appendices, 

tables, and attachments. Also incorporated into this RMP are the resource protection measures 

(RPMs) identified through the LUP Amendment process that were determined necessary to 

protect natural or cultural resource values in the implementation of fire management practices. 

Fire management direction, activities, and objectives that affect the resources within the 

Monticello PA are summarized above. Specific goals and objectives for resources within the 

Monticello PA that are determined in this RMP and that may alter or augment the current 

decisions for fire and fuels management as dictated by the Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for 

Fire and Fuels Management (BLM 2005g) will be analyzed in Chapter 4 of this document. 

3.5 HEALTH AND SAFETY

3.5.1 INTRODUCTION

A priority in land management for the Monticello FO is ensuring health and human safety on its 

public lands. The BLM's goals are to effectively manage hazardous materials and safety hazards 

on the public lands to protect the health and safety of public land users and stewards, protect the 

natural and environmental resources, minimize future hazardous and related risks, costs and 

liabilities, and to mitigate physical hazards in compliance with all applicable law, regulation, and 

policy. These goals stem from the BLM's response to the finding of the National Research 

Council, Committee to Evaluate the Hazardous Materials Program of the Bureau of Land 

Management (the Committee). In 1992, the Committee recommended that the BLM "...integrate 

hazard management activities into BLM's continuing land-use planning and environmental 

functions." Accordingly, BLM follows its national, state, and local contingency plans as they 

apply to emergency responses. These plans are also consistent with federal and state laws and 

regulations. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.5 Health and Safety 

3-37 

3.5.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Hazardous materials are generally defined as a usable product or substance that may cause harm 

to humans, natural resources, or the environment when spilled, released, or physically contacted. 

Hazardous materials are used in every day activities and may be in the form of a solid, liquid, or 

gas. Regardless of their physical state, hazardous materials may be toxic, flammable, 

combustible, reactive, and/or corrosive. When used and stored properly, associated risks are 

minimized or eliminated. 

Physical hazards that pose a threat to the health and safety of humans or animals (e.g., 

abandoned mine sites, abandon structures, dams, earthquakes, floods, discarded solid waste, etc.) 

are responsibilities under this program. 

Hazardous materials problems within the Monticello PA can result from programs conducted by 

state and local governments, by local businesses and industries, and/or by illegal dumping of 

hazardous materials on lands administered by the BLM. There are no approved hazardous 

material dumps or repositories within the Monticello PA. 

3.5.2.1 POTENTIAL HAZARDS

The various producers of hazardous waste pose a potential impact to the health and safety of area 

residents and visitors, and to the physical environment itself. Both commercial and illegal 

activities can lead to the creation of hazardous waste sites. Spills, illegal dumping, and the 

discovery of abandoned hazardous materials are probable within the Monticello PA boundaries. 

Contaminants from these sites can pose an imminent threat to public safety and negatively 

impact the environment by impacting soils, ground water flows, air quality, and water quality. 

The following paragraphs discuss the area's potential hazardous material generators within the 

Monticello PA. 

Oil and Gas Drilling Operations

Oil and gas drilling operations are a major user and producer of hazardous materials within the 

Monticello PA. Potentially hazardous materials or substances typically used in drilling and 

completion operations are listed in Table 3.9. These substances are contained by the operator and 

disposed of in a licensed commercial disposal facility. Oil and gas operations are exempt from 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as oil or gas products become subject to 

RCRA only after they have been purchased from the oil and gas operator. Oil and gas operations 

are required to have an emergency response protocol to manage hazardous materials during 

production and transportation. 

Table 3.9. Typical Hazardous Materials Used in Well Drilling and Completion Operations 

Hazardous Material or Substance Use 

Sodium hydroxide pH control 

Diesel fuel Engine fuel while drilling 

Methanol Surfactant 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.5 Health and Safety 

3-38 

Table 3.9. Typical Hazardous Materials Used in Well Drilling and Completion Operations 

Hazardous Material or Substance Use 

Hydrochloric acid Acidizing agent 

Acetic acid Acidizing agent 

Formaldehyde Acidizing 

Ethylene glycol Coolant/dehydration 

Benzene, hexane Natural gas condensate 

Lead, cobalt, barium, and manganese compounds Paints (various types) 

Zinc and copper compounds Grease and lubrication oil 

Propane Fuel 

Source: BLM 2005j. 

Well fires are rare but could occur under favorable conditions, and a well fire could result from a 

blowout during drilling or workover activities from a gas leak Conditions that would cause gas 

accumulation in a confined space, and ignition by a spark would likely produce a well fire. Well 

fires and explosions during and after drilling operations are a potential health and safety risk, but 

there have been no reported well fires within the Monticello PA since 1990 (personal 

communication between Jeff Brown, Monticello FO, and Laura Burch, SWCA on September 5, 

2006). Regulations, proposals for operations, Applications for Permits to Drill or Conditions of 

Approval provide well control measures to minimize blowouts and fires. 

Oil and Natural Gas Pipelines

There are several major natural gas pipelines within the Monticello PA along with numerous 

secondary pipelines. Operators of the major pipelines include Williams, Anadarko Petroleum, 

and EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. Hazardous materials associated with natural gas pipelines 

include emissions from compressor stations, and benzene and hexane from natural gas 

condensates. Pipeline accidents have been infrequent in the county, but a possibility of accidents 

remains due to a number of factors including earthquake, landslide, flood, dam failures, wild fire 

and man-made causes (San Juan County 2002a). Please see San Juan County's Hazardous 

Materials Emergency Response Plan (HMERP) for locations of pipelines. 

Within the Monticello PA, water, natural gas, and oil pipeline leakages or ruptures have been 

occurring annually, with an average of 2 to 3 incidences per year. The leakages or ruptures often 

occur close to the well pads. They are repaired and cleaned up by the operator, and contaminated 

soil is taken to appropriate treatment facilities on BLM-administered or private lands (personal 

communication between Jeff Brown, Monticello FO, and Laura Burch, SWCA on September 5, 

2006). 

Major transportation pipeline design, materials, maintenance, and abandonment procedures are 

required to meet the standards set forth in U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations 

(49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural Gas by Pipelines). Further construction 

specifications are recommended for safety and are available through the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME-31.8) and the American Petroleum Institute (API Standard 1004). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.5 Health and Safety 

3-39 

Mining Operations 

Mining operations are currently a minor user and producer of hazardous materials within the 

Monticello PA. While the majority of mining operations in the Monticello PA are no longer 

active, a few operations are currently in production including the Lisbon Valley Copper Mine 

(under Moab FO jurisdiction) and the White Mesa Uranium Mill. Potentially hazardous materials 

or substances typically used in mining and processing operations may include those items listed 

in Table 3.9. As with oil and gas operations, these substances are contained by the operator and 

disposed of in a licensed commercial disposal facility. Performance standards for mining 

operations, including environmental standards, are regulated by 43 CFR 3809.420, RCRA and its 

implementing regulations in 40 CFR 240-282, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Additionally, mine site reclamation must 

address hazardous materials to comply with state law, UCA-40-8-2(3). Abandoned mine 

reclamation is discussed later as a specific safety hazard within the Monticello PA. 

Uranium Tailings

The White Mesa Mill, located in Blanding, Utah, currently receives, processes, and disposes of 

uranium-bearing waste material. The mill has been in operation for over 20 years and is owned 

by the International Uranium Corporation. 

Fry Canyon is an abandoned uranium mill site located in central San Juan County. The site is 

under the BLM's jurisdiction and has not yet been reclaimed. 

Storage Tanks

The presence and use of aboveground storage tanks (AST) and underground storage tanks (UST) 

are regulated by the EPA and administered by the State of Utah. It is the responsibility of the 

operator to understand and comply with the EPA regulations that became effective on December 

22, 1998. Within the Monticello PA, storage tanks located on private lands include gasoline and 

fuel storage facilities, bulk propane and butane facilities and local propane service stations. ASTs 

on BLM-administered lands include oil, produced water and other chemicals. There are no 

known USTs on BLM lands within the PA. 

Landfills and Transfer Stations

Landfills are subject to regulation under the RCRA. Permitted landfills include those at 

Monticello and White Mesa (San Juan County Landfill). Transfer stations are located near Bluff, 

Mexican Hat, Blanding, Monticello and La Sal. Waste collection services by city and county 

vary with each community. Where solid waste collection is not provided, residents are required 

to take their solid waste to a nearby transfer station. 

San Juan County owns and manages the county landfill. By law the landfill cannot take in any 

hazardous waste to be buried in the landfill. Hazardous waste is anything flammable, toxic, 

reactive, or corrosive, such as pesticides, liquids, batteries, bio-medical wastes, used oil, PCBS, 

friable-asbestos, or radioactive waste. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.5 Health and Safety 

3-40 

Illegal Dumps

The remoteness of lands within the Monticello PA creates an opportunity for illegal dumping of 

hazardous materials and solid waste. If responsibility for the illegal dumping can be determined, 

then the information is reported to the appropriate authorities for prosecution. Protocol for 

removing illegally dumped hazardous material can be found in San Juan County's HMERP and 

the Monticello Field Office Contingency Plan. 

Small Businesses

The types of small businesses that generate or use hazardous materials include automotive, 

printing, and hospitals. These operations are regulated by the EPA and administered by the State 

of Utah. It is the responsibility of the business owner to understand and comply with EPA 

regulations. 

Transportation

Transportation accidents could lead to accidental spills and releases within the county. 

According to the county's HMERP, transportation releases pose the highest threat to the public 

and emergency responders. Trucks carrying hazardous materials use the county's major highway 

corridors, SR-191, SR-163 and SR-491 as transportation routes from El Paso, Texas, and 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Salt Lake City, Utah. Additionally, oil and gas development 

within the county requires the transportation of hazardous materials on many state and county 

roads. 

3.5.2.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

The Monticello FO Hazardous Materials Program is responsible for hazardous materials 

handling, storage, transport, and emergency response. In October 2002, the Monticello FO 

approved an HMERP that specified the necessary steps to begin an emergency response. There 

are also several state and federal mandates, authorities, and handbooks that provide the BLM 

with management guidelines, objectives and actions pertaining to hazardous materials 

management. The federal and state prescribed mandates ensure the field office's compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Management objectives identified within these documents include: 

• Protecting public health, safety, and the environment on public lands; 

• Identifying and controlling hazards or threats to human health and the environment from 

hazardous materials releases on public lands; 

• Ensuring that activities on public lands comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws, 

regulations, policies, and procedures; 

• Preventing hazardous waste contamination by BLM-authorized actions; and 

• Maintaining land health through assessment, cleanup, and reclamation of contaminated sites. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.5 Health and Safety 

3-41 

Management actions include: 

• Determining, through a pre-acquisition environmental assessment, the nature and extent of 

potential liability resulting from hazardous substances associated with property during 

acquisitions and disposals; 

• Reporting, securing, and cleaning up public lands within the Monticello PA that are 

contaminated with hazardous wastes in accordance with federal laws, regulations, and 

contingency plans; 

• Identifying parties responsible for hazardous waste contamination who are liable for cleanup 

and resource damage costs; 

• Identifying appropriate mitigation for surface-disturbing activities associated with hazardous 

materials and waste management; and 

• Following precautions to prevent hazardous waste releases into the environment, and 

providing adequate warning to potentially affected communities should such releases occur. 

3.5.3 ABANDONED MINES

The early mining practices in San Juan County were subject to minimal environmental 

regulations as was common with most mining districts throughout the West. Federal land 

management agencies had no requirements for reclamation of abandoned mines on public lands. 

Mine closures were often inadequate or non-existent. While many abandoned mines are small 

and their waste is inert, some abandoned mines are a threat to human health and the environment. 

Physical safety hazards associated with abandoned mines can also be a concern on public lands. 

According to the Monticello FO Mineral Potential Report, there are 17 mining districts within 

the Monticello PA. Within the mining districts, there may be between 1,000 to 1,500 abandoned 

openings (personal communication between Terry Snyder, BLM, and Laura Burch, SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, February 2, 2006). Areas with the highest concentration include 

Cottonwood Wash, Montezuma Canyon, Lisbon Valley, Red Canyon, White Canyon/Fry 

Canyon, Deer Flat, Elk Ridge, and the southern section of Indian Creek (BLM 2005b). 

3.5.3.1 POTENTIAL HAZARDS

Abandoned mine sites may pose hazards and risks to human health, the environment, and 

physical safety. Threats to health and the environment consist of: heavy metal contamination, 

metal contaminated tailings impoundments, stored chemicals, and leaking containers. Changes in 

the chemical composition or soil loss near abandoned mine land (AML) sites can result in 

alterations or loss of natural habitat for native wildlife. Abandoned mines may also impact 

ground water flows and water quality. The impacts to water quality are generally the result of 

contaminated sediments or metal salts that can affect human health, fisheries, wildlife, and 

vegetation. Air pollution from contaminated dust can occur on tailings impoundments and waste 

rock piles near abandoned mill sites. There may also be releases or potential releases of 

hazardous substances from waste materials and beyond AML sites. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-42 

Open mines are unstable; mine adits (horizontal openings or tunnels) may collapse, internal 

supports may fail, and mine shafts (vertical openings) and winzes (vertical connections between 

adits) may be obstructed or unseen. Oxygen can be at lethally low concentrations and toxic gases 

can be at high concentrations or capable of displacing oxygen. Exposure to radiation in the mine 

atmosphere, particularly radon gas, can be a hazard, especially in abandoned uranium mines. 

Many abandoned mines in southern Utah are potential sources of radiation. 

Water can be a hazard in flooded mines; shallow water can conceal winzes and sharp objects. 

Hazardous wastes, such as boxes or containers of explosives, and chemicals used in milling or 

drilling operations could be present. Illegal dumping of hazardous wastes within abandoned 

mines is also a possibility. 

3.5.3.2 ABANDONED MINE MANAGEMENT/RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES

The BLM has recently developed the AML program that addresses the environmental and safety 

hazards associated with AML sites on public lands. Once the sites are identified they are then 

prioritized, and appropriate actions are taken on the historic mine sites that pose health and safety 

risks. The BLM's priority for reclamation of environmentally contaminated sites is based on risk 

assessments that address threats to human health and the environment. For example, abandoned 

mine land sites that impact water quality are usually a greater concern and receive a higher 

priority for reclamation than those that do not impact water quality. 

In conformance with the BLM's long-term strategies and national policies regarding AML, this 

RMP recognizes the need to work with our partners toward identifying and addressing physical 

safety and environmental hazards at all AML sites on public lands. 

3.5.4 DEBRIS FLOWS

There are no known sites in the PA subject to debris flows; therefore this plan will not address 

this concern. 

3.6 LANDS AND REALTY

3.6.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the BLM has the 

responsibility to manage the public lands for multiple use and sustained yield and develop 

management plans. As defined by FLPMA, public lands are those federally owned lands, and 

any interest in lands (e.g., federally owned mineral estate), that are administered by the Secretary 

of the Interior, specifically through the BLM. The land surface and mineral ownerships within 

the Monticello PA are varied and intermingled; consequently, so are the administrative 

jurisdictions for land use and minerals. The boundaries of the Monticello PA contain 

approximately 4.5 million acres, of which approximately 1.8 million acres, (39%), are public 

lands administered by the BLM. Another 54% of lands within the PA boundary are under the 

ownership of other federal or state agencies. Because of the retention mandates of the other 

federal agencies and the mandates of state land ownership, BLM-administered lands are 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-43 

generally considered to be available to help with the county economic base and future 

community expansion needs. For the most part, the public lands are located in large, contiguous 

tracts that provide for effective and efficient management (see Map 1). 

3.6.2 LANDS AND REALTY PROGRAM

Management of ownership and access to lands within the Monticello PA falls under a variety of 

categories. These categories depend on whether the BLM is retaining lands, relinquishing control 

of lands (e.g., sales, exchanges, etc.), granting rights-of-way, permits, or other access, 

withdrawing lands for certain uses, or otherwise determining the disposition of specific tracts of 

land. The various categories of lands and realty management within the PA are discussed in the 

following sections. 

The overall goals of the BLM lands and realty program are to: 

• Manage the public lands to support goals and objectives of other resource programs; 

• Respond to public requests or applications for land-use authorizations; and 

• Acquire administrative and public access where necessary to enhance the resource 

management objectives of the BLM. 

3.6.2.1 LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENTS

As mandated by Section 106(a)(1) of FLPMA (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1701), public 

lands are retained in federal ownership. The exception being those public lands that have future 

potential for disposal (i.e., sale and exchange), as described under Section 203(a) and Section 

206 of FLPMA (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1713; 1716). Public lands have potential for 

disposal when they are isolated and/or difficult to manage. Lands identified for disposal must 

meet public objectives, such as community expansion and economic development. A balanced 

approach involving land sales and other disposal methods (land exchange, RPP, etc.) would be 

used. Other lands can be considered for exchange on a case-by-case basis, if land tenure 

adjustment (LTA) criteria are met. Disposal actions are usually in response to public request or 

application that results in a title transfer, wherein the lands leave the public domain. Appendix C, 

Lands and Realty, lists lands identified for disposal by FLPMA Section 203 sale within the 

Monticello FO. Two land acquisitions, both from private parties, have taken place in the recent 

history of the Monticello FO. In 1996, the BLM purchased approximately 560 acres east of 

Hovenweep National Monument. In 2000, an exchange resulted in the acquisition of 160 acres 

west of Hovenweep. Both acquisitions were acquired to provide a buffer adjacent to the 

Monument. 

Split-estate situations are generally avoided when acquiring land, if possible. Management of 

such lands and the resources they contain is difficult, and the special mandates placed on splitestate lands may run contrary to the overall resource program goals and objectives of the BLM. 

Split-estate lands within the FO are primarily within the McCracken Extension. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-44 

3.6.2.1.1 SALES 

Public sales are managed under the disposal criteria set forth in Section 203 of FLPMA. Public 

lands determined suitable for sale are offered on the initiative of the BLM. The lands are to be 

sold at not less than fair market value. Public lands classified, withdrawn, reserved, or otherwise 

designated as not available or subject to sale are unavailable. 

The Monticello FO has not had an aggressive program to dispose of public lands through 

exchange. The lands that are currently identified in Appendix C, Lands and Realty, would be 

considered for disposal by FLPMA Section 203 sale, and other authorities, except in cases where 

said lands contain species status species or their critical habitat. 

3.6.2.1.2 EXCHANGES

Exchanges are initiated in direct response to public requests or by the BLM, to improve 

management of the public lands. Lands need to be formally determined suitable for exchange, 

and any exchange must be in the public interest. They are to be in the best interest of the public 

before an exchange would be considered. In addition, lands considered for acquisition would be 

those lands that meet specific land management goals identified in the RMP. 

3.6.2.2 ACCESS

Access may be closed or restricted, where necessary, to protect public health and safety, and to 

protect significant resource values. 

Throughout much of Utah, the state owns and manages 4 isolated sections in each 36-section 

township. These are generally sections 2, 16, 32, and 36, and are ordinarily one mile square (640 

acres). They are primarily administered by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration (SITLA) for the purpose of economic support of the state's public schools and 

institutional trust funds. Activities on state land generally are not substantially different from 

those on the surrounding land administered by the BLM. Many of the SITLA lands generate 

funds through grazing permits, right-of-way easements and permits, and hydrocarbon or other 

mineral leases. 

Many BLM lands with management restrictions, such as WSAs, have state lands that are 

adjacent to or within their boundaries. State lands that are completely or almost entirely 

surrounded by BLM lands with management restrictions, or are in conjunction with 

administratively endorsed NPS lands, are termed state inholdings. 

Existing access to inheld state lands varies. Some of the parcels have direct access through 

cherry-stemmed or boundary roads of WSAs. Inheld parcels may or may not currently have 

access, depending upon whether or not existing vehicle routes lead to them. BLM policy, as 

required by the Cotter decision, is that "the state must be allowed access to the state school trust 

lands so that those lands can be developed in a manner that will provide funds for the common 

school..." This decision confined the issue of access to situations directly involving economic 

revenues generated for the school trust. For example, if a holder of a state oil and gas lease on a 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-45 

parcel of state land that is completely surrounded by a WSA requires access to develop that 

lease, the BLM must grant the leaseholder reasonable access with consideration given to 

minimize impacts to wilderness character. 

3.6.2.3 EASEMENTS 

Public land cannot be effectively administered without legal and physical access. Easements are 

acquired to provide access to public lands for recreational, wildlife, range, cultural/historical, 

mineral, ACEC, special management areas, and other resource needs. 

Methods used to acquire legal rights that meet resource management needs include negotiated 

purchase, donation, and exchange.. Acquisition alternatives include purchase of fee or less-thanfee interest above, on, and below the surface; and perpetual exclusive, and permanent or 

temporary nonexclusive, easements. Acquisition of road or trail easements is probably the most 

frequently encountered access need. Easements can include: 

• road easements 

• scenic conservation easements 

• sign locations 

• stream clearance projects 

• utility easements 

• hunting and fishing easements 

• range improvements 

• conservation easements 

Acquisition of access rights support one or more of these resources: lands, minerals, woodlands, 

range, wildlife, recreation, and watershed. Most existing easements in the Monticello PA are 

related to range management (fences, roads, spring developments), though one is a conservation 

easement related to Gunnison Sage-grouse. Additional easements can be acquired when there is a 

need; however, no such need had been identified as of the writing of this document. 

3.6.2.4 LEASES AND PERMITS

Section 302 of FLPMA authorizes the use, occupancy, or development of public lands, through 

leases and permits, for uses not authorized under other authorities. Applicants can be state and 

local governments and private individuals. These uses of public lands include agricultural 

development, residential use (only under certain conditions), commercial use, advertising, and 

National Guard use. Leases are long-term authorizations that usually require a significant 

economic investment in the land. 

Permits are usually short-term authorizations not to exceed 3 years. Filming permits are one of 

the more commonly requested permits. The Monticello FO issued 27 film permits during 

calendar years 1998–2003. Because of the time sensitive aspect of filming, the BLM is using this 

RMP process to establish minimum impact criteria for film permitting. These criteria will 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-46 

simplify both the applications and approval process, resulting in fast and efficient processing of 

filming permit applications (see Actions Common to All, Chapter 2). Map 4 illustrates common 

filming locations. 

3.6.2.5 WITHDRAWALS/CLASSIFICATIONS

Withdrawals are formal Secretarial- or Congressional-level actions that set aside, withhold, or 

reserve federal land by statute or administrative order for public purposes. A withdrawal may 

remove areas from the public lands to be managed under the authority of another federal agency 

or department, but the land does not leave federal ownership. Withdrawals accomplish one or 

more of the following: 

• Transfer total or partial jurisdiction of federal land between federal agencies. 

• Close (segregate) federal land to operation of all or some of the public land laws and/or 

mineral laws. 

• Dedicate federal land to a specific purpose. 

Withdrawals are often used to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major federal 

investments in facilities or other improvements, support national security, and provide for public 

health and safety. Withdrawals segregate a particular portion of public lands, suspend operation 

of the public land laws (withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, or entry), and prevent any 

disposal of public lands or resources involved in certain types of land-use application. 

Withdrawals remain in effect until reviewed pursuant to Section 204 of FLPMA and continued, 

modified, or revoked. 

Withdrawal review is mandated by FLPMA, which requires the BLM to eliminate all 

unnecessary withdrawals and classifications. The BLM must ensure withdrawals are supported 

by showing need, and must revoke withdrawals that lack sufficient justification. Before 

recommending a withdrawal is continued, the BLM must explore alternatives such as rights-ofway and interagency agreements. 

Three withdrawals existed within the Monticello PA as of 2005. Two of the withdrawals were 

for the Baker Administrative Site of the USFS, and one was to accommodate a road to Natural 

Bridges National Monument for the NPS (Table 3.10). There are no pending withdrawals. 

Table 3.10. Existing Withdrawals in the Monticello PA 

National Park Service T. 37 S., R. 18 E. Road to Natural Bridges 

U.S. Forest Service T. 33 S., R. 23 E. Baker Administrative Site 

U.S. Forest Service T. 33 S., R. 23 E. Baker Administrative Site 

In addition to the above withdrawals, the 1991 RMP identified several withdrawals that were to 

be undertaken. These withdrawals were never initiated. 

There are several Power Site Reserves/Classifications along the San Juan River corridor 

administered by the Monticello FO. The lands were opened to the operation of the mining laws 

in 1958; therefore, their only withdrawal is from disposal actions. Rights-of-way can be granted 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-47 

on these lands with a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) stipulation in the grant. 

Disposal actions require partial revocation of the withdrawal. 

3.6.2.6 UTILITY/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

3.6.2.6.1 RIGHTS-OF-WAY

A right-of-way (ROW) is an authorization to place facilities over, upon, under, or through public 

lands for construction, operation, maintenance, or termination of a project. Public lands are made 

available throughout the Monticello PA for ROWs. With the exception of defined exclusion and 

avoidance areas, the FO area is subject to ROW designations. ROWs either will not be granted in 

these exclusion or avoidance areas, or, if granted, will be subject to stringent terms and 

conditions. The areas are ROW exclusion and avoidance areas in the 1991 RMP: 

Avoidance Areas

• Alkali Ridge ACEC 

• Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC 

• Butler Wash ACEC 

• Cedar Mesa ACEC, partial 

• Hovenweep ACEC 

• Indian Creek ACEC 

• Lavender Mesa ACEC 

• Pearson Canyon hiking area 

• Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC 

• Shay Canyon ACEC 

• Most ROS P class areas 

Exclusion Areas

• Cedar Mesa ACEC, partial (Grand Gulch special emphasis area) 

• Dark Canyon ACEC 

• ROS SPM class area in San Juan River SRMA 

• Developed recreation sites 

ROWs are granted on a case-by-case basis. The majority of ROWs granted between 1998 and 

2005 were for non-energy type activities. Only 34% of new ROWs have been for oil and gas 

gathering systems or roads. In the same period, 35 ROWs were transferred to right-of-way 

holders. Of these, 17% were not energy related and 83% were energy related. Historically, 

pipeline ROWs granted within the area have been small surface pipelines, because they were 

determined to be least environmentally damaging. The larger diameter (10 inches and over) 

pipelines have been buried. Exclusion areas prohibit ROWs and corridor/window designation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-48 

The trend in oil and gas development during the early 2000s suggests that demand for rights-ofway within the Monticello PA will continue to increase into at least the near future. 

3.6.2.6.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDORS

ROW corridors were presented as existing groupings of ROWs for electric transmission 

facilities, pipelines 10 inches and larger, communication lines, federal and state highways, and 

major county road systems. However, no specific areas were identified by map or legal 

description. In the 1999 Western Utility Corridor Study (WUG), the US Highway 191, State 

Highways 491 and 276 corridors, the UP&L 345kV line, and the MAPCO/Williams loop 

pipelines were identified as preferred ROW corridors through the Monticello PA. The West-wide 

Energy Corridor Study (WWEC) of 2006 proposes corridors through the Monticello FO. 

3.6.2.6.3 COMMUNICATION SITE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

The explosion of wireless networking in the U.S. has fostered an expectation from the public that 

they will have cell phone coverage virtually anywhere. Within the Monticello PA, there are 10 

designated communication sites. This trend is expected to continue with increasing demands 

placed on the existing 10 sites. Communication sites within the FO are illustrated on Map 4. 

3.6.2.7 TRESPASS 

The BLM is responsible for realty trespass abatement, which includes prevention, detection, and 

resolution. Land authorizations, such as leases and permits, have been issued to resolve 

agriculture and occupancy trespass, where consistent with the LUP. Locations in the FO area 

where trespass typically occurs are along drainages, oil fields, and areas bordering public lands. 

3.6.2.8 RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSES ACT (R&PP) 

The R&PP Act was established by Congress as a means for state and local governments as well 

as non-profit organizations to acquire public lands at no cost or a reduced cost. Many western 

governmental entities have taken advantage of this Act to provide the public with much needed 

local services and locations for recreational activities.

To date, 11 R&PP authorizations had been made within the Monticello PA (Table 3.11). 

Table 3.11. R&PP Authorizations for the Monticello PA 

R&PP Leases/Grants Authorization 

Type 

Purpose Acres 

American Legion Patent Rodeo grounds 40.00 

San Juan Foundation/Blanding Patent Hiking trail 160.00 

LDS. Church Patent Church building 2.00 

San Juan County Patent Road shed 5.97 

Utah Division of State Parks Patent State park 10.00 

San Juan County Patent Landfill 390.00 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-49 

Table 3.11. R&PP Authorizations for the Monticello PA 

R&PP Leases/Grants Authorization 

Type 

Purpose Acres 

City of Blanding Patent Reservoir 100.00 

City of Blanding Patent Water pipeline and recreation 

site 

158.00 

College of Eastern Utah Patent Campus 40.00 

San Juan Foundation Patent Campus 120.00 

San Juan Water Conservancy District * Classification Recreation site 20.00 

* R&PP application withdrawn. Classification still in place. 

An additional 470 acres adjacent to Recapture Reservoir has been classified as suitable for R&PP 

lease or patent. The cities of Monticello and Mexican Hat have expressed interest in obtaining 

ownership of the parcels on which they have a right-of-way for city water treatment plants and 

the Mexican Hat sewer treatment facility. Although not currently classified for R&PP, these 

parcels are suitable for such classification as a means of transferring ownership to the cities. 

3.6.2.9 PROTECTION ZONES

Protection Zones are small areas within which critical resources, such as potable water sources, 

exist and must be protected for health and human safety reasons. Within the Monticello PA, only 

one such protection zone has been established. This water source protection zone has been 

established around the water well supplying the Sand Island campground and boat launch 

facility. It is displayed on the appropriate master title plat. 

3.6.2.10 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES 

A national trend is to use public lands to develop renewable energy sources such as wind power, 

solar power, and hydropower. National organizations are looking at public land to help provide 

non-polluting power sources for a growing population. In the future, BLM-administered lands 

could play an increasing role in providing clean energy sources. 

The U.S. Department of Energy publication "Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on 

Public Lands" prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE 2003) assessed the potential for 

the following renewable energy sources on public lands in the 11 western states: solar, biomass, 

geothermal, water, and wind. More recently, the Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy 

Development on BLM-administered Lands in the Western United States (BLM 2005f) provided 

specific data on wind energy development potential on public lands. The data show that the 

Monticello PA has been identified as possessing a low potential for all of the resources studied. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-50 

3.7 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

3.7.1 INTRODUCTION 

Livestock grazing allotments occur on approximately 93% of all BLM lands located within the 

Monticello PA boundary. Within Monticello Field Office (Monticello FO) there are 1,633,253 

BLM acres (93%) available for grazing and 128,098 BLM acres (7%) unavailable for livestock 

grazing for resource protection, which includes an estimated 15,720 acres outside of grazing 

allotments reserved for wildlife use along the slopes of East and Peters Canyons. Also, an 

administrative horse pasture encompasses 288 BLM acres. 

Of the lands within grazing allotments, 1,761,351 acres (78%) are BLM lands; 190,366 acres 

(8%) are SITLA lands; 53,704 acres (2%) are private; 261,574 acres (12%) are NPS lands; and 

2,701 acres (>1%) are water. The acres within each entity are shown on Figure 3.8. 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

BLM SITLA Private NPS Water

Acres Within Grazing Allotments

Acres

Figure 3.8. Acres within grazing allotments. 

3.7.2 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The following sections provide a summary of the number of permitted allotments, amount of 

riparian area, allotment management categories, ecological status and current management 

practices for the allotments. Allotment-specific information can be found in Appendix D, 

Livestock Grazing. 

3.7.2.1 ALLOTMENT STATUS

A total of 75 allotments exist within the boundaries of the Monticello PA. However, one of these 

allotments (Rogers) is currently not permitted for use by domestic livestock. The Squaw Canyon 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-51 

allotment, some of which is within the boundaries of the Monticello PA, is administered by the 

Durango FO. 

In addition, the Monticello FO administers one entire allotment (Monucolo) and a part of another 

allotment (Bug-Squaw) located outside the Monticello PA boundary. The Monucolo allotment 

and the Colorado portion of the Bug-Squaw allotment are managed in accordance with direction 

given in the San Juan and San Miguel RMP (Durango FO). 

3.7.2.2 RIPARIAN AREAS

Riparian areas, consisting of 28,994 acres (based on 1990's inventory data, subject to 

reevaluation), occur within 49 of the allotments. The amount of riparian area occurring within 

these allotments ranges from 0.1% to 10.3%. Riparian areas comprise 1.3% of the total allotment 

acreage. Further information regarding riparian areas may be found in Section 3.12, Riparian 

Resources. 

3.7.2.3 ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORY 

Each permitted allotment has been evaluated and designated into one of 3 categories: maintain 

(M), improve (I), or custodial (C). Allotments in the M Category are in generally good condition 

and have no serious resource conflicts under present management. These may have some 

potential for a positive return on investments. I Category allotments may have serious resource 

conflicts, or their resource production is below its potential under present management. These 

allotments have potential to improve or have conflicts that can be resolved through changes in 

grazing management or investments in range improvement projects. Allotments in the C 

Category have low productivity potential, limited resource conflicts, and no opportunity for a 

positive return on public investments. A more detailed list of criteria used for categorizing each 

allotment may be found under Section D.3, Criteria Used to Determine Allotment Management 

Category, of Appendix D. 

3.7.2.4 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS 

The number of allotments in each category are shown in Table 3.12 below. 

Table 3.12. Allotments in the Monticello PA by Management Category 

M Category 

(Maintain) 

I Category 

(Improve) 

C Category 

(Custodial) 

9 Allotments (12%) 29 Allotments (39%) 36 Allotments (49%) 

3.7.2.5 ECOLOGICAL STATUS

The ecological status of each allotment was estimated in the 1980s. Four classes are used to 

express the proportion of which the present kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants in a biotic 

community reflect the potential natural community (PNC). These classes are as follows: 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-52 

Potential Natural Community (PNC): 76–100% similar 

Late Seral: 51–75% similar 

Mid Seral: 26–50% similar 

Early Seral: 0– 25% similar 

The percentage of acres within the allotments in each seral stage class are shown in Table 3.13. 

Table 3.13. Percent of Acres within the Monticello FO Boundaries by Ecological Class 

PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral Other 

(Rock Outcrop/Badlands/Seedings) 

3.6% 13.0% 53.4% 17.1% 12.8% 

3.7.3 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Of the 74 allotments currently permitted within the Monticello PA boundaries, cattle graze 61 

allotments and cattle and horses graze 13 allotments. A total of 78,796 animal unit months 

(AUMs) are currently authorized (active). Of these, 77,365 AUMs (98%) are used by cattle and 

1,431 (2%) are used by horses. An additional 7,299 AUMs are allowed through exchange of use 

(other ownership). The term "AUM" is a measure of forage quantity and refers to the amount of 

forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow (including her calf under 6 months of age) or its 

equivalent for a period of one month. It is used to denote an increase or decrease in the amount 

of forage available for livestock grazing and not necessarily a change in grazing preference. 

"Grazing preference" or "preference" refers to the total number of AUMs on public lands that are 

attached to base property owned or controlled by the grazing allotment permittee, and includes 

both active AUMs (AUMs available for livestock grazing on a permittee's permit) and AUMs 

held in suspension (AUMs not available for livestock use until the BLM, through decision, 

would activate them). 

The grazing management systems currently in use on the permitted allotments are as follows: 

• Season-long—35 

• Deferred—11 

• Deferred rotation—28 

The lengths of season under season-long grazing systems vary from one to 12 months. The 

majority of grazing systems include both "dormant season" and "growing season" use. However, 

12 allotments are grazed only during the growing season and nine allotments only during the 

dormant season. 

Two of the permitted allotments (Tank Draw and East Canyon) have allotment management 

plans (AMPs) that prescribe a sequence of grazing among pastures in accordance with the terms 

and conditions of the grazing permits. The remaining 71 allotments are managed in accordance 

with the terms and conditions of each grazing permit. AMPs for many of these allotments may 

be developed in the future. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-53 

Appendix D includes various documents related to livestock grazing, including: 

• Allotment Situation Summary 

• Fundamentals of Rangeland Health 

• Utah Standards and Guidelines 

• Allotment Management Category Criteria 

• Allotment Situation Tables 

3.7.4 RESOURCE DEMAND AND ANALYSIS FORECAST

The resource demand is considered to be the amount of grazing by both domestic livestock and 

wildlife. However, the resource demand discussed here will be limited to grazing by domestic 

livestock, which is considered to be the total of current authorized (active) use (78,796 AUMs) 

and suspended use (17,173 AUMs). This amounts to a total resource demand by domestic 

livestock of 95,969 AUMs. 

The changes in total authorized (active) use since the 1985 Management Situation Analysis are 

due to 1) changes in land ownership, or as a result of rangeland monitoring that indicated the 

need for adjustment, and 2) the grazing allotment closure in Comb Wash. In 1993, a portion of 

the Comb Wash allotment (comprised of approximately 16,599 acres of federal land in Mule 

Canyon south of U-95, and Arch, Fish, Owl, and Road canyons) was made unavailable to 

grazing by court decision (see IBLA 92-264). Trends in authorized use prior to that time are not 

known. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-54 

3.8 MINERALS 

The Monticello PA is known to have significant occurrences of mineral resources, as noted in a 

variety of studies. Recently, a multi-agency effort produced a "Scientific Inventory of Onshore 

Federal Lands' Oil and Gas Resources and Reserves and the Extent and Nature of Restrictions or 

Impediments to their Development" (U.S. Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy 

2003). This report is based on the USGS estimation of undiscovered, technically recoverable 

resources, Energy Information Administration (EIA) reserve calculations, and an estimate of 

restrictions or impediments to the development of those resources and reserves. It is BLM policy 

to consider this information in its planning process. Although the main purpose of the report is to 

classify the availability of land for leasing and leasing stipulations, resources are also evaluated. 

The calculation of resources is primarily mathematical and the estimates are provided on a 

multiple-state, basin-wide scale and are of limited use on the local, PA scale. 

The BLM compiled more site-specific data based on oil and gas play areas, past exploration, and 

other records it has for the Monticello PA Numerous data sources, including USGS, UGS, 

academic research, UDOGM, industry and government sources, were used to compile the 

Mineral Potential Report for the Monticello Planning Area (BLM 2005b). It characterizes the 

mineral resources of the Monticello PA; summarizes past and present development activities; 

and classifies the potential and certainty for mineral occurrence and the potential for future 

development of each mineral resource. Mineral potential is classified using the rating system 

outlined in BLM Manual 3031 (USDI 1985; Table 3.14). Under this system: 

• Occurrence potential is based strictly on the geologic likelihood of the mineral to be present 

in an area. It does not address the economic feasibility of developing the resource. 

• Development potential for a resource is based on review of available literature on the 

mineral's market factors; communication with industry experts and government officials 

familiar with the specific resource and area; and other considerations such as occurrence 

potential, historical development, commodity price, and supply and demand. The potential 

for development of each mineral resource is projected for 15 years, and is rated as high, 

moderate, or low (Maps 14–17). 

Table 3.14. Ratings for Mineral Occurrence Potential and Certainty 

Rating Description 

Level of Potential Ratings 

O The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the lack of mineral 

occurrences do not indicate potential for the accumulation of mineral resources. 

L The geologic environment and the inferred geologic processes indicate low potential of 

accumulation of mineral resources. 

M The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the reported mineral 

occurrences or valid geochemical/geophysical anomaly, and the known mines or deposits 

indicate moderate potential for accumulation of mineral resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-55 

Table 3.14. Ratings for Mineral Occurrence Potential and Certainty 

Rating Description 

H The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the reported mineral 

occurrences or valid geochemical/geophysical anomaly, and the known mines or deposits 

indicate high potential for accumulation of mineral resources. The known mines and deposits 

do not have to be within the area that is being classified, but have to be within the same type 

of geologic environment. 

ND Mineral potential not determined due to lack of useful data. 

Level of Certainty Ratings 

A The available data are insufficient and/or cannot be considered as direct or indirect evidence 

to support or refute the possible existence of mineral resources within the respective area. 

B The available data provide indirect evidence to support or refute the possible existence of 

mineral resources. 

C The available data provide direct evidence but are quantitatively minimal to support or refute 

the possible existence of mineral resources. 

D The available data provide abundant direct and indirect evidence to support or refute the 

possible existence of mineral resources. 

3.8.1 LIMITED MINERAL RESOURCES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER

Geologic host formations exist in the Monticello PA for mineral resources other than those 

described and analyzed in detail in this EIS, but their known occurrence is limited or 

insignificant. There is minimal or no interest in the development of several minor resources 

present on public lands within the Monticello PA, including coalbed methane, geothermal water, 

lode gold, manganese, humate, gypsum, barite, zeolite, shale, fire clay, crushed stone, and 

collectable rocks. These resources are describe briefly here but will not be discussed further in 

this EIS. 

• Coalbed methane development potential is very low or nonexistent. The coal in the Dakota 

Sandstone is generally thin and discontinuous and not usually thick enough to be an attractive 

reservoir. Shallow and dissected deposits of coal are likely to have lost any contained gas to 

the atmosphere. The coal is also of low rank, generally subbitumious C, and as such will not 

have generated any thermogenic gas. The coal is commonly impure or boney, with thinly 

interlaminated shale, and nearly everywhere contains higher ash content (more than 30%), 

that reduces the gas carrying capacity of the coal. 

• Low-temperature geothermal waters (20–36 °C [68–97°F]) have been recorded from 

several springs and wells in the Monticello PA, including the Warm Springs Canyon 

geothermal area identified by the USGS. However, because of where the Monticello PA is 

situated within the Colorado Plateau geologic province, no high-temperature geothermal 

resources are expected within reasonable drilling depths (Gloyn et al. 1995). There is 

potential for direct use of low-temperature geothermal water for space heating of buildings, 

but no such development on public lands within the Monticello PA exists or is expected. 

• Minor, non-commercial deposits of lode gold occur in the Tertiary intrusives of the Abajo 

Mountains (Witkind 1964; Gloyn et al. 1995). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-56 

• A small number of manganese deposits are found in Jurassic and Cretaceous sedimentary 

rocks along the Lisbon Valley fault system, which is mostly north of the Monticello PA 

(Baker et al. 1952; Weir and Puffet 1981; Gloyn et al. 1995). No recent exploration activity 

for manganese in these formations in the Monticello PA is known, and the potential for 

discovery of any economic deposits is minimal (BLM 2005b, 2005c). 

• Weathered coal and carbonaceous shales and mudstones of the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone 

have potential for sale as humate, a natural soil conditioner (Gloyn et al. 1995). However, no 

known humate exploration has taken place on public lands within the Monticello PA, and 

development potential is considered very low. 

• Gypsum can be found throughout the Monticello PA in the Pennsylvanian Paradox 

Formation, the Permian Cedar Mesa Sandstone, and the Triassic Moenkopi Formation 

(Gloyn et al. 1995). However, gypsum is a very low unit value commodity and generally 

must be located close to existing wallboard plants to be economical. Therefore, development 

potential of gypsum in the Monticello PA is very low. 

• A small amount of barite was reported associated with uranium-vanadium-copper 

mineralization at a mine in the west-central part of the Monticello PA (Trites and Chew 

1955). However, these occurrences are insignificant compared to Nevada's large-bedded 

barite deposits and, thus, are not likely to be developed. 

• Minor zeolite deposits are known to be contained in the Brushy Basin Member of the 

Morrison Formation, and hypothetically, potential exists for zeolite production in the 

Monticello PA (Gloyn et al. 1995). However, high-purity zeolites have not yet been found, 

and the zeolite industry continues to be very small. 

• Common fire clay and fire clay of "fair to good quality" is known to occur in the Triassic 

Moenkopi Formation, the Petrified Forest Members of the Triassic Chinle Formation, the 

Brushy Basin and Westwater Canyon Members of the Jurassic Morrison Formation, and the 

Cretaceous Mancos Shale (Gloyn et al. 1995; BLM 2005c). No information is available 

regarding past and present exploration, development, or production within the Monticello PA 

(BLM 2005b, 2004b). 

• Stone suitable for crushing in the Monticello PA includes limestones in the Pennsylvanian 

Hermosa Group Honaker Trail Formation and the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone (Ritzma and 

Doelling 1969), as well as some sandstones and conglomerates of the Cretaceous Dakota 

Sandstone and Burro Canyon Formation. Although LR 2000 records indicate there has been 

only one authorization since 1989 (BLM 2005b), this resource could become more 

significant as presently suitable sand and gravel resources are exhausted. In any event, the 

need for crushed stone in the foreseeable future is anticipated to be insignificant. 

• Collectable rocks and semiprecious gemstones present in the Monticello PA include 

petrified wood containing opal and agate, chalcedony, garnet, azurite, and malachite. 

Petrified wood is found scattered throughout the Monticello PA, hosted in the Jurassic 

Morrison and Triassic Chinle Formations. Deep red to black pyrope garnets have been 

recovered from volcanic vent deposits of the Mule Ear and Moses Rock occurrences near 

Mexican Hat. The amount of garnet material known to be present in this area is so small that 

commercial extraction is unlikely (Gloyn et al. 1995). None of the above-mentioned 

collectable materials have been or are expected to be produced on public lands in large 

quantities. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-57 

3.8.2 LEASABLE MINERALS

Leasable minerals are subject to disposal by lease under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920, as amended. A classification for leasable minerals such as a Designated Tar Sand Area 

(DTSA) or a Known Potash Leasing Area (KPLA) is an area where a potentially valuable 

deposit has been identified and where competitive leasing is required. Existing leases are shown 

on Map 18. 

3.8.2.1 OIL AND GAS

The exploration and development of leasable minerals is accomplished in several stages of 

activity. The first stage (land categorization) involves determining which public domain lands 

should be leased and under what conditions. This is accomplished through the land-use planning 

process. The second stage is leasing. The third stage includes exploration, development, and 

production operations. 

The BLM has designated 4 allocations that describe the conditions placed upon public domain 

lands in regard to their availability for fluid hydrocarbon leasing. Under the existing plan, the 

BLM has assigned one of four following oil and gas leasing stipulations to the public lands: 

• Standard Stipulations—Areas identified with standard stipulations are open to exploration 

and development, subject to standard lease terms and conditions. 

• Special Conditions—Areas identified with these stipulations are open to exploration and 

development, subject to relatively minor constraints such as seasonal restrictions. 

• No Surface Occupancy—Areas identified as NSO are open to exploration and development 

subject to highly restrictive lease stipulations, including no surface occupancy. 

• Closed to Leasing—Areas identified as closed to leasing either by discretionary or nondiscretionary decisions. Discretionary closures involve lands where the BLM has determined 

that mineral leasing would not be in the public interest. Non-discretionary closures involve 

lands that are specifically closed to mineral leasing by law, regulation, Secretarial Decision, 

or Executive Order. 

3.8.2.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The primary formations from which oil and gas are currently being produced are the Ismay and 

Desert Creek zones of the Paradox Formation, the Devonian McCracken Sandstone Member of 

the Elbert Formation, the Mississippian Leadville Limestone, and the Pennsylvanian Honaker 

Trail Formation. 

As described in the 1995 National Assessment of the U.S. Oil and Gas Resources—Results, 

Methodology, and Supporting Data (Gautier et al. 1996), the USGS has delineated a number of 

oil and gas plays, both structural and structural-stratigraphic, in the Paradox Basin Province. 

Approximately 70 oil and gas fields are located in these plays in the Monticello PA (Table 3.15). 

These 78 fields encompass approximately 1,135 active wells (including producing oil and gas 

wells, shut-in oil and gas wells, temporarily abandoned oil and gas wells, and water injection, 

disposal, and source wells; Table 3.16) and, as of December 2003, have cumulatively produced 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-58 

more than 535 million barrels of oil and 1.26 billion million cubic feet (MCF) of gas (UDOGM 

2004; see Table 3.15). Approximately 5–21 oil or gas wells have been drilled per year in the PA, 

with an average of 13 wells drilled per year on all lands in the PA. Oil and gas plays that occur in 

the Monticello PA are as follows: 

• The Buried Fault Black play is located in the northern part of the Monticello PA, in the 

Paradox Fold and Fault Belt. This play contains the McCracken Sandstone Member of the 

Elbert Formation and the Leadville Limestone. The largest of the 6 oil and gas accumulations 

in this play is the Lisbon field, which contains approximately 43 million barrels of oil and 

250 billion cubic feet of natural gas. 

• The Porous Carbonate Buildup play contains most of the oil and gas fields in the 

Monticello PA (Huffman 1996a, 1996b). The fields in this play occur primarily in the 

Blanding subbasin and produce oil and gas from mounds of algal limestone and dolomitic 

reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group. This play contains the largest oil field in 

Utah: the Greater Aneth field. 

• The Fractured Interbed play is an unconventional continuous-type play that depends on 

extensive fracturing in the clastic or carbonate interbeds between evaporates of the Paradox 

Formation. These same interbeds provide the source rocks for most of the oil and gas in the 

Paradox Basin (Huffman 1996a, 1996b). These include Kane Creek, Chimney Rock, Gothic, 

and Hovenweep Shales. 

• The post-Mississippian Salt Anticline Flank play is also located in the northern portion of 

the Monticello PA. It occurs along the flanks of the northwest-trending salt anticlines in the 

area (Huffman 1996a, 1996b). Only a few oil and gas fields have accessed the Hermosa 

Group and Cutler Group reservoirs of this play. 

• The Permo-Triassic Unconformity play extends west from the tar sand deposits of southcentral Utah (Huffman 1996a, 1996b). Reservoirs for oil are in the Permian White Rim 

Sandstone and the White Rim and DeChelly Sandstones of the Paradox Basin. Reservoir 

thicknesses can vary from a few feet to several hundred feet. This play is only lightly 

explored and contains no developed oil and gas fields in the Monticello PA. 

• Although not delineated as a Paradox Basin play, the USGS has also defined a hypothetical 

play in the southwest corner of the PA called the Late Proterozoic (Chuar-sourced) and 

Lower Paleozoic play (Huffman 1996a, 1996b; Butler 1996). Very few wells have 

penetrated the Chuar Group in Utah (Butler 1996). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapt

3-59 

Table 3.15. Monticello Planning Area Oil and Gas Field Statistics as of December 31, 2003 (Includes All Land

Field Name UDOGM 

Field 

Number 

Field 

Type 

Producing 

Formation 

Status Year 

Disc. 

Active 

Wells 

Cumulative 

Oil 

Production 

(barrels) 

Cumu

Natura

Produ

(MC

Akah 275 Oil Ismay Active 1958 2 526,222 49Alkali Canyon 280 Gas Desert Creek Abandoned 1965 0 3,919 4Alkali Point 481 Gas Ismay Inactive 1987 2 342 16Anido Creek 285 Oil Ismay Abandoned 1958 0 612,082 42Bannock 287 Oil Ismay Active 1989 1 216,855 75Black Bull 297 Oil Desert Creek Active 1992 1 50,584 24Bluff 295 Oil Desert Creek Active 1956 8 1,668,207 3,69Bluff Bench 300 Oil Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Abandoned 1957 0 14,531 

Boundary Butte 305 Oil Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Active 1947 25 5,448,763 13,2

Branford Canyon 310 Oil Ismay Active 1983 2 50,204 36Broken Hills 315 Oil Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Active 1959 1 143,692 8

Bronco 312 Gas Desert Creek Active 1992 1 4,471 10Bug 320 Oil Desert Creek Active 1980 7 1,622,455 4,48Caballo 736 Gas Ismay Active 1987 1 11,042 42Cactus Park 484 Gas Honaker Trail Inactive 1987 1 0 Cajon Lake 730 Oil Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Inactive 1988 1 40,197 16

Cajon Mesa 326 Oil Desert Creek Active 1992 1 126,073 66Casa Mesa 489 Oil Ismay Abandoned 1986 0 3,370 Cave Canyon 323 Oil Ismay Active 1984 10 2,389,346 3,87Cherokee 324 Gas Ismay Active 1987 3 182,464 3,66
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapt

3-60 

Table 3.15. Monticello Planning Area Oil and Gas Field Statistics as of December 31, 2003 (Includes All Land

Field Name UDOGM 

Field 

Number 

Field 

Type 

Producing 

Formation 

Status Year 

Disc. 

Active 

Wells 

Cumulative 

Oil 

Production 

(barrels) 

Cumu

Natura

Produ

(MC

Chinle Wash 325 Gas Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Abandoned 1957 0 5,611 2,73

Clay Hill 327 Oil Desert Creek Active 1978 3 985,080 1,38Cleft 330 Oil Akah Abandoned 1963 0 3,537 Cone Rock 335 Oil Akah Abandoned 1959 0 133 Cowboy 340 Oil Ismay Active 1968 2 217,367 4Dead Man Canyon 345 Gas Ismay Active 1983 3 21,380 1,09Deadman-Ismay 346 Gas Ismay Active 1987 3 785,000 12,19Desert Creek 350 Oil Desert Creek Active 1956 8 2,030,862 1,7Gothic Mesa 355 Oil Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Active 1956 8 1,941,156 1,27

Grayson 360 Oil Ismay Abandoned 1957 0 5,777 Greater Aneth 365 Oil Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Active 1956 482 432,914,670 378,8

Hatch 370 Oil Desert Creek Abandoned 1958 0 15,148 4Hatch Point 367 Oil Ismay Inactive 1993 1 4,607 Heron 447 Oil Ismay Inactive 1991 1 237,321 40Hogan 375 Oil Ismay Abandoned 1961 0 756 Horse Canyon 448 Oil Desert Creek Active 1998 1 149,247 17Ismay 380 Oil Ismay Active 1956 10 10,863,672 17,50Kachina 379 Oil Ismay Active 1987 5 2,547,419 2,23Kane Creek 377 — Paradox Abandoned 1925 0 — Kiva 381 Oil Ismay Active 1984 5 2,610,110 3,73Lightning Draw 742 Oil Ismay Abandoned 1988 0 2,039 Lightning Draw SE 743 Oil Ismay Inactive 1980 2 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapt

3-61 

Table 3.15. Monticello Planning Area Oil and Gas Field Statistics as of December 31, 2003 (Includes All Land

Field Name UDOGM 

Field 

Number 

Field 

Type 

Producing 

Formation 

Status Year 

Disc. 

Active 

Wells 

Cumulative 

Oil 

Production 

(barrels) 

Cumu

Natura

Produ

(MC

Lime Ridge — — Ismay–Desert 

Creek–Akah 

— — 1 — 1,50

Lisbon* 385 Gas McCracken/ 

Leadville 

Active 1961 23 51,076,593 761,56

McCracken Spring 402 Oil Ismay Active 1987 3 403,288 1,94McElmo Mesa 405 Oil Ismay Inactive 1965 0 2,219,175 2,92Mexican Hat 410 Oil Honaker Trail Active 1908 81 278,007 Monument 403 Oil Desert Creek Active 1991 2 117,009 5Mustang Flat 415 Gas Ismay Active 1982 8 773,299 16,3Navajo Canyon 488 Oil Ismay Active 1977 1 39,049 Patterson Canyon 420 Oil Ismay Active 1974 9 1,070,208 2,5Paiute Knoll 425 NA Ismay Inactive 1972 1 0 Rabbit Ears 430 Oil Ismay Abandoned 1967 0 54,068 1Recapture Creek 435 Oil Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Active 1925 5 2,206,281 3,7

Recapture Pocket 437 Oil Desert Creek Active 1987 3 176,538 3River Bank 440 Oil Ismay Abandoned 1967 0 1,396 Road Canyon 401 Oil Desert Creek Active 1988 1 23,363 Rockwell Flat 445 Oil Ismay Abandoned 1967 0 624,235 5Runway 446 Oil Desert Creek Active 1990 3 852,406 2,9Shumway Point 486 Gas Ismay Active 1987 1 239 Soda Spring 741 Oil Desert Creek Abandoned 1989 0 3,657 Squaw Canyon 460 Oil Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Active 1980 2 342,977 8

Tin Cup Mesa 465 Oil Ismay Active 1982 10 2,461,650 3,6
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapt

3-62 

Table 3.15. Monticello Planning Area Oil and Gas Field Statistics as of December 31, 2003 (Includes All Land

Field Name UDOGM 

Field 

Number 

Field 

Type 

Producing 

Formation 

Status Year 

Disc. 

Active 

Wells 

Cumulative 

Oil 

Production 

(barrels) 

Cumu

Natura

Produ

(MC

Tohonadla 470 Oil Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Active 1956 4 2,258,444 9

Tower 476 Oil Desert Creek Abandoned 1994 0 10,064 Turner Bluff 475 Oil Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Active 1957 9 920,213 7

Ucolo 477 Gas Honaker Trail Abandoned 1981 0 78,621 1,0Wild Stallion 478 Gas Ismay–Desert 

Creek 

Active 1989 1 1,479 3

Wildcat 1 Oil — — — — 351,521 6,2Yellow Rock 485 Oil Ismay Abandoned 1964 0 18,205 Totals 769 534,817,696 1,264,0*Partially located in the Moab Planning Area to the north Source: Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM) 2004. — no data. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-63 

Table 3.16. Summary of Status of All Wells Located within the 

Monticello PA, as of March 24, 2005 

Well Status Number of Wells 

ACTIVE WELLS 

Producing oil wells 493 

Producing gas wells 15 

Shut-in oil wells 198 

Shut-in gas wells 14 

Temporarily abandoned oil wells 29 

Temporarily abandoned gas wells 1 

Active water injection wells 371 

Active water disposal wells 11 

Active water source wells 3 

Active Wells (subtotal) 1,135 

ABANDONED WELLS* 

Abandoned oil locations 475 

Abandoned gas locations 5 

Abandoned Wells (subtotal) 480 

ALL OTHER WELLS 

Approved oil permits 3 

Approved gas permits 0 

Dry holes 1,034 

Inactive water injection wells 35 

Released oil wells** 415 

Released gas wells** 8 

Released water injection wells** 30 

Released water disposal wells** 11 

Released water source wells** 20 

Unknown well types 96 

All Other Wells (subtotal) 1,652 

Total 3,267 

*Release pending completion of satisfactorily completed surface reclamation. 

**Released: well plugged and abandoned and reclamation satisfactorily completed. 

Source: BLM 2005c. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-64 

3.8.2.1.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION 

The production of oil and gas in the Monticello PA has primarily occurred in the eastern portion 

of the PA. A large area of concentrated oil and gas fields occurs in the southeastern portion of 

the Monticello PA within the Blanding subbasin region of the Paradox Basin. Operations also 

occur in the northeastern portion of the Monticello PA in the Lisbon Valley area of the Paradox 

Fold and Fault Belt. Although limited, some oil and gas production has occurred outside these 

two distinct areas at single well locations. 

For purposes of analysis and reporting of the oil and gas resources in the Monticello PA, the PA 

was divided into 3 exploration and development areas, so delineated based on distinct geologic 

descriptions, historic/current production activities, and the potential for ongoing and future oil 

and gas development (Map 57). These areas are the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt, the Blanding 

Basin area, and the Monument Upwarp area. 

The Paradox Fold and Fault Belt, located in the northern part of the Monticello PA, encompasses 

only 5 oil and gas fields: Lisbon, which straddles the northern Monticello PA border; Lightning 

Draw; Lightning Draw SE; Paiute Knoll; and a wildcat. Production from the Devonian 

McCracken Sandstone Member of the Elbert Formation first occurred in the Lisbon field. Later 

testing in the Mississippian Leadville Limestone resulted in the discovery of a giant oil and gas 

accumulation, which has resulted in approximately 90% of the oil produced from the Leadville 

Limestone. Oil and gas accumulations, though no economic production, have also been recorded 

in the Paradox and Hermosa intervals in the Lisbon field. Both hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and 

helium have also been produced from the McCracken and Leadville reservoirs in the Lisbon field 

(personal communication with E. Jones, BLM Moab Field Office, June 2004). Production of 

these commodities as a by-product of oil and gas production is expected to continue. The 

Lightning Draw field produced oil and gas from the Kane Creek fractured shales. One new gas 

well (the Federal 1-31) was recently completed in the Lightning Draw SE field, and one well is 

currently being worked over. Development plans include construction of a pipeline connecting 

these wells to the existing gathering line and the Lisbon gas processing facility. 

Oil and gas were first discovered in the Blanding Basin area of the Monticello PA at Boundary 

Butte in 1948. Subsequent geophysical work on adjacent Navajo Indian land resulted in the 1956 

discovery of the Greater Aneth field, which produces from the Desert Creek zone of the Paradox 

Formation, with some minor production from the Ismay zone. The Greater Aneth field is by far 

the most productive field in the Monticello PA (see Table 3.16). There are a host of other Ismay 

and Desert Creek reservoirs in the Blanding subbasin, accessed by fields such as Bluff and 

Recapture Creek, which were discovered in the 1950s. Some of the larger producers from these 

reservoirs include Bug, Cave Canyon, Cherokee, Deadman-Ismay, Kachina, Ismay, Kiva, 

Mustang Flat, and Tin Cup Mesa fields (see Table 3.15). 

Completion of producing wells in the Monument Upwarp area has been sparse compared with 

the Paradox and Blanding Basin areas. Despite over 150 exploratory wells drilled in this area, 

only two fields have been established. These two fields, the Mexican Hat field and the Lime 

Ridge field, are located in the south-central portion of the Monticello PA. The Lime Ridge field 

managed to develop a significant gas show from Mississippian Leadville Limestone. Other 

representative activities on the Monument Upwarp include tests at the Nokai Dome in the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-65 

southwest portion of the Monticello PA; a well located in T40S, R12E that encountered oil and 

gas in the Triassic Shinarump Member of the Chinle Formation; a well that had a show of gas in 

Pennsylvanian sediments (McDougall 2000a); and a 1992 exploratory well drilled in the westcentral portion of the Monticello PA that had a significant show of oil and/or gas in the Ismay 

zone of the Paradox Formation (McDougall 2000b). 

3.8.2.1.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

Areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the occurrence of oil and gas have been identified 

for the plays of the Monticello PA (Map 17). The Buried Fault Black play (2101) and the Salt 

Anticline Flank play (2105) are rated as having a high (H) occurrence potential with a D level of 

certainty, as are the southeastern portion of the Porous Carbonate Buildup play (2102), and the 

northern part of the Fractured Interbed Play (2103). Areas rated with an H oil and gas occurrence 

potential and a C level of certainty are the northwestern portion of the Porous Carbonate Buildup 

play, on the Monument Upwarp, the western and southern portions of the Fractured Interbed 

Play, and the Permo-Triassic Unconformity play (2106). The area around the Abajo Mountains is 

rated with a low (L) occurrence potential for oil and gas with a C level of certainty; the Porous 

Carbonate Buildup play and the Fractured Interbed play both encroach into this area. The Late 

Proterozoic (Chuar-sourced) and Lower Paleozoic play (2403) is rated with an H occurrence 

potential but only a B level of certainty, because this play is only speculative. 

The potential for future oil and gas exploration and development in the Monticello PA is based 

on the history and extent of development in the area, consultation with petroleum companies 

actively studying fields and plays in the Monticello PA, and discussions with state and federal 

agencies familiar with activities in the area (see separate oil and gas Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development document). Based on these factors, potential for oil and gas exploration and 

development in the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt and Blanding Basin areas of the Monticello PA 

is rated as high. Less activity is expected in western areas of the Monticello PA on the 

Monument Upwarp, and development potential there is rated as moderate. The potential for 

exploration and development around the Abajo Mountains, within national parks or monuments, 

within WSAs, or within other protected lands, is rated as low. 

Existing surface disturbance for approximately 1,135 active wells, approximately 480 abandoned 

wells, and associated roads and pipelines is 15,504 acres, or an average of 9.6 acres per well. 

Future oil and gas drilling for the next 15 years is projected to be 5–21 wells per year on all lands 

in the PA. Assuming an average of 13 wells per year, a total of 195 wells would be drilled within 

the PA. Disturbance from these wells and associated infrastructure would equal approximately 

1,872 additional acres. During this period, 27 dry wells, 20 newly abandoned wells, and all 480 

existing abandoned wells should be successfully reclaimed, making 5,059 total acres of 

reclaimed surface area. Accordingly, the total cumulative surface disturbance for wells in the 

Monticello PA during the life of this plan is projected to be approximately 12,317 acres. 

Additionally, surface disturbance over the next 15 years for geophysical exploration (1,230 linear 

miles) amounts to about 2,236 acres. Reclamation of all these disturbed lands would be 

successful over the scope of 10 years (BLM 2005c). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-66 

3.8.2.2 COAL

Coal resources are allocated through a coal lease. Exploration can occur under license before a 

lease is issued. Prior to issuing coal leases, areas considered unsuitable for all or certain 

stipulated methods of coal mining must be identified based on the unsuitability criteria found at 

43 CFR Section 3461. These criteria are applied through the BLM's land-use planning process. 

3.8.2.2.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Coal resources are located in the San Juan coal field in the eastern part of the Monticello PA, in 

the Blanding Basin and Paradox Fold and Fault Belt areas. The coal in this field occurs in the 

Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone. The middle coal-bearing unit within the Dakota Sandstone, which 

is 45–122 feet thick and whose individual coal beds range from two to 15 feet thick (Gloyn et al. 

1995), contains 4 coal horizons in the Sage Plain area. These coals typically have been of poor 

quality. 

3.8.2.2.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION 

Coal activity in the 530,000-acre San Juan coal field has been limited to 4 areas: 

1. exposures of Dakota Sandstone along Recapture and Johnson Creeks in T35S, R22E and 

R23E, and T36S, R22E and R23E; 

2. an area near Monticello where several openings had been reported; 

3. prospect holes located in T34S, R26E, including the Crepo Mine and a bulldozed outcrop 

representing the best showing in the field; and 

4. several pits opened in an area located along Piute Creek, including the Rasmussen mine 

located in T33S, R26E (BLM 1985). 

Most production has been conducted for local consumption. Reported activities, including two 

small mines, primarily occurred prior to 1929, with insignificant production. All mines and 

prospects have been closed in this area since 1971 (BLM 1985). After drilling several 

exploration holes near Eastland, Utah in the late 1970s, Arjay Petroleum estimated that 77 

million tons of coal may be recoverable by surface mining in their exploration area, but 

development is limited by poor coal quality and lack of rail transportation (Gloyn et al. 1995; 

Wilson and Livingston 1980). 

3.8.2.2.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

Old coal mines and drill-hole data suggest a high (H) occurrence potential with a D level of 

certainty for coal in the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone in a small portion of the San Juan coal 

field southeast of Monticello. Other areas of the San Juan coal field are rated as having an H 

occurrence potential, but with a C level of certainty. Due to the poor quality of the coal and the 

lack of historical activity, development potential is rated low (L). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-67 

3.8.2.3 POTASH AND SALT

The potash resource is allocated by a variety of instruments. These are the prospecting permit, 

the preference right lease, the application for exploration license, the competitive lease, and the 

fringe acreage lease/lease modification. 

3.8.2.3.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Potash (potassium-bearing) deposits in the Monticello PA, comprising primarily salt, sylvite 

(potassium chloride, or KCl), and carnallite (hydrated potassium magnesium chloride, or 

KMgCl3-6H2O), are hosted exclusively by the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation in the 

Monticello PA. Known potash and salt deposits underlie a 2,800-square-mile area of the Paradox 

Basin's deeper northeastern half. Both sylvite and carnallite occur in varying proportions 

throughout most potash deposits, but sylvite is dominant in those horizons under economic 

consideration (Hite 1960; Dames and Moore 1978; Gloyn et al. 1995). Using a cutoff grade of 

14% K2O, Patterson (1989) estimates that known resources of K2O potash contain 254 million 

tons, while inferred resources are estimated at 161 million tons. 

Most of the interest in potash and salt deposits in the Paradox Basin has been concentrated in the 

fold and fault belt, where potash beds are relatively close to the surface. However, in some areas, 

extraction is a challenge because salt flow is extensive (up to 13,000 feet thick) and destroys the 

continuity of the potash deposits (Hite 1960). Although the only commercial deposits in the area 

are found in the Cane Creek area in the Moab Planning Area, north of the Monticello PA, other 

potentially valuable deposits are known to occur in the Monticello PA. These include the Lisbon 

Valley and Gibson Dome areas (Gloyn et al. 1995). In 1960, the USGS classified the Cane Creek 

and Lisbon Valley areas as Known Potash Leasing Areas (KPLAs)—areas where potentially 

valuable deposits of potash are known to exist. There also appears to be sufficient data available 

to define the Gibson Dome area as a KPLA (BLM 2005b). 

3.8.2.3.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION 

Potash deposits in the Paradox Basin were initially discovered during the exploration for oil and 

gas between 1924 and 1944. Based on these initial discoveries, further potash exploration 

concentrated in Cane Creek and Lisbon Valley and contributed to the classification of these areas 

as KPLAs in 1960 (Hite 1960). Portions of the Cane Creek and Lisbon Valley KPLAs occur 

within the northern part of the Monticello PA and extend into the Moab Planning Area. The 

Moab Salt Company's Cane Creek Mine, located in the portion of the Cane Creek KPLA in the 

Moab Planning Area, is the sole producer of potash and salt by-product in the region. 

Some incidental exploration has occurred in the Gibson Dome area. Oil and gas drilling in this 

area has contributed data on its potash deposits. In addition, a borehole was drilled in the 1980s 

by the U.S. Department of Energy for the purpose of evaluating the salt structure in the Gibson 

Dome area as a potential repository for high-level nuclear waste. This borehole encountered 

potentially valuable potash-bearing zones (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1982; Merrell 1979; 

Dames and Moore 1978). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-68 

3.8.2.3.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

The two KPLAs in the Monticello PA and the Gibson Dome area are rated as having a high (H) 

occurrence potential with a D level of certainty for both potash and salt (Map 18). The other 

areas of known potash and salt deposits in the Paradox Basin are rated as H occurrence potential 

with C certainty for both commodities. The more expansive areas underlain by potash and salt 

also have a high (H) occurrence potential and are rated with a C certainty. 

A combination of factors, including the high cost of extraction and easier-to-mine deposits 

outside the PA, contributes to the low (L) development potential for both potash and salt within 

the Monticello PA. 

3.8.2.4 TAR SANDS

The Monticello PA contains areas of tar sands resources. This resource has been, and currently 

is, available for lease under the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 and in accordance 

with the decisions in the existing BLM land-use plans. 

The major tar sand resources lie only in Utah within 11 designated Special Tar Sands Areas 

(STSAs) managed by the BLM Vernal, Price, Richfield, and Monticello field offices (Map 18). 

One of these STSAs lies within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument where leasing 

is prohibited. The Monticello FO manages one of the remaining 10 STSAs. 

When the Monticello RMP Revision (revision) was initiated in 2003, there was no reasonable 

foreseeable development expectation for tar sands over the next 15 years. The mineral report 

identified this resource, but did not foresee any leasing or development due to prevailing and 

anticipated economic factors. 

Since the start of this RMP revision, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 

369 of the Energy Policy Act requires the Secretary of Interior to "complete a programmatic 

environmental impact statement for a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands 

resources on public lands, with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands within 

each of the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming." On December 13, 2005, the BLM 

published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register initiating a Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) to support a commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program on 

federal lands in these 3 states. 

In light of this statutory requirement, all decisions related to tar sands leasing in this RMP are 

being deferred to the ongoing PEIS on Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing. The Record of Decision 

(ROD) on the final PEIS will amend the existing Monticello RMP by changing allocation 

decisions on whether or not to allow leasing and future development of tar sands on public lands 

for those areas where the resource is present. These decisions will be incorporated into the 

Monticello RMP as it is finalized or will amend the Monticello RMP. Combined hydrocarbon 

and tar sand leasing in the STSAs will also be deferred to the PEIS. Additional opportunities for 

public involvement and comment will occur when the PEIS becomes available in draft form. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-69 

Site-specific requirements will be addressed in future NEPA analysis for specific project 

applications after the PEIS is completed. 

This RMP will, however, develop allocation decisions for conventional oil and gas leasing in the 

STSAs. 

3.8.2.4.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Since 1981, tar sands have been allocated by competitive leasing. In Special Tar Sand Areas 

(STSAs), tar sands are leased by competitive bonus bidding for combined hydrocarbon leases 

(CHLs). Outside STSAs, tar sands are allocated by conventional oil and gas leases. 

Tar sand in the Monticello PA has been identified in the White Canyon Designated Tar Sand 

Area (DTSA, established on January 21, 1981 [46 Federal Register 6077]), which extends over 

10,000 acres in the western portion of the White Canyon Slope area and into the Monument 

Upwarp area, in the western portion of the Monticello PA). The Hoskinnini Member of the 

Triassic Moenkopi Formation, which hosts the deposit, is exposed in Long, Short, and Fort 

Knocker Canyons. The deposit is estimated to contain 12 to 15 million barrels of oil in place 

(McDougall 2000b). From the research done to-date, it appears that the tar sands in the White 

Canyon DTSA are low-grade and fractured. A second deposit of tar sands in the Monticello PA 

occurs in the walls of the San Juan River canyon near the Mexican Hat field (BLM 2005b). This 

deposit, minor compared to the White Canyon area, is found in the Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail 

Formation. Ritzma (1979) estimated the contained oil to be 0.4 to 0.5 million barrels. 

3.8.2.4.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION 

There has been no exploration or production activity regarding the tar sand deposits located in 

the White Canyon DTSA (BLM 2005h). Ritzma and Doelling (1969) stated that the Hoskinnini 

Member in the White Canyon tar sand deposit is "lightly" saturated with oil and that a 

reconnaissance assessment of the deposit indicates that it is not of commercial significance. 

Furthermore, the stratigraphy may prevent both in situ thermal recovery of oil and surface 

mining methods. Compared with the oil and gas resources throughout the Monticello PA that can 

be extracted with modern drilling and pumping methods, tar sand extraction requires higher-cost 

mining techniques such as open pits and associated earth-moving and reclamation activities. 

3.8.2.4.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

The White Canyon DTSA, along with smaller tar sand deposits near Mexican Hat, are rated as 

having a high (H) occurrence potential with a D level of certainty. Considering the dearth of 

leases in the White Canyon DTSA, the lack of interest shown by developers, and the high cost 

associated with extraction in the Monticello PA, tar sand development potential in the Monticello 

PA is considered low (L). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-70 

3.8.3 LOCATABLE MINERALS

Locatable minerals are subject to disposal by mining claim location under the authority of the 

Mining Law of 1872. Locatable minerals comprise the base and precious metal ores, ferrous 

metal ores, and certain classes of industrial minerals. These minerals are allocated via claim 

staking or location, at the initiative of the public. Operations under the 43 CFR 3809 regulations 

may take place on public lands that are open to mineral entry without a claim. Surface-disturbing 

activities (beyond casual use) to explore or develop are not allowed under a claim alone and 

require a Notice of Intent (NOI) or Mining Plan of Operations (MPO). All public lands within 

the Monticello PA are open to mineral location unless specifically closed by withdrawal. 

3.8.3.1 URANIUM-VANADIUM

3.8.3.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Sediment-hosted uranium in the Monticello PA occurs in quantities that are commercially 

extractable. It is usually found intimately associated with vanadium and sometimes copper. The 

most prolific hosts of the uranium-vanadium mineralization include Mesozoic sequences such as 

the Moss Back and basal Shinarump Conglomerate Members of the Triassic Chinle Formation, 

as well as the Salt Wash Member of the Jurassic Morrison Formation, which tends to host 

deposits that have larger reserves and higher grades and are more closely clustered than those 

occurring in other formations (Chenoweth 1981; Johnson and Thordarson 1959). Small uraniumvanadium deposits are also found in the late Paleozoic Permian Cutler Group (a result of an 

unconformity with the Chinle Formation), particularly the Cedar Mesa Formation, as evidenced 

by historic mining production in the northern part of the Monticello PA (Gloyn et al. 1995). 

3.8.3.1.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION 

Although uranium deposits in the Monticello PA had been mined for over 90 years, first for their 

radium content and then for their vanadium co-product, it was the "Uranium Boom" beginning in 

the late 1940s that initiated large-scale extraction (Chenoweth 1996). However, a national and 

international trend of declining uranium and vanadium demand and prices began in the 1980s 

(Chenoweth 1996; BLM 2005h). The last mines and mills in the Monticello PA closed in 1990. 

In the Monticello PA, the greatest amount of production has occurred from the Salt Wash 

Member of the Jurassic Morrison Formation and the Moss Back and Shinarump Conglomerate 

Members of the Triassic Chinle Formation. The least amount of production has occurred from 

the Permian Cutler Group. Mines developed in the Chinle Formation produced 92% of the ore 

between the early 1950s and the mid-1960s. However, by the mid-1970s, production from the 

Morrison Formation overtook and slightly exceeded that of the Chinle ($600 million vs. $500 

million, respectively). Regionally, remaining recoverable reserves of uranium-vanadium are 

estimated at 4.2 million tons of ore in the Four Corners Region. Approximately 57% of these 

reserves are hosted in the Morrison Formation, 39% in the Chinle Formation, and 4% in the 

Cutler Group (Johnson and Thordarson 1959; Gloyn et al. 1995). Table 3.17 lists the mining 

areas in the Monticello PA and the uranium host deposits for each. Table 3.18 provides a 

summary of historical mining production in the Monticello PA. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-71 

Below are the more notable uranium-vanadium mining operations within the Monticello PA: 

• The Cottonwood Wash mining area is centered at the junction of Cottonwood and Brushy 

Basin Washes, just west of Blanding, Utah. Some 55 properties produced over 350,000 tons 

of ore between 1931 and the 1980s (see Tables 3.18 and 3.19; Gloyn et al. 1995). There are 

currently no mining permits filed with UDOGM for this area. 

• The Montezuma Canyon mining area includes deposits on the sides of Montezuma Canyon 

and its tributaries, east of Blanding, Utah. Sixty-eight properties produced about 109,000 tons 

of ore between the late 1940s and the mid-1980s (see Tables 3.18 and 3.19; Gloyn et al. 

1995). Currently, only one mine in the Montezuma Canyon area, the Dusty Mine, has a 

permit registered with UDOGM; however, it is listed as inactive. 

• Only the southeastern portion of the Lisbon Valley mining area is located in the Monticello 

PA; the rest of it is in the Moab Planning Area. Some of the largest, high-grade uraniumvanadium ore bodies have been mined in this area (see Tables 3.18 and 3.19). Only one mine 

in the Monticello PA portion of the Lisbon Valley area has a permit registered with 

UDOGM; it is also listed as inactive. 

Table 3.17. Historical Locations and Hosts of Uranium-Vanadium Deposits in the 

Monticello PA, by Mining District

Mining Area Salt Wash 

Member/ 

Morrison 

Formation

Moss Back 

Member/ 

Chinle 

Formation

Shinarump 

Member/ 

Chinle 

Formation 

Cedar Mesa 

Formation/ 

Permian 

Cutler Group

Lisbon Valley Area* Major Minor 

Combined White Canyon Area (Red Canyon, White 

Canyon/Fry Canyon, Deer Flat, Elk Ridge, and southern 

Indian Creek Areas) 

 X 

Inter-river, Lower Kane Creek, Indian Creek Areas* Major Minor 

Dry Valley Area X 

Cottonwood Wash Area X 

Oljeto Mesa Area (Monument Valley) X 

Montezuma Canyon Area X 

Bluff-Butler Wash Area — — — — 

Abajo Area — — — — 

Ucolo Area X 

Note: Xs indicate that the data say that this host occurs in the mining area. The words "major" and "minor" are used when hosts

within a mining area are compared to each other. 

Sources: Johnson and Thordarson 1959; Merrell 1979; Chenoweth 1996; Sprinkel 1999; Gloyn et al. 1995; Gloyn 2004. 

*Is also located in the Moab Planning Area to the north. 

— No data. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-72 

Table 3.18. Historical Uranium-vanadium Production in the Monticello PA 

Mining Area Average Ore Grade Production (lb) 

% U3O8 % V2O5 U3O8 V2O5

Estimated 

Reserves 

(lb U3O8) 

Develop. 

Potential

Lisbon Valley Area* 0.30–0.37 0.34–0.40 79,560,000 534,000 3,500,000 High 

Combined White Canyon Area 0.25–0.30 0.04 11,069,000 216,000 2,000,000+ High to 

Moderate 

Inter-river, Lower Kane Creek, 

Indian Creek Areas* 

0.20–0.22 1.50–2.00 3,276,000 195,000 unknown Moderate 

Dry Valley Area 0.20 1.00–1.70 1,525,000 12,662,000 1,000,000 High 

Cottonwood Wash Area 0.15–0.20 0.96–1.70 896,000 5,664,000 300,000 High 

Oljeto Mesa Area (Monument 

Valley) 

0.25–0.30 0.65 323,000 533,000 unknown Moderate 

Montezuma Canyon Area 0.16 0.60 88,000 775,000 unknown High 

Bluff-Butler Wash Area unknown unknown 53,000 -- unknown Moderate 

Abajo Area unknown unknown 7,000 1,000 unknown Moderate 

Ucolo Area 0.15 1.50–2.00 unknown unknown 3,000,000 High 

*Includes production from the Moab Planning Area to the north. 

Source: Gloyn et al. 1995; Chenoweth 1996; Gloyn 2004. 

The White Canyon mining area is located in the northwestern part of the Monticello PA (Gloyn 

2004). In addition to uranium and vanadium, ore from the White Canyon area contains from 

0.3% to 1.3% copper (Chenoweth 1990, 1993). The Cu:U3O8 ratio is as high as 13:1, and copper 

grades range up to 1–2% (Johnson and Thordarson 1959). The Red Canyon section of this area 

contains an estimated two million pounds of U3O8, while reserves for other areas are unknown 

(see Tables 3.17 and 3.18; Gloyn 2004). One mine in the White Canyon area has a registered 

permit with UDOGM; it is classified as being in its final stages of reclamation. 

3.8.3.1.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

The designated mining areas (Gloyn 2004) within the Monticello PA are rated as having high 

(H) occurrence potential with a D certainty level (Map 20). Outside these known mining areas, 

the areal extent of the Jurassic Morrison and Triassic Chinle Formations has been classified as 

having a moderate (M) occurrence potential with C level of certainty. Where mineralization in 

the Cutler has occurred in Lisbon Valley mining area, uranium and vanadium has a moderate 

(M) occurrence potential; otherwise, mineralization in the Cutler is not expected. 

Uranium prices have recently reached the level that could encourage some new production from 

existing reserves in the Monticello PA, and vanadium prices have also recently increased 

significantly, to the point that vanadium could be a highly desirable co-product or even the 

primary metal, especially considering the relatively high ratio of vanadium to uranium in most of 

the Salt Wash deposits in the area (BLM 2005b). Development potential is, therefore, rated H for 

the Red Canyon, Deer Flat, Cottonwood Wash, Montezuma Canyon, Lisbon Valley, Dry Valley, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-73 

and Ucolo mining areas, where known reserves are significant and infrastructure is in place. 

Development potential is rated M for the White Canyon-Fry Canyon, Oljeto Mesa (Monument 

Valley), Bluff-Butler Wash, Elk Ridge, Abajo, Indian Creek, Lower Kane Creek, and Inter-river 

areas. Development potential is rated L for host formations outside designated mining areas. 

3.8.3.2 COPPER

3.8.3.2.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

For convenience, copper deposits are divided into two types in this section: vein-type and 

redbed-hosted. Vein-type deposits are generally fault zone-hosted veins and strata-bound, 

mineralized layers. As their name suggests, redbed copper deposits form in red host rocks, which 

get their color (essentially rust) from the oxidation of the rock's exposure to the atmosphere. 

Redbed mineralization can be either volcanic or sedimentary. Sedimentary-hosted deposits, 

which form in fluvial (river) environments, are the type found in the Monticello PA. Sedimentary 

redbed deposits are relatively small in comparison to the volcanic redbed deposits and vein-type 

deposits, and few are ever brought into production. 

Blanket-like deposits of copper mineralization are hosted by late Paleozoic to Mesozoic redbed 

sequences throughout the Southwest (Hahn and Thorson 2002). In the Monticello PA, copper 

mineralization has been observed primarily in the Triassic Chinle and Moenkopi Formations 

(McFaul 2000). These observed copper occurrences have been associated with uranium deposits 

in several areas, including the White Canyon, Oljeto Mesa (Monument Valley), and Indian Creek 

mining areas. In the Indian Creek area, the Permian Cutler Group contains deposits representing 

a transition zone between fluvial rocks to the east and marine rocks to the west. Small uraniumcopper deposits are found in this transition of the Cutler Formation, as well as in the overlying 

Moenkopi Formation. 

3.8.3.2.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

Copper production in the Monticello PA has often been associated with uranium mining. The 

White Canyon, Red Canyon, Deer Flat, and Elk Ridge mining areas were the location of redbed, 

disseminated copper production in the late 1940s and early 1950s. At their local mill, primarily 

in 1953, the Vanadium Corporation of America attempted to recover copper from uraniumvanadium ore, without success (Chenoweth 1993). Since the 1960s, several other companies 

have evaluated low-grade, disseminated copper deposits in the Monticello PA and adjacent areas, 

but attempts at production of these deposits, even in association with uranium and/or during 

times of favorable copper prices, have been unsuccessful or uneconomical (Hahn and Thorson 

2002). Other areas for copper occurrence in the Monticello PA are in the Oljeto Mesa 

(Monument Valley) and Indian Creek mining areas. Both areas contain limited prospects, and no 

mining has developed. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-74 

3.8.3.2.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

Based on available information, there is a high (H) occurrence potential with a D level of 

certainty for redbed-type copper deposits in the Triassic Chinle Formation in the White Canyon, 

Oljeto Mesa (Monument Valley), and Indian Creek uranium mining areas. Occurrences in the 

Moenkopi Formation are isolated, limited to just a few uranium mines in the White Canyon area. 

Therefore, the Moenkopi in this area is rated as having a moderate (M) occurrence potential with 

C certainty, while other exposures of Moenkopi are rated as having a low (L) occurrence 

potential and C certainty. 

Throughout the Monticello PA, copper deposits are low-grade and sparse. Even with the increase 

in prices, copper development potential throughout the PA is rated as being L. 

3.8.3.3 PLACER GOLD

3.8.3.3.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Placer gold in the Monticello PA has been documented to occur sporadically along the Colorado 

and San Juan rivers and their respective tributaries. Along the Colorado River, it occurs in 

alluvial bars and has been found in terraces as much as 200 feet above the present river. The gold 

occurs primarily in the present-day river gravels and in older, higher level terrace gravels 

(Ritzma and Doelling 1969). Placer gold deposits in San Juan River gravels are known to extend 

from the mouth of Montezuma Creek to the confluence of the Colorado River (Johnson 1973). In 

addition to the Colorado and San Juan rivers, placers have also been located in the Abajo 

Mountains along Johnson Creek and Recapture Creek (Johnson 1973; UGS 2003). 

Historical placer operations in the Monticello PA were small-scale, so most of the gold 

production was not reported. Due to the fine, flaky mode of the gold and the difficulty in 

recovering it, most operations have not been commercially successful (Butler et al. 1920; UGMS 

1966; Johnson 1973; Chatman 1987). The gold grades of historical placer operations range from 

0.03 to 0.05 ounces per cubic yard (Gloyn et al. 1995). 

3.8.3.3.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

Only small, sporadic extraction activities have taken place in the Monticello PA since the late 

1980s, and currently, there is little production of placer gold in the Monticello PA One small, 

active placer operation is located below the dam on Recapture Creek near Blanding. The BLM 

also recently accepted a proposal to conduct gold exploration using backhoe trenching on a small 

site in Johnson Creek (T. McDougall, BLM, 2004). Small-scale operations like these typically 

have a surface disturbance of 5 to 10 acres. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-75 

3.8.3.3.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

The known placer gold sites have a high (H) occurrence potential with a D certainty level, given 

that gold has been produced at these locations. Alluvial deposits along the San Juan River, from 

the mouth of Montezuma Creek to Lake Powell, are considered to have an H occurrence 

potential with a C certainty level, as are deposits along Johnson and Recapture Creeks in the 

Abajo Mountains north of Blanding. Because of the ongoing operation and the recent proposal 

on Recapture and Johnson Creeks, respectively, these areas are rated as having an H 

development potential. All other areas are assigned a moderate (M) to low (L) development 

potential. 

3.8.3.4 LIMESTONE

3.8.3.4.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Desirable limestone deposits in the Monticello PA are primarily hosted in the Pennsylvanian 

Honaker Trail Formation, but also are in the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone (Gloyn et al. 1995). The 

marine limestones in the Honaker Trail Formation have been shown to contain small amounts of 

relatively high-quality limestone in San Juan County (Gloyn et al. 1995). Four lenses, or beds, of 

the Honaker Trail Formation, each one to 3 feet thick, are observed in the San Juan River canyon 

west of Mexican Hat (Ritzma and Doelling 1969). A 7-to-10-foot-thick bed containing 97% 

calcium carbonate (CaCO3) has also been reported at a 200- to 300-acre site located on Lime 

Ridge and northeast of Mexican Hat. Additionally, studies from a site on the Navajo Indian 

Reservation in the southern portion of the Monticello PA show that limestone in Honaker Trail 

Formation may be utilized for producing high-quality burned lime, cement rock, and rock dust 

(Ritzma and Doelling 1969). Outcrops of the Honaker Trail Formation also occur in the 

northwest portion of the Monticello PA along the Colorado River and its tributaries. Lacustrine 

limestones in the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone in the Monticello PA contain some beds of highcalcium, blue-gray, cherty limestone that locally cap small mesas (Gloyn et al. 1995). 

3.8.3.4.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

Current limestone operations in the Monticello PA are primarily on Lime Ridge. The Holliday 

Construction Lime Ridge quarry is an active operation located on state lands northeast of 

Mexican Hat. Production from 1998 through 2003 at this site has been reported at approximately 

29,000 tons (UDOGM, verbal communication 2004). The Moon No. 4 quarry, also permitted on 

state lands near Mexican Hat, is now inactive. It was operated by Western Industrial Minerals. 

An area considered likely for development is the 200- to 300-acre, 7-to-10-foot-thick site 

occurring on 60 claims and located 13 miles northeast of Mexican Hat on Lime Ridge. The 

deposit is amenable to simple quarrying techniques (Gloyn et al. 1995). 

Exploration and proposed development of chemical-quality limestone has occurred in the 

Monticello PA in the past: 

• Dames and Moore, Inc., under a contract to the Arizona Public Service Company, conducted 

substantial exploration on two claims for high-calcium limestone in the mid to late 1970s. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-76 

These efforts resulted in the identification of the massive, 200- to 300-acre bed of limestone 

in the Honaker Trail Formation (see above). Development of the deposit was to be used at 

power plants in New Mexico and Arizona. 

• In 1986, the Environmental Lime Corporation submitted a proposal to the BLM regarding a 

project located northeast of Mexican Hat to produce 1,100 tons per day of high-calcium 

limestone. No work was ever carried out on this project. 

• In 1994, the Navajo Nation drilled core samples on claims located in T41S, R20E, to 

ascertain whether high-calcium limestone was present and if it could be used for proposed 

sulfur dioxide scrubbers/absorbers at a power plant in Page, Arizona. 

3.8.3.4.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

The identified limestone sites in the Monticello PA have been characterized as having high (H) 

potential for the occurrence with a D certainty level. Elsewhere in the Monticello PA, the 

Honaker Trail Formation is characterized as having H potential with C certainty for the 

occurrence of limestone. Limestone development potential on Lime Ridge is rated as H, not only 

because of past production in that locale, but because of the significant interest in limestone in 

southeastern Utah. Development of the formation in the northwest portion of the Monticello PA, 

along the Colorado River and its tributaries is considered unlikely. 

3.8.4 SALABLE MINERALS

Salable mineral materials are subject to disposal by sales contract or free use permit under the 

authority of the Materials Act of 1947. Salable mineral materials are generally common varieties 

of construction materials and aggregates. Salable mineral material disposal can be exclusive or 

nonexclusive. Under exclusive disposals, the applicant has sole rights to the material applied for 

and sole responsibility for the development and reclamation of the source site. Exclusive sites 

include negotiated sales sites, competitive sales sites, free use permits, and material sites under 

the Federal Highway Act. Nonexclusive disposals are made from sites to which the general 

public has access, such as community pits and common use areas (see Appendix K). Detailed 

descriptions of the salable mineral materials in the Monticello PA and their locations, disposal, 

and production are provided in the Mineral Potential Report (BLM 2005b). 

3.8.4.1 SAND AND GRAVEL

3.8.4.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Sand and gravel development is largely driven by the need to find suitable material for public 

works projects, including local and state road projects and community development. Sand and 

gravel are the rock products that have the greatest demand in the Monticello PA, and the 

operations are widely dispersed across the PA to facilitate distribution of the materials and keep 

the costs to consumers low. They are commonly found near population centers and aligned along 

roadways. Sand and gravel deposits are mostly associated with unconsolidated Quaternary 

sediments. Important sand and gravel deposits occur along the San Juan River (where it is high-
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-77 

quality), surrounding the Abajo Mountains (where the material is softer and not as suitable for 

concrete aggregate), and near the town of Blanding. 

3.8.4.1.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

A review of LR 2000 records indicates that since 1989, there have been 57 authorizations made 

by the BLM for mining of sand and gravel in the Monticello PA, for a cumulative total of 1.9 

million cubic yards (BLM 2005h). Production has primarily occurred in the eastern and southern 

portion of the Monticello PA, from alluvial deposits located along the San Juan River, and from 

sediments (i.e., erosional surfaces of low relief that slope away from the base of mountains) in 

the vicinities of Blanding and Monticello. Due to transportation costs, most production has 

occurred in close proximity to road infrastructure, communities, and specific points of use. The 

main producers are the Utah Department of Transportation and the County Highway 

Department. Surface disturbance is typically two to 10 acres for each authorization. 

3.8.4.1.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

All of the known alluvial deposits, such as those along the San Juan River, are rated as having 

high (H) sand and gravel occurrence potential and with a D level of certainty. Deposits located 

within 3 miles of a road are rated as having an H development potential, whereas deposits 

located further from roads have a moderate (M) development potential (Map 19). 

3.8.4.2 BUILDING STONE

3.8.4.2.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Within the Monticello PA, sandstone appropriate for use as a high-quality building stone is 

present in the Triassic Moenkopi and Chinle Formations, the Jurassic Kayenta and Morrison 

Formations, and the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone and Cedar Mountain Formation (Atwood and 

Doelling 1982). Sandstones in the Triassic Chinle Formation and the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone 

are also suitable for commercial crushing operations (Ritzma and Doelling 1969). The granites of 

the Abajo and La Sal Mountains may also have building stone potential (Gloyn et al. 1995). 

3.8.4.2.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

Building stone production in the Monticello PA has primarily occurred from the Cretaceous 

Dakota Sandstone at quarries located southeast of Blanding (UDOGM, verbal communication 

2004). Production has also occurred from operations in the Jurassic Kayenta and Triassic 

Moenkopi and Chinle Formations. Since 1989, there have been 7 authorizations made by the 

BLM for mining building stone, which have yielded a cumulative total of approximately 130 

tons (BLM 2005h). Most of the production in the Monticello PA has occurred on unpatented 

mining claims, 6 of which are recorded with the BLM, so no production figures are available. 

Total surface disturbance for an operation is typically 5 to 10 acres. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals

3-78 

3.8.4.2.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

Known sites of building stone production in the Monticello PA are rated as having a high (H) 

potential for occurrence with a D level of certainty. Elsewhere, the formations are classified as 

having a moderate (M) occurrence potential and a C level of certainty. Development potential, 

particularly in the general areas where there has been previous production, and considering the 

continued demand for building stone in the growing communities of the West, is rated as H. 

3.8.4.3 CLAY

3.8.4.3.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Bentonite and bentonitic clays—among the most commercially desirable clays—swell when 

saturated with water and can be used as a natural sealant for reservoirs, stock ponds, ditches, and 

landfill linings. Several geologic units in the Monticello PA have potential for bentonite 

production: the Triassic Petrified Forest and Monitor Butte Members of the Chinle Formation 

(where it is ubiquitous throughout the Monticello PA), the Cretaceous Brushy Basin and 

Westwater Canyon Members of the Morrison Formation, and the Cretaceous Mancos Shale 

(Gloyn et al. 1995). Triassic bentonite deposits can be found southeast of Mexican Hat, as well 

as near Monument Valley, Clay Hills and Comb Ridge (Gloyn et al. 1995). The thickness and 

purity of the bentonite is quite variable, but very pure deposits have nonetheless been located. 

Samples taken from the upper portion of the Brushy Basin Member of the Jurassic Morrison 

Formation in the Lisbon Valley north of the Monticello PA have a measured bentonite content 

exceeding 90% (Gloyn et al. 1995). Samples taken from the undifferentiated Brushy Basin at 

Montezuma Creek also averaged more than 90% bentonite. 

3.8.4.3.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

Small-scale mining of bentonite for local engineering purposes has occurred in the Monticello 

PA. In 1977, the Butterfield mine southeast of Montezuma Creek is known to have produced 

about 5,000 cubic yards of bentonitic clays from the Brushy Basin Member of the Jurassic 

Morrison Formation (Gloyn et al. 1995). Two other mine sites located in the southwest portion 

of the Monticello PA have produced bentonitic clay from the Triassic Chinle Formation. Since 

1989, the LR 2000 records indicate that 6 BLM authorizations for exploration and production 

have been issued and have yielded 550,000 cubic yards of clay (BLM 2005h), or less than one 

authorization and approximately 92,000 cubic yards every two and a half years over the past 15 

years. Surface disturbance for each authorization is typically one to 5 acres. 

3.8.4.3.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT (RFD) 

Given available information, known bentonite clay sites in the Monticello PA have been 

classified as having a high (H) potential for occurrence with D certainty level. Elsewhere the 

favorable formations are rated as having a moderate (M) occurrence potential with C certainty. 

Based on past use, it is likely that there will be continued development (or H development 
Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

3-79 

potential) in the Monticello PA of bentonite clay resources for engineering applications, 

particularly around areas where there has been previous production. 

3.9 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

3.9.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 

Since wilderness study areas (WSAs) were established in the 1980s, wilderness in Utah has 

become a prominent national issue. For more than 20 years, the public has debated which lands 

have wilderness characteristics and should be considered by Congress for wilderness 

designation. As a result of the debate (and a significant passage of time since the BLM's original 

inventories), in 1996 the Secretary of the Interior directed the BLM to take another look at some 

of the lands in question. In response to the direction of the Secretary, the BLM inventoried these 

lands and approximately 2.6 million acres of public land statewide (outside of existing WSAs) 

were found to have wilderness characteristics (BLM 1999b). Although the Glossary defines 

"wilderness characteristics" in detail, for purposes of inventory maintenance for this plan 

revision, the BLM focused on the following criteria: 1) the appearance of naturalness, 2) 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive or unconfined recreation, and 3) an area with a 

minimum of 5000 acres in size (with some exceptions) so as to make practicable the 

management of wilderness characteristics (see also Glossary). 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are areas having 5,000 acres, or areas less than 

5,000 acres that are contiguous to designated wilderness, WSAs or other administratively 

endorsed for wilderness management lands or, in accordance with the Wilderness' Act's 

language, areas "of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition." The BLM used the same criteria for determining wilderness 

characteristics as in the 1979 wilderness inventory. The 5,000 acre value was helpful to the BLM 

in making preliminary judgments, but it was not considered a limiting factor. 

In September 2005, the BLM and the State of Utah, the Utah School and Institutional Trust Land 

Administration (SITLA), and the Utah Association of Counties (collectively "Utah") reached an 

agreement negotiated to settle a lawsuit originally brought in 1996 by Utah, challenging the 

BLM's authority to conduct new wilderness inventories. The settlement stipulated that the BLM's 

authority to designate new WSAs expired no later than October 21, 1993. The BLM, however, 

does have the authority to manage for characteristics associated with the concept of wilderness 

through the land-use planning process. The BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a) 

states that decisions on whether or not to protect wilderness characteristics are to be considered 

during planning. Refer to Wilderness Characteristics in the glossary. 

3.9.2 PLANNING AREA PROFILE

There are 29 areas in the Monticello PA, outside of existing WSAs that the BLM determined to 

have the wilderness characteristics of size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or primitive recreation. The BLM found in the 1999 Inventory that there were approximately 

485,525 acres within the Monticello PA that had wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

3-80 

In addition to the 485,525 acres found to have wilderness characteristics in the 1999 Utah 

Wilderness Inventory, additional lands in the Monticello PA have been reviewed for wilderness 

characteristics by the BLM. These are lands currently proposed for wilderness as part of S.1170, 

America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2007, and are neither WSAs nor a part of the 1999 Utah 

Wilderness Inventory (Note: The Act has been introduced in this year's Congress as S.1170.) The 

process used by the BLM to determine the non-WSA acreage with wilderness characteristics 

consisted of several steps. The BLM used a combination of field visits, data layers including 

roads, vegetative treatments, (especially chaining), range improvements, and rights-of-way, 

aerial photography interpretation, and interdisciplinary review to reach a conclusion on those 

acreages that have wilderness characteristics. This process resulted in a determination that an 

additional 96,832 acres have the wilderness characteristics of size, naturalness, and outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. 

The processes described above resulted in 29 areas of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics totaling 582,360 acres (Table 3.19). These non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics have been carried through this land-use planning process to determine how their 

wilderness characteristics will be managed. Many of the inventoried lands were found to lack 

wilderness characteristics; these are discussed in staff reports available in the Monticello FO. 

Table 3.19. Summary of Lands Evaluated for Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Lands Total 

Acreage 

Evaluated 

Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(Acres) 

Non-WSA Lands 

without 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(Acres) 

Adjacent Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Allen Canyon 6,410 0 6,410 NA 

Arch Canyon 13,600 50 24,700 Contiguous to Mule Canyon 

WSA 

Bridger Jack 

Mesa 

27,170 23,050 4,120 Contiguous to Bridger Jack 

Mesa WSA and to lands 

administratively endorsed for 

wilderness in Canyonlands 

National Park 

Butler Wash 3,040 1,660 1,380 Contiguous to Butler Wash and 

South Needles WSA and to 

lands administratively 

endorsed for wilderness in 

Canyonlands National Park 

Cheesebox 

Canyon 

16,080 13,240 2,840 Contiguous to Cheesebox 

Canyon WSA and lands 

administratively endorsed for 

wilderness in Natural Bridges 

National Monument 

Copper Point 4,420 0 4,420 NA 

Comb Ridge 16,400 13,760 2,637 

Cross Canyon 2,100 1,350 745 Contiguous to Cross Canyon 

WSA 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

3-81 

Table 3.19. Summary of Lands Evaluated for Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Lands Total 

Acreage 

Evaluated 

Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(Acres) 

Non-WSA Lands 

without 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(Acres) 

Adjacent Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Dark Canyon 67,850 66,330 1,520 Contiguous to Dark Canyon 

WSA and to the Forest 

Service's Dark-Woodenshoe 

Canyon Wilderness and lands 

administratively endorsed for 

wilderness in Canyonlands 

National Park and Glen 

Canyon National Recreation 

Area 

Fish and Owl 

Creeks 

28,740 24,650 2,090 Contiguous to Fish Creek 

Canyon WSA 

Fort Knocker 

Canyon 

12,800 12,410 390 

Gooseneck 3,840 3,570 270 Non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics 

shared with the Moab Field 

Office. Only those acreages in 

the Monticello FO are shown. 

Also contiguous to lands 

administratively endorsed for 

wilderness in Canyonlands 

National Park 

Grand Gulch 58,010 55,240 2,770 Contiguous with Grand Gulch 

ISA Complex and lands 

administratively endorsed for 

wilderness in Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area 

Gravel and 

Long Canyons 

37,100 36,890 167 

Hammond 

Canyon 

4,700 4,700 0 

Harmony Flat 10,200 9,660 540 Contiguous with lands 

administratively endorsed for 

wilderness in Natural Bridges 

National Monument 

Harts Point 57,796 24,740 31,582 Non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics 

shared with the Moab Field 

Office. Only those acreages in 

the Monticello FO are shown. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

3-82 

Table 3.19. Summary of Lands Evaluated for Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Lands Total 

Acreage 

Evaluated 

Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(Acres) 

Non-WSA Lands 

without 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(Acres) 

Adjacent Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Hatch/Lockhart 23,320 1,760 21,560 Non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics 

shared with the Moab Field 

Office. Only those acreages in 

the Monticello FO are shown. 

Indian Creek 25,230 23,280 1,950 Contiguous to Indian Creek 

WSA and to lands 

administratively endorsed for 

wilderness in Canyonlands 

National Park 

Lime Creek 5,560 5,560 0 Contiguous to Road Canyon 

WSA 

Mancos Mesa 73,900 61,570 11,710 Contiguous with Mancos Mesa 

WSA 

Monument 

Canyon 

18,180 0 18,180 NA 

Nokai Dome 94,330 94,270 60 Contiguous with lands 

administratively endorsed for 

wilderness in Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area 

Red Rock 

Plateau 

62,150 17,010 45,140 

Road Canyon 13,900 11,320 2,580 Contiguous to Road Canyon 

WSA 

San Juan River 15,100 14,340 400 

Shay Mountain 15,020 6,710 8,310 

Sheep Canyon 4,700 4,000 702 Contiguous to lands 

administratively endorsed for 

wilderness in Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area 

Squaw and 

Papoose 

Canyon 

3,750 3,570 182 Contiguous to Squaw and 

Papoose Canyon WSA 

The Needle 10,740 0 10,740 NA 

The Tabernacle 7,440 0 7,440 NA 

Tin Cup Mesa 15,900 0 15,900 NA 

Upper Red 

Canyon 

25,080 24,920 160 

Valley of the 

Gods 

14,560 13,670 890 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

3-83 

Table 3.19. Summary of Lands Evaluated for Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Lands Total 

Acreage 

Evaluated 

Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(Acres) 

Non-WSA Lands 

without 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(Acres) 

Adjacent Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

White Canyon 12,980 9,080 3,900 Contiguous to Dark Canyon 

WSA/ISA Complex 

Totals 805,686 582,360 236,385 

1 The names of these lands are conglomerates of many parcels and may not track to the names given by other groups or public 

2 These are GIS numbers and may not exactly track to previously published numbers 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics analyzed in this document include about 

582,360 acres of BLM-administered public land within the Monticello PA. Additional 

information concerning these lands is contained in Appendix O. Detailed information about nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics is part of the administrative record at the Monticello 

FO and includes: 1)1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory; 2) 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory 

Revision Document for the Monticello FO; 3) 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory Case Files for the 

Monticello FO; 4) Reasonable Probability Determinations for the Monticello FO; and 5) 

Documentation of Wilderness Characteristics Review for the Monticello FO. 

3.10 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.10.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Paleontology is a biological and geological scientific discipline involving the study of fossil 

materials. Paleontological resources, or fossils, include the body remains, traces, or imprints of 

plants or animals that have been preserved in the Earth's crust. Among paleontologists, fossils 

are generally considered to be scientifically significant if they are unique, unusual, or rare; 

diagnostically or stratigraphically important; or add to the existing body of knowledge in a 

specific area of the science. The BLM considers all vertebrate fossils to be scientifically 

significant. Invertebrate and plant fossils may be determined to be significant on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Paleontological resources identified on public lands are considered by the BLM as constituting a 

fragile and nonrenewable scientific record of the history of life on earth, and are thus considered 

to represent an important and critical component of America's natural heritage. Once damaged, 

destroyed, or improperly collected, their scientific and educational value may be reduced or lost 

forever. In addition to their scientific, educational, and recreational values, paleontological 

resources can be used to inform land managers about interrelationships between the biological 

and geological components of ecosystems over long periods of time. 

Young alluvial deposits or deep soils may cover and obscure sedimentary bedrock, and any 

fossils that may occur in that bedrock would be unidentifiable or irretrievable prior to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.10 Paleontological Resources

3-84 

disturbance actions. In most of these cases, the fossil resources can not be quantified, but the 

potential for impacting paleontological resources should be addressed in the proposals. 

The types of fossils preserved in a sedimentary rock sequence depend on the geologic age of the 

rocks in which they occur and the environment in which the sediments that comprise the rocks 

accumulated. Rocks that crop out (are exposed) at the surface of an area and can potentially yield 

fossils are the result of geologic (depositional, structural, and erosional) history. Geologic 

formations and sediments exposed at the surface in the Monticello PA range from Pennsylvanian 

to Recent in age. General geologic mapping of the Monticello PA is available as Hintze's (1975) 

Geological Highway Map, digitally by Hintze et al. (2000), and in published USGS 2 degree 

sheets (scale 1:250,000) by Haynes et al. (1972) and Hackman et al. (1973). More detailed 

descriptions of the geology of the Monticello PA are provided in the Mineral Potential Report. 

In the Monticello PA, fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks range in age from Pennsylvanian to 

Quaternary and represent parts of the 3 great periods of Earth history during the Phanerozoic 

(phaneros = visible, zoic = life) eon: the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic. Fossils preserved 

in these deposits include invertebrate, vertebrate, plant, and trace fossils. Mesozoic age rocks are 

most abundant and the only Cenozoic rocks are Quaternary in age. Cenozoic rocks older than 

Quaternary age that may have been present have been removed by erosion. Vertebrate fossils 

from the Monticello PA include the body remains of fish, amphibians, reptiles (including 

dinosaurs), and mammals, as well as tracks and traces of terrestrial animals. These fossils occur 

in rocks of Pennsylvanian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Quaternary age and 

include some specimens known from nowhere else. 

Within the Monticello PA, scientifically significant or important and valuable vertebrate and 

non-vertebrate paleontological resources are most abundant in the Cedar Mountain, Burro 

Canyon, Morrison, and Chinle Formations (Classes 4 and 5), and are locally present but less 

abundant in the Mancos, Dakota, Summerville, Kayenta, Moenave, Moenkopi, Cutler, Rico, and 

Hermosa Formations (Class 3). Scientifically significant or important vertebrate and nonvertebrate fossils occur but are generally uncommon in Pleistocene-age surficial deposits—that 

is, the Bluff, Entrada, Curtis, Carmel, Navajo, and Wingate Formations, and in the White Rim 

Sandstone Member of the Cutler Formation (Class 2). Scientifically significant or important 

vertebrate and non-vertebrate fossils do not occur in relatively young (Holocene-age) surficial 

deposits (Class 2), or in igneous rocks such as the Abajo Mountain Intrusives, Minette Intrusives, 

and Explosion Breccia of volcanic origin (Class 1). 

A search of the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) fossil database in Salt Lake City revealed a total 

of 311 fossil localities in the Monticello PA (Personal communication from M. Hayden to G. F. 

Winterfeld, Erathem-Vanir Geological, in 2003). Of these, 74 yield vertebrate fossils; 135 yield 

invertebrate fossils; 88 yield plant fossils; and 42 yield vertebrate trace fossils. Information from 

this database supplemented by published references and personal experience documents that 

vertebrate fossils (which the BLM considers of scientific significance) are known from 19 

geologic units (formations or members). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.10 Paleontological Resources

3-85 

3.10.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The BLM has identified 4 objectives for the management of fossil resources on lands it 

administers. They are: 1) locating, evaluating, managing, and protecting fossil resources; 2) 

facilitating appropriate scientific, educational and recreational uses of fossils; 3) ensuring that 

proposed land uses do not inadvertently damage or destroy important fossil resources; and 4) 

fostering public awareness of the Nation's rich paleontological heritage. Uniform procedural 

guidance for management of paleontological resources on BLM lands is provided by the BLM's 

Paleontology Resources Management Manual and Handbook H-8279-1 (BLM 1998a). 

Collection of fossils from BLM-administered lands in the Monticello PA is allowed with some 

restrictions, depending on the significance of the fossils and the place of collection. Under 

existing regulations, recreational collection of common invertebrate or plant fossils by the public 

is allowed in reasonable quantities using hand tools. Exceptions to this include except in 

developed recreation sites or areas or where otherwise prohibited and posted. The public is also 

allowed to collect petrified wood without a permit for personal, noncommercial purposes. 

Petrified wood is treated by the BLM as a mineral material rather than as a fossil. Individuals can 

collect up to 25 pounds plus one piece per person per day, with a maximum of 250 pounds in one 

calendar year. Current regulations do not allow any commercial collecting of paleontological 

resources, but a commercial permit may be obtained for the collection and sale of petrified wood. 

Recreational collecting of vertebrate fossils, as well as noteworthy fossil invertebrates and plants, 

is prohibited on all BLM-administered lands. Vertebrate fossils are the remains or traces of 

animals with backbones such as fish, turtles, dinosaurs, mammals, reptiles, and birds, and 

include material such as fossil bones, teeth, tracks, coprolites, and burrows. Significant plant and 

invertebrate fossils are determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Professional paleontologists conducting research or assessment and mitigation are primarily 

regulated through the permit process. Two types of paleontological resource use permits are 

issued. The basic permit is a survey and limited surface collection permit, issued for 

reconnaissance work and collection of surface finds, with a one-square-meter limit on surface 

disturbance. If disturbance during the paleontological work will exceed this limit, or will require 

mechanized equipment, the researcher must apply for an excavation permit. Prior to 

authorization of an excavation permit, the BLM must prepare an environmental assessment of 

the proposed location. All fossils collected under a permit remain public property, must be 

placed in an approved repository, and never can be sold. Annually, the BLM issues one or two 

paleontological resource use permits specifically for the Monticello PA (Personal 

communication with Laurie Bryant, 2003). There are also approximately 12 statewide research 

permits allowing surface collecting/reconnaissance that would include the Monticello PA. In 

addition, the BLM issues approximately 8 consulting permits annually in Utah, all of which are 

statewide and thus include the Monticello PA. The number of amateurs involved in collecting is 

unknown. The Monticello FO receives several inquiries each year regarding fossil collection. 

Certainly many important paleontological discoveries have been and will continue to be made by 

amateurs or those who accidentally encounter fossils, but the number of such discoveries is also 

unknown. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.10 Paleontological Resources

3-86 

The BLM favors the development of museum exhibits and informational kiosks or similar 

developments at roadside turnouts over the interpretation of areas where fossils remain in the 

ground. These projects provide opportunities for learning and enjoyment. There may be 

substantial risk of damage or unauthorized collecting of fossils by the public in interpretive areas 

that are not staffed. 

3.10.3 RESOURCE ISSUES

Fossil theft and vandalism is a problem within the FO boundaries. Public interest in fossils and 

the commercial value of fossils have increased significantly in recent years. As public interest 

waxes and the prices of fossils rise, federal land managing agencies (including the BLM) are 

under increasing pressure to both protect scientifically significant fossil resources and to ensure 

their appropriate availability to the general public. Escalating commercial values of fossils also 

means that increasingly, fossils on federal lands are subject to theft and vandalism. These crimes 

reduce scientific and public access to scientifically significant and instructive fossils and destroy 

the contextual information critical for interpreting the fossils. As described in Title 43 CFR 

Subparts 8365.1-5 and 8360.0-7, willful disturbance, removal and destruction of scientific 

resources or natural objects on federal lands is illegal and there are penalties for such violations. 

Often, the most pronounced damage is the loss of the context and other significant scientific 

data, the worth of which is difficult to evaluate in monetary terms. 

3.10.4 SENSITIVITY EVALUATION

The Monticello FO uses two systems to classify its lands with regard to paleontological 

resources: the Paleontology Condition System, which is in standard use, and the Probable Fossil 

Yield Potential, which has been informally adopted by some state BLM offices. 

The Paleontology Condition System classifies areas according to their potential to contain 

vertebrate fossils, or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. According to the 

BLM Handbook 8270-1 (BLM 1998a, revised), this system uses the following classifications: 

Condition 1: Areas that are known to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate or plant fossils. Consideration of paleontological resources will be necessary if 

the Field Office review of available information indicates that such fossils are present in the 

area. 

Condition 2: Areas with exposures of geological units or settings that have high potential to 

contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. The 

presence of geologic units from which such fossils have been recovered elsewhere may 

require further assessment of these same units where they are exposed in the area of 

consideration. 

Condition 3: Areas that are very unlikely to produce vertebrate fossils or noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils based on their surficial geology, igneous or 

metamorphic rocks, extremely young alluvium (sediment deposited by flowing water), 

colluvium (a lose deposit of rock debris accumulated through the action of gravity) or eolian 

(carried by the wind) deposits, or the presence of deep soils. However, if possible, it should 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-87 

be noted at what depth bedrock may be expected in order to determine if fossiliferous 

deposits may be uncovered during surface-disturbing activities (BLM 1998a, revised). 

The Probable Fossil Yield Potential is a planning tool involving the rating of geological units, 

usually at the formation or member level, according to the probability of yielding paleontological 

resources that are of concern to land managers. The classes include the following (personal 

communication from D. Hanson to G. F. Winterfeld, Erathem-Vanir Geological, 2003): 

Class 1: Igneous and metamorphic (tuffs are excluded from this category) geologic units or 

units representing heavily disturbed preservational environments that are not likely to contain 

recognizable fossil remains. 

Class 2: Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or 

scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils. 

Class 3: Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, 

abundance, and predictable occurrence. Also sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential. 

Class 4: Geologic units that are Class 5 units (see below) that have lowered risks of 

human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation. 

Class 5: Highly fossiliferous geologic units that regularly and predictably produce vertebrate 

fossils and/or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils, and that are at risk of natural 

degradation and/or human-caused adverse impacts. 

3.11 RECREATION 

3.11.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The Monticello PA (previously referred to as the San Juan Resource Area in the 1991 RMP 

[BLM 1991a]) administers an area that has gained international recognition for its extraordinary 

natural beauty and numerous recreational opportunities. In addition to the recreational amenities 

it manages, the Monticello PA is near several popular destinations managed by other federal and 

state land management agencies. These areas include Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

(NRA), Monument Valley, Canyonlands NP, Goosenecks State Park, Hovenweep National 

Monument and Natural Bridges National Monument. 

The Moab PA, internationally recognized for its recreation resources as well, borders the 

northern edge of the Monticello PA. As the popularity of the entire region has increased, 

seasonal visitation and demand for a variety of recreational opportunities in the Monticello PA 

has increased as well. These opportunities include: hiking, biking, boating, cultural resource 

viewing, camping, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, rock climbing, horseback riding, hunting, 

wildlife viewing, sightseeing and scenic photography. Visitation in the Monticello PA occurs 

throughout the year, while the busy seasons occur in the spring and fall. 

3.11.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Although San Juan County is actively promoting itself as a recreational destination, BLM 

facilities and recreation staff remains limited. There have been major increases in recreational 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-88 

visitation and use over the last 15 years, and impacts to other resources derived from recreation 

have been identified. 

3.11.2.1 RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS) 

The ROS is a tool used by BLM recreation planners to identify existing outdoor recreational 

opportunities and management potential, based on a combination of 3 criteria: recreational 

activity, setting, and experience. Utilizing the ROS system, the range of recreational 

opportunities in the Monticello PA is divided into the 6 management classes described below 

(BLM 1991a). Please see Map 35 for the location of each of these current classes throughout the 

FO. The Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) will not be carried forward in any of the 

action alternatives. 

• Primitive (P): These areas are characterized by a roadless, essentially unmodified natural 

environment. Approximately 245,723 acres are currently managed to be essentially free from 

evidence of human use. Activities allowed are those that would protect the primitive 

recreational activities, settings, and experiences. 

• Semiprimitive Nonmotorized (SPNM): These areas are characterized by a roadless, 

predominantly unmodified environment. Approximately 550,537 acres are currently 

managed to provide a predominantly natural environment with limited evidence of human 

use. The recreational goal in these areas is to provide not more than 20 group-encounters a 

day. 

• Semiprimitive Motorized (SPM): These areas are the same as Semiprimitive, except that 

motorized use is permitted. Approximately 375,074 acres are currently managed similarly to 

P-class areas, but motorized boat use on the San Juan River is allowed. 

• Roaded Natural (RN): These areas are characterized by a generally natural environment, 

with evidence of natural resource modification and use that is in harmony with the natural 

environment. Approximately 725,510 acres are currently managed to maintain this generally 

natural environment. 

• Rural (R): These areas are characterized by a substantially modified natural environment. 

Approximately 14,286 acres are currently managed for unlimited access and high visitation, 

while still in harmony with the natural environment. 

• Urban (U): These areas are characterized by a user-intensive, developed, and modified 

resource setting. Approximately 2,371 acres are currently managed for high visitation and 

development. 

3.11.2.2 THE SAN JUAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The 1991 San Juan RMP (BLM 1991a) for the Monticello FO is the current guiding document 

for recreation management throughout the San Juan Resource Area (SJRA). The management 

objectives are: "to develop recreation sites; to designate SRMAs and manage so as to protect 

recreational opportunities in accordance with RMP goals; to manage public lands to preserve 

most ROS P-Class areas and protect most ROS SPNM-class areas in accordance with RMP 

goals; to designate all of SJRA as Open, Closed, or Limited for outstandingly remarkable value 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-89 

(ORV) use, depending in part on ROS classes and on the need to recognize critical 

environmental values in specific areas" (BLM 1989). 

3.11.2.3 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE MANAGEMENT (OHV) 

The San Juan RMP (BLM 1991a) defines the level of OHV opportunities, and the reasons for 

OHV closure areas. Currently there are 611,310 acres open to OHV use without restrictions, 

540,260 acres designated as limited use with seasonal restrictions, 570,390 acres designated as 

limited to existing roads and trails, 218, 780 acres limited to designated roads and trails and 

276,430 acres closed to OHV use in the Monticello PA. No maps or inventories were completed 

for the areas where travel is limited to existing roads and trails. Additionally, the Monticello FO 

has not completed a designation process for the areas where travel is limited to existing roads 

and trails. 

Off-highway vehicle use is monitored intermittently in 4 areas in the PA, including Fish Creek 

Canyon, Butler Wash, Bridger Jack Mesa and Indian Creek. Monitoring includes the 

determination of the number of tracks encountered along a transect, the type of tracks observed, 

and any vehicles observed. The monitoring report concludes with any recommended action or 

immediate on-the-ground action. Photographic logs are also kept to document resource damage. 

All WSAs in the PA are monitored for OHV intrusions. 

Areas that have intense OHV use include Butler Wash, Comb Wash, Montezuma Creek, Indian 

Creek, and Hole in the Rock Trail. Demand for OHV activities is expected to continue to 

increase in the Monticello PA. This will place demands on the FO to provide for and monitor 

motorized users. This upcoming demand also has implications for OHV designation and for 

route marking. 

There are active OHV groups, both local and national, that want to see improved management 

from the BLM in terms of OHV route development and opportunities. The BLM has received 

comments from the public asking for marked OHV trails and trailhead facilities and staging 

areas. The BLM has also received numerous complaints about OHV use, misuse, and illegal trail 

building. There is a growing level of conflict between motorized and nonmotorized users of the 

PA (see Section 3.11.4.3, User Conflicts). 

The Monticello FO has received increased requests from commercial companies for special 

recreation permits (SRPs) related to OHV guiding and tours, as well as from groups that organize 

group events such as the San Juan ATV Safari and the Jeep Jamboree. 

The Utah Division of State Parks and Recreation monitors OHV registration through the Utah 

Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The following data show a dramatic increase in OHV 

ownership in the State of Utah and San Juan County during the past 5 years. (Note: OHV 

registrations include all-terrain vehicles [ATVs], non-street legal motorbikes, snowmobiles and 

dune buggies. Vehicles that are street legal, such as jeeps and trucks, are licensed, and are not 

considered OHVs for registration purposes.) 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-90 

Table 3.20. OHV Registrations in 1998, 2002, and 2003 

 1998 2002 2003 Percent Increase 

Statewide 77,361 160,583 167,174 216% 

San Juan County 342 914 961 28% 

Source: Personal communication between Julie Nelson, DMV Analyst, and David Harris, SWCA Environmental Consultants, April 

8, 2004. 

An OHV Survey completed by the Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism entitled OffHighway Vehicle Four-Wheeler Survey (Reiter and Blahna 1998b), summarizes the use 

characteristics of visitors to the Moab Easter Jeep Safari. The results of this study can be 

extrapolated as a representation of all OHV users in the region, and is relevant also to the 

Monticello PA. Typical expectations of OHV users include scenery, naturalness, seeing a new 

area, and remoteness. Socializing within one's group was also identified as a high expectation of 

this user group. Typical users were not characterized as risk takers. The primary management 

priorities of this user group are to: 

• protect natural resources; 

• not close or restrict use on any existing routes; 

• provide new trails; 

• mark and sign popular routes; 

• let existing trails get more difficult; and 

• emphasize information and educational approaches to minimize impacts and to inform and 

educate OHV recreationists (Reiter and Blahna 1998a). 

3.11.2.4 SPECIAL RECREATION PERMITS (SRPS)

With 89 land-and river-based commercial outfitters in the Monticello PA for 2006, guiding and 

events are becoming an increasingly important part of the local San Juan County economy. 

However, permitting is a time-consuming activity for BLM staff because a NEPA environmental 

analysis must be completed before a permit can be issued. A Cost Recovery Program is in place 

for any NEPA proposal that is estimated to take more than 50 hours of BLM specialists' time. 

The types of SRPs issued by the Monticello FO are described in detail below. 

3.11.2.4.1 NON-COMMERCIAL SPECIAL RECREATION PERMITS (SRPS) AND SPECIAL EVENTS

Special recreation permits are required for commercial and competitive recreational uses for 

groups and for OHV events involving 50 or more vehicles on BLM-administered public lands. 

SRPs may be required for recreational use on public lands by organized non-commercial groups 

of greater than one person, but permit issuance would be at the discretion of the FO Manager and 

based on site-specific conditions (personal communication between Brad Colin, Monticello FO, 

and David Harris, SWCA Environmental Consultants, June 22, 2007). Commercial outfitters are 

required to submit a schedule of use prior to the BLM issuing an SRP (BLM 2002b). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-91 

3.11.2.4.2 COMMERCIAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL RIVER PERMITTING

In addition to the permit stipulations stated above, additional stipulations apply to the San Juan 

River. In 2005, the BLM received 4,325 non-commercial permit applications for the San Juan 

River; of which 964 were approved. Due to the high and growing demand, the BLM has 

instituted a mandatory, assigned campsite system on the San Juan River at Slickhorn (sites A–E), 

Grand Gulch, Trimble, Oljato, and Steer Gulch campsites, which are the only campsites 

available at higher water levels. The BLM reserves dates at these nine campsites on a rotating 

basis for commercial use (BLM 2002b). Currently, 11 commercial permits have been issued for 

the San Juan River, and a moratorium on issuing additional commercial permits is in effect. 

3.11.2.4.3 FEE DEMONSTRATION, FEE COLLECTION, AND BUDGET FOR PROGRAMS

Due to a lack of base budgetary support, the Monticello FO has come to rely on the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act for needed funds. The Monticello FO collects fees for 

recreational use in several locations including the San Juan River, Cedar Mesa and fee collection 

sites at two campgrounds. 

Services to the public are provided from these fee monies. These services include (but are not 

limited to) maintenance of campgrounds, boat ramps, and restroom facilities; staffing of the San 

Juan River Ranger Station and the Kane Gulch Ranger Station; and expenses related to the San 

Juan River and Cedar Mesa permit activities. Fees amounted to $259,330 in 2005. Fee, receipts 

vary greatly depending on water levels in the San Juan River and the amounts of drinking water 

in the canyons available for backpackers. Fees from the river program support both the river 

program and the Cedar Mesa program. While the Cedar Mesa program does collect fees, they are 

not enough to cover the expenses incurred for the management of the area. 

3.11.2.5 RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS

The BLM recreational management includes the designation two types of recreational 

management areas; Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and the Extensive 

Recreation Management Area (ERMA). SRMAs are areas with very specific recreational 

opportunities or needs that require intensive management. SRMAs typically receive more 

intensive use and require higher numbers of staff and/or facilities to manage. The ERMA 

encompasses all those areas within the Monticello PA that are not managed as SRMAs. Detailed 

descriptions of the SRMAs and the ERMA in the Monticello PA are given below. Within the 

Monticello PA, 3 areas have been designated as SRMAs, including the San Juan River, Grand 

Gulch (which encompasses Cedar Mesa), and Canyon Basins. The Colorado River lies within the 

ERMA, but is not designated as part of the ERMA. 

Another management technique is the designation of ACECs. ACECs are designated areas in the 

FO area where special management attention is needed to: 1) protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to important historic, cultural, and scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or other 

natural systems or processes; or 2) to protect human life and safety from natural hazards. While 

ACECs typically are not associated directly with recreational management, in many cases the 

protection of ACEC resource values provides certain types of recreational opportunities 

generally relating to cultural, historic, scenic, or wildlife resources. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-92 

3.11.2.5.1 SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMAS)

3.11.2.5.1.1 San Juan River SRMA 

The San Juan River SRMA (SJRMA) encompasses approximately 15,000 acres on the north side 

of the San Juan River, from Montezuma Creek downstream to the boundary of the Grand Gulch 

Plateau SRMA, west of the town of Mexican Hat, Utah. The south side of the San Juan River is 

under the jurisdiction and administration of the BIA and the Navajo Nation. 

Boating use on the San Juan River is very popular. A total of 1220 trips were recorded for 2005 

with 45,059 user days. 2004 use was 1015 trips with 37,632 user days. Use varies widely 

depending on water flows in the river. 2005 was a record high water year. This intensive use 

necessitated the initiation of a lottery system for obtaining permits to control the number of 

visitors on the river. Many more private users apply than obtain permits, and many more 

companies would like to have commercial permits on the San Juan River. Pending the 

completion of a San Juan River Management Plan, commercial use is currently capped by the 

number of operators and by the number of launch dates. 

The majority of float trips occur from March through September, though river use is open yearround. Launch sites include Sand Island and the Mexican Hat Boat Ramp while other sites are 

also used occasionally. Take-out locations are the Sand Island Boat Ramp, the Mexican Hat Boat 

Ramp, and Clay Hills. 

There is no current river management plan for the San Juan River. Natural resources issues 

identified by staff in the Monticello FO are described below: 

• A San Juan River Management Plan is needed. 

• Expansion of invasive, non-native species along the riparian corridor and popular camping 

areas. 

• High recreational use is making the protection of threatened and endangered species more 

difficult. Increase in recreation, especially in riparian areas and canyons, is impacting special 

status species, making protection more difficult. These species include the Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo, the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, the Gunnison Sage-grouse and the Mexican 

Spotted Owl (see Section 3.16, Special Status Species). 

• Increased visitation, and access to more information, has escalated the amount of looting and 

degradation of cultural sites. OHV riders both create and follow trails that pass directly 

through cultural sites. Secondary impacts include increased scouring and erosion of cultural 

resource sites as a result of vegetation loss from OHV use and dispersed camping related to 

OHV use. 

• Siltation on the lower half of the river has changed the boating experience and may cause 

potential closure in 10–15 years. 

• Water development in the upper San Juan River basin has created lower flows to lower river 

segments; boaters, especially those with larger commercial boats, are having problems 

getting through and are canceling launches. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-93 

• Launch ramps at the Sand Island Campground and at Mexican Hat Boat Launch are prone to 

flood damage. 

• Management Agreements with the Navajo Nation and Glen Canyon NRA should be written 

(as of February 2004 these are underway). 

• The boundaries of the SRMA need to be changed due to the "accretion" of land at 

approximately River Mile (minus) -9 to River Mile approximately (minus) -5, south of the 

private parcels located at the town of Bluff. 

The 2001 Utah Rivers Study completed by the Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 

asked visitors to identify problems along the Upper and Lower San Juan River. Table 3.21 shows 

results of this study. However, it should also be noted that 98% of boaters on the upper San Juan 

and 99% on the lower San Juan said they were satisfied with their river trip experience. 

The most popular trip origin and destination on the San Juan River is from Sand Island to 

Mexican Hat, with more than double the trips as any other stretch of the river. The majority of 

trips originate from Sand Island Campground. 

Table 3.21. Issues Identified by Users on the San Juan River 

Upper San Juan River Lower San Juan River Both Sections 

Destruction of historic resources Hard finding unoccupied 

campsites 

Litter along the river 

Graffiti or other vandalism Not enough campsites along 

river 

Evidence of cattle 

Lack of information about river Cattle droppings at campsites Graffiti/Vandalism 

Lack of water at launches/ 

take-outs 

Destruction of historic resources Lack of water at launches 

Vegetation and soil trampling at 

launches 

Litter along river 

Low flying aircraft 

Lack of water at launches/takeouts 

Source: Blahna and Reiter 2001. 

Developed sites within the San Juan SRMA include the Sand Island Campground with 24 sites, 

Sand Island Boat Launch, and Mexican Hat Boat Launch. The river take-out point at Clay Hills 

is on land administered by Glen Canyon NRA. There is little development at Clay Hills; a pit 

toilet, an unimproved dirt ramp, and a rough dirt access road. 

3.11.2.5.1.2 Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA/Cedar Mesa 

The Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA includes not only the Grand Gulch canyon system, but also 

Cedar Mesa and its canyon systems. The Cedar Mesa area of the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA is 

an area of regional, national and international significance for recreation. It is located 

approximately 25 miles west of the town of Blanding, Utah and 10 miles north of the town of 

Mexican Hat, Utah. It is bordered on the north by the Manti–La Sal National Forest (NF), on the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-94 

east by Butler Wash, on the west by Scenic Highway Route 276, and on the south by Highway 

163 and the Glen Canyon NRA. 

The major attractions within Cedar Mesa are its cultural resources including: lithic scatters, 

petroglyph and pictograph panels, pit houses and pit structures, Pueblo kivas, granaries, and cliff 

dwellings. Currently Cedar Mesa is being managed under the Grand Gulch Plateau Cultural and 

Recreation Area Management Plan (BLM 1993c). Due to increasing demand, a backcountry 

permit allocation system was adopted in 1999 for Cedar Mesa hikers. Permits are required to 

hike the area and are obtained either at the Monticello FO or at the Kane Gulch Ranger Station 

on Cedar Mesa. 

The Grand Gulch Plateau Cultural and Recreational Area Management Plan (BLM 1993c) 

established the following overall objectives for the Cedar Mesa area (including Grand Gulch): 

• protect and preserve cultural resources; 

• protect, preserve, and enhance the natural character, solitude, inspirational value and scenic 

quality; 

• protect and preserve primitive and semiprimitive and nonmotorized recreation opportunities; 

and 

• increase awareness, appreciation, and stewardship of cultural and natural resources through 

education and interpretation. 

Recreation resource management decisions specific to the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA include: 

• The Grand Gulch Plateau area was identified as an area to be managed to preserve 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) primitive (P) class and protect ROS semiprimitive 

nonmotorized class (SPNM) areas (see Section 3.10.2.2 above for detailed ROS 

information). 

• The following ROS classes were assigned within the Cultural and Recreation Management 

Area: primitive (P) class, semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM) class, semiprimitive 

motorized (SPM) class, and roaded natural (RN) class (See Map 35 for a depiction of current 

ROS areas within the FO PA). 

• Five recreation sites were identified for development or improvement including: Kane Gulch 

Ranger Station Area, which was constructed in 2005 and 2006. Comb Wash Campground, 

which is funded for 2006; Arch Canyon Campground, Butler Wash Ruin, and Mule Canyon 

Ruin. All have been developed or being planned for development except for Arch Canyon 

(Arch Canyon will likely not be recommended for development in the current RMP revision). 

The Kane Gulch Ranger Station, located at the main access point into Grand Gulch, is the 

primary administrative site for the management of the area. BLM employees and volunteers, 

who live and work there seasonally from mid-February to November, staff the ranger station. 

Several other buildings and a number of travel trailers are sited there. Developed recreation sites 

within Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA include: the Kane Gulch Ranger Station, Bullet Canyon 

Trailhead, Government Trailhead, Collins Springs Trailhead, Arch Canyon Ruin, Comb Wash 

Campsite, Fish and Owl Canyon Trailheads, Moon House Trailhead, and the Butler Wash Ruin 

and Mule Canyon Ruin Interpretive Sites. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-95 

3.11.2.5.1.3 Canyon Basins SRMA 

Canyon Basins SRMA encompasses approximately 214,000 acres. It is surrounded by 

Canyonlands National Park (NP) and Glen Canyon NRA on the west, Manti–La Sal NF on the 

south, and Hart's Point on the east. Located within the SRMA boundaries are the following 

ACECs: Indian Creek, Lavender Canyon, Bridger Jack Mesa, Shay Canyon, Butler Wash, and 

Dark Canyon. Other well-known recreation areas within the SRMA include Beef Basin, Shay 

Mesa, Dark Canyon Plateau, and Salt Creek Mesa. 

The Indian Creek Recreation Corridor is a recognized attraction for rock climbing, while also 

providing opportunities for camping, backpacking, motorized vehicle use, and archeological site 

viewing. The Access Fund, a climbing lobbying group, has a very strong commitment to this 

area and recently, with private industry support, is revising a brochure on Indian Creek. An 

environmental assessment (EA), funded by the Nature Conservancy was signed in October 2005 

for the Indian Creek Recreation Corridor. A private group, the Friends of Indian Creek Inc. was 

established in 2006 to assist the BLM with the implementation of the Indian Creek Recreation 

Corridor EA. 

The rapidly increasing popularity of the area has severely increased the impact of humans on the 

corridor environment, and has created a demand for additional visitor services and facilities. 

Issues and concerns arising from the area's increase in popularity include: an increase in size and 

use of dispersed camping areas; management of human waste; preventing human-livestock 

conflicts; lack of adequate and safe parking; and protection of cultural sites within the immediate 

climbing area. 

Existing facilities within the Canyon Basins SRMA include: Newspaper Rock Interpretive Site, 

Indian Creek (upstream from the Falls) Campsite (3 sites), and Hamburger Rock Campground (8 

sites). 

Dark Canyon ACEC is located in Canyon Basin SRMA. The Dark Canyon ACEC encompasses 

approximately 62,040 acres and has the same boundaries as the Dark Canyon Primitive Area. It 

includes Dark Canyon with its side canyons of Lost, Lean-To, Youngs, and Black Steer, and then 

Bowdie Canyon, Gypsum Canyon, and Fable Valley. This area was designated as a primitive 

area in December 1970 to protect its scenic, recreational, and other values and became an instant 

Wilderness Study Area in 1976. The lower portions of Dark Canyon (3 miles), Bowdie Canyon 

(2 miles), and Gypsum Canyon (3 miles) are within the G1en Canyon NRA and are areas 

proposed for wilderness designation. The upper portion of Dark Canyon is within the Manti–La 

Sal NF and was designated in 1984 as the Dark Canyon Wilderness Area, encompassing about 

50,000 acres (BLM 1986a). 

Beef Basin is located within the Canyon Basin SRMA. This area is popular with those seeking a 

backcountry driving experience, primitive camping and an opportunity to see ruins. 

Since the implementation of mandatory permit system on Cedar Mesa, there is increasing private 

recreational use of Dark Canyon as well as increasing demand for permits from commercial 

operators. If this trend continues, a permit system for Dark Canyon will likely be necessary. 

Commercial interest and the use of Dark Canyon is originating from FS, NPS, and BLM public 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-96 

lands. There is little current on-the-ground management by the BLM within the Dark Canyon 

ACEC. 

3.11.2.5.2 EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA

3.11.2.5.2.1 Colorado River 

The Colorado River lies within the Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA), but is not 

designated as part of the ERMA. The Monticello FO manages the portion of the Colorado River 

from the northernmost PA boundary at the Colorado River south to Canyonlands NP 

(approximately river mile 50 to river mile 31). 

Guidance supports dispersed recreation use throughout the San Juan PA, with permits required 

for commercial and private use in special areas where protection of resource values is needed. 

There is very little unpermitted day use of the river in Canyonlands NP because of the distance 

from put-ins and take-outs. Commercial use is expected to increase outside of the park (personal 

communication between Dave Wood, Canyonlands NP, and David Harris, SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, on March 30, 2004). A joint agreement between the BLM 

Monticello FO and Canyonlands NP to manage the Colorado River segment needs to be 

completed. 

3.11.2.5.2.2 Hole in the Rock Trail 

This trail is both an historic feature as well as a recreational opportunity. The trail was 

established in 1879 as a route between the settlements of Escalante and Bluff. Major use of the 

trail is by four-wheel drive vehicles for scenic driving. The trail segment within the Monticello 

PA is approximately 115 miles long. 

The trail is open to OHV use. Sections of this trail lead into Glen Canyon NRA, and within the 

Glen Canyon NRA, vehicle use is open to licensed vehicles, but not unlicensed OHVs. There is 

increasing use and interest for both private and commercial use of the trail. These uses include 

cultural tours, OHV tours, bicycle tours, canyoneering, backpacking, and special uses such as 

OHV Safaris and adventure races. Many local residents have ancestors that traveled on this trail. 

These residents want to visit the area, and they have established The Hole in the Rock 

Foundation to protect their interests and work with the BLM on issues concerning this trail. 

3.11.2.5.2.3 Old Spanish National Historic Trail 

Approximately 20 miles of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail (a designated National 

Historic Trail running from New Mexico to California), lies within the Monticello PA, and 

except where crossing private land, the trail corridor is open for vehicle use. There are no BLMadministered facilities along the trail segment, and the BLM is currently not actively managing 

the trail. The BLM is currently cooperating with the NPS to complete a plan to manage the entire 

trail. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-97 

3.11.2.5.2.4 Valley of the Gods 

The Valley of the Gods is located in the southern portion of the Monticello PA. Recreational 

activities in Valley of the Gods include sightseeing, primitive camping, hiking, and biking. The 

annual one-day Bluff Balloon Festival is held there in January. The area is well known for its 

scenic quality, with outstanding views of Cedar Mesa sandstone and other unique geologic 

formations. County Road 242 (dirt, single-lane road) takes a 17-mile circuitous route through the 

valley, passing many features of interest. 

3.11.2.5.2.5 Three Kiva Pueblo 

Three Kiva is a pueblo site with a reconstructed kiva. Kivas are an important Southwestern 

architectural form. "Kiva" is a Hopi word used to refer to specialized round and rectangular 

rooms in Pueblos. Modern kivas are used for men's gathering and ceremonial purposes. 

Archeologists believe that ancient kivas were used for similar purposes. The site, near 

Montezuma Creek, has an interpretive sign as well as a ladder allowing visitors an opportunity to 

view a pueblo kiva. 

3.11.2.5.2.6 Trail of the Ancients National Scenic Byway. 

The Trail of the Ancients National Scenic Byway is a scenic drive providing an opportunity for 

viewing prehistoric and modern Native American cultures and remarkable desert scenery. This 

scenic byway runs through a portion of the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA. 

3.11.3 TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES

According to staff in the Monticello FO, the following trends in recreation have been observed in 

the resource area: 

• increased OHV use; 

• increased commercial activity requests; 

• increased Special Event requests; 

• increased rock climbing; 

• increased visitation of recreation and cultural sites due to increase in distribution of 

information via the Internet; 

• increased demand for private and commercial river use; 

• the displacement of campers out of areas with mandatory permit systems; 

• increased overflow camping use by visitors that cannot find room in NPS campgrounds; 

• increased visitor expectation that the BLM's information sources are comparable to that 

available on the Internet; and 

• displacement of private visitors and commercial operators from the NPS lands around Moab; 

these visitors are moving into the Monticello area (Reiter and Blahna 1998a, 1998b). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-98 

The Recreation Management Information System (RMIS) documents visitor days for various 

activities throughout the FO area. Although these numbers are not completely accurate, they do 

reflect the proportionate use as well as the increase in use of the resource for recreation activities. 

The table below shows recreation use for the Fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003. 

3.11.4 ISSUES AND CONCERNS

3.11.4.1 INCREASED RECREATION USE

SRMA boundaries need to be reevaluated based on increased visitor use, recreation opportunities 

and the resource involved. The current RMP does not identify the kinds of levels of land use that 

could sustain recreational values. There are no accurate numbers on private recreational use other 

than the permitted uses on the San Juan River and Cedar Mesa. At current staff levels, it is 

becoming difficult to keep up with SRP and NEPA workloads. 

Table 3.22. Visitor Days 2001–2005 

Activity 2002 2003 2004 2005 2002–2005 

Increase or 

Decrease 

Camping 36,103 51,266 85,759 84,560 48,457 

Boating (nonmotorized) 19,308 21,696 28,094 32,700 13,392 

Hiking 12,169 15,244 21,652 20,832 8,663 

Backpacking 8,817 11,389 14,986 10,391 1,574 

Viewing cultural sites 4,098 4,321 8,132 7,516 3,418 

OHV use 1,833 6,610 11,292 12,060 10,227 

Nonmotorized events 

and activities 

1,386 157 216 201 -1,185 

Hunting 1,119 3,432 2,860 3,930 2,811 

Driving for pleasure 663 2,069 1,733 2,800 2,137 

Mountain biking 662 1,816 1,558 2,297 1,635 

Pack trips 493 813 1,107 2,396 1,903 

Source: BLM recreation records located in Monticello FO. 

3.11.4.2 RESOURCE CONFLICTS/IMPACTS

Various recreational activities create impacts to resources including riparian areas, vegetation, 

wildlife, vegetation, soils, grazing, oil and gas, and cultural resources. Resource conflicts occur 

when two uses compete for the same resource, such as recreational use in wildlife habitat. 

Specific areas where resource conflicts are occurring include: 

• Recreation vs. Natural Resources—specifically at Indian Creek where camping impacts the 

riparian area, traffic impacts safety, and high use impacts human health and safety. 

• Recreation vs. Cultural Resources—The Cedar Mesa area of Grand Gulch has a reputation 

for being a premier place to hike into Indian ruins and remote canyons. Although managed 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation

3-99 

by permit, information available on the Internet and in guidebooks is leading hikers to 

sensitive cultural sites. The issue is how to protect cultural sites and still allow for visitation 

and education at Newspaper Rock, Butler Wash, Comb Wash, Cedar Mesa, and Montezuma 

Creek. This issue is particularly intense along the San Juan River and on Cedar Mesa. 

3.11.4.3 USER CONFLICTS

As recreational use has increased throughout the Monticello PA, users have moved into areas 

historically used by other resource users, such as ranchers, and the oil and gas industry. Conflicts 

have developed among these user groups as long-term users resent encroachment of 

recreationists on the public lands. In turn, some recreation users see their use of the public land 

as the highest and best use, and feel that the established users have no place on that land. Another 

source of tension is among various recreation user groups. 

When recreational use reaches a certain threshold, user groups start to resent the multi-use nature 

of public lands. For example, some hikers resent mountain bikers and motorized users on shared 

trails, while mountain bikers may seek some trails free from motorized use. Conflicts are known 

to exist between: 

• recreation and grazing users; 

• nonmotorized recreation and motorized recreation users; 

• rock-climbing and grazing (specifically in Indian Creek) users; 

• commercial vs. private users (related to San Juan River users as well as backpackers 

throughout the resource area, especially in Dark Canyon); and 

• river runners and OHV users. 

3.11.4.4 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Human waste disposal is becoming an issue in the more popular slot canyons and dispersed 

camping areas, such as Indian Creek. Climbers and hikers, the primary users of this area, have 

written letters to the BLM asking the agency to address this problem. The availability of facilities 

is directly related to public health. Inadequate numbers of organized campgrounds and restroom 

facilities contribute to unhealthy levels of human waste in some areas, posing a health risk to 

visitors. Funding for maintenance of existing and needed facilities is also a serious issue. 

Flooding is an issue for recreational use in the SJRA. Flash floods are a real and seasonal danger 

in narrow canyons and canyon crossings. Recent flooding in specific areas provides an example 

of the problem: portions of Newspaper Rock and Sand Island Campground were recently 

inundated by floodwaters. Sand Island campground is particularly prone to flood damage. Trails 

may also become inundated and nonfunctional. The BLM currently lacks the funding to address 

and rectify the damage that occurs from flooding. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian Resources

3-100 

3.11.4.5 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES (OHVS) 

3.11.4.5.1 OHV USE

The increase in the use of OHVs has created several issues for the Monticello FO. First, the 

speed of OHVs allows easier access than foot travel to remote parts of the area, making 

management of this activity and the area utilized more difficult, while also increasing the 

potential range of impacts. Secondly, the popularity of this activity continues to grow, and the 

addition of special events puts additional strain on resources. Planning for areas in which OHVs 

can be used continues to receive national and local attention. Specific issues identified by the 

BLM include: 

• Although the current RMP identifies all public lands as open, limited, or closed, the Plan 

does not give specific management guidance within these designations. 

• The OHV designations outlined in the SJRMP do not currently address the amount of 

recreational use now occurring or the potential of resource damage associated with this use. 

• In the current RMP none of the OHV designations have been implemented. Maps depicting 

existing RMP decisions are out of print and not available to the public. 

• Increased use creates the need for additional management and planning, which is not funded. 

Part of this RMP revision process is to evaluate and update the OHV designations and develop a 

current map of the Monticello PA in order to ensure that the FO is in compliance with Executive 

Order 11644 as amended by Executive Order 11989 and also to ensure that the FO is following 

the National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands, 

January 2001. 

3.11.4.5.2 OHV LEGAL ISSUES

Monticello FO, like much of Utah, continually deals with OHV-associated conflicts, including 

those that have legal implications. These conflicts have ranged from minor disagreements 

between resources users, to unauthorized opening of an old trail into a WSA. The BLM has 

struggled with OHV management in the Monticello FO due to the lack of a completed travel plan 

that includes designated areas for OHV use and a completed roads and trails system. Without a 

final travel plan, the BLM cannot update travel maps or undertake to educate users on OHV 

restrictions to protect natural resources, particularly cultural resources, which are found in 

abundance on public lands in the Monticello FO. 

3.12 RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Riparian areas and wetlands are some of the most diverse and productive ecosystems in Utah, but 

on the landscape level they typically compose very little of the total land area. Riparian and 

wetland ecological systems comprise less than 1% of the 22 million acres of public lands 

administered by the BLM in Utah. However the functions and habitat value provided by these 

areas are essential to both humans and wildlife. For humans, these values are recreational, scenic, 

livestock production, and hunting. Riparian areas are also typically tied to cultural and historical 

values. Additionally, the lifecycles and migration routes of many mammals, birds, amphibians, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian Resources

3-101 

and fishes rely partially or wholly on riparian habitat. Riparian and wetland resources are among 

the first landscape features to show impacts from management activities and provide an indicator 

of overall watershed condition. 

Riparian and wetland areas are vegetative or physical ecosystems that develop in association 

with surface or subsurface water (Leonard et al. 1997). Benefits of riparian/wetland ecosystems 

include: 

• maintaining water quantity and quality; 

• enhancing soil stability and reducing sediment loads; 

• reducing destructive energies associated with flood events; 

• providing for diverse plant and wildlife ecosystems, including special status species; 

• economic value derived from sustainable uses (open space, hunting, livestock grazing and 

commercial recreation); 

• migration corridors for wildlife; and 

• thermal/shade protection for both humans and wildlife, which is especially important within 

the arid southwest. 

3.12.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The BLM administers approximately 20,912 acres (1.6% of lands within the Monticello FO) that 

are riparian and wetland resources. Linear riparian distance in the Monticello FO totals 1,078 

miles. Wetlands in the Monticello FO are primarily concentrated along these riparian zones. 

Some isolated springs do occur, and while these make up a very small percentage of wetland 

resources, they are critical to both wildlife and livestock. 

Within most riparian/wetland systems in the arid southwest, the potential of a riparian/wetland 

ecosystem is strongly dependent upon the availability of water. The degree, timing and source of 

water availability, among other physical factors, contribute to a stream falling into one of 3 

categories: 

• Perennial—A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated 

with a water table in the localities through which they flow. 

• Intermittent—A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water 

from springs or some surface source such as melting snow in mountainous areas. 

• Ephemeral—A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and whose channel 

is above the water table at all times. 

Existing riparian vegetation communities in the Monticello FO were catalogued in 1990 using 

aerial photographic interpretation with some ground-truthing. Identified species reflected the 

dominant vegetation in the community during the cataloguing. Existing riparian vegetation cover 

types and percent composition of riparian area during this time period are included below in 

Table 3.23. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian Resources

3-102 

Table 3.23. Riparian Community Acreages, 1990 Inventory, Monticello FO 

Riparian Community Percent Composition 

Cottonwood 65.9% 

Willow <0.1% 

Tamarisk* 30.2% 

Grasses 0.3% 

Oak 3.6% 

*This is an invasive, non-native species. 

3.12.2 RIPARIAN/WETLAND STUDIES

The BLM has developed Riparian Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) methodology for use by 

interdisciplinary teams of natural resources professionals (BLM 1993d). This methodology 

assesses riparian areas relative to what would be expected under natural conditions and limiting 

factors, i.e., political, social and economic constraints. Levels of functionality include functional, 

functional-at risk, nonfunctional and unknown. A preliminary summary of data on riparian 

functioning condition was prepared by Paul Curtis, Rangeland Conservationist, Monticello FO 

(Table 3.24). These data were collected by private contract in 1994 and by BLM resource 

specialists from 1994 to present. Approximately 50% or less of the actual stream mileage was 

traversed during the collection of this data. Functioning condition is divided into 5 classes, which 

are defined below, with corresponding miles of riparian habitat in each class for the Monticello 

PA (BLM 1998b): 

• PFC: Currently 639 miles (59%) of riparian/wetland areas in the Monticello FO are in PFC 

when adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris is present to: 

o dissipate high-energy water flow; 

o filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; 

o improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; 

o develop root masses that stabilize streambanks; 

o develop diverse fluvial geomorphology (pool and channel complexes) to provide habitat 

for wildlife; and 

o support greater biodiversity. 

• Functioning at Risk, trend not apparent (FAR): Currently 240 miles (22%) of 

riparian/wetland habitat are in functional condition, but at least one soil, water, or vegetation 

attribute makes them susceptible to degradation following high flow events. The trend in 

these systems is not apparent. Management practices that may make them At Risk are 

commonly livestock grazing, presence of roads, OHV activities, and recreational activities 

and development. 

• Functioning at Risk, upward trend (FAR>): Currently 43 miles (4%) of riparian/wetland 

habitat are in functional condition, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes 

them susceptible to degradation following high flow events. However, the limiting attribute 

is improving, causing the system to trend upward. Some degradation could be natural. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian Resources

3-103 

Management practices that may make them At Risk are commonly livestock grazing, 

presence of roads, OHV activities, and recreational activities and development. 

• Functioning at Risk, downward trend (FAR<): Currently 149 miles (14%) of 

riparian/wetland habitat are in functional condition, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation 

attribute makes them susceptible to degradation following high flow events. The limiting 

attribute is not improving, causing the system to trend downward. Some could be natural 

degradation. Management practices that may make them At Risk are commonly livestock 

grazing, presence of roads, OHV activities, and recreational activities and development. 

• Nonfunctioning (NF): Currently 7 miles (0.6%) of riparian/wetland habitat are clearly not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large wood debris to dissipate stream energy 

associated with high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc. 

Some degradation could be natural. Management practices that may make them At Risk are 

commonly livestock grazing, presence of roads, OHV activities, and recreational activities 

and development. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapt

3-104 

Table 3.24. Riparian Functioning Condition, Monticello PA (BLM Lands Only) 

Proper Functioning 

Condition 

Functioning at Risk, 

Trend Not Apparent 

Functioning at Risk, 

Trend Improving 

Functioning 

Trend Dec

Drainage Acres Miles 

Percent Miles Percent Miles Percent Miles Percent 

Alkali Canyon 151.60 6.59 0 100% 6.59 0 Arch Canyon 222.53 8.22 100% 8.22 0 0 Armstrong 8.40 0.50 100% 0.50 0 0 Beef Basin 169.28 7.27 11% 0.80 0 0 89% Big Canyon North 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Big Canyon South 189.54 8.57 0 100% 8.57 0 Big Indian 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Black Steer 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Blue Cyn-Red 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Bogus 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Bowdie 202.22 10.86 100% 10.86 0 0 Bradford 10.69 0.89 100% 0.89 0 0 Bridge Canyon 45.30 2.15 100% 2.15 0 0 Brushy Basin 137.10 7.53 100% 7.53 0 0 Bullet 47.68 3.46 100% 3.46 0 0 Butler 929.96 42.11 30% 12.63 0 40% 16.85 30% Butler WashNorth 303.17 19.07 0 35% 6.67 65% 12.40 Castle 415.35 18.89 30% 5.67 18% 3.40 0 34% Cedar Cyn-Mancos 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Cheesebox 162.16 8.95 100% 8.95 0 0 Coal Bed 284.00 18.93 76% 14.39 24% 4.54 0 Colorado 615.38 18.00 100% 18.00 0 0 Comb Wash 2201.57 36.07 7% 2.52 93% 33.55 0 Corral 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Cow Tank 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Cross Canyon 389.66 8.16 55% 4.49 45% 3.67 0 Dark Canyon 69.27 5.23 90% 4.70 10% 0.53 0 Davis 214.62 6.49 49% 3.18 51% 3.31 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapt

3-105 

Table 3.24. Riparian Functioning Condition, Monticello PA (BLM Lands Only) 

Proper Functioning 

Condition 

Functioning at Risk, 

Trend Not Apparent 

Functioning at Risk, 

Trend Improving 

Functioning 

Trend Dec

Drainage Acres Miles 

Percent Miles Percent Miles Percent Miles Percent 

Deer Canyon 36.59 2.36 100% 2.36 0 0 Devils Canyon 164.82 6.40 100% 6.40 0 0 Dodge Canyon 20.43 1.00 100% 1.00 0 0 Dog Tanks 42.29 2.88 100% 2.88 0 0 Dripping and Step 53.83 3.15 100% 3.15 0 0 Dry Valley 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Dry Wash 314.07 15.80 0 40% 6.32 0 60% East Canyon 160.64 12.40 0 50% 6.20 50% 6.20 Fable 318.72 11.43 80% 9.14 20% 2.29 0 Fish and Owl Creek 

973.72 49.42 90% 44.48 10% 4.94 0 

Forgotten 32.79 2.38 100% 2.38 0 0 Fortknocker 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Fry Canyon 62.27 2.02 0 100% 2.02 0 Grand Gulch 2238.39 101.50 100% 101.5 0 0 Gravel 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Gypsum 93.09 9.30 100% 9.30 0 0 Hart Draw 604.98 26.42 38% 10.04 50% 13.21 0 12% Hideout 0 0 dry 0 0 0 0 0 Horse Canyon 69.60 3.81 0 100% 3.81 0 0 0 Horsehead 60.62 3.00 100% 3.00 0 0 0 0 Indian Creek 1747.18 64.06 37% 23.70 0 0 63% Johns Canyon 290.34 13.52 100% 13.52 0 0 Johnson Creek 93.75 3.98 50% 1.98 0 50% 2.00 Kane Gulch 48.32 2.60 100% 2.60 0 0 Knowles 38.11 2.60 100% 2.60 0 0 Lake Canyon 183.49 9.57 22% 2.11 0 0 45% Lavender 41.06 1.54 0 100% 1.54 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapt

3-106 

Table 3.24. Riparian Functioning Condition, Monticello PA (BLM Lands Only) 

Proper Functioning 

Condition 

Functioning at Risk, 

Trend Not Apparent 

Functioning at Risk, 

Trend Improving 

Functioning 

Trend Dec

Drainage Acres Miles 

Percent Miles Percent Miles Percent Miles Percent 

Lean-To 49.11 3.13 100% 3.13 0 0 Lime Creek 707.80 40.00 50% 20.00 50% 20.00 0 Lockhart 55.60 4.00 40% 1.6 60% 2.4 0 Long Canyon 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Lost Canyon 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Mancos 0 0 dry 0 0 0 McCracken 194.90 4.65 0 0 0 100% Mikes 113.70 7.70 0 100% 7.70 0 Moki Canyon 424.97 21.90 50% 10.95 0 0 50% Montezuma 1101.24 30.51 12% 3.66 18% 5.49 0 70% Monument 406.59 15.54 0 100% 15.54 0 Mule Canyon 268.44 12.80 65% 8.32 35% 4.48 0 Navajo-Grey Mesa 12.98 0.70 100% 0.70 0 0 North Cottonwood 391.86 11.56 51% 5.90 0 49% 5.66 North Creek 4.31 1.73 100% 1.73 0 0 North Gulch 60.85 4.00 100% 4.00 0 0 Pearson Canyon 14.25 1.00 100% 1.00 0 0 Peters Canyon 16.94 1.22 100% 1.22 0 0 Point Lookout 168.72 10.08 100% 10.08 0 0 Recapture 1251.01 41.42 25% 8.00 75% 33.42 0 Red Canyon 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Road Canyon 726.19 41.21 29% 11.95 0 0 71% Ruin 107.17 4.46 55% 2.45 45% 2.01 0 Salt Creek 0 0 dry 0 0 0 San Juan 4075.16 56.13 50% 28.07 50% 28.06 0 Seep Creek 2.31 0.21 100% 0.21 0 0 Slick Rock Grey Mesa 

3.99 0.29 100% 0.29 0 0 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapt

3-107 

Table 3.24. Riparian Functioning Condition, Monticello PA (BLM Lands Only) 

Proper Functioning 

Condition 

Functioning at Risk, 

Trend Not Apparent 

Functioning at Risk, 

Trend Improving 

Functioning 

Trend Dec

Drainage Acres Miles 

Percent Miles Percent Miles Percent Miles Percent 

Slickhorn 392.44 22.19 100% 22.19 0 0 South Canyon 3.02 0.27 50% 0.13 50% 0.14 0 South Cottonwood 2424.95 77.44 100% 77.44 0 0 Spring Creek 96.30 5.26 0 100% 5.26 0 Squaw Canyon 146.67 7.69 50% 3.84 50% 3.85 0 Steer Gulch 0 0 dry 0 0 0 Steer Pasture 146.28 8.00 100% 8.00 0 0 Ute 48.15 3.37 100% 3.37 0 0 Westwater 131.30 5.37 100% 5.37 0 0 White Canyon 893.02 40.22 100% 40.22 0 0 Youngs 95.12 4.45 100% 4.45 0 0 Total 28993.9 1077.6 59.3% 639.35 22.2% 239.51 4.0% 43.11 13.8% 1
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian Resources

3-108 

Riparian/wetland exclosures have been constructed within 15 sites: Comb Wash (1), Indian 

Creek (3), Montezuma Creek (2, Nancy Patterson (1), Monument Canyon (1), Horsehead (1), 

and Cross Canyon (6), to either determine ecological site potentials or protect/improve natural 

functions. Riparian pastures have been established within the Montezuma Canyon allotment to 

provide special protection to sensitive riparian/wetland ecosystems. Grand Gulch and major 

portions of Fish and Owl, Mule, Road canyons, and Arch Canyon receive no livestock grazing. 

3.12.3 RIPARIAN/WETLAND RESTORATION

Restoration of riparian/wetland ecosystems can involve efforts to manually, mechanically, 

chemically, or biologically alter or restore riparian/wetland resources or conditions for the 

benefit of the riparian/wetland ecosystem. 

Invasive, non-native species (namely tamarisk, Russian olive, and Russian knapweed) are now 

common within most riparian/wetland ecosystems along major river ways in the Monticello PA. 

Some of the common riparian native species are Fremont Cottonwood, coyote willow, rushes, 

and sedges. Possibly the most devastating aspect of invasive, non-native species is the 

cumulative alteration to an unhealthy riparian ecosystem. Effects of invasive, non-native species 

include the following: 

• invasive plants often dewater riparian sites with deeper tap roots to out-compete natives for 

availability of water in arid environments; 

• tamarisk secretes salt and increase soil and water salinity, resulting in reduced seed 

establishment of native species, and reduced downstream water quality. Additionally, 

tamarisk has deeper roots than native willows, and it will out-compete those for water; 

• invasive plants compete for sun and space along the narrow riparian habitats; 

• invasive plants have large numbers of seeds and long seed establishment periods (very 

prolific in comparison to native species); 

• invasive plants provide poor habitat, with subsequent reductions in biodiversity (significant 

decreases in numbers and types of associated biotic species including birds, bats, insects, 

amphibians, etc.); 

• invasive plants promote entrenched systems with highly destructive flooding energies that 

remain un-dissipated within deep channels, resulting in high bank loss, sedimentation, and 

salinity; and 

• invasive plants are typically less palatable to livestock and wildlife (e.g., willow versus 

tamarisk), putting native species at a competitive disadvantage, and often resulting in a 

reduced presence within the riparian community. 

3.12.4 RESOURCE DEMAND AND FORECAST

Riparian/wetland ecosystems are strong attractors for both animal and human activities, 

especially in the arid southwest where summer temperatures often exceed 100 oF. Demand for 

diverse riparian/wetland ecosystems is high and currently exceeding the average capacity of 

these systems in the PA, with resulting decreases in sustainability, and proper functioning 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian Resources

3-109 

condition. The recreational demand within riparian/wetland is highest during critical spring 

growing seasons when seedling establishment and stand recruitment occurs, but recreation peaks 

again during fall seasons after extreme summer temperatures decline. Demands for water 

resources with potential direct and indirect impacts to associated riparian/wetlands would likely 

increase in response to current and prolonged droughts. With decreasing quantity and quality of 

riparian/wetlands due to growing popularity, the demand for diverse wildlife habitat and refuge 

becomes even more critical as more species and habitats become sensitive or endangered. 

3.12.4.1 RECREATION

The majority of developed BLM recreational campgrounds, trails and facilities are located in 

association with riparian/wetland ecosystems. Native cottonwoods are some of the most 

susceptible species with regard to functioning condition and long-term sustainability, but are also 

the most desirable native and diverse riparian/wetland ecosystem within Monticello PA. 

Recreational developments within riparian/wetlands increase competition for natural habitats, or 

eliminate habitats critical to riparian-dependent wildlife species. 

Recreational demand for hiking, horse trails, and commercial recreation permits often 

concentrate uses along streams due to the available water source, thermal protection, and 

scenery. However, unconsolidated alluvial soils often located within riparian canyons have 

shown to be extremely susceptible to erosion and degradation by such uses. 

3.12.4.2 GRAZING

Livestock production continues to be a source of income for some San Juan County residents, 

and these operations rely on public lands to provide forage for their livestock. Overgrazing can 

impact riparian resources through the introduction of invasive species, stream bank degradation, 

reduction in plant recruitment, and decrease in water quality. 

3.12.4.3 INVASIVE SPECIES

Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum) have invaded waterways throughout the Monticello PA, drastically changing 

the composition of riparian vegetation communities. Cheatgrass is a highly competitive, nonnative, and invasive grass that has displaced many native plant species across a sizeable portion 

of rangelands, and has invaded riparian areas and waterways. This grass provides little resource 

value because of its annual growth form, shallow root system, and protruding awns, and its 

flammability increases the risks of wildland fire. Populations of Russian knapweed (Acroptilon 

repens) and camelthorn (Alhagi maurorum Medik.) have also reached high levels in many river 

corridors. Strategies used to control tamarisk and other riparian invasive species appear in 

Section 3.18, Vegetation. The management and maintenance of native diverse ecosystems has 

become a larger issue in recent years. Vegetative conversions to invasive, non-native species 

from native species have occurred within riparian/wetlands with influence of management 

practices. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-110 

3.13 SOCIOECONOMICS

The socioeconomic context of this RMP/EIS refers to the social, cultural and economic settings 

of communities impacted by the implementation of the BLM's management actions. The 

following section provides a summary of the PA's social history and current demographic and 

economic trend information as well as a description of the key industries that are may be affected 

by management action implementation. 

3.13.1 COUNTY OVERVIEW

San Juan County is situated in southeastern Utah, bordering Colorado to the east and Arizona to 

the west. It is one of the most remote counties in the state. Located far from major transportation 

corridors and industrial centers, the small towns and communities within the county continue to 

maintain their rural character. The county comprises over 5 million acres and has approximately 

two people per square mile; it is one of the state's most sparsely populated counties. The federal 

government administers more than 3,000,000 acres (61%) of public lands within the county. The 

BLM manages the majority of the county's federal land, with jurisdiction over more than two 

million acres (41.5%). Of the over two million acres of BLM lands, 1,785,127 acres are managed 

by the Monticello FO. The remaining 290,473 acres located in San Juan County are managed by 

the Moab FO. Native Americans have jurisdiction over 1.2 million acres (26%) of land in San 

Juan County. Only 8.2% of the land is privately owned. Table 3.25 shows the land composition 

of San Juan County. 

Table 3.25. Land Jurisdiction in San Juan County 

Administrative Agency Total Acres Percent of County 

Federal lands 3,053,847 61.0 

 BLM lands 2,075,600 41.5 

U.S. Forest Service 403,875 8.1 

 National parks 266,117 5.3 

 National Recreation Areas 262,244 5.2 

 USFS Wilderness Area 46,011 0.9 

State lands 263,287 5.3 

Private* 411,077 8.2 

Native American 1,277,637 25.5 

Total acres within the county 5,005,848 100.0 

*May include some local government land. 

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004. 

Unique to Utah, more than half of the population of San Juan County is composed of Native 

Americans. Where data are available, the Navajo Nation is discussed as a unique subset of the 

greater population. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-111 

The isolative and rural character of San Juan County is both a "blessing and a curse" to the 

county's residents, according to the San Juan County Community Development Department. The 

natural landscape provides outstanding opportunities for solitude and recreation. The County 

contains colorful sandstone canyons and deserts, timbered mountains, ancient Indian ruins, the 

Colorado, San Juan, and Green rivers, Lake Powell, National and State parks and monuments. 

On the other hand, the lack of economic diversity can be problematic for County residents. The 

current job market does not offer many opportunities and the wages earned rank among the 

lowest in the state (San Juan County 2002b). 

3.13.2 HISTORICAL SOCIAL CONTEXT

The Monticello PA is an area rich in cultural and natural history. Past settlements and uses in the 

PA by a variety of peoples have been as important as the ecological processes that have created 

and shaped the place that the BLM manages today. A brief review of the social and cultural 

history in the area will provide background information on the present-day social setting in the 

PA. 

Archaeological evidence suggests that San Juan County and the larger Four Corners Area was 

inhabited by Native Americans called Ancestral Pueblo People (Anasazi) between the years 1 

and 1300 A.D., with some evidence dating back as early as 1500 B.C. (BLM 2005i). The 

Ancestral Pueblo People successfully farmed the Four Corners Area for over a thousand years 

but evidence suggests they left the region by 1300 A.D. Other Native Americans occupied the 

San Juan County area after the Ancestral Pueblo People, including the Utes, Paiute and Navajo. 

Remains of Native American dwellings and rock art throughout the Monticello PA provide 

glimpses into the history of the cultures that once inhabited the region. 

Spanish explorers entered into the San Juan County area as early as 1765 looking for a route 

from Santa Fe, New Mexico to California. Traders and trappers later used the trail established by 

the explorers as a route to the valley of the Great Salt Lake. This trail, now known as the Old 

Spanish National Historic Trail, was the first known commercial route in Utah. The Trail entered 

San Juan County at the Utah/Colorado border, along the current US Highway 491 and went 

northward along the present day US Highway 191, crossing the Colorado River just outside of 

Moab, Utah (San Juan County 2002b). 

In the late 1800s, cowboys, outlaws, gold-seekers, ranchers and farmers began arriving to the 

area. As the Anglo settlers began to homestead the San Juan County area and other lands 

throughout the west, conflicts between Native Americans and the new settlers arose. The 

conflicts resulted in the creation of reservations for the Ute and Navajo people. The Navajo 

Reservation was established in 1868 and encompasses the southern portion of San Juan County. 

The Ute Reservation at White Mesa was established in 1920 (San Juan County 2002b). 

3.13.3 RECENT REGIONAL HISTORY 

San Juan County's twentieth century is illustrative of a boom-and-bust economy. As people 

began to homestead the west at the recommendation of the federal government, many individuals 

were hopeful they could farm and ranch in the arid region. The grazing and farming took a toll 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-112 

on the landscape, making continued practices difficult. Agricultural success ebbed and flowed 

throughout the twentieth century and by the end of the century self-sufficient agricultural 

practices proved challenging. The 1990 census indicates that fewer than 50 people in San Juan 

County claim agriculture is the sole support for their livelihood (McPherson 1995). 

Mining in San Juan County has also seen several booms and busts. Beginning in the late 

nineteenth century people seeking gold and silver entered the area, but the inability to "strike it 

rich" in the area prompted their departure. Copper became the next sought-after mineral and in 

1918 the first copper mill began operating. Oil drilling operations were also occurring around 

this time, but did not prove fruitful for many operators. Mining operations slowed significantly 

by the mid-1920s and it was not until demand for uranium in World War II revived the mining 

industry. The Monticello Mill and the Rio Algom Mill were established in the county to process 

uranium and vanadium (McPherson 1995). By the early 1980s, demand for uranium decreased 

and both of the mills had closed. 

3.13.4 CURRENT DAY SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT

3.13.4.1 SOCIAL SETTING

Today, San Juan County is a collection of rural communities characterized by pastoral 

landscapes, open space, and small town qualities. The area's historical link to agricultural 

endeavors has shaped the communities' land-based values. Many of the area residents are of 

Mormon pioneer heritage, devoutly religious, and independent (San Juan County 2002b). The 

County's residents are interested in maintaining the rural lifestyle, coupled with strong family 

values, and a quality environment that has been so much a part of their past (San Juan County 

1996). 

Maintaining the rural character of San Juan County has been a struggle for area residents. Most 

agricultural producers are no longer able to support themselves on farming and ranching alone. 

And because federal, state, and tribal governments manage over 90% of the land, residents 

believe that much of the county's potential wealth is tied to its public lands. Therefore, 

communities are very interested in public land-use management decisions. 

San Juan County is a collection of diverse communities. Blanding and Monticello are the only 

incorporated towns and together contain the majority of the non-Reservation population of the 

county. Oljato, Aneth, Montezuma Creek, Navajo Mountain, and Halchita are all communities 

within the Navajo Reservation. White Mesa is associated with the Ute tribe. Schools are a large 

part of the identity in the county. Each community is described in Table 3.26. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-113 

Table 3.26. Communities in San Juan County 

Community Population Structure Characteristics 

Blanding 3,162 Incorporated Largest community in San Juan County. 

Higher education including College of Eastern 

Utah—San Juan branch, and Utah State 

University Education Facility. Edge of Cedars 

State Park, Dinosaur Museum. 

Monticello 1,958 Incorporated Serves as the county seat, home of 

government offices for San Juan County. 

Location of BLM Monticello FO, and the 

Monticello Ranger District of the USFS. 

Monument 

Valley and 

Oljato 

864 Unincorporated town; 

Navajo Chapter 

Headquarters; part of 

Navajo Nation 

Communities function together. Monument 

Valley is a Navajo Tribal Park known for scenic 

beauty. Gouldings Lodge associated with the 

Park is the major employer for the community. 

Aneth 598 Unincorporated town; 

Navajo Chapter 

Headquarters; part of 

Navajo Nation 

Home to Aneth oil field, a major producer of oil 

and gas in Western states. Location of Navajo 

boarding school. 

Montezuma 

Creek 

507 Unincorporated town; 

Part of Navajo Nation 

Aneth oil field is close and provides jobs. 

Hovenweep National Monument is 20 miles 

northeast. 

La Sal 400 Unincorporated town Closely tied to Moab and Grand County. 

Settled originally for ranching, has experienced 

the boom and bust cycles of mining, and now 

most people work in Moab. 

Navajo 

Mountain 

379 Unincorporated town; 

Navajo Chapter 

Headquarters; part of 

Navajo Nation 

Remote from anywhere in San Juan County 

Mexican Hat 

and Halchita 

358 Unincorporated town; 

Navajo Nation 

Mexican Hat is on the north side of the San 

Juan River and Halchita is on the south side. 

Halchita is part of the Navajo Nation. 

Bluff 320 Unincorporated town On the bank of San Juan River. First Anglosettled community in the county. Historic 

community with many Victorian homes still in 

use. Staging area for San Juan River trips. 

Many outfitters based in Bluff. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-114 

Table 3.26. Communities in San Juan County 

Community Population Structure Characteristics 

White Mesa 277 Unincorporated town, 

governed by Ute 

Council; Ute 

Reservation 

Branch of Ute Mountain Tribe headquartered 

in Colorado. Sits between Blanding and Bluff. 

Spanish 

Valley 

181 Unincorporated town Closely aligned with Moab and Grand County, 

although lies within San Juan County 

Eastland 130 Unincorporated town Settled as a farming community and is still 

surrounded by cultivated fields. 

Halls 

Crossing 

89 Unincorporated town On the shores of Lake Powell. Employment is 

dependent on Lake activities. 

Source: San Juan County 2002b. 

As mentioned above, 65% of land in San Juan County is public lands under state and federal 

jurisdiction. A statewide social survey was conducted by Utah State University (USU) in 2007 to 

assess the ways in which Utah residents use and value public land resources and their views 

about public lands management. A complete analysis of the results had not been completed as of 

February, 2008. "Public lands," as described in the study, consist of all federal and state managed 

lands, and not only the BLM. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of residents of all 29 

Utah counties. According to the authors, the study and sample sizes are designed to produce 

results generalizable at the state-wide level, with generalization increasingly risky as the sample 

area diminishes. 

The areas sampled do not necessarily coincide with field office PA boundaries, as that was not 

the focus of the study. Nonetheless, the study provides current and interesting results not 

available elsewhere, and shows the dependence of local communities on public lands for a 

variety of economic and recreational pursuits. Appendix R contains initial summary results for 

Grand and San Juan Counties lying within the Monticello Field office. Where appropriate, study 

results are incorporated within the discussion of individual resources in Chapter 4. There is 

nothing in the preliminary USU results that affect the formulation of alternatives in Chapter 2 or 

the analysis of impacts in Chapter 4. 

3.13.4.2 ECONOMIC SETTING

This section describes existing economic conditions surrounding the Monticello PA and provides 

a baseline for assessing the potential impacts of the RMP alternatives. Based on the 

implementation of a particular alternative, the BLM can affect (directly or indirectly) the local 

economic conditions of the nearby communities. For example, local employment and income 

levels can be directly impacted by changing the way it manages natural resources or grazing 

allotments. The construction of new recreation trails or facilities, road maintenance, and other 

activities can also influence local socioeconomic conditions described in this section. The BLM 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-115 

can also indirectly influence local economic conditions by pursuing new management strategies 

that alter visitation levels, thus affecting total future spending by recreationists and other tourists 

(BLM 2004e). The demographic information and selected economic indicators of social wellbeing (poverty, unemployment, and per capita household income) are also presented in this 

section to help provide context and put local conditions in perspective relative to statewide 

conditions. 

3.13.4.2.1 POPULATION

The Utah Department of Workforce Services reports that San Juan County has posted positive 

population growth numbers for every decade of the twentieth century. In 1900, the county had 

1,023 residents, and by 2000, the population grown to 14,413. During the 20th century of growth 

the county did experience a number of population booms. Throughout the 1950s and the Cold 

War the demand for the county's uranium caused the population to double in just 10 years. San 

Juan County's population boomed again in the 1970s as the nation's high energy prices made the 

development of the area's natural resources profitable (Workforce Services 2005). As mining 

jobs decreased in the 1980s out-migration of the population occurred. 

The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) for the State of Utah projects that 

population in 2030 will reach 19,459. The population growth rate of San Juan County is slower 

than that of the State of Utah: approximately 1% annual growth in the county, versus 2.3% 

annual growth in the state. Long-term trends show steady growth: from 1970 to 2000 San Juan 

County grew by 4,680 people, a 48% increase in population. Much of the recent growth in San 

Juan County has been in southern Spanish Valley, adjacent to Moab; this area is located within 

the boundaries of the Moab Field Office. The 2004 population estimate data show San Juan 

County has a total of 14,353 residents, slightly below that 2000 Census data (Workforce Services 

2005). 

The median age for the county is 25.5, similar to the state median age of 27.1. Table 3.27 shows 

population characteristics in San Juan County. 43% of the population is under 20 years old, a 4% 

decrease since 1990. 

The 2000 Census indicated that American Indian/Alaskan Native made up 1.33% of the Utah 

population. In San Juan County the American Indian/Alaskan population is more than half of the 

total population at 55.7% (Table 3.28). Population on the Navajo Nation has grown steadily over 

the last two decades. In 1980 population on the reservation was 4,554, 5,252 in 1990 and 6,280 

in 2000. The Navajo Reservation has experienced strong growth in its middle-aged population 

and slow growth in its youth population; this growth is contrary to many Native American 

groups (GOPB 2002). In 2000, nearly half of the population on the Reservation was between 20 

and 65 years old (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Table 3.28 shows steady increase in overall San 

Juan County population according to race and ethnicity. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-116 

Table 3.27. Population by Category, 1990 and 2000 

 1990 % of 

Total 

2000 % of 

Total 

% Change, 

1990–2000 

% Change 

per Year,

1990–2000

Population 12,621 14,413 14 1.4 

Male 6,245 49 7,190 50 15 1.5 

Female 6,376 51 7,223 50 13 1.3 

Under 20 years 5,898 47 6,176 43 5 .5 

65 years and over 890 7 1,214 8 36 3.6 

Median age 25.5 

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003. 

Table 3.28. San Juan County Population by Race and Ethnicity

 1990 2000 

Total 

Population 

Percent of 

Total 

Total 

Population 

Percent of 

Total 

RACE 

White 5,501 43.6 5,876 40.8 

Black 11 0.1 18 0.1 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 6,859 54.3 8,026 55.7 

Asian 14 0.1 25 0.2 

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 26 0.2 5 0.0 

Other 210 1.7 245 1.7 

Two or more races NA 0.0 218 1.5 

Total 12,621 100.0 14,413 100.0 

ETHNICITY 

Hispanic 440 3.5 540 3.7 

Non-Hispanic 12,181 96.5 13,873 96.3 

Total 12,621 100.0 14,195 100.0 

Note: Population is broken out by both race and ethnicity because Hispanics can be of any race. 

Source: GOPB 2002. 

3.13.4.2.2 UNEMPLOYMENT

Unemployment levels are frequently used as an indicator for economic strength of the local 

economy and social well-being of its population. Table 3.29 presents the size of the labor force 

and average annual unemployment rates in San Juan County. State of Utah unemployment 

information is given for comparative purposes. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-117 

Table 3.29. Unemployment Rates 

1990 2000 2004 (projected) 

Labor Force Unemployment 

Rate 

Labor Force Unemployment 

Rate 

Labor Force Unemployment 

Rate 

San Juan County 4,032 7.4% 4,754 9.2% 4,682 11.0% 

State of Utah 814,000 4.3% 1,143,200 3.3% 1,208,400 4.7% 

Source: Workforce Services 2005. 

Unemployment in San Juan County is higher than the state or national average. In 2004 the 

unemployment rate in San Juan County was 11.0%, compared to 4.7% for the state and 5.3% for 

the nation. Employment grew by roughly 1.8% from 2000 to 2004, but the rise in jobs did very 

little to decrease the rising unemployment rate. Slow job growth and high unemployment levels 

are symptomatic of an economic community that is working to stabilize itself (Workforce 

Services 2005). Figure 3.9 shows the fluctuation in unemployment patterns in the county. 

Over the past two decades, the Navajo Reservation has consistently experienced unemployment 

rates higher than the state average. In 1988, the unemployment rate in Utah was approximately 

5.5%; in San Juan County it was approximately 8%, and on the Reservation it was almost 40%. 

This rate decreased to just above 30% in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Unemployment Rate 

(%, Annual Average, Unadjusted)

U N IT ED S T A T E S

UTA H

S A N JUA N CO UNTY , UT

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003. 

Figure 3.9. Unemployment. 

3.13.4.2.3 PER-CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME3

Personal income is another indicator of social well-being, as income can be directly related to an 

individual's or a community's quality of life. Table 3.30 shows per capita personal income (i.e., 

 

3 Personal income is the income that is received by persons from all sources. It is calculated as the sum of wage and salary 

disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors' income with inventory valuation and capital consumption 

adjustments, rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment, personal dividend income, personal interest 

income, and personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social insurance. This measure of income is 

calculated as the personal income of the residents of a given area divided by the resident population of the area. In computing

per capita personal income, BEA uses the Census Bureau's annual midyear population estimates (U.S. Department of 

Commerce 2005). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-118 

total personal income divided by population) in San Juan County and in Utah. Per capita 

personal income in the county has been consistently lower than the state average. In 2003 San 

Juan County had the lowest per capita income in the state. 

Table 3.30. Per-capita Personal Income 

Area 1980 1990 2000 2003 

San Juan County $5,841 $8,955 $12,881 $14,363 

Navajo Reservation $4,500 

(approx)

$5,3001

(approx)

$6,200 

(approx) -- 

State of Utah $8,510 $14,913 $23,878 $25,407 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2005; GOPB 2003. 

1

 Data from 1999. 

-- = no data available. 

3.13.4.2.4 POVERTY

The poverty rate of an area is an estimate of the percentage of the area's total population living at 

or below the poverty threshold established by the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 3.31 presents 

poverty rates in San Juan County, with statewide figures included for comparative purposes. 

Table 3.31. Poverty Rates 

Area 1989 2003 

San Juan County 36.4% 22.6% 

State of Utah 11.8% 10.0% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005. 

Poverty rates for San Juan County are significant higher than the state average. Although the rate 

decreased significantly from 36.4% in 1989 to 22.6% in 2003, it is more than double the state's 

overall rate. The race with the highest poverty rate in San Juan County is the "American Indian 

and Alaskan Native," with 3,809 (48%) of the total race under the poverty level in 1999 

(Sonoran Institute 2005). 

3.13.4.2.5 HOUSING

According to the 2000 Census, San Juan County has a total of 5,449 housing units, 75% of which 

are occupied. Of these units, 13.5% are for seasonal and recreational use, and 20% are renteroccupied. Average household size is 3.57 residents, just above the state's average. The median 

value of owner-occupied housing in 2000 was $68,400, up from $52,833 in 1990. Table 3.32 

shows housing population trends in San Juan County. 

Table 3.32. Population by Household Type in San Juan County, 2000 

 County % of Total State % of Total

Total housing units 5,449 768,594 

 Total occupied housing units 4,089 75.0 701,281 91.2 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-119 

Table 3.32. Population by Household Type in San Juan County, 2000 

 County % of Total State % of Total

 Seasonal, recreational, or occupational use 733 13.5 29,685 3.9 

 Vacant housing units 1,360 25.0 67,313 8.8 

Homeowner vacancy rate (%) 2.1% 2.1% 

Rental vacancy rate (%) 12.8% 6.5% 

Housing tenure 

Total occupied housing units 4,089 701,281 

Owner-occupied housing units 3,242 79.3 501,547 71.5 

Renter-occupied housing units 847 20.7 199,734 28.5 

Average household size, owner occupied 3.57 3.3 

Average household size, renter occupied 3.07 2.8 

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003. 

Yet another indicator of economic strength is the amount of new residential building permits 

granted for a particular area. An increase or decrease in the amount of building permits granted 

reflects the growth of a community and allows planners and local governments to plan for the 

amount of necessary infrastructure (i.e., roads, water, sewer, and power). 

Residential building permits for San Juan County have increased tremendously from 5 permits 

issued in 1991 to 76 permits in 1998. The amount of building permits has dropped slightly since 

then. There was a small rise in the number of permits issued for new dwelling units in 2004 as 

the county issued 61 permits, up from 55 in 2003. Residential construction in the unincorporated 

areas of San Juan County has consistently exceeded that within the cities of Blanding and 

Monticello. For example, in 2004 five permits were issued for dwelling units in Blanding, 3 

permits were issued for Monticello and 53 permits were issued for unincorporated areas in the 

county (Workforce Services 2005). 

It should be noted that residential growth has been particularly strong in the Spanish Valley area, 

just south of Moab, Utah. Most of the growth occurring in this San Juan County area is affected 

primarily by the land management decisions of the Moab FO's RMP, whose office covers the 

northern third of San Juan County. For general housing conditions in the Spanish Valley area 

please see the Moab RMP. 

3.13.4.2.6 EMPLOYMENT

Local and regional employment levels could be affected directly or indirectly by the 

implementation of the updated RMP. The following information reflects trends in employment 

since the 1970s. 

In 2000, 5,618 jobs were identified in San Juan County. Wage and salary employment included 

approximately 79% of the total market while the remaining 21% was from proprietorships, 

including sole ownerships, partnerships and tax-exempt cooperatives. The Services and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-120 

Professional Sector is the largest employment sector in the county comprising 46% of the 

market. The Government sector accounts 30% of the total employment. The remaining jobs are 

in Farm and Agriculture Services, Mining and Manufacturing. Note that the Services and 

Professional sector includes services, retail trade, finance industries, transportation and public 

utilities, and wholesale trade (Table 3.33). 

Table 3.33. Employment by Industry, Changes from 1970 to 2000—SIC Codes 

 1970 2000 New Employment 

Jobs % of 

Total Jobs % of Total Jobs % of Total 

Total employment 2,818 5,618 2,800 

Wage and salary employment 2,272 80.6 4,413 78.6 2,141 76.5 

Proprietors' employment 546 19.4 1,205 21.4 659 23.5 

Farm and agricultural services 414 14.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Farm 398 14.1 318 5.7 -80 NA 

Agricultural services 16 0.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Mining 423 15.0 313 5.6 -110 NA 

Manufacturing (incl. forest products) 147 5.2 220 3.9 73 2.6 

Services and professional 

Transportation and public utilities 125 4.4 181 3.2 56 2.0 

Wholesale trade N/A N/A 101 1.8 N/A N/A 

Retail trade 335 11.9 763 13.6 428 15.3 

Finance, insurance and real estate N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Services (health, legal, business, 

others) 

 378 13.4 1,509 26.9 1,131 40.4 

Construction 147 5.2 303 5.4 156 5.6 

Government 791 28.1 1,678 29.9 887 31.7 

Agriculture Services include soil preparation services, crop services, etc. It also includes forestry services, such as reforestation 

services, and fishing, hunting, and trapping. Manufacturing includes paper, lumber and wood products manufacturing. 

SIC = Standard Industrial Classification System (SIC) used to categorize employment trends over time. 

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003. 

Characteristic of the rest of the state as well as the country, San Juan County has seen a large 

increase in the Services and Professional sector in the last two decades. The decrease in mining 

and farming operations, and the growth in the tourism as well as the overall growth in population 

can be largely accredited for the increase. The Services and Professional sector is expected to see 

continued growth. 

Shift in Regional Economic Activity

Perhaps more important to understanding the economy of San Juan County are trends in 

economic activity. Between 1970 and 2000, the San Juan County economy experienced a 

dramatic shift in job base. As shown in the graph below, the economy shifted away from mining 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-121 

in the 1980s. Discussions with the community identify this curve as the "mining bust." Ed 

Scherick, San Juan County Planner, in a memo to the BLM on February 10, 2004 states that "the 

real reason for the bust was due to the shift towards a cheaper free market. This market went to 

cheaper sources to purchase the product because of time and costly delays created by 

environmental regulation and lawsuits. Agencies also placed more and more restrictions on 

exploration and development on leaseholders until they reached a point of collapse." 

As jobs were lost in mining and farming, jobs in trade and services increased dramatically (see 

Table 3.33). Despite the lack of data for the Service and Professional sector, Table 3.33 shows a 

general recognizable trend in this sector as an increase in jobs in trade and services over the last 

15 years. The trade and service sector employees a large amount of people to support the tourism 

industry around Lake Powell; however, many of these jobs are seasonal in nature, with most 

lasting from April to mid-October. Figure 3.10 illustrates the shift in employment sectors over 

time in San Juan County. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1969197119731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999

Jobs (Thousands)

Government 

M ining

Construction

M anufacturing (incl.

forest products)

Farm and Agricultural

Services

Services and

Professional

SIC= Standard Industrial Classification System used to categorize employment trends over time. 

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003. 

Figure 3.10. Job Base (by SIC code) in San Juan County, 1969–1999. 

The shift in service related jobs over the last decade illustrates the county's growing tourism 

industry. While this shift has added new jobs and revenue for the county, many residents are 

somewhat apprehensive about dependence on such an industry. Community residents are 

interested in maintaining a diverse economic base that includes grazing and agriculture, mineral 

extraction, oil and gas development, recreation and tourism (San Juan County 1996). 

Direct BLM Contributions to Area Economic Activity

Under the federal Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) Program, payments from the BLM and 

other federal agencies assist in financing the operations of local governments containing tax-
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-122 

exempt public lands. The annual PILT payments serve as an offset payment to the local 

governments because, unlike privately owned lands, taxes are not collected from federal lands. 

Payment amounts are based on a complex formula that considers among other things revenue 

sharing from the previous year, county population, and acreage of a county in federal ownership. 

The PILT payments may be used for any governmental purpose including improving schools, 

road, water, and other infrastructure systems. 

Because nearly 61% of San Juan County is federally owned land, PILT payments are important 

to the area. PILT payments to San Juan County have continually increased in recent years. Table 

3.34 shows PILT Payments to San Juan County between FY 2001 and FY 2006. 

Table 3.34. PILT Payments to San Juan County 

Year Total PILT Payment 

2001 $637,790 

2002 $666,505 

2003 $769,099 

2004 $790,844 

2005 $807,435 

2006 $822,532 

Source: USDI 2005. 

3.13.4.2.7 LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AFFECTED BY BLM MANAGEMENT

Recreation and Tourism

The natural landscape in San Juan County has drawn visitors from all over the world. Visitors to 

the PA are involved in a multitude of outdoor activities, including mountain biking, hiking, 

boating, camping, climbing, OHV driving and general recreation. These activities occur in this 

area because of the large expanses of vast and relatively undeveloped lands and because of the 

unique geologic and scenic beauty the area has to offer. Since the later part of the twentieth 

century, the tourism industry has become an increasingly important revenue generator for the 

county. Although many people feel that the county should maintain a diverse economy that does 

not depend too heavily on tourism, the economic value of the tourism industry is recognized as 

an important source of revenue (San Juan County 2002b). More information on the recreation 

and tourist destinations within the Monticello PA can be found in Section 3.11, Recreation. 

Visitation data can be used to illustrate tourism and recreation trend in the Monticello PA. 

Visitation to the area, outside of BLM lands, follows the traveler-spending trend, as it increased 

throughout the 1990s and has leveled off in the new century. Table 3.35 shows visitation 

numbers for several locations in San Juan County that can be used as indicators for visitation to 

the area. 

Table 3.35. Visitation to Local Attractions in 2003 

Count Location Visitors 

US 491 Utah–Colorado border 784,750 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-123 

Table 3.35. Visitation to Local Attractions in 2003 

Count Location Visitors 

SR 163 Utah–Arizona Border 730,800 

Glen Canyon NRA 1,842,942 

Monument Valley 218,000 

Canyonlands National Park 386,985 

Goosenecks State Park 57,098 

Rainbow Bridge National Monument 98,865 

Hovenweep National Monument 25,134 

Natural Bridges National Monument 118,965 

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004. 

Tourism is considered a resource-based industry, because the visitors who come to the county 

recreate on public lands and rivers. These same visitors contribute to the tax base of the county, 

which helps stimulate the local economy. Tourist spending, visitation to locations in close 

proximity, as well as tax collections from tourist activity are indicators of tourism in San Juan 

County and its importance to the overall economy. Traveler spending in San Juan County grew 

slowly and consistently throughout the 1990s. In 1990, traveler spending was slightly under $33 

million. Spending peaked in 1999, at over $45.7 million and decreased to $35.5 million in 2003. 

Figure 3.11 shows traveler spending from 1990 to 2003. 

Spending by Travelers (Current Dollars)

$37.1

$41.4 $40.7 $41.1

$43.4 $43.9 $44.8 $45.7

$43.1

$37.4

$20.6

$34.5 $35.5

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

$45.0

$50.0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001(o) 2001 (n) 2002 {r} 2003

Millions

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004. 

Figure 3.11. Tourist Spending San Juan County, 1992–2003. 

The Utah Division of Travel Development reports that travelers spent $35.5 million dollars in 

San Juan County in 2003 and 1,083 jobs in the county were travel and tourism related. Total 

tourism-related tax revenues for 2003 were estimated at $744,000, down from $879,000 in 2000 

(see Table 3.37). It is important to note that many tourists spend their money in and around the 

city of Moab in Grand County, before traveling to San Juan County to recreate. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-124 

San Juan County ranked twelfth out of 29 counties in the state for gross taxable room rents at 7.2 

million in 2003. Gross taxable room rents increased steadily from 1996 to 1999 and have 

dropped continually since 2000. San Juan County is also twelfth in collection of transient room 

tax: $218,400 in 2000. This number reached its peak in 1999 and has slowly dropped since then. 

San Juan County does not collect restaurant or car rental taxes (Utah Division of Travel 

Development 2004). Table 3.36 shows the contribution of tourism to the local economy. 

 Table 3.36. Tourism-related Tax Trends in San Juan County 

County Indicator 1996 2000 2003 

Spending and employment 

Spending by traveler (millions) $43.4 $43.1 $35.5 

Travel and tourism related employment (jobs) 800 816 1,083 

Tourism Tax Revenues (000s) 

Local tax revenue from traveler spending $902 $897 $744.2 

Gross taxable room rents $8,065 $8,243 $7,278 

Transient room tax $241.9 $247.3 $218.4 

Restaurant tax -- -- -- 

Car rental tax -- -- -- 

Gross taxable retail sales (millions) $84.0 $89.3 $85.2 

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004. 

Budget and Fee Collection for Programs

Due to a lack of base budgetary support, the Monticello FO has come to rely on the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, generally called the Fee Demonstration program, for 

needed funds. The Monticello FO collects fees for recreational use in several locations including 

the San Juan River, Cedar Mesa and fee collection sites at 3 campgrounds. 

Services to the public are provided from these fee monies, such as maintenance of campgrounds, 

boat ramps, and restroom facilities; staffing of the San Juan River Ranger Station and the Kane 

Gulch Ranger station; and expenses related to the San Juan River and Cedar Mesa permit 

activities. 

Table 3.37 below shows the Base Funding for the Recreation Program in 2003, and visitation 

and revenues from the Fee Demonstration projects. 

Table 3.37. Base Funding for Recreation and Fee Demonstration Projects (BLM 2005c) 

2002 

Visitation 

2002 

Revenues 

2003 

Visitation 

2003 

Revenues 

San Juan River 13,048 $105,822 13,690 $116,591 

Cedar Mesa 8,065 $65,236 8,283 $62,435 

Monticello—other 81,269 0 75,338 $39,487 

Recreation—base funding $98,000 

Total 102,382 $171,058 97,311 $316,513 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-125 

Agriculture and Grazing

The agriculture industry has declined in the last 3 decades. Several factors contributed to the 

decline, including drought, market prices, and world politics. In 1970, total net income from 

farming and ranching in San Juan County was $8.8 million. By 1985, that number had dropped 

to $-0.8 million and in 2000, to an all-time low of $-2.1 million. Negative net income means that 

production expenses were higher than gross income. In San Juan County, 41% of gross 

agricultural and gazing income is from livestock and products, and 12% of gross income is from 

crop production. 

The remainder of income is from government payments and rents received. Figure 3.12 shows 

the decrease in personal income from farming and ranching. 

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000

Personal Income

(Millions of 2000 dollars)

Gros s inc ome

Total liv es toc k & produc ts

Imputed inc ome & rent rec eiv ed 

Government payments

Total c rops

Source: BLM 2004e. 

Figure 3.12. Income from agriculture, 1970–2000. 

The composition of livestock and crop production has also shifted in the last decade. In 1970, 

52% of gross farm income was from livestock, while 28% was from crops. Gross income from 

crops has dropped by 16% since 1970. Currently, San Juan County's main agricultural 

contributors are wheat, pinto beans, safflower, and cattle (San Juan 1996). 

While the income generated from farming and ranching has decreased significantly in past 

decades, the number of farms has actually increased. In 1982 the number of farms was 214 and 

in 2002 the number grew to 231. A significant number of farms in San Juan County are 1,000 

acres or more and the average farm size has jumped from 1,696 acres in 1982 to 6,747 acres in 

2002. Table 3.38 shows the trends agricultural data for San Juan County. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-126 

Table 3.38. San Juan County Agricultural Data 

1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 

Farms (number) 214 218 206 231 231 

Land in farms (acres) 362,921 340,449 324,921 1,673,079 1,558,661

Average size of farm 1,696 1,562 1,577 7,243 6,747 

Farms by Size 

1–9 acres 17 12 10 8 16 

10–49 acres 17 22 24 21 38 

50–179 acres 22 27 26 36 43 

180–499 acres 30 29 29 39 32 

500–999 acres 31 29 30 29 19 

1,000 acres or more 97 99 87 98 83 

Market value of agricultural products sold 8,367 9,370 8,990 9,097 7,516 

Operators by principal occupation, farming 120 123 112 115 140 

Operators by principal occupation, other 94 95 94 116 91 

Source: Workforce Services 2005. 

The BLM provides livestock grazing opportunities on public lands for local ranchers through the 

administration of livestock grazing. These permits generate local income and employment 

benefits to ranchers and their employees as well as other economic benefits to the county, 

including sales, income tax revenue, and indirect expenditures made by ranchers to local service 

or industry. Changes in Monticello FO grazing practices could potentially affect the local 

economy. 

Livestock grazing allotments occur on approximately 99% of all BLM lands located within the 

Monticello FO boundary. An estimated 17,300 acres outside of grazing allotments are allocated 

to wildlife use and another 288 acres are administrative horse pasture. Within boundary 

allotments, 137,440 acres (6.1%) are unavailable for livestock grazing for resource protection. 

Of the lands within grazing allotments, 1,761,351 acres (78%) are BLM lands. Of the 74 

allotments currently permitted within the Monticello PA boundaries, cattle graze 61 allotments 

and cattle and horses graze 13 allotments. A total of 78,796 animal unit months (AUMs) are 

currently authorized (active). Of these, 77,365 AUMs (98 %) are used by cattle and 1,431(2%) 

are used by horses. An additional 7,299 AUMs are allowed through exchange of use (other 

ownership). For more information on current grazing conditions, please see Section 3.7, 

Livestock Grazing. 

Mineral Resources

The contribution of mineral extraction to the San Juan County economy has fluctuated 

throughout the previous century. Since the demand for uranium decreased in the in the early 

1980s, mineral extraction has contributed minimally to the local economy and local job base. In 

2004, mining jobs contributed only 4% of non-farm jobs (163 out of 3,936 non-farm jobs) in the 

county (Workforce Services 2005). Oil and gas production within the Monticello PA has 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-127 

generally been declining since 1984, but has decreased more rapidly since 1998 (see Figure 3.9). 

As of March 2005, there have been 3,267 wells drilled in the Monticello PA, of which 2,132 

wells have been plugged and abandoned. Of the remaining 1,135 active wells, 508 are currently 

producing oil and gas. Approximately, 41% of the wells drilled in San Juan County during the 

period of 1991–2004 were dry (BLM 2005h). 

The economic benefit to San Juan County of oil and gas activities comes primarily in the form of 

mineral lease payments and royalties from the State of Utah to the county. The State of Utah 

collects payments from a variety of sources, including lease and royalty payments made to the 

BLM and to the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior. Royalties are 

based on the sale of oil and gas and increase or decrease based on quantity of production and 

prices. Approximately one-half of the payments received by these agencies are remitted to the 

State of Utah, which in turn distributes about one-half to the counties. The State of Utah 

payments to the counties are based very closely on actual leasing and production activities within 

each county. 

According to the Mineral Management Service, in the 2000 fiscal year, San Juan County 

reported a total of $5,955,862 in sales volume for gas, and $633,808 in sales volume for oil. 

Royalty values to the State of Utah were $1,848,180 and $1,638,434, respectively. The amount 

disbursed to the state was $924,590 for gas and $819,217 for oil (USDI 2000). Oil and gas 

production has been steadily declining since 1990. In 1990 San Juan County produced 7,774,204 

barrels of oil and 29,580,534 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of gas. In 2004 the county produced 

3,986,802 barrels of oil and 17,392,707 MCF of gas. Figure 3.13 illustrates oil and gas 

production trends in San Juan County. 

A potential benefit to San Juan County from oil and gas and mineral production is in the jobs 

created, both in direct production activities and associated services. Many of the current oil and 

gas activities are located on the Utah–Colorado border and some of those employed live in 

western Colorado. The White Mesa Mill employs approximately 40 people and most are living 

in or around the town of Blanding. 

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Oil produciton - Barrels

0

4,000,000

8,000,000

12,000,000

16,000,000

Gas produciton - Cubic feet

Oil Production Gas Production

Source: BLM2005d. 

Figure 3.13. Production from oil and gas wells in the Monticello FO. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-128 

The Utah Permanent Community Impact Fund Board (CIB) provides loans and grants to 

agencies within the state that may be socially or economically impacted by mineral resource 

development on federal lands. In 2005 San Juan County received $2,536,232 in loans and grants 

from the CIB. From fiscal year 2001–2005 the county received $3,027,588 (Department of 

Community and Culture 2005). The source of CIB's funding is a portion of the federal mineral 

lease royalties returned to the State of Utah by the federal government. The money from the CIB 

to fund various infrastructure projects is not directly related to the amount of production per 

county, but rather on applicant eligibility determined by the Board. 

A recent increase in the price of uranium has led to a surge of filings for uranium claims within 

the Monticello PA. According to the Mineral Potential Report, the price of uranium was $29.00 

per pound in May of 2005 (BLM 2005b). While the thousands of claims filed in 2004 and 2005 

do not necessarily predict a resurgence of a uranium boom in the area, exploratory holes are 

being drilled and the potential for impacts to socioeconomics could result from uranium 

extraction on BLM lands. 

3.13.4.3 TRIBAL INTERESTS

The high acreage of Navajo lands is a significant factor in the social and economic conditions of 

the county, as in the case of San Juan County's unique tax laws regarding the Reservation. Oil 

and gas companies as well as other Anglo businesses on the reservation are taxed by the county; 

however, the personal property of tribal members (homes, vehicles) on the reservation do not 

contribute to the county's tax base. The reservation receives revenue from oil and gas lease fees 

on its land; however, it is not eligible to receive royalties generated from oil and gas production. 

The Navajo Tribe Utilities Authority (NTUA) provides infrastructure services such as sewer and 

water on the reservation, as opposed to the county services. San Juan County also does not 

provide law enforcement on the reservation, however, the county search and rescue is used by 

the reservation. 

Over the last 10 years, the Navajo Nation has gone from living in scattered units to living in 

more consolidated centers, such as Aneth, Montezuma Creek, and Shiprock, New Mexico. This 

shift has made it easier to make essential services more available to tribal members. However, 

not all Navajos have made this shift. More traditional people and the elderly have been more 

reluctant to change their living circumstances. 

The Navajo Nation currently depends less on grazing of sheep and the sale of sheep products 

than in the past, and more on wage work. A large percentage of available jobs are government 

jobs, and many people travel off the Reservation for this work. Crafts have been an important 

way for Navajos to augment wage income, and most of the resources needed are found on public 

lands. These resources include firewood, pinyon nuts, willow for baskets, cottonwood root for 

carving, and plants to make paint pigment. Continued use of these lands and its resources are 

important in sustaining this aspect of Navajo livelihood. 

According to the public scoping meetings and consultation with tribal leaders, access to sacred 

sites, gathering of traditionally used plants and minerals, tribal consultation, and the protection of 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Socioeconomics

3-129 

cultural resources (including places, burials, and plants) are issues requiring attention by the 

Monticello FO as land management decisions are made (SWCA 2004). 

3.13.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

3.13.5.1 BACKGROUND AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE

"Environmental justice" refers to the fair and equitable treatment of individuals regardless of 

race, ethnicity, or income level, in the development and implementation of environmental 

management policies and actions. In February 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 

(EO) 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income 

Populations." The objective of this EO is to require each federal agency to "make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of it programs, 

policies, and activities on minority and low income populations (EO 12898 1994). 

Convened under the auspices of the EO, the Interagency Working Group defines Black/African 

American, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and other nonwhite persons as minority populations. Low-income populations are defined as persons living 

below the poverty level based on total income of $13,359 for a family household of 4 based on 

the 2000 census. Minority populations are identified as either: (1) the minority population of the 

affected area exceeds 50%, or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is 

meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other 

appropriate geographic area (BLM 2002c). 

3.13.5.2 MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS

Land use management decisions within the Monticello PA have the potential to directly or 

indirectly affect the county's minority and low-income populations. 

Unique to Utah, populations in San Juan County typically known as "minority" comprise more 

than half of the population in San Juan County. San Juan County ranks first in the state for 

Native American/Alaskan Native population. San Juan County is home to 27% of the state's 

Native American population and at 55.7% of the county's total population, Native Americans are 

not the minority. In Utah, 93.8% of the entire population identify themselves as white and 1.3% 

of the population identify themselves as Native American/Alaskan Native (GOPB 2002). 

Therefore, when considered state or region-wide, Native Americans are considered a minority 

race. Despite the population data that indicate non-minority status within San Juan County, 

Native Americans are considered a minority group for the purposes of achieving environmental 

justice during this RMP process. 

As mentioned earlier within the context of "poverty" as an economic indicator for the economic 

well-being, persons in San Juan County living below the poverty line in 2003 was higher than 

the state average (22.6% vs. 10%). While San Juan County poverty trends show a decrease over 

time they remain higher than the state average. In 2003 the poverty level established by the by 

the Census Bureau for a family of 4 was $18,810 and in that year 31% or 4,443 people in San 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soils and Water

3-130 

Juan County were living below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2006). In terms of race, 

the Native American population has the highest poverty level in the county at 48% or 3,809 

individuals. 

3.13.5.3 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES

Potential land management decisions pertaining to woodlands in the Monticello PA could 

disproportionately affect the area's low-income and minority population. Navajo tribal members 

have been gathering wood in the Cedar Mesa area and using the resource as their primary heat 

source in the winter months. Unmanaged woodland harvesting has damaged surface cultural 

resource sites and created a network of unauthorized roads and trails that degrade visual quality, 

and which also may increase soil erosion and sedimentation, and affect overall watershed 

quality. Through the development of the RMP, it is anticipated that an organized and systematic 

plan will be developed to allow the Navajo Tribe to remove fuelwood and minimize future 

damage to the area. 

Native Americans also want to be able to collect live cottonwood, however, this species is 

valuable for wildlife (T&E species) habitat, riparian function, and overall watershed health. It 

currently is at risk of being replaced by invasive species including tamarisk. The access and 

gathering of other plants traditionally used by tribes is an issue within the Monticello PA. Plants 

important to Native American's traditional cultural practices include: willows, sage, yarrow and 

squirrel tail (SWCA 2004). 

3.14 SOILS AND WATER

3.14.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Watershed incorporates several separate resources (soil, water, etc) and takes into consideration 

the interaction between them and their effect on conditions and processes occurring on the 

landscape, culminating with their impact on surface water quality. To assess these impacts, the 

resources that are discussed in this section are soils and surface water. 

3.14.2 WATERSHEDS AND GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY

The Monticello PA lies within portions of nine separate hydrologic subbasins (Table 3.39) 

located within the Upper Colorado hydrologic region (Region 14). The majority of the PA is 

contained within the San Juan subbasin, though the northern portion of the PA is largely within 

the Kane Springs subbasin. Subbasin boundaries are shown on Map 49, and are described in 

Table 3.39. 

The PA is also within an administrative area designated by the Utah Division of Water 

Resources (UDWRe) called the Southeast Colorado River Basin. The boundaries of this area are 

a mix of political and geographic features, and almost completely overlap the Moab and 

Monticello PAs. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soils and Water

3-131 

Table 3.39. Subbasins within the Monticello PA 

4th Order HUC Subbasin Name 

14030005 Upper Colorado – Dolores – Kane Springs 

14070001 Upper Colorado – Dirty Devil – Upper Lake Powell 

14080201 Lower San Juan – Four Corners 

14080202 Lower San Juan – McElmo 

14080203 Lower San Juan – Montezuma 

14080205 Lower San Juan – Lower San Juan 

The topography of the Monticello PA is defined largely by high mountains, steep escarpments, 

and incised canyons. The boundaries of the PA itself are defined by the Colorado border to the 

east, the San Juan River and Navajo Indian Reservation to the south, and the Colorado River to 

the west. The northern boundary of the Monticello PA approximately follows the elevational 

divide along Hatch Point, and the Lower Lisbon Valley. Elevations vary from 3,700 feet above 

mean sea level (amsl) in the southwest near Lake Powell, to approximately 7,500 feet amsl near 

the base of the Abajo Mountains. 

The Abajo Mountains themselves lie within the Manti–La Sal National Forest and are the highest 

topographic features in the PA. Dry Valley extends north from the Abajo Mountains. The region 

west of the Abajo Mountains consists of a deeply incised plateau, and includes the Canyonlands 

National Park. The southern portion of the PA that extends from the Abajo Mountains to the San 

Juan River is characterized by similar terrain, though less steep, and an overall loss in elevation 

to about 4,500 feet amsl at the River. 

3.14.3 GEOLOGY

The geology of the Monticello PA is characterized primarily by the relatively flat stratigraphic 

sequence of sedimentary units dating from the Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian and 

Pennsylvanian periods. The older Permian and Triassic rocks, which include the Cutler Group 

and the Moenkopi formation and the Chinle Formation, dominate the area between the Abajo 

Mountains and the Colorado River. This area is known as the Monument Upwarp, a late 

Cretaceous uplift that resulted in the erosional removal of the younger strata from the underlying 

rock. The remainder of the Monticello PA is still dominated by younger sedimentary units of 

Cretaceous and Jurassic age, which includes the Dakota and Morrison Formations and the Glen 

Canyon Group. 

3.14.4 SOILS

Soils are the medium for plant growth, and soils provide nourishment for nearly all terrestrial 

organisms. Soils in the Monticello PA have developed in residuum (residual material from parent 

rock), colluvium (rock debris accumulated by gravity at the base of a cliff), alluvium (clay, silt, 

sand or gravel deposited by a stream or moving water), eolian sands (sands deposited by wind), 

and loess (yellowish brown loamy material deposited by wind). They are derived primarily from 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soils and Water

3-132 

the sedimentary geologic deposits that occur throughout the Monticello PA. Some soils are 

derived from igneous parent materials that occur around the Abajo Mountains. 

3.14.4.1 SOIL DATA

Soil mapping for the Monticello PA was prepared using the Soil Survey Geographic database 

(SSURGO) for Utah. NRCS Soil surveys for the Monticello PA include: 

• San Juan Area 1962 

• San Juan County, Central Part 1993 

• Canyonlands Area 1991 

3.14.4.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Aridisols (dry soils), Mollisols (soils with a dark surface horizon), Entisols (geologically young 

soils), and Alfisols (forested soils) comprise the Monticello PA soil orders. Soils are classified or 

grouped into similar categories based on physical and chemical properties. A soil order is the 

broadest soil taxonomic grouping. The next, more refined soil taxonomic level is the suborder. 

The finest level of classification is the series or phase. For the purposes of this discussion soils 

are summarized by order and suborder. Within the Monticello PA there are generally 5 major 

soil orders represented and 7 suborders. These are described and their acres summarized in Table 

3.40. 

Table 3.40. Soil Orders and Suborders, Monticello PA (BLM 2001a)

Soil Order 

Soil Suborder Acreage Description 

Aridisols (dry soils) 

Argids 292,574 acres Aridisols with clay accumulation in one or more subsurface 

horizons. 

Orthids 354,966 acres Aridisols without any exceptional characteristics. 

Entisols (developmentally young soils) 

Fluvents 26,170 acres Entisols formed in a fluvial environment, such as a floodplain. 

Orthents 926,129 acres Entisols are recently developed soils without any exceptional 

characteristics. Orthents are typically formed in colluvial and 

aeolian deposits. These soils are the most widespread in the 

Monticello PA. 

Mollisols (soils that have dark surface horizons due to organic matter accumulation) 

Borolls 10,464 acres Mollisols formed under cooler temperatures. 

Ustolls 18,258 acres Dry Mollisols (precipitation occurs more frequently than in 

Xerolls). 

Xerolls 29,909 acres The driest Mollisols (precipitation occurs less frequently than in 

Ustolls). 

Other Lands 

Rock outcrop/ 

rubblelands/ 

water 

354,966 acres Includes all of these. No soil development is present on these 

lands; water makes up a small percentage of this acreage. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soils and Water

3-133 

3.14.4.3 SENSITIVE SOILS

Soils in the resource area are composed of a wide variety of soil types and characteristics. 

Sensitive soils are those soils that have one or more limiting characteristics that would make 

them difficult to reclaim, if they were disturbed. Limiting soil chemical features include sodium, 

soluble salts, carbonates, and gypsum. Limiting soil physical characteristics include soils that are 

susceptible to wind and/or water erosion, and soils that are protected by biological soil crusts. . 

Sensitive soils are identified using information from published soil surveys, ecological site 

descriptions, local monitoring records and field data, and research studies. The information below 

provides general estimates and descriptions of limiting soil features as determined by the published 

soil survey information. For the purposes of this analysis, this information was used to identify 

amounts of soils with limiting features or that could be considered "sensitive soils" within various 

land management allocations that may differ between alternatives, as a means of comparing impacts 

to and from soil resources between alternatives. This information may also be used in site specific 

planning to help determine whether additional BMP's or mitigation measures would be required to 

protect soil productivity or to improve chances for successful reclamation following disturbance. 

3.14.4.3.1 ERODIBLE SOILS

Wind erodible soils were determined from each mapping unit's wind erodibility group (WEG), 

which ranges from 1 (highest erodibility) to 8 (lowest erodibility). Soils with a WEG of 1–2 are 

highly erodible; soils with a WEG of 3, 4, and 4L are moderately erodible. Wind erosion strips 

the surface horizon of soil and nutrients necessary for seed germination and plant recruitment. 

Wind erosion can also result in the formation and expansion of sand dunes. Aeolian deposition 

can bury and kill biological soil crusts by prohibiting photosynthesis in cyanobacteria, lichens 

and mosses. In the Monticello PA, moderately and highly wind erodible soils occur over 986,765 

acres and 65 acres, respectively (Map 47). 

Water erosion causes the formation of rills and gullies, and can contribute to the sedimentation of 

streams and reservoirs. Two variables were factored into determining a soil's erodibility: the 

soil's erodibility constant (the "k" factor) and slope. Water erodible soils were divided into 3 

classes: slightly, moderately, and highly erodible. The table below summarizes the erodibilty 

constants and slope parameters used to determine the level of erodibility. 

Slightly water erodible soils totaled 1,789,629 acres, moderately water erodible soils totaled 

8,659 acres, highly water erodible soils totaled 206,451 acres, and (Map 46). 

Table 3.41. Soil Erodibility Factors 

Erodibility k Factor Slope 

High >0.37 

0.20–0.36 

>10% 

>30% 

Moderate 0.20–0.36 

<0.20 

>10 to ≤30% 

> 30% 

Slight <0.20 

any k-factor 

10 to 30% 

<10% 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soils and Water

3-134 

3.14.4.3.2 SALINE AND SODIC SOILS

Soil salinity can have significant impacts on soil erosion and reclamation potential. Erosion of 

saline soils can also have significant impacts on the water quality of downstream watersheds. 

Soil map units with (saline soils) exhibit electrical conductivity levels of 8 decisiemens per meter 

(dS/m) or greater are shown in Map 44. Sodic soils are those soils with sodium adsorption ratios 

(SAR) greater than 13:1. The soil survey maps do not indicate that saline or sodic soils occur on 

BLM lands within the Monticello PA, but they are expected to occur within San Juan County 

(Maps 44 and 45). 

3.14.4.3.3 RECLAMATION-SENSITIVE SOILS

Reclamation sensitive soils are those soils with one or more of the following characteristics that 

would make them difficult to revegetate if disturbance occurred on them: 

• pH ≥ 9.0 

• SAR ≥ 13:1 

• Salinity ≥ 8 dS/m

As stated above, saline and sodic soils are not likely to occur within the Monticello PA, but there 

are some strongly alkaline soils present within the PA. Due to the characteristics listed above, 

reclamation sensitive soils would be difficult to revegetate, due to their limiting soil chemical 

properties. The Monticello PA contains 286,736 acres of reclamation-sensitive soils (Maps 34, 

37, and 38). 

3.14.4.3.4 BIOLOGICAL SOIL CRUSTS

Many of the biotic communities found in the Monticello PA have evolved with the presence of 

biological soil crusts. Biological soil crusts include mats or filaments of cyanobacteria, lichens, 

and mosses. These crusts play a major role in reducing water and wind erosion and in preventing 

the establishment of invasive annual grasses (BLM 2001b). 

The presence of biological crusts in arid and semiarid lands have a significant influence on 

reducing soil erosion by both wind and water, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, retaining soil 

moisture, and providing a living organic surface mulch. They can be used as an indicator of 

rangelands' ecological health. Development of biological crusts is strongly influenced by soil 

texture, soil chemistry, and successional colonization by crustal organisms. The SSURGO data 

and NRCS soil surveys do not contain information on the amounts or types of biological crusts 

that may occur in each soil mapping unit. However, extensive research on soil biological crusts 

has been done in nearby areas such as Canyonlands National Park and the Grand Staircase 

Escalante National Monument (see USGS 2007; Bowker et al. 2006). 

3.14.5 SURFACE WATER SUPPLY AND USE

Surface water supply comes from larger regional rivers (Colorado and San Juan rivers), and 

those intermittent and perennial streams in the Monticello PA that originate in the Abajo 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soils and Water

3-135 

Mountains. Runoff occurs from snowmelt and from brief intense storms that generally occur in 

late summer. Most of the surface runoff occurs from snowmelt during the months of April, May, 

and June. Stream segments farther away from the mountains, or with headwaters originating at 

lower elevations, are less likely to be perennial and more dependent on summer precipitation. 

Diverted surface water in the FO PA is used for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and 

recreational purposes. 

Major creeks, rivers, and lakes are summarized in Table 3.42. Average annual streamflows for 

some of the creeks and rivers are included in Table 3.43. 

Table 3.42. Major Waterbodies within the Monticello Planning Area 

Subbasin Major Waterbodies 

Upper Colorado – Dolores – Kane Springs Colorado River, Indian Creek 

Upper Colorado – Dirty Devil – Upper Lake 

Powell 

Colorado River, Lake Powell 

Lower San Juan – Four Corners San Juan River, Butler Wash, Comb Wash, Recapture 

Creek, Recapture Reservoir, Blanding City Reservoirs 

Lower San Juan – Montezuma Vega Creek, Verdure Creek, Montezuma Creek, Keller 

Reservoir, Lloyd's Lake 

Lower San Juan – Lower San Juan San Juan River, Lime Creek, Lake Powell 

Table 3.43. Annual Mean Streamflow of Selected Waterbodies 

Major Waterbodies Flow Regime Avg. Annual 

Streamflow (cfs)1

Period of Record 

Colorado River Perennial 12,500 1928–1982 

Indian Creek Perennial 4.2 1950–1990 

Montezuma Creek Intermittent 11.8 1986–1992 

Recapture Creek Intermittent 1.3 1966–2001 

San Juan River Perennial 2,300 1915–2001 

1 Based on published USGS data (USGS 2006). 

The largest use of surface water is for agricultural irrigation for approximately 5,100 acres of 

land, diverting an average of 17,000 acre-feet annually. Of this diversion, approximately 9,700 

acre-feet are depleted through evapotranspiration with the rest returning to the hydrologic system 

as runoff or infiltration. These numbers are based on data compiled for a region roughly 

equivalent to the PA for the year 1996 (UDWRe 2000). 

Municipal and industrial (M&I) surface water use in San Juan County accounted for diversions 

of approximately 3,500 acre-feet in 1996 (UDWRe 2000). Industrial water uses in San Juan 

County account for approximately 30% of the M&I diversions and include mining and mineral 

processing, lumber processing, construction and rock products, and meat processing. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soils and Water

3-136 

Intermittent and perennial surface water flow also provides the basis for wet and open areas and 

supports riparian vegetation. BLM surface water developments include stock ponds, erosion 

control structures, rainfall catchments, guzzlers for wildlife, and spring developments. 

There is no irrigated agriculture associated with BLM lands within the Monticello PA, with the 

exception of minor acreage being farmed in trespass. 

3.14.6 MUNICIPAL WATERSHEDS

Some municipalities within the PA rely on surface water as part of their water supply, with some 

parts of the watershed administered by the BLM. Most of the culinary water supplied by 

Blanding is surface water from Indian, Johnson, and Recapture creeks, and all of the culinary 

water supplied by Mexican Hat is surface water from the San Juan River. Culinary or potable 

water supplied by Bluff, Eastland, Monticello, and the San Juan Special Services District all 

originates as groundwater derived from springs or wells. 

Forty-five parcels within the PA have been withdrawn by the BLM for public water preservation. 

These lands total approximately 3,800 acres, and are summarized in Table 3.44. 

Table 3.44. Summary of BLM Public Water Reserve Lands 

Parcel Acres 

Alkali Canyon (2) 82.64 

78.75 

Arch Canyon 85.64 

Cigarette Spring Cave 155.14 

Collins Spring (2) 87.35 

103.61 

38.03 

39.28 

Cottonwood Wash (3) 

35.46 

40.50 

39.31 

Cross Canyon (3) 

40.10 

Dark Canyon 41.04 

Dry Wash 43.90 

East Canyon Wash (2) 35.43 

83.74 

120.70 

38.51 

Irish Green Spring (3) 

40.15 

Lime Creek (4) 72.42 

40.21 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soils and Water

3-137 

Table 3.44. Summary of BLM Public Water Reserve Lands 

Parcel Acres 

38.59 

40.79 

Mike's Canyon (2) 151.45 

243.93 

Peter's Canyon 41.30 

Picket Fork 159.75 

Prehistoric Cave Spring 155.84 

20.38 

43.70 

Recapture Creek (3) 

37.15 

Red House Spring 239.56 

Ruin Canyon (2) 73.22 

222.76 

San Juan River (2) 41.10 

35.11 

Sweet Alice Spring 40.24 

Tank Wash 20.27 

The Needles 186.10 

The Tank 124.09 

Turner Water Canyon (2) 156.44 

40.53 

Wild Cow Point (2) 44.58 

138.61 

Woodenshoe Buttes 157.50 

Total 3,794.9 

3.14.7 SURFACE WATER QUALITY

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the BLM, and the UDEQ implement surface water quality 

sampling programs within the Monticello PA. The USGS sampling program regularly monitors 

only the major rivers within the PA including the Colorado and San Juan rivers. The USGS 

monitoring program has been continuously conducted for more than 60 years. The UDEQ and 

BLM sampling programs support state water quality assessments and are more extensive, 

including many of the smaller creeks, springs, and lakes. The UDEQ sampling program was 

started in 1997 as the basis for Utah's water quality assessment required under Section 305(b) of 

the Clean Water Act, and the Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. 

Impaired water bodies within the Monticello PA were limited to the Kane Springs and Lower 

San Juan subbasins. Within the Kane Springs subbasin, Indian Creek was identified as impaired 

with respect to pH. Within the Lower San Juan subbasin, Johnson Creek and North Creek are 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soils and Water

3-138 

impaired with respect to pH, and Cottonwood Wash is impaired due to radionucleides (gross 

alpha) due to historical mining and mine tailings in the area. Within the Lower San Juan 

subbasin, Recapture Reservoir is impaired with respect to dissolved oxygen. 

A full list of streams and water bodies located within the Monticello PA and listed on Utah's 

303(d) list are included as Table 3.45, and shown in Map 48. 

Table 3.45. Waterbodies on Utah's 303(d) List of Impaired Waters 

HUC Code Name Stressor 

14030005 Indian Creek from Newspaper Rock north boundary to 

headwaters 

pH 

14080201 Johnson Creek from Recapture Creek to headwaters pH 

14080201 Cottonwood Wash from Westwater to USFS Boundary Gross alpha4

14080201 Cottonwood Wash within FS Boundary Gross alpha 

14080203 North Creek from Montezuma Creek to headwaters pH 

14080201 Recapture Reservoir Dissolved Oxygen 

Source: UDEQ 2000a, UDEQ 2002. 

Excess salinity is the major surface water quality problem in the PA, and is of national 

significance under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Salinity contributions 

occur from naturally occurring saline springs, from saline groundwater interception by streams, 

and from erosion of saline soils. During low flow periods, salt contribution comes from seeps, 

springs, and groundwater flow; during high flow periods, erosion of saline soils becomes a major 

contributor to salinity problems. 

Based on the UDEQ sampling program, problem watersheds within the Monticello PA have been 

identified and are summarized in Table 3.46. Two parameters can be used to describe salinity 

impacts from each watershed: total dissolved solids, which are reflective of saline groundwater 

contribution as well as erosion of saline soils; and total suspended solids, which are an indicator 

or erosion potential of a watershed. Other stream systems within the Monticello PA may also 

have problems, but the data are not currently available to make this assessment. 

Table 3.46. Watersheds with Potential High Salinity Contributions 

Subbasin/Stream System 

Sampling Locations 

Average 

Total 

Dissolved 

Solids 

(mg/L) 

Average 

Total 

Suspended 

Solids 

(mg/L) 

Percent of 

Time TDS 

Limit 

Exceeded1

Percent of 

Time TSS 

Limit 

Exceeded2

Approximate 

Percent of 

Watershed 

on BLM 

Lands 

Lower San Juan/Lime Creek 90 

Lime Creek (mouth) 2,750 20 92 8 

Four Corners/Comb Wash 80 

Comb Wash (mouth) 1,300 900 44 56 

Comb Wash (middle) 1,970 190 50 8 

Arch Creek 690 280 0 19 

 

4

 Gross Alpha is a radioactive contaminant sometimes found in water within or adjacent to historic mining districts. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soils and Water

3-139 

Table 3.46. Watersheds with Potential High Salinity Contributions 

Subbasin/Stream System 

Sampling Locations 

Average 

Total 

Dissolved 

Solids 

(mg/L) 

Average 

Total 

Suspended 

Solids 

(mg/L) 

Percent of 

Time TDS 

Limit 

Exceeded1

Percent of 

Time TSS 

Limit 

Exceeded2

Approximate 

Percent of 

Watershed 

on BLM 

Lands 

Fish Creek 1,910 20 69 8 

Four Corners/Cottonwood Creek 45 

Cottonwood Creek (mouth) 340 3,240 0 60 

Cottonwood Creek (middle) 330 1,010 0 38 

Cottonwood Creek 

(headwaters) 

320 560 0 50 

Allen Canyon Creek 340 100 0 17 

Hammond Canyon Creek 310 250 0 25 

Four Corners/Recapture Creek 45 

Recapture Creek (mouth) 1,440 1,840 45 64 

Bulldog Canyon Creek 410 180 0 15 

Montezuma/Montezuma Creek 40 

Montezuma Creek (mouth) 1,400 1,750 64 100 

Montezuma Creek 

(headwaters) 

780 310 0 20 

Kane Springs/Salt Creek 25 

Salt Creek (mouth) 4,350 10 100 0 

Salt Creek (middle) 720 30 5 6 

Kane Springs/Indian Creek 55 

Indian Creek (headwaters) 210 890 0 25 

North Cottonwood Creek 320 140 0 35 

Source: USEPA 2003d. 

1

 Exceedance over 1,200 mg/L. 

2

 Exceedance over 90 mg/L. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-140 

3.15 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

For the purposes of this analysis, Special Designations fall into 3 categories: Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs), Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR), and Wilderness Study Areas 

(WSAs). (There is no designated wilderness within the Monticello PA). Special designations are 

applied to areas when they have certain resources or characteristics that require special 

management. Detailed descriptions of each of these areas and the criteria for proposing them are 

given below.Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

3.15.1.1 INTRODUCTION

FLPMA defines an ACEC as an area "within the public lands where special management 

attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or 

scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life 

and safety from natural hazards." Private lands and lands administered by other agencies are not 

included in the boundaries of ACECs. 

FLPMA states that the BLM will give priority to the designation and protection of ACECs in the 

development and revision of land-use plans (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1712 [c]). 

Regulations at 43 CFR 1610.7-2 require that for an area to be considered as a potential ACEC, 

both of the following criteria shall be met: 1) Relevance—there shall be present a significant 

historic, cultural or scenic value; a fish or wildlife resource or other natural system or process; or 

a natural hazard; and 2) Importance—the above described value, resource, system, process, or 

natural hazard shall have substantial significance and values. This generally requires qualities of 

more than local significance and special worth, consequences, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause 

for concern. 

ACECs differ from some other special management designations in that designation by itself 

does not automatically prohibit or restrict other uses in the area. The special management 

attention is designed specifically for the relevant and important values, and therefore varies from 

area to area. The one exception is that a mining plan of operation is required for any proposed 

mining activity that would create surface disturbance greater than casual use within a designated 

ACEC (43 CFR 3809 Regulations). 

The first step in the ACEC designation process is a call for nominations during public scoping 

for the RMP. The BLM, other federal and state agencies, special-interest groups, or members of 

the public may formally nominate an area for ACEC designation. The nominations are reviewed 

by a BLM interdisciplinary team to determine if the criteria of relevance and importance have 

been met. In addition, existing ACECs are subject to reconsideration when plans are revised. 

If the relevance and importance criteria are met, the area is considered as a potential ACEC to be 

considered for ACEC designation during the RMP planning process or during the RMP 

amendment process. The signing of the ROD of the proposed RMP or RMP amendment by the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-141 

BLM state director officially designates an ACEC. Following ACEC designation, special 

management identified in the RMP or RMP amendment is implemented. 

3.15.1.2 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

The Monticello PA has 10 existing ACECs that were reconsidered during the RMP process for 

relevance and importance values along with a total of nine new internal and external 

nominations. Several of the new nominations overlapped existing ACECs. The determination 

rationale for all existing ACECs and new nominations, including those that did not meet 

relevance and importance criteria, are outlined in Appendix H, Special Designations, Relevance 

and Importance Criteria Evaluations. 

3.15.1.3 EXISTING ACECS

With the approval of the San Juan RMP (BLM 1991a), the BLM designated 10 ACECs, 

comprising approximately 513,452 acres, in the Monticello PA. These areas are recognized as 

requiring special management attention for the protection of cultural sites, scenic qualities, 

recreational opportunities, vegetation, or wildlife resources. With the exception of the Grand 

Gulch Plateau Cultural and Recreation Management Plan (BLM 1993c), separate management 

plans have not been developed for these ACECs. Instead, the special management conditions 

(from the 1991 San Juan RMP), direct how the existing ACECs are managed. When a project is 

allowed to proceed within an ACEC, these established management conditions must be followed, 

and are incorporated directly into the management prescription for the proposed project. The 10 

existing ACECs are summarized in Table 3.47. Please see Map 50 for their locations. 

Table 3.47. Monticello PA ACECs from 1991 RMP (Existing ACECs) 

Existing ACECs Value(s) 1991 RMP 

Acreage1

Existing 

ACEC 

Mapped 

Acreage per 

ArcView2

Alkali Ridge Cultural 35,890 39,202 

Bridger Jack Mesa Near-relict Vegetation 5,290 6,260 

Butler Wash Scenic 13,870 17,463 

Cedar Mesa Cultural, Scenic 323,760 295,335 

Dark Canyon Scenic 62,040 61,659 

Hovenweep Cultural, Habitat Management 1,500 1,798 

Indian Creek Scenic 8,640 8,509 

Lavender Mesa Relict Vegetation 640 649 

Scenic Highway Corridor Scenic 78,390 79,017 

Shay Canyon Cultural and Special Emphasis Area 1,770 3,560 

Total 531,790 513,452 

1

Acreage listed in 1991 San Juan RMP (BLM 1991a). 

2

Acreage for current existing ACECs determined by ArcView program. Difference represents mapping/GIS discrepancy. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-142 

3.15.1.4 POTENTIAL ACECS

After analyzing both currently existing and nominated areas based on relevance and importance 

criteria for the purpose of ensuring "that the most environmentally important and fragile lands 

will be given ... early attention and protection." (Senate Report 94-583, on FLPMA), and to 

protect important resources from irreparable damage, the BLM identified 11 potential ACECs, 

totaling 535,936 acres within the boundaries of the Monticello PA (Table 3.48–3.50; Map 51). It 

should be noted that some of these are existing ACECs, and some are new nominations for 

designation as ACECs. In addition, some of these potential ACECs are reconfigurations of 

existing and nominated areas. 

Portions of potential and/or existing ACECs are within existing WSAs. Table 3.49 shows the 

acreage of WSA that is within an ACEC. Those ACECs that are not listed have no acres of WSA 

within the ACEC. 

For detailed information on the Monticello FO ACEC process please refer to ACEC Evaluations, 

Appendix H. 

Table 3.48. Summary Table of Potential ACECs 

Area Name Value(s) Acreage

Alkali Ridge Cultural 39,202 

Bridger Jack Mesa Near-relict vegetation 6,225 

Butler Wash North Scenic 17,463 

Cedar Mesa Cultural and Scenic, with Special Emphasis Areas—

Grand Gulch, Valley of the Gods, and Arch Canyon, 

and Pine/Step Canyon area 

344,262 

Dark Canyon Scenic, Cultural and Wildlife 61,659 

Hovenweep Cultural with Special Wildlife Habitat 2,438 

Indian Creek/ 

Lockhart Basin 

Scenic 56,2931

Lavender Mesa Relict-vegetation 649 

Shay Canyon Cultural 119 

San Juan River Scenic, Cultural, Wildlife and Natural System 7,626 

Valley of the Gods Scenic -- 2

Total 535,936 

1

 Indian Creek: 8,509 acres, included within Lockhart Basin total. 

2

 Valley of the Gods: 34,771 acres, included in Cedar Mesa total. 

Table 3.49. ACEC Acreage within Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), by ACEC 

Potential ACEC Total ACEC 

Acreage 

WSA(s) within the 

ACEC 

Acreage of 

WSA within 

the ACEC 

Percent of 

ACEC within 

WSA 

Bridger Jack Mesa 6,225 Bridger Jack Mesa 6,225 100% 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-143 

Table 3.49. ACEC Acreage within Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), by ACEC 

Potential ACEC Total ACEC 

Acreage 

WSA(s) within the 

ACEC 

Acreage of 

WSA within 

the ACEC 

Percent of 

ACEC within 

WSA 

Butler Wash 17,463 Butler Wash, South 

Needles 

17,248 99%

Cedar Mesa 344,262 Fish Creek Canyon, 

Bullet Canyon, Pine 

Canyon, Shieks Flat, 

Grand Gulch ISA, Mule 

Canyon, Road Canyon 

196,349 57%

Dark Canyon 61,659 Dark Canyon ISA 61,326 99%

Indian Creek 8,509 Indian Creek 4,602 54%

Lockhart Basin 47,784 Indian Creek 1,821 4%

Scenic Highway 

Corridor 

79,017 Cheese Box Canyon, 

Fish Creek Canyon, 

Pine Canyon, Shieks 

Flat, Grand Gulch ISA, 

Mule Canyon, Road 

Canyon 

9,929 8%

Table 3.50. Description and Relevance and Importance Summary of Potential ACECs 

Description Summary of Relevance and Importance 

Alkali Ridge Existing ACEC—39,202 acres 

Alkali Ridge lies between Alkali 

Canyon and Montezuma Canyon in 

the eastern portion of the resource 

area. This area is one of the bestknown and influential examples of 

scientific archeological investigation 

in the southwestern U.S. The area 

contains the Alkali Ridge National 

Historic Landmark (2,340 acres). 

The cultural resources located in this area are regionally and 

nationally significant and include a large number of high 

density cultural sites of the Basketmaker and Pueblo cultures. 

This area contains numerous large structural sites that have 

revealed evidence of the full range of prehistoric pueblo 

occupation from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III (500–1300 AD) 

and represent the defining morphological site type for the 

prehistoric Pueblo II cultural period (900–1150 AD). 

Bridger Jack Mesa Existing ACEC—6,225 acres 

Bridger Jack Mesa is located in the 

Indian Creek Corridor on the west 

side of Scenic Highway 211. Bridger 

Jack Mesa ACEC covers a large 

mesa top consisting of pinyon-juniper 

woodland and sagebrush-grass 

parks. The mesa is public land 

except for approximately 420 acres 

of state land. 

This area contains near-relict plant community unaltered by 

human intervention. The cliffs surrounding the mesa top form a 

natural boundary providing a relatively isolated area that has 

not been grazed since 1957. Bridger Jack Mesa provides a 

natural exclosure control area to study the recovery of pinyonjuniper woodland and sagebrush-grass communities from 

livestock grazing. It is important as a baseline for the study and 

comparison of pinyon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush-grass 

community management in other parts of the Colorado Plateau 

and is, therefore, more than locally significant. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-144 

Table 3.50. Description and Relevance and Importance Summary of Potential ACECs 

Description Summary of Relevance and Importance 

Butler Wash Existing ACEC—17,463 acres 

Butler Wash North ACEC is located 

south of and adjacent to 

Canyonlands National Park, and 

includes Butler Wash, and several 

forks of Salt Creek. The southern part 

of the ACEC flat areas drop abruptly 

into the heads of the various forks of 

Salt Creek. 

The scenic values of this area are a continuation of the 

remarkable rock formations, spires, domes and buttes seen in 

the adjacent Needles District of Canyonlands National Park. 

They are important to regional, national, and international 

visitors who travel to Canyonlands NP and backpack into the 

remote, natural areas adjacent to the park. Salt Creek is one 

such area. Gray, cream, coral and red sandstones band the 

walls of the canyons of Salt Creek. 

Cedar Mesa Existing ACEC—295,335 

(Includes 4,240 acres in Grand Gulch, and 34,771 in Valley of the Gods) 

Cedar Mesa ACEC is located on the 

southern boundary of the field office 

bounded by Comb Wash on the east, 

Highway 163 and Glen Canyon NRA 

on the south and State Highway 276 

on the west. This ACEC 

encompasses the Grand Gulch 

Archeological District and the Grand 

Gulch Primitive Area. 

Cultural resources in the Cedar Mesa/Grand Gulch area are of 

regional, national, and worldwide significance because of the 

wealth of intact Basketmaker and Pueblo cliff dwellings in 

excellent condition. Arch Canyon, in particular, has a ruin of 

unique architectural elements that are one-of-a-kind in this 

area. 

Arch Canyon also has designated critical habitat for the 

Mexican Spotted Owl, potential habitat for the Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher, and riparian habitat essential for amphibians 

and neo-tropical migratory birds. Sensitive fish species such as 

the flannelmouth sucker are present in the canyon. 

Dark Canyon Existing ACEC—62,659 acres 

Dark Canyon ACEC is located on the 

western boundary of the field office 

adjacent to Glen Canyon NRA on the 

west, and on the east the Dark 

Canyon Wilderness Area (45,000 

acres) of the Manti–La Sal NF 

Dark Canyon ACEC is surrounded by 

National Forest and NPS lands. This 

area is primitive, roadless and 

undeveloped in nature. It is limited to 

access due to the canyon rims that 

form a natural boundary that protect 

its natural scenery and wildlife 

values. The area includes Dark, 

Gypsum, and Fable Valley and 

several smaller side canyons all of 

which are part of the Colorado River 

drainage. 

Dark Canyon is one of the deepest canyon systems in the 

region. The remote location, dramatic rugged terrain, and 

undeveloped naturalness of the area contribute to the high 

scenic value and make this a destination for primitive 

backcountry exploration by national and international travelers. 

The canyon has unobstructed and expansive views including 

1,200 foot vertical cliffs, rimrock, outcrops and spires, pour-offs 

and potholes, and color contrasts between soil and rock, 

flowing water, and diverse vegetation. The proximity to Glen 

Canyon NRA, the Colorado River, Canyonlands NP, and the 

Manti–La Sal National Forest contribute to Dark Canyon as a 

visitation destination for primitive backcountry experience. 

Dark Canyon is within designated critical habitat for the 

Mexican Spotted Owl. It is also important habitat for Willow 

Flycatchers, Peregrine Falcon, and other raptors. There is a 

large variety of wildlife present in the area including ringtail 

cats, desert bighorn sheep, bobcats, black bear, deer, elk, and 

mountain lions. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-145 

Table 3.50. Description and Relevance and Importance Summary of Potential ACECs 

Description Summary of Relevance and Importance 

Hovenweep Existing ACEC—1798 acres + 620 acres1

Hovenweep ACEC is located on the 

eastern boundary of the field office 

and is adjacent to the Square Tower 

Unit in Hovenweep National 

Monument (NPS). 

Hovenweep ACEC contains cultural resources in the same 

vicinity and of the same types as Canyons of the Ancients 

National Monument and Hovenweep National Monument and 

adds cohesiveness to the management of the cultural 

resources of the two National Monuments. 

It has two special emphasis areas, Cajon Pond and a visual 

protection zone (880 acres) for the unobstructed viewing of 

cultural sites. Cajon Pond, a constructed reservoir covers 

approximately 10 acres and provides important riparian habitat 

for migrating waterfowl and other wildlife in a desert, semiarid 

climate that has very little surface water present. 

Indian Creek Existing ACEC—8,509 acres 

Indian Creek ACEC is located in the 

northern area of the FO, east of and 

adjacent to Canyonlands NP / 

Needles District. The Indian Creek 

ACEC buffers the scenic view from 

Needles Overlook across BLM land 

into Canyonlands NP. The area 

includes the lower end of Indian 

Creek and Rustler Canyon. 

The Indian Creek ACEC is noted for its incised, meandering 

canyons that wind through dark red mudstones, forming many 

rounded spires, and "hoo-doos" (boulders atop eroded rock 

that look like mushrooms). These various formations continue 

uninterrupted into Canyonlands NP, which contains some of 

the most unique landforms in the world. Visitors from around 

the world come to view this area from overlooks across BLM 

land and NPS Canyonlands NP. 

Lavender Mesa Existing ACEC—649 acres 

Lavender Mesa ACEC covers the top 

of Lavender Mesa, which is located in 

the Indian Creek corridor of the FO. 

Lavender Mesa is isolated and 

inaccessible to man and herbivores 

by ground routes, even small 

mammals such as rabbits and mice 

appear to be absent. The mesa top 

supports a relict plant community 

environment. Most of the mesa is 

pinyon-juniper woodland with the 

exception of a small 20-acre 

sagebrush-grass park. 

The vegetative community present on the top of Lavender 

Mesa is unique because it has developed without the influence 

of grazing animals and most other mammals. The area is 

ecologically relevant because it presents an isolated, relict 

plant community that remains unaltered by human or animal 

intervention. The vegetative community is important as a 

baseline for comparative studies of pinyon-juniper woodland 

and sagebrush-grass communities in other parts of the 

Colorado Plateau. 

Shay Canyon Potential ACEC—119 acres 

Shay Canyon ACEC is located in the 

southern portion of the Indian Creek 

corridor and is adjacent to the 

northern boundary of the Manti–La 

Sal National Forest. It includes 

sections of the upper Indian Creek 

drainage with a Special Emphasis 

Area for the protection of aquatic and 

riparian habitat, delineated as a 275-

foot corridor along upper Indian 

Creek. 

Cultural resources in this area represent the interface between 

two prehistoric cultural groups: Anasazi and Fremont. This 

interface is represented in the unique motifs in the rock art. 

The area provides an opportunity for cultural scientific 

research, and paleontology study. Dinosaur tracks in the 

bottom of the Shay Canyon streambed are a unique visual 

reminder of the area's distant geologic and natural past. 

This area is heavily traveled area by visitors to the Needles 

District of Canyonlands National Park as Route 211 is the only 

way into and out of the park. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-146 

Table 3.50. Description and Relevance and Importance Summary of Potential ACECs 

Description Summary of Relevance and Importance 

Lockhart Basin Potential ACEC—56,293 acres 

The Lockhart Basin ACEC 

nomination area is bounded on the 

north by the Colorado River, on the 

east by the cliffs of Hatch Point [the 

Moab and Monticello FOs boundary], 

and on the west by Canyonlands 

National Park. The southern 

boundary contours from the eastern 

rims to south of Indian Creek Existing 

ACEC and west to the boundary of 

Canyonlands National Park. 

This ACEC nomination includes 

lower Indian Creek, Rustler, 

Horsethief, and Lockhart Canyons 

and is nominated to protect scenic 

values as viewed from the numerous 

rims above the eastern ACEC 

nominated boundary, and looking 

into Canyonlands National Park. 

The visual resources of the Lockhart Basin ACEC are some of 

the most impressive of the entire Colorado Plateau, and are of 

local, national, and international significance. 

The overlooks from the Needles Overlook provide an extensive 

viewshed of miles of vistas looking deep into Canyonlands NP. 

The unique characteristics of landforms, the National Park, the 

relative pristine nature of the land, the sensitivity of visitors to 

scenic resources, and the ability of the visitor to view the area 

from many vantage points make this an extraordinary and 

important visual resource. 

The cultural inventory areas within Lockhart Basin indicate 

multi-cultural occupations, unique to the canyonlands area of 

Utah. 

Valley of the Gods Potential ACEC—34,771 acres 

Valley of the Gods lies north of US 

Highway 163 extending north to the 

south cliff line of Cedar Mesa. The 

Valley of the Gods is currently a 

Special Emphasis Area within the 

existing Cedar Mesa ACEC. 

Valley of the Gods provides significant vistas to those who 

travel the roads surrounding the area. The Valley of the Gods 

is important to regional, national and international visitors who 

view and photograph the scenery. Panoramic views can be 

seen from the highways bordering the area and from the Valley 

of the Gods Loop (graded gravel and clay, 17 miles) Road. The 

eroded, wind-sculpted spires and buttes, and long rock fins 

resemble animals or "gods." Seven Sailors, Rooster Butte, 

Setting Hen Butte, Pyramid Peak, Castle Butte, and Bell Butte 

are found here. The West Fork of Lime Creek, Lime Creek, 

and the northwest portion of Lime Ridge are included in t area. 

San Juan River Potential ACEC—7,626 acres

The San Juan River ACEC 

nomination is located along the river 

from west of Bluff, Utah to the 

boundary of Glen Canyon NRS, with 

the Navajo Nation on the southern 

portion of the river center-line. A 

portion of the nominated area lies 

within the San Juan River SRMA. 

The scenery along the San Juan River includes tilted 

formations as the river crosses Comb Ridge, steep vertical 

cliffs hundreds of feet high with walls of interbedded sandstone 

and limestone, and the 1,200-foot high walls of the 

Goosenecks. The Goosenecks are one of the best examples of 

entrenched meanders in the U.S. Riparian areas with various 

hues of green border the watercourse and contrast with red 

sandstone, presenting a diverse and varied scenic viewing 

area. Hanging gardens occur in ledges of Navajo Sandstone. 

The rock art along the San Juan River is unsurpassed, 

recognized as "Type Sites" for their specific rock art motifs. 

Cultural sites are present along the river banks and within the 

tributaries of the San Juan River. 

The San Juan River has a unique endemic fish population and 

designated habitat for the endangered Colorado pikeminnow 

and the razorback sucker, as well as the state sensitive 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-147 

Table 3.50. Description and Relevance and Importance Summary of Potential ACECs 

Description Summary of Relevance and Importance 

flannelmouth sucker. Bighorn sheep inhabit the rocky 

precipices of the lower river. The river corridor is used by 

migrating Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (a T&E species), 

and Yellow-billed Cuckoo (a candidate species). The San Juan 

River supports riparian habitat for several other species of 

wildlife, including amphibians, neo-tropical birds, and 

waterfowl. 

1

Since the designation of this ACEC in the 1991 San Juan RMP (BLM 1991a), the BLM has acquired an additional parcel of land, 

approximately 620+ acres, that is adjacent on the east of the BLM Hovenweep ACEC and a state section, and is also on the 

western boundary of the Canyon of the Ancients NM (COANM) in Colorado. It is proposed that this parcel of approximately 620+ 

acres be added to the current BLM Hovenweep ACEC. The additional acreage will fill in a previously privately owned parcel 

between the two national monuments and contribute to consistent management of the cultural value. 

3.15.2 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

3.15.2.1 INTRODUCTION

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 1968 established legislation for a National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System (NWSRS) to protect and preserve designated rivers throughout the nation in their 

free-flowing condition, as well as their immediate environments. The Act contains policy for 

managing designated rivers, and created processes for designating additional rivers into the 

National System. Section 5(d) of the Act directs federal agencies to consider the potential for 

national wild, scenic and recreational river areas in all land and water development planning. A 

WSR review is being conducted as part of the current BLM Monticello FO RMP process. 

The first phase of the WSR review is to inventory all potentially eligible rivers within the FO 

area to determine which of those rivers are eligible for consideration in the NWSRS. In order to 

be eligible, rivers must be free-flowing and possess at least one ORV. The ORVs are evaluated 

in the context of regional and/or national significance, and must be river-related. A tentative 

classification of each river/segment found eligible is then made based on the current level of 

human development associated with that river/segment. 

The second phase of the WSR review occurs as all eligible rivers are taken through the land-use 

planning process of the RMP to determine their "suitability" for designation into the NWSRS. 

Suitability is discussed in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS. One RMP planning alternative will 

consider all eligible river(s)/segments as suitable, another alternative will consider no eligible 

river(s)/segments as suitable, and other alternatives will consider some river(s)/segments as 

suitable and other river(s)/ segments not suitable. "Suitability" determinations will be made in 

the ROD for the RMP. 

Those river(s)/segments found suitable are then managed under specified guidelines to protect 

the free-flowing nature of the river(s)/segment, and to protect the identified ORVs and tentative 

classification. 

Finally, the "suitable" river/segment determinations are reported to Congress. There is no 

specific time requirement for the completion of this phase; however, it is assumed that reporting 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-148 

will be done some time following completion of the RMP. Only the U.S. Congress or the 

Secretary of the Interior, upon request by the state, can designate a river into the NWSRS. 

3.15.2.2 ELIGIBLE SEGMENTS

Approximately 1,300 miles of watercourses within the Monticello PA were inventoried and 

determined to be free-flowing. Each river segment was evaluated on the basis of having at least 

one river-related ORV considered rare, unique and/or exemplary, with each ORV being at least 

regionally significant, and having perennial or intermittent flows. Within the Monticello PA, 12 

segments totaling approximately 93 miles on 6 rivers were found to meet these criteria (see Map 

54). A table listing all of the 167 river segments evaluated in 2003–2004 by the ID team for 

potential WSR eligibility is available in the Preliminary Eligibility Determination of Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (BLM 2003d). A tentative classification of Wild, Scenic, or Recreational was 

determined for each eligible river/segment based on the level of human development associated 

with each river/segment. 

• A Wild river is free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds essentially primitive, 

and with unpolluted waters. 

• A Scenic river may have some development, and may be accessible in places by roads. 

• A Recreational river is considered as a river or segment of river accessible by road (or 

railroad), may have more extensive development along its shoreline, and may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Table 3.51 lists and describes the ORVs of each of the 12 eligible river segments that will be 

further reviewed for suitability. 

Detailed descriptions of the ORVs and the eligibility determinations can be found in the 

Monticello FO Final Eligibility Report (BLM 2004c). The tentative Classification for each river 

segment is included in the table, as well as descriptions of the ORVs. Individual worksheets 

showing evaluation for Tentative Classifications of each river segment are found in Appendix H, 

Special Designations. 

Table 3.51. Individual Eligible Wild and Scenic River(s) Segments (see Map 54) 

Segment Description with 

Approximate River Miles 

Length in Total River 

Miles/BLM River Miles

ORVs Tentative 

Classification1

COLORADO RIVER 

Perennial river 

The north/west side of this section of the Colorado River is managed by the BLM Moab Field Office; 

the south/east side of the same section of river is managed by the BLM Monticello Office. The 

boundary of the two resource areas is the centerline of the Colorado River. 

Segment 1: Northern FO 

boundary near River Mile 50.5 on 

the east side of the river [1 mile 

north of Potash land] south to 

private land near River Mile 48.5 

6.2 total miles/ 

2.2 BLM miles 

Scenic 

Fish 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

Cultural 

Ecological 

Recreational 

Segment 2: State lands near 6.8 total miles/ Scenic Scenic 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-149 

Table 3.51. Individual Eligible Wild and Scenic River(s) Segments (see Map 54) 

Segment Description with 

Approximate River Miles 

Length in Total River 

Miles/BLM River Miles

ORVs Tentative 

Classification1

River Mile 44 to approx. River 

Mile 38.5 

5.5 BLM miles Fish 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

Cultural 

Ecological 

Segment 3: River Mile 37.5 west 

of state school section to 

boundary of Canyonlands NP 

near River Mile 31 

6.5 total miles/ 

6.5 BLM miles 

Scenic 

Fish 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

Cultural 

Ecological 

Scenic 

INDIAN CREEK 

Perennial stream from National Forest boundary to Shay Canyon, and intermittent stream from Shay 

Canyon to Donnelly Canyon

Manti–La Sal National Forest 

Boundary to Donnelley Canyon 

6.5 total miles/ 

4.8 BLM miles 

Cultural Recreational 

FABLE VALLEY 

Perennial stream

Source to Mouth 6.8 total miles/ 

6.8 BLM miles 

Wildlife 

Ecological 

Scenic 

DARK CANYON 

Perennial stream

Youngs Canyon to Glen Canyon 

National Recreational Area 

13.6 total miles/ 6.4 

BLM miles 

Scenic 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

Wild 

SAN JUAN RIVER 

Perennial river 

The north side of the San Juan is under BLM Monticello FO management. The south side falls under 

the jurisdiction and administration of the Navajo Nation. The boundary between Navajo Nation and the 

Monticello FO is the centerline of the San Juan River. 

Segment 1: West Montezuma 

Creek to private land just before 

"avulsed" parcel of Navajo Nation 

land at St. Christopher's Mission 

15.3 total miles/ 

8.5 BLM miles 

Fish 

Wildlife 

Cultural/Historic 

Recreational 

Segment 2: West of "accreted" 

land at town of Bluff, UT River 

Mile (minus) -1 to River Mile 9 

10 total miles/ 

10 BLM miles 

Fish 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

Cultural/Historic 

Ecological 

Recreational 

Segment 3: River Mile 9 to near 

River Mile 23, above the Mexican 

Hat formation 

13.3 total miles/ 

13.3 BLM miles 

Scenic 

Fish 

Recreation 

Geologic 

Wildlife 

Ecological 

Wild 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-150 

Table 3.51. Individual Eligible Wild and Scenic River(s) Segments (see Map 54) 

Segment Description with 

Approximate River Miles 

Length in Total River 

Miles/BLM River Miles

ORVs Tentative 

Classification1

Segment 4: River Mile 23 to near 

River Mile 28 

5.3 total miles/ 

4.2 BLM miles 

Scenic 

Fish 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

Ecological 

Recreational 

Segment 5: River Mile 28 to 

boundary of Glen Canyon NRA 

near River Mile 45 

17.3 total miles/ 

17.3 BLM miles 

Scenic 

Fish 

Recreation 

Geologic 

Wildlife 

Ecological 

Wild 

ARCH CANYON 

Perennial stream in some reaches, Intermittent stream in others.

Manti–La Sal National Forest 

Boundary to 1⁄2 mile west of its 

confluence with Comb Wash 

7.7 total miles/ 

6.9 BLM miles 

Fish 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

Cultural 

Ecological 

Recreational 

1 See appendix. 

3.15.3 LANDS STUDIED FOR CONGRESSIONAL WILDERNESS DESIGNATION UNDER 

FLPMA SECTION 603 

3.15.3.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, establishing a national system of lands for the 

purpose of preserving a representative sample of ecosystems in a natural condition for benefit of 

future generations. Until 1976, lands considered for and designated as wilderness were managed 

by the USFS, the USFWS, or the NPS. With the passage of the FLPMA in 1976, Congress 

directed the BLM to inventory; study, and recommend which public lands under its 

administration should be designated as wilderness. 

In 1979, the BLM began an inventory of 23 million acres of public land in Utah and determined 

that 95 areas (approximately 3.3 million acres) possessed wilderness character. These lands are 

called wilderness study areas (WSAs) or instant study areas (ISAs) if they had previously been 

identified as outstanding natural areas or primitive areas. For the next several years, these areas 

were studied to determine which would be recommended to Congress for designation as 

wilderness. In October 1991, the Secretary of the Interior recommended that Congress designate 

69 areas, totaling about two million acres as wilderness. To date, with few exceptions, Congress 

has not acted on that recommendation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-151 

WSAs are roadless, natural in appearance, provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined recreation, and may have supplemental values (such as ecological, 

geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value). 

3.15.3.2 PLANNING AREA PROFILE

There are 18 WSAs or ISAs in the Monticello PA (Table 3.52 and Map 56). As depicted on the 

table, some of the WSAs are combined with the Grand Gulch and Dark Canyon ISAs to create 2 

ISA complexes. Within the area managed by the Monticello FO, there is also an area totaling 

2,160 acres contiguous to the Butler Wash WSA (and included in the Butler Wash WSA 

acreage), that was studied as a boundary variation during the wilderness review mandated by 

Congress in FLPMA Sections 603(a) and (b). These lands were addressed in the Utah BLM 

Statewide Wilderness Final EIS (November, 1990) and were recommended for congressional 

wilderness designation in the Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Reports (October, 1991). This 

recommendation was forwarded by the President of the U.S. to Congress in 1993. 

All the lands studied during the FLPMA Section 603 wilderness review will continue to be 

managed in a manner that does not impair their suitability for congressional designation in 

accordance with FLPMA Section 603(c). Subject to valid existing rights, actions may be allowed 

on a case-by-case basis only where the BLM determines that the lands' wilderness suitability 

would not be impaired. All of these areas are designated and protected under the authority of 

Section 603 of FLPMA, are managed according to the Interim Management Policy and 

Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP) (BLM 1995), to preserve their wilderness 

values until Congress either designates them wilderness or releases them for other uses. Only 

Congress can designate a WSA/ISA as wilderness or release it from the protective mandate of 

Section 603 of FLPMA, and the status of these areas will not change as a result of this resource 

management planning process. 

Table 3.52. Acreage for BLM WSAs and ISAs in the Monticello PA 

Name San Juan Resource 

Area1

 RMP 

Utah BLM State 

Wide Wilderness 

Final EIS2

'

3

Utah Statewide 

Wilderness Study 

Report4

Dark Canyon Instant Study 

Area (ISA)5

62,040 68,030 68,030 

Grand Gulch ISA6 37,8107 105,520 105,520 

Indian Creek WSA 6,870 6,870 6,870 

Bridger Jack Mesa WSA 5,290 5,290 5,290 

Butler Wash WSA 24,190 24,190 24,190 

South Needles WSA 160 160 160 

Middle Point WSA5 5,990 

Mancos Mesa WSA 51,440 51,440 51,440 

Pine Canyon WSA6 10,890 

Cheesebox Canyon WSA 15,410 15,410 15,410 

Bullet Canyon WSA6 8,520 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-152 

Table 3.52. Acreage for BLM WSAs and ISAs in the Monticello PA 

Name San Juan Resource 

Area1

 RMP 

Utah BLM State 

Wide Wilderness 

Final EIS2

'

3

Utah Statewide 

Wilderness Study 

Report4

Slickhorn Canyon WSA6 45,390 

Road Canyon WSA 52,420 52,420 52,420 

Fish Creek WSA 46,440 46,440 46,440 

Mule Canyon WSA 5,990 5,990 5,990 

Sheiks Flat WSA5 3,140 

Squaw Canyon WSA 6,580 6,6768

Cross Canyon WSA 1,000 1,0089

Totals 387,410 381,760 389,444 

1 In this column, except as noted, all acreage figures are from San Juan RMP (BLM 1991a). 

2 In this column, except as noted, all acreage figures are from Utah BLM State Wide Wilderness Final EIS (BLM 1990). 

3 Squaw/Papoose Canyon and Cross Canyon WSAs were not studied in the Utah BLM State Wide Wilderness Final EIS (BLM 

1990) as they were studied in the San Juan / San Miguel Planning Area Wilderness EIS (BLM [Colorado] 1990). 

4

 In this column, except as noted, all acreage figures are from Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report (BLM 1991c). 

5

 The Dark Canyon ISA combines with the Middle Point WSA to form the Dark Canyon ISA Complex, with a total of 68,030 acres. 

6 The Grand Gulch ISA combines with the Pine Canyon, Bullet Canyon, Slickhorn, and Sheiks Flat WSAs to form the Grand 

Gulch ISA Complex, with a total of 105,520 acres. 

7

 The statewide wilderness EIS uses 37,580 acres for the Grand Gulch ISA. Acreage calculations for the San Juan RMP (BLM 

1991a) from the master title plats revealed the actual total to be 37,807, which is rounded to 37,810. The difference between 

the two figures amounts to 0.6%. 

8 Total acres of this study area are 11,287, of which 4,611 acres are in Colorado. 

9

 Total acres of this study area are 12,588, of which 11,580 acres are in Colorado. 

The only decisions that will be made for these areas in this plan revision will be: 1) visual 

resource management (VRM) class designations in keeping with Bureau policy (VRM Class I); 

2) off-highway vehicle management designations in keeping with the IMP (i.e., "closed," 

"limited to designated roads and trails," or "limited to existing roads and trails"), and 3) route 

designations where ways are either conditionally open (as long as suitability for Congressional 

wilderness designation is not impaired) or closed to vehicle use. 

Although WSAs are by definition roadless, several of the WSAs do include inventoried ways 

(Table 3.53). During the 1979–1980 Utah Wilderness Inventory, it was necessary to divide 

routes used by motorized vehicles into "roads" and "ways." To be considered a road, 3 criteria 

had to be met: (1) constructed; (2) maintained by mechanical means; and (3) regular and 

continuous use. All other motorized routes were defined as ways, which could be left open to 

motorized travel as long as their use did not "impair" the suitability of the area for wilderness 

designation. There are no known impairments in the WSAs in the Monticello FO. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations

3-153 

Table 3.53. List of Inventoried Ways by WSA 

WSA Name Inventoried Ways 

(miles) 

Grand Gulch ISA 15.5 

Pine Canyon WSA 2.5 

Bullet Canyon WSA 6.0 

Slickhorn Canyon WSA 13.25 

Sheiks Flat WSA 0 

Road Canyon WSA 7.0 

Fish Creek WSA 19.8 

Mule Canyon WSA 0.3 

Mancos Mesa WSA 25.0 

Cheese Box Canyon WSA 4.6 

Indian Creek WSA 0 

Bridger Jack Mesa WSA 0 

Dark Canyon Instant Study Area (ISA) 6.0 

Middle Point WSA 1.0 

Butler Wash WSA 0 

South Needles WSA 0 

Squaw Canyon WSA 0 

Cross Canyon WSA 0 

Total 100.95 

The BLM does not make decisions establishing scenic byways. 

Scenic Byways:

Indian Creek Corridor Scenic Byway: SR-211 (Junction with US-191 14 miles north of 

Monticello) to its terminus at the Needles District of Canyonlands National Park. 

Bicentennial—Trail of the Ancients National Scenic Byway: SR-95 from south of Blanding 

goes west across the Colorado River at Glen Canyon National Park (with a loop through Natural 

Bridges National Monument). A section also travels south from Blanding to the town of Bluff 

and then east to Montezuma Creek, and eventually into Colorado. 

Monument Valley to Bluff Scenic Byway: US-163 from the Utah / Arizona border to the town 

of Bluff. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-154 

Scenic Backways:

Lockhart Basin Road Scenic Backway: From Moab, on the Kane Creek Blvd at the 

intersection of US-191, to Hurrah Pass and onto the Lockhart Basin Road in the Monticello PA 

and it ends at SR-211 near Indian Creek. 

Elk Ridge Road Scenic Backway: Begins 25 miles west of Blanding at the junction of SR-25 

and SR-275; it turns onto Forest Road 088 (through the Manti–LaSal National Forest) and ends 

48 miles later at the junction of SR-211. 

Abajo Loop Scenic Backway: West from Monticello on Forest Road (FR) 105 to the junction of 

FR 079, and ends 35 miles later in the town of Blanding. 

Trail of the Ancients Scenic Backway: Follows SR-261 including the Moki Dugway, from SR95 to SR-163; and intersects SR-316 to the Goosenecks State Park. The Valley of the Gods road 

intersects SR-261 below the dugway for a 17 mile dirt and gravel loop drive. 

3.16 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

For BLM management purposes, special status species include those plant and wildlife species 

listed as endangered, threatened, proposed, and/or candidate under the Endangered Species Act, 

as well as those plant and animal species listed or proposed as sensitive by the BLM. Special 

status arises from habitat degradation and direct disturbance to individuals, often combined with 

inherently restricted species' distributions. Periodic review of the special status species list allows 

for additions and/or removals depending on the status of populations, habitat, and potential 

threats. Evaluation of environmental characteristics in the area of a proposed project is the first 

step in BLM protocol for special status species protection. If factors such as geology, soils, 

vegetation community type, elevation, or aspect are likely to support a known special status 

species, a qualified specialist must complete a survey. If the survey is contracted, a BLM 

specialist must approve the results. If a federally listed, proposed, or candidate species could 

potentially be affected by a proposed action, a Biological Assessment is prepared. The BLM 

must manage these species to prevent further habitat degradation or population loss. Recovery 

plans, special management area designations, and special management conditions are used to 

protect special status species. The BLM's Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands also 

provide habitat protection. 

A total of 10 federally listed species and 59 BLM Sensitive Species were identified as having the 

potential to occur within the Monticello PA (see Table 3.54 and 3.54). It should be noted that 

some of the TES species may occur on lands managed by agencies or organizations other than 

the BLM. 

3.16.1 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES HABITAT 

The diversity of habitat in the Monticello PA is reflected in the diversity of animal life that 

occurs within its borders. The Monticello FO, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), or 

the USFWS, have identified the following federally protected threatened, endangered, candidate, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-155 

or nonessential, experimental population species, and sensitive species that could potentially 

occur within the Monticello PA. 

3.16.2 FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Table 3.54 provides a listing of the 10 federally threatened, endangered and candidate species 

potentially occurring in the Monticello PA. A narrative description of each species follows the 

table. 

Table 3.54. Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Potentially 

Occurring in the Monticello PA 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Habitat Status Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Plants 

Carex specuicola 

Navajo sedge 

Seasonally wet, seeps, springs, 

hanging gardens in Navajo 

sandstone. 3,770–5,980'. Blooms 

late June–July. 

Threatened Endemic to San Juan 

County, UT and 

Coconino County, AZ 

Wildlife 

Gymnogypes 

californianus 

California Condor 

Colonies roost in snags, tall openbranched trees, or cliffs, often near 

important foraging grounds. 

Endangered Experimental, 

nonessential 

population known 

rarely throughout 

Utah 

Empidonax traillii 

extimus 

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher 

Low shrub, thickets, or groves of 

small trees, often near 

watercourses. 

Endangered Throughout southern 

Utah. 

Strix occidentalis lucida 

Mexican Spotted Owl 

Steep rocky canyons. Threatened Southern and eastern 

parts of Utah. 

Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis 

(Western) Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo 

Riparian habitats. Candidate Throughout Utah. 

Fish 

Gila elegans 

Bonytail 

These rare found in eddies, pools, 

and backwaters near swift current 

in large rivers. 

Endangered Mainstem of the 

Colorado and Green 

rivers 

Ptychochelius lucius 

Colorado pikeminnow 

Adults can be found in habitats 

ranging from deep turbid rapids to 

flooded lowlands. Young prefer 

slow-moving backwaters. 

Endangered Mainstem of the 

Colorado, Green, and 

San Juan rivers 

Gila cypha 

Humpback chub 

These are found in large rivers and 

deep canyons. 

Endangered Mainstem of the 

Colorado and Green 

rivers 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-156 

Table 3.54. Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Potentially 

Occurring in the Monticello PA 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Habitat Status Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Xyrauchen texanus 

Razorback sucker 

These are found in slow backwater 

habitats and impoundments. 

Endangered Within the Green, 

Colorado, and San 

Juan river systems 

Navajo Sedge (Carex specuicola)

This species is federally listed as threatened. It occurs seasonally in wet, seeps, springs, hanging 

gardens on sandy to silty soils derived from Navajo sandstone (Natureserve 2005). Navajo sedge 

is endemic to San Juan County, UT and Coconino County, AZ at elevations from 3,770 to 5,980 

feet. There are no known populations on BLM land in the Monticello PA, but potentially suitable 

habitat is present and there are known populations on Navajo land in San Juan County (e-mail 

from Paul Curtis, Monticello BLM to Susan Kammerdiener, SWCA, January 26, 2006). This 

species blooms from late June through July. Existing threats to this species include grazing and 

groundwater pumping (Natureserve 2005). 

Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)

The black-footed ferret is listed as an endangered species. It is considered the rarest mammal in 

North America but was once common throughout the Great Plains. All native populations have 

been extirpated. Successful captive breeding programs and reintroduction efforts are returning 

small populations to their native ranges. Prairie dog burrows provide potential retreats for ferrets 

and have been shown to be directly lined to fluctuations in the prairie dog population. Their diet 

consists of 90% prairie dogs and with recent declines in prairie-dog numbers, reintroduced 

populations are at risk. Within the Monticello PA, no known populations occur, but historical 

native ranges exist and reintroductions are being examined by state (UDWR) and federal 

agencies (personal communication between Tammy Wallace, BLM, and Thomas Sharp, SWCA, 

2003). 

Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) 

The Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) is listed as a threatened species. MSO habitat includes steep 

slopes and canyons with rocky cliffs. Within the Colorado Plateau, owls are known to nest in 

steep-walled canyon complexes and rocky canyon habitat within desert shrub vegetation. MSOs 

lay eggs in late March and April with an incubation period of approximately 30 days and most 

eggs hatch by the end of May. Most owlets fledge in June and are fully independent by early 

October. The MSO exists in small isolated subpopulations and is threatened by habitat loss and 

disturbance from recreation, overgrazing, road development, catastrophic fire, timber harvest, 

and mineral development (USFWS 1995). The Monticello PA contains two MSO protected 

activity centers. Protected activity centers are areas (at least 600 acres in size) around a known 

nest or roost site in which minimal management is permitted. Owls may be in other areas within 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-157 

the field office boundaries or near the borders. There is also USFWS designated critical habitat 

for this species within the Monticello PA (see Map 93). The USFWS designates critical habitat 

for threatened or endangered species to protect occupied habitat and to protect suitable but 

unoccupied habitat to allow for expansion of populations and recovery of the species. The BLM 

is required not to directly or indirectly alter the value of critical habitat for both the survival and 

recovery of MSO. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWF) is listed as an endangered species. SWF utilizes and

breeds in patchy to dense riparian habitats along streams and wetlands near or adjacent to surface 

water or saturated soils. These dense patches are often interspersed with small openings, open 

water, and/or shorter/sparser vegetation, creating a mosaic habitat pattern. Historically, nests 

were constructed in native willow species but currently the SWF will utilize both native and 

exotic species, such as tamarisk and Russian olive, which provide desired habitat requirements 

(USFWS 2002e). SWFs begin laying eggs as early as May but typically in mid-June. Young 

typically fledge the nest between June and mid-August (Sogge et al. 1997). Population declines 

are attributed to numerous, complex, and interrelated factors such as habitat loss and 

modification, expansion of invasive, non-native plants into breeding habitat, brood parasitism by 

cowbirds, vulnerability of small population numbers, and winter and migration stress. SWF have 

been documented migrating along the San Juan River, Comb Wash, and the Cross Canyon area. 

Recent mist netting studies in Cross Canyon have shown that they are potentially nesting in the 

area as well. There is also potentially suitable habitat in larger riparian areas throughout the 

Monticello PA (see Maps 54 and 84). 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)

The Yellow-billed Cuckoo is listed as a candidate species that has been listed due to loss of 

riparian habitat from agricultural use, water use, road development and urban development. The 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo is a neotropical migrant that utilizes riparian valleys throughout the state. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoos have been documented only during migration along the San Juan River. 

There is also potentially suitable habitat in the larger riparian areas throughout the Monticello PA 

(see Map 65). 

California Condor (Gymnogypes californianus)

The California Condor, a species on the federal list, has been sighted statewide since they were 

recently released as a nonessential, experimental population in northern Arizona in the later 

1990s. California Condors prefer mountainous country at low and moderate elevations, 

especially rocky and brushy areas near cliffs. Colonies roost in snags, tall open-branched trees, 

or cliffs, often near important foraging grounds. Condors eat carrion, usually feeding on large 

items such as dead sheep, cattle, and deer. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-158 

Bonytail (Gila elegans)

The bonytail is listed as an endangered species and has drastically declined in numbers since the 

1960s. The reasons for the decline included flow depletion, dams, mining impacts and resulting 

siltation, and the introduction of exotic fish. It is a large cyprinid fish and little is known about its 

biological and diet requirements. Historically it was once widespread throughout the Colorado 

River Basin. Today it is thought to be found in large river reaches of the Colorado and Green 

rivers (USFWS 2002a). Recruitment in the natural environment is apparently nonexistent or 

extremely low. Bonytails seem to prefer big-river or mainstreams with eddies and pools rather 

than swift current. The Monticello PA contains both populations and designated critical habitat 

for this species (see Map 93). 

Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius)

The Colorado pikeminnow is listed as an endangered species and is the largest cyprinid fish in 

North America. Natural populations of the Colorado pikeminnow are restricted to the upper 

Colorado River Basin in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico (USFWS 2002c). The 

main stem of the Colorado River from Palisade, Colorado to Lake Powell has known population 

within this region. A small reproducing population exists in the San Juan River. According to the 

Colorado pikeminnow recovery goals (USFWS 2002c) these fish can be found in the San Juan 

River from Shiprock, New Mexico to the inflow of Lake Powell. Flow regulations, migration 

barriers, habitat loss/alteration, and introduced non-native fish have all been identified as causes 

for population decline. The Colorado pikeminnow is adapted to seasonally variable flow, high 

silt loads, and turbulence. The Monticello PA contains both populations and designated critical 

habitat for this species (see Map 93). 

Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) 

The razorback sucker is listed as an endangered species and is a large catostomid fish endemic to 

the Colorado River basin. The Green River has the only known spawning areas for the razorback 

sucker (USFWS 2002d). Populations have been identified in the Colorado River from Rifle 

Colorado to Lee's Ferry Arizona and also in the San Juan River from Shiprock, New Mexico to 

the inflow of Lake Powell. Populations are being re-established through stocking. The natural 

population of these fish is mostly aged adults with little or no recruitment. These fish prefer lowgradient, flat-water reaches of rivers. The Monticello PA contains both populations and USFWS 

designated Critical Habitat for this species (see Map 93). 

Humpback Chub (Gila cypha)

The humpback chub is listed as an endangered species and is a big-river cyprinid. Populations of 

humpback chub have been identified in the Upper Colorado River Basin with the highest 

concentrations found in the Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon reaches of the Colorado River 

near the Colorado–Utah state line (USFWS 2002b). The presence of juvenile populations 

suggests spawning may occur in the Upper Colorado River at Black Rock, Westwater Canyon, 

Cataract Canyon, and Desolation/Gray Canyon. Flow alterations have been identified as a 

significant cause of decline. The habitat types in which the humpback chub is found include 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-159 

waters with fast currents, deep pools and boulder habitat; as well at the relatively quiet mouth of 

the Little Colorado River (USFWS 1990a). The Monticello PA contains both populations and 

USFWS designated Critical Habitat for this species (see Map 93). 

There are no listed threatened, endangered, or candidate amphibian, reptilian or mollusk species 

with the Monticello PA. 

3.16.3 BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES 

The BLM maintains a list of sensitive species that may occur on managed lands. The BLM Utah 

state director's Sensitive Species List includes those that are federally listed species, those 

identified by the BLM, and those listed as state sensitive by the State of Utah. In 2002, the 

USFWS developed a list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that identifies migratory and 

nonmigratory avian species that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Partners in Flight (PIF) Priority 

Species are those species recognized by Utah Partners in Flight as birds most in need of 

conservation and are described in further detail in the Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation 

Strategy (Parrish et al. 2002). The following tables list the species that potentially, or are known 

to occur within the Monticello PA and are either on the BLM Utah state director's Sensitive 

Species List, the UDWR's State Sensitive Species List, the USFWS's Birds of Conservation 

Concern, or the UDWR's Partners in Flight Priority Species. 

3.16.3.1 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES

Thirty-eight BLM sensitive fish and wildlife species are known to occur in the Monticello PA 

and are listed in Table 3.55. 

Table 3.55. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Monticello PA 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Habitat Status/List Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Idionycteris phyllotis 

Allen's big-eared bat 

Rocky and riparian areas in 

woodland and shrubland 

regions, roosts in caves or rock 

crevices.

The BLM and Utah Throughout 

southern Utah. 

Nyctinomops macrotis 

Big free-tailed bat 

Rocky and woodland habitats, 

roosts in caves, mines, old 

buildings, and rock crevices.

The BLM and Utah Throughout 

southern Utah. 

Myotis thysanodes 

Fringed myotis 

Desert and woodland areas, 

roosts in caves, mines, and 

buildings.

The BLM and Utah Throughout 

southern Utah. 

Cynomys gunnisoni 

Gunnison's prairie-dog 

Grasslands, semidesert and 

montane shrublands. 

The BLM and Utah Extreme 

southeastern Utah. 

Vulpes macrotis

Kit fox 

Desert, semiarid landscapes. The BLM and Utah West desert and 

south of the Cisco 

Desert. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-160 

Table 3.55. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Monticello PA 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Habitat Status/List Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Microtus mogollonensis 

Mogollon vole 

Dry meadows. The BLM and Utah Southern part of 

San Juan County. 

Perognathus flavus 

Silky pocket mouse 

Semidesert arid grasslands with 

rocky or loamy soils 

The BLM and Utah Extreme southeast 

corner of San Juan 

County. 

Euderma maculatum 

Spotted bat 

Found in a variety of habitats, 

ranging from deserts to forested 

mountains; roost and hibernate 

in caves and rock crevices.

The BLM and Utah Throughout Utah. 

Corynorhinus townsendii 

Townsend's big-eared 

bat 

Occur in many types of habitat, 

but is often found near forested 

areas; roosts and hibernates in 

caves, mines, and buildings.

The BLM and Utah Throughout Utah. 

Buteo regalis 

Ferruginous Hawk 

Flat and rolling terrain in 

grassland or shrub steppe; 

nests on elevated cliffs, buttes, 

or creek banks. 

The BLM, Utah, 

BCC, and PIF 

Throughout Utah. 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhyanchos 

American White Pelican 

Along lakes, ponds, creeks, and 

rivers. 

The BLM, Utah, 

and PIF 

Throughout Utah. 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Bobolink 

Riparian or wetland areas. The BLM, Utah, 

and PIF 

Throughout Utah. 

Athene cunicularia 

Burrowing Owl 

Open grassland and prairies. The BLM and Utah Throughout Utah. 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald Eagle 

Roosts and nests in tall trees 

near bodies of water. 

The BLM and Utah Throughout Utah 

Melanerpes lewis 

Lewis's Woodpecker 

Burned-over Douglas-fir, mixed 

conifer, pinyon-juniper, riparian, 

and oak woodlands, but is also 

found in the fringes of pine and 

juniper stands, and deciduous 

forests, especially riparian 

cottonwoods. 

The BLM, Utah, 

and PIF 

High and midelevation mountain 

ranges of Utah. 

Accipiter gentiles 

Northern Goshawk 

Mature mountain forest and 

riparian zone habitats. 

The BLM and Utah High and midelevation mountain 

ranges of Utah. 

Peregrinus falconus 

Peregrine Falcon 

Steep, rocky canyons near 

riparian or wetland areas. 

The BLM and BCC Throughout Utah. 

Buteo swainsonii 

Swainson's Hawk 

Plains and grasslands. BCC Throughout Utah 

Falco mexicanus 

Prairie Falcon 

Plains and wooded areas. BCC Throughout Utah 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-161 

Table 3.55. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Monticello PA 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Habitat Status/List Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Asio flammeus 

Short-eared Owl 

Grasslands, shrublands, and 

other open habitats. 

The BLM and Utah Throughout Utah. 

Picoides tridactylus 

Three-toed 

Woodpecker 

Engelmann spruce, sub-alpine 

fir, Douglas fir, grand fir, 

ponderosa pine, tamarack, 

aspen, and lodgepole pine 

forests. 

The BLM, Utah, 

and PIF 

High and midelevation mountain 

ranges of Utah. 

Spizella breweri 

Brewer's Sparrow 

Sage and desert shrub. PIF and BCC Throughout Utah 

Dendroica nigrescens 

Black-throated Gray 

Warbler 

Dry western deciduous or 

coniferous shrub. 

PIF and BCC Throughout Utah 

Selasphorus 

platycercus 

Broad-tailed 

Hummingbird 

Mountains of Rocky Mountain 

region and lowland riparian 

PIF and BCC Throughout Utah 

Vireo vicinior 

Gray Vireo 

Pinyon and/or juniper woodland PIF and BCC Throughout Utah 

Lanius ludovicianus 

Loggerhead Shrike 

Sage and desert shrub. BCC Throughout Utah 

Gymnorhinus 

cyancephalus 

Pinyon Jay 

Sage and desert shrub and 

pinyon and/or juniper 

woodlands 

BCC Throughout Utah 

Amphispiza belli 

nevadensis 

Sage Sparrow 

Shrub steppe habitat PIF and BCC Throughout Utah 

Vermivora virginae 

Virginia's Warbler 

Mountain shrub and pinyonjuniper habitat 

PIF and BCC Throughout Utah 

Centrocercus minimus 

Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Sagebrush and 

sagebrush/grassland habitats 

(see Map 65). 

The BLM, PIF, 

BCC 

Populations known 

in the northeastern 

portion of the Mont 

FO. 

Bufo microscaphus

Arizona toad 

Lowland riparian habitat. The BLM and Utah Currently not found 

in San Juan 

County. Found in 

Southern portion of 

Utah. 

Sauromalus ater 

Common chuckwalla 

Predominantly found near cliffs, 

boulders, or rocky slopes, 

where they use rocks as 

basking sites and rock crevices 

for shelter. 

The BLM and Utah Along the Colorado 

River in Southern 

Utah. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-162 

Table 3.55. Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Monticello PA 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Habitat Status/List Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Xantusia vigilis 

Desert night lizard 

Extremely secretive, spending 

much of its time hiding under 

Joshua tree limbs and similar 

cover. 

The BLM and Utah Throughout 

Southeastern Utah.

Opheodrys vernalis

Smooth greensnake 

Meadows and stream margins The BLM and Utah Abajo mountains 

Catostomus discobolus 

Bluehead sucker 

Fast flowing water in high 

gradient reaches of mountain 

rivers. 

The BLM and Utah Tributaries of the 

Colorado and 

Green rivers. 

Gila robusta

Roundtail chub 

Large rivers, and is most often 

found in murky pools near 

strong currents. 

The BLM and Utah Mainstem and 

tributaries of the 

Colorado and 

Green rivers. 

Catostomus latipinnis 

Flannelmouth sucker 

Large rivers, where they are 

often found in deep pools of 

slow-flowing, low gradient 

reaches. 

The BLM and Utah Mainstem and 

tributaries of the 

Colorado and 

Green rivers. 

Oreohelix Yavapai 

Yavapai mountainsnail 

Aspens and in rocky habitat. The BLM and Utah Abajo and Navajo 

Mountains 

3.16.3.2 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES

Twenty-one BLM sensitive plant species are known to occur in the Monticello PA and are listed 

in Table 3.56. 

Table 3.56. Special Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Monticello PA, 

San Juan County, Utah 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Habitat Status 

 (with date if only 

on one list)

Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Allium geyeri var. 

chatterleyi 

Chatterley's onion 

Moist pinyon-juniper and 

sagebrush sites. 

Sensitive (2002) San Juan County 

(Abajo Mountains 

endemic) 

Asclepias cutleri 

Cutler milkweed 

Sand dunes. Sensitive (1991) San Juan County 

Astragalus cronquistii 

Cronquist milkvetch 

Cutler formation (Comb Wash), 

Morrison formation (Aneth), 

Mancos shale in Colorado. 

Sensitive San Juan County 

Astragalus preussii var. 

cutleri 

Copper Canyon 

milkvetch 

Warm desert shrub. 3,805'. 

Copper Canyon. 

Sensitive (1991) San Juan County 

endemic 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-163 

Table 3.56. Special Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Monticello PA, 

San Juan County, Utah 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Habitat Status 

 (with date if only 

on one list)

Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Cymopterus acaulis var. 

parvus 

Skull Valley springparsley 

Deposits of wind-blown sand. Sensitive (2002) San Juan County 

Cymopterus beckii 

Pinnate (Beck's) springparsley 

Sandy soil of Navajo sandstone 

origin. Crevices and ledges of 

slickrock. Mid-high elevation in 

Abajo Mountains. 

Sensitive San Juan County–

Eight occurrences 

Dalea favescens var. 

epica 

Hole-in-the-Rock prairie 

clover 

Sandstone bedrock and sand in 

blackbrush and mixed desert 

shrub. 4,690–5,000'. 

Sensitive (1991, San Juan 

County) Southwest 

San Juan County and 

east Garfield 

endemic 

Echinocereus 

triglochidiatus var. 

inermis 

Spineless hedgehog 

cactus 

Blackbrush, ephedra, 

sagebrush, pinyon-juniper 

mountain brush, aspen 

communities. 3,200–8,400'. 

Sensitive (1991) San Juan County. 

Spineless variety is a 

neotype from San 

Juan County 

Epilobium nevadense 

Nevada willowherb 

Talus slopes, crevices. Sensitive (2002) San Juan County 

(Washington, Iron, 

and Millard counties) 

Erigeron kachinensis

Kachina daisy 

Seasonally wet seeps, hanging 

gardens on sandstone 

outcrops. 

Sensitive San Juan County 

Colorado Plateau 

endemic (Natural 

Bridges National 

Monument Dark 

Canyon and Elk 

Ridge) 

Eriogonum racemosum 

var. nobilis 

Redroot buckwheat 

Sagebrush and pinyon-juniper. 

5,000'. 

Sensitive (2002) San Juan County 

Gilia latifolia var. 

imperialis 

Cataract Canyon gilia 

Mixed warm and cool desert 

shrub communities. 3,280–

5,215'. 

Sensitive (2002) San Juan County 

(type from Cataract 

Canyon) Utah 

Endemic 

Habenaria zothecina 

Alcove bog orchid 

Moist streambanks, seeps, 

hanging gardens, in mixed 

desert shrub, pinyon-juniper, 

and oakbrush. 4,360–8,690'. 

Sensitive (2002) San Juan County, 

Grand County (type) 

Utah endemic 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species

3-164 

Table 3.56. Special Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Monticello PA, 

San Juan County, Utah 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Habitat Status 

 (with date if only 

on one list)

Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Lomatium latilobum 

Canyonlands lomatium 

(C. biscuitroot, or C. 

desert-parsley) 

Slot canyons between Entrada 

sandstone 'fins' formed from 

expanded fractures and erosion. 

Sandy soil or crevices in 

sandstone. (Sand Flat and Mill 

Creek it's found in Navajo 

sandstone that weathers like 

Entrada.) Prefers the sheltered, 

cool habitat on all slopes and 

aspects. 

Sensitive San Juan County, 

Grand County 

(Wilson Mesa) 

Southeastern Utah 

(and adj. Mesa 

County Colorado) 

endemic. Thirteen 

occurrences 

Ostrya knowltonii 

Western hophornbeam 

A small tree at bases of 

monoliths, hanging gardens of 

sandstone. 4,000–5,600'. 

Sensitive (1991) San Juan County 

Pediomelum 

aromaticum var. tuhyi 

Paradox breadroot 

Pinyon -juniper and mixed 

desert shrub. 5,020'. 

Sensitive (2002) San Juan County 

(This variety differs 

from more 

widespread variety by 

size of flowers.) 

Perityle specuicola 

Alcove rock-daisy 

Drier crevices in seasonally wet 

hanging gardens, alcove 

communities at 4,000'. Navajo and 

Windgate sandstone and Rico 

Formation, but habitat not substrate 

specific. 

Sensitive San Juan County, 

Grand County (type 

north of Moab). 

Narrowly endemic to 

Colorado Plateau 

(from confluence of 

Colorado River with 

the Dolores and Dark 

Canyon) 

Phacelia howelliana 

Howell scorpionweed 

Salt and warm desert shrub, 

pinyon-juniper. 3,690–5,000'. 

Sensitive (1991) San Juan County 

(type from Bluff). 

Colorado Plateau 

endemic 

Phacelia indecora 

Bluff phacelia 

Salt desert shrub. 4,500'. Sensitive (2002) San Juan County 

(type from Bluff) 

Endemic 

Proatriplex pleiantha 

Mancos shadscale 

Salt desert shrub in Morrison 

Formation. 

Sensitive (1991) San Juan County 

(southeast) Navajo 

Basin endemic 

Sphaeralcea janeae

Jane's Globemallow 

Sandy soils weathered white rim 

and Organ Rock members of Cutler 

Formation. salt desert shrub. 

4,000–4,600'.

Sensitive (2002) San Juan County 

(type near White Rim 

road), Grand County 

(questionable) 

Canyonlands 

endemic 

Sources: BLM 2002d; Atwood et al. 1991. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.17 Travel Management

3-165 

3.17 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

3.17.1 OVERVIEW

In the past, travel management has focused on motor vehicle use; however, travel management 

encompasses all forms of transportation, including mechanized vehicles such as bicycles, 

motorcycles, four-wheeled ATVs, cars, and trucks. Off-highway vehicles (OHVs) (also known 

as off-road vehicles) include ATVs, off-highway motorcycles, and snowmobiles. These are 

vehicles capable of, or designated for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural 

terrain. 

3.17.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The San Juan RMP (BLM 1991a) included designations for Open, Closed, and Limited OHV 

areas. Under the Limited category there were two subcategories: 1) limited to existing roads and 

trails, and 2) limited to designated roads and trails (see Table 3.57 below). Over the subsequent 

decade, the actual on-the-ground implementation of designations either by mapping or signing of 

routes was never completed. 

Table 3.57. Current OHV Designation and Acreage 

Monticello PA Lands (1,783,123) 1991 BLM San Juan Resource Area RMP 

OHV Designation Categories Number of Acres 1

Open 611,310 

Limited to designated 218,780 

Limited use, seasonal 540,260 

Limited to existing 570,390 

Closed 276,430 

1Acres may be additive because of overlap. 

In the current RMP process, state and national guidance for OHV use and travel planning in the 

subcategories under the Limited designation has changed. Designating Open, Closed, and 

Limited areas for OHV use continues to be mandated, but under the Limited category only the 

"limited to designated roads and trails" subcategory is recommended. 

Designation of routes under the Limited category provides a purposefully designed and clearly 

delineated travel network, reduces route proliferation, and facilitates travel management and law 

enforcement. 

3.17.3 ISSUES

The increase in the use of OHVs has created numerous issues within the Monticello PA. The 

speed and increasing capability of OHVs allows easier access to remote parts of the Monticello 

PA, making management of this activity more difficult, and increasing the potential range of 

adverse impacts to natural resources. Cross-country OHV use, in particular, is creating additional 

resource damage and is an important issue for the Monticello FO. Also, the popularity of OHV-
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.17 Travel Management

3-166 

related activities continues to grow, both in private use and in through special events, which 

exacerbates the management and resource impacts issues. With the increase in popularity, 

measures are needed to avoid on-site and off-site impacts to current and future land uses are 

resources. Issues include noise and air pollution, erodible soils, stream sedimentation, non-point 

source water pollution, listed and sensitive wildlife species habitats, and historic and 

archaeological sites. 

3.17.4 VEHICULAR ROUTES

Within the Monticello PA, 6,452 miles of B, C and D class roads and trails (including all 

ownership and all agencies) have been constructed or identified. To clarify, B class roads are 

regularly maintained; surfaces areas that can be natural, paved, or gravel and are funded by the 

state for maintenance purposes. C class roads are considered city streets; while D class roads are 

comprised of all natural surfaces, not funded by the state and not on a regular maintenance 

schedule. Approximately 2,481 miles of D class roads and trails are located throughout the 

Monticello PA. These routes provide access for uses such as grazing, wood cutting and mineral 

development. However, recreational opportunities provide the primary use of these roads and 

trails. 

3.17.4.1 HIGH USE AREAS

Within the Monticello PA, specialists have identified 7 areas where OHV designations need to 

be addressed due to a variety of resource use conflicts. These conflicts have the potential to bring 

harm to users as well as the resources potentially impacted. At the very least, user conflicts may 

potentially degrade user satisfaction. These areas include Indian Creek, Dry Valley Summit, 

Montezuma Recapture Drainages, Butler-Comb-Lime, Cedar Mesa, Southwest Canyons, and 

Dark Canyon-Beef Basin. For additional details on user conflicts, see Section 3.11, Recreation. 

3.17.4.2 SCENIC BYWAYS AND BACKWAYS

The BLM Backcountry Byways are components of the National Scenic Byway system. The 

program was established by the U.S. Department of Transportation in 1991. Roads may be 

recognized as scenic by-ways based on their archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, 

recreational, and scenic qualities. There are no designated BLM Backcountry Byways in the 

Monticello PA. 

Backways in Utah are primarily on BLM land; however, a few are on state and FS lands. Utah 

backways were named on June 2, 1989 as part of Utah's Byway and Backway program. All of 

these roads were a product of a statewide juried/vote process by leaders in regional communities. 

Since 1989, no Utah Backways have been designated; however, some have been removed for 

safety reasons (personal communications with Margaret Godfrey, Utah State Byway 

Coordinator, on January 26, 2006). Descriptions of the Scenic Byways and Backways found 

within the Monticello PA are given below. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.17 Travel Management

3-167 

3.17.4.2.1 SCENIC BYWAYS

Indian Creek Corridor Scenic Byway

SR-211 (Junction with US-191 14 miles north of Monticello) to its terminus at the Needles 

District of Canyonlands National Park. 

Bicentennial—Trail of the Ancients National Scenic Byway

SR-95 from south of Blanding goes west across the Colorado River at Glen Canyon National 

Park (with a loop through Natural Bridges National Monument). A section also travels south 

from Blanding to the town of Bluff and then east to Montezuma Creek, and eventually into 

Colorado. 

Monument Valley to Bluff Scenic Byway

This route takes travelers on US-163 from the Utah / Arizona border to the town of Bluff. 

3.17.4.2.2 SCENIC BACKWAYS

Lockhart Basin Road Scenic Backway

This route runs from Moab, on the Kane Creek Blvd at the intersection of US-191, to Hurrah 

Pass, then onto the Lockhart Basin Road and ending at SR-211. (This is a 57-mile trail that takes 

approximately 11 hours to traverse, and is an extremely challenging four-wheel drive, high 

clearance trail). 

Trail of the Ancients Scenic Backway

This route follows SR-261 including the Moki Dugway, from SR-95 to SR-163; and intersects 

SR-316 to the Goosenecks State Park. The Valley of the Gods road intersects SR-261 below the 

dugway for a 17-mile dirt and gravel loop drive. 

Elk Ridge Road Scenic Backway

This route begins 25 miles west of Blanding at the junction of SR-25 and SR-275; it turns onto 

Forest Road 088 (through the Manti–La Sal National Forest) and ends 48 miles later at the 

junction of SR-211. 

Abajo Loop Scenic Backway

This route runs from Monticello on Forest Road (FR) 105 to the junction of FR 079, and ends 35 

miles later in the town of Blanding. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation

3-168 

3.17.4.3 SAN JUAN RIVER

Permitted motorized and nonmotorized travel is allowed on the San Juan River under the current 

RMP. NO upstream motorized traffic is allowed. 

3.18 VEGETATION

3.18.1 INTRODUCTION AND RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Differences in vegetation composition reflect the environmental diversity across the Monticello 

PA. This vegetation composition is affected by factors such as soils, elevation, aspect, slope, 

topography, and precipitation. In the current RMP, vegetation in the Monticello PA was 

classified into one of 4 major vegetation communities (BLM 1989): pinyon pine–Utah juniper 

(Pinus edulis—Juniperus osteosperma), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), and 

blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima). These are further divided into 16 vegetation associations 

and habitat types. Although a small part of the FO area, grasslands, ponderosa pine/mountain 

shrub, riparian/wetlands and hanging gardens have been added as vegetation communities. 

Federally threatened and endangered and BLM sensitive plant species are discussed in Section 

3.16, Special Status Species. 

Vegetation across the Monticello PA has been identified using Utah SWReGap Analysis data 

(USGS 2004), which was developed using multi-spectral satellite imagery in conjunction with 

image processing and classification software. The relationship between spectral signatures and 

vegetation types was further refined through the development of models that incorporated a 

variety of topographic and distributional information for a given vegetation type. Utah SW 

ReGAP vegetation data were designed to be used for depicting the distribution of the state's 

various vegetation types at scales of 1:100,000 or smaller. Thus, while adequate for 

characterizing vegetation over large areas, this data are less accurate when viewed for smaller 

project areas. Gap coverage data were used to display the land cover types that exist in the 

Monticello PA (Map 65). Some of the SW ReGAP vegetation cover types were combined; 

resulting in the land cover categories presented in Table 3.58. The non-vegetated land cover 

categories are not discussed in this section. No acreages are provided for the hanging gardens 

vegetation type due to the vertical nature of the community. 

Table 3.58. BLM Acres of Land by SW ReGAP Cover Type 

Cover Type Acres 

Pinyon-juniper (includes juniper, pinyon-juniper and pinyon) 1,147,407 

Desert shrub (includes salt desert shrub, greasewood and 

blackbrush) 

421,863 

Sagebrush/perennial grassland (includes sagebrush, 

sagebrush/perennial grass, desert grassland and dry meadow) 

166,122 

Riparian and wetlands 20,699 

Conifer /mountain shrub (includes ponderosa pine/mountain shrub, 

oak/mountain shrub and mountain shrub) 

10,802 

Invasive plants and noxious weeds 3,429 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation

3-169 

Table 3.58. BLM Acres of Land by SW ReGAP Cover Type 

Cover Type Acres 

Agriculture 5,543 

Water 1,446 

Developed 227 

Disturbed 7,858 

Total BLM Lands in FO 1,785,396 

3.18.1.1 PINYON-JUNIPER

These woodlands, dominated by pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus 

osteosperma), cover approximately 1,147,407 acres (64%) (USGS 2004) of the Monticello FO. 

In this habitat type, precipitation in this habitat ranges from 12 to 18 inches annually and occurs 

primarily in the winter. Productivity, species composition, and resiliency differ within this type 

depending on soil depth. As stands mature toward full canopy closure, understory vegetation 

becomes sparse and forage value decreases. Habitat types outlined in the 1986 Draft San Juan 

RMP (BLM 1986a) include: 

• Pinyon pine, Utah juniper, blackbrush (Coleogne ramosissima), galleta grass (Hilaria 

jamesii); 

• Pinyon pine, Utah juniper, Nuttall's saltbush (Atriplex nuttallii), galleta grass, Indian 

ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides); 

• Pinyon pine, Utah juniper, big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata); 

• Pinyon pine, Utah juniper, Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis); 

• Pinyon pine, Utah juniper, mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana), 

Gamble oak (Quercus gambelii). 

Unhealthy pinyon-juniper stands are evident across the Monticello PA, especially on sites with 

shallow soils. Pinyon mortality, attributed to the combination of drought, Ips beetle, and root 

disease, is estimated at 20–30% in the Monticello PA. Pinyon is a valuable resource for other 

programs such as woodlands (firewood harvest) and wildlife habitat management. It also 

provides pine nuts for human collection and consumption. The increase in dead wood has lead to 

an increase in fuel loading and area fire hazards. However, this dead wood also provides a shortterm resource as collectable firewood. 

Pinyon-juniper encroachment on sites with deep soils is continuing. More sagebrush 

communities and understory vegetation are lost as this occurs, resulting in an increase in soil 

erosion. Following wildfires, rehabilitation seedings have occurred in pinyon-juniper woodlands 

on throughout the Monticello PA. More information on this vegetation type is located in Section 

3.21, Woodlands. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation

3-170 

3.18.1.2 DESERT SHRUB

This vegetation type includes desert shrub and semidesert shrub species. These areas receive 

relatively low annual precipitation (5–10 inches), which translates into very low available soil 

moisture. The soils that support members of the saltbush zone are also often highly saline. These 

factors limit this type's ability to recover following disturbance. Drier saltbush areas contain 

species such as four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) and 

winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata). Greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) dominates in areas 

where the water table is near the surface (MacMahon 1988). Elevation ranges from 4,000 to 

5,400 feet. Approximately 421,863 acres, or 24% of the Monticello FO, includes the following 

habitat types outlined in the 1986 San Juan Draft RMP (BLM 1986a): 

• Shadscale, Mormon tea (Ephedra spp.), blackbrush; 

• Indian ricegrass, galleta grass, shadscale, fourwing saltbush; 

• Shadscale, Mormon tea, blackbrush, pinyon pine, Utah juniper; 

• Fourwing saltbush, Mormon tea, blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Indian ricegrass, galleta 

grass; 

• Fourwing saltbush, blue grama, Indian ricegrass, galleta grass, big sagebrush; 

• Pinyon pine, Utah juniper, blackbrush; 

• Shadscale, Mormon tea, blackbrush, galleta grass, Indian ricegrass; 

• Fourwing saltbush, Mormon tea, galleta grass, Indian ricegrass (USGS National Gap 

Analysis Program 2004). 

3.18.1.3 SAGEBRUSH/ PERENNIAL GRASS

The moderately deep soils and greater amount of precipitation in this zone (11 to 16 inches per 

year) combine to create these relatively productive vegetation communities. Big sagebrush 

predominates on the more favorable sites, and black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) on the shallow 

rocky sites. Important associated forage plants include bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), Indian 

ricegrass, western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), and 

squirreltail (Sitanion hystrix). Elevation ranges from 5,500 to 7,300 feet with little localized 

relief. This vegetation type occurs across approximately 166,122 acres, or 9% of the Monticello 

FO (USGS 2004), and provides crucial winter range for big game wildlife species. Habitat types 

outlined in the 1986 Draft San Juan RMP (BLM 1986a) include big sagebrush, pinyon pine, 

Utah juniper, galleta grass, needle-and-thread grass (Stipa comata), blue grama, and Indian 

ricegrass. 

Sagebrush stands are declining due to drought, insects (army cutworm), pinyon-juniper 

encroachment, motorized off-road travel, and lack of seedling recruitment. Large amounts of 

decadent plants (older age class) are evident, with a lack of age class diversity. The loss of 

sagebrush communities threatens wildlife habitat and species diversity across the Monticello PA. 

Seeding projects in the Monticello PA involve sagebrush restoration for deer winter range and 

habitat improvement for sage-grouse. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation

3-171 

Grassland communities occur as a unique component of the Monticello FO. They are similar to 

salt-desert, sagebrush, and blackbrush types in species composition, but differ in that grasses 

dominate instead of browse species. The dominant grass species depend on the soil, with species 

such as saltgrass (Distichlis stricta), galleta grass, squirreltail, blue grama, and western 

wheatgrass occurring on heavy soils. Sandy sites usually support species such as Indian 

ricegrass, sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), and needle- and-thread grass. Grassland 

communities occur from 4,000 to 6,000 feet with average precipitation total of 5 to 15 inches 

(Vallentine 1961). 

Pinyon-juniper and shrub encroachment, along with that of invasive annuals such as cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum) and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), are the main issues of concern for this 

community type. 

3.18.1.4 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND COMMUNITIES

Riparian and wetland areas occur along waterways and water-bodies and are characterized by 

species such as willows (Salix spp.) and cottonwoods (Populus spp.). Approximately 28,994 

acres of wetland and riparian areas exist in the Monticello Field. Although riparian and wetland 

areas represent only 1.6% of the FO area, they provide crucial wildlife habitat and contribute 

greatly to overall vegetation productivity and diversity. Riparian resource issues are covered in 

detail in Section 3.12, Riparian Resources. 

Hanging gardens and spring-fed vegetation communities are rare to the arid and semiarid 

environments of the Colorado Plateau. Hanging gardens occur where groundwater seeps through 

sandstone or limestone substrates, often along overhanging cliffs adjacent to rivers. Plants found 

in hanging garden communities are often wetland-riparian species endemic to the Colorado 

Plateau (Spence unpub.). Spring-supported communities often contain riparian woodlands of 

species such as willow and cottonwood. Some less common, mixed-deciduous woodlands 

comprised of species such as birchleaf buckthorn (Rhamnus betulifolia) are also found in the 

region. 

3.18.1.5 CONIFER/ MOUNTAIN SHRUB

This vegetation type occupies elevations between 6,500 and 9,000 feet (Dixon 1935) with an 

average of approximately 13 inches of precipitation annually (WRCC 2004). Where ponderosa 

pine is present, the understory is relatively sparse, commonly consisting of Snowberry 

(Symphoricarpos spp.), Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), Oregon grape (Mahonia repens), 

squirreltail, and buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.) Gambel oak dominated communities may 

dominate the lower end of the elevation range of this vegetation type and is considered a 

subclimax community (Dixon 1935). Approximately 10,802 acres of the ponderosa 

pine/mountain shrub vegetation type exists in the Monticello FO (Edwards et al. 1995). Although 

this vegetation type is not actively managed and only represents 0.6% of the FO area, it provides 

crucial wildlife habitat and ecological diversity (see Section 3.20, Wildlife and Fisheries). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation

3-172 

3.18.1.6 INVASIVE PLANTS AND NOXIOUS WEEDS

One of the BLM's highest priorities is to promote ecosystem health and one of the greatest 

obstacles to achieving this goal is the rapid expansion of invasive, non-native species, or weeds, 

across public lands. A noxious weed is any plant designated by a federal, state or county 

government as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife or property (Sheley, 

Petroff, and Borman 1999). Noxious weeds are designated and regulated by various state and 

federal laws. Approximately 3,429 acres or 0.2% (USGS 2004) of the Monticello PA are 

dominated by this vegetation type. A systematic weed inventory has not been completed for the 

PA, but BLM estimates made in 2000 indicate that there were over 35,000 acres of noxious 

weeds, although most of that estimate was based on Russian Olive and Tamarisk infestation. The 

Monticello FO treats over 1,000 acres each year. Of particular concern is a population of 

Camelthorn, which is the only known infestation of this species in Utah. Significant efforts are 

being made to control it before it becomes widespread. 

In most cases, noxious weeds are also non-native species (BLM 1991b). They are capable of 

invading plant communities and replacing native species, and are particularly successful 

following a disturbance. The BLM considers plants invasive if they have been introduced to an 

environment where they did not evolve. As a result, they usually have no natural enemies to limit 

their reproduction and spread (Westbrooks 1998). These invasive plants can dominate and often 

cause permanent damage to natural plant communities. If not eradicated or controlled, noxious 

and invasive weeds could jeopardize the health of the public lands and the myriad of activities 

that occur on them. Noxious and invasive weed species identified in San Juan County are listed 

in Table 3.59 and a copy of the Noxious Weed Act is included as Appendix G. 

The spread of invasive species across the management area continues to be a primary concern. 

Tamarisk and Russian olive infestations are found in many waterways and have resulted in 

vegetation compositions far removed from native riparian plant communities. Although known 

as a highly invasive species, without official designation as a problematic species, tamarisk 

eradication has not been mandatory in Utah. Populations of Russian knapweed have also reached 

high levels in many river corridors with camelthorn and ravennagrass (Saccharum ravennae) 

following suit. New species invasions such as these threaten existing vegetation communities, 

species diversity, and habitats of special status species. 

Effects of the current drought are evidenced by reduced plant productivity. Unfavorable 

climactic conditions also predispose vegetation to insect infestations. Public interest in visiting 

the Monticello PA continues to grow, and with this comes a greater risk of disturbance to native 

plant communities and special status species. Activities such as seed collection have become 

more popular as the demand for drought-tolerant plants increases. Recreationists are seeking new 

areas, as well as continuing to visit popular destinations such as the San Juan River. Increased 

human visitation exposes new areas to disturbance and increases the chance for outbreaks of 

undesirable weeds. 

Controlling undesirable and non-native species is one of the most difficult challenges, as well as 

one of the most significant problems, facing vegetation managers. The Monticello FO contracts 

with San Juan County to control weeds on BLM land utilizing integrated pest management 

strategies (combined use of mechanical, cultural, chemical, manual, biological and prevention 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation

3-173 

measures. San Juan County surveyed roads within the FO for noxious and invasive plant species 

in 1997 and 1998. When possible, these surveys are updated annually. Species found in the FO 

PA are included in Table 3.59. 

Table 3.59. Invasive and Noxious Weeds of San Juan County, Utah 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Aegilops cylindrica Jointed goatgrass C S

Alhagi pseudalhagi Camelthorn C

Asclepias subverticillata Western whorled milkweed C

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass 

Cardaria draba Whitetop/Hoary cress S

Carduus nutans Musk thistle S

Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed S

Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed S

Centaurea repens Russian knapweed S

Centaurea squarrosa Squarrose knapweed S

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle S

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed S

Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass S

Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive 

Elytrigia repens Quackgrass S

Isatis tinctoria Dyer's woad S

Lepidium latifolium Tall whitetop/Perennial pepperweed S

Linaria genistifolia Dalmatian toadflax 

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle S

Salsola tragus Russian thistle 

Solanum elaeagnifolium Silverleaf nightshade C

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass (Perennial Sorghum) S

Solanum rostratum Buffalobur C

Tamarix ramosissima Tamarisk (saltcedar) 

Tribulus terrestris Puncturevine 

C San Juan County Listed Noxious Weed 

S

 State of Utah Listed Noxious Weed 

(Designations adapted from the "Noxious Weed Field Guide for Utah" [Merritt, Belliston, and Dewey 2000]) 

Weed eradication methods, such as herbicide spraying, must be consistent with the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (Utah) Vegetation Treatment on BLM 

Lands in Thirteen Western States (BLM 1991b and the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 

on BLM Lands in 17 Western States (BLM 2007b). The use of certified weed-free hay is one 

guideline implemented from Utah BLM Health Standards and Guidelines for Healthy 

Rangelands to control the spread of noxious weeds (BLM 1997). For revegetation purposes, the 

use and perpetuation of native species is a priority, except for instances when non-intrusive, nonnative species are more ecologically or economically feasible. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.19 Visual Resources

3-174 

3.18.2 SEED AND PLANT COLLECTION

Private individuals may collect seed and plants after acquiring a permit, which includes a list of 

stipulations. The public may collect seed on BLM-administered lands during non-drought years 

from a seed source that has been verified as being in good vegetative condition (vigor, viable 

seed, etc.). Popular species for seed collection include fourwing saltbush, globemallow 

(Sphaeralcea spp.), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), winterfat, and needle-and-thread grass. 

Collection of individual forbs, grasses, and most shrubs is allowed for scientific purposes only. 

Federally protected plant species may not be collected, but BLM-listed sensitive species may be 

collected if the population is sufficiently large as to not be affected. Before collecting plant 

specimens, the local BLM FO must be notified. A list of species collected and a copy of the 

herbarium labels produced for each specimen must be submitted to the BLM Utah State Office at 

the end of collection season. 

3.19 VISUAL RESOURCES

3.19.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The Monticello PA contains an unusually large number of areas that possess a high degree of 

scenic quality and a high level of visual sensitivity. Each year, an increasing number of visitors 

come to the area to recreate and sightsee. The visual attributes of the region have made the 

Monticello PA popular for locals and visitors alike. In general, high scenic quality within the 

Monticello PA results from the extraordinarily diverse and distinct topography, geology, and 

cultural history. The area possesses scenically unique vistas and river ways; rare and unusual 

geological formations of sandstone, limestone, and shale; colorful and highly contrasting 

sandstone cliffs, arches, canyons, and spires; a diversity of vegetation ranging from aspen, 

pinyon and juniper, to cottonwood and cacti; and an extraordinary concentration of prehistoric 

rock art, and prehistoric and historic structures. Visually sensitive areas within the Monticello 

PA are also the result of visitor interest in and public concern for the visual resources of a 

particular area, the high degree of visibility to the public for a particular area, the level of use of 

an area by the public, and the type of visitor use that an area receives. 

The major areas within the Monticello PA that possess both outstanding scenic quality and high 

visual sensitivity include, but are not limited to: the Dark Canyon Wilderness, Comb Ridge, 

Comb Wash, Butler Wash, Lockhart Basin, the Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa Plateau and associated 

canyons, Valley of the Gods, Indian Creek Corridor, Goosenecks State Park Overlook, and a 

segment of the San Juan River from Sand Island to Clay Hills. 

Areas of high scenic quality and visual sensitivity that are associated with travel corridors within 

the area include the Indian Creek Scenic Byway, the Scenic Byway from the Arizona Border to 

Bluff (US-163), Trail of the Ancients National Scenic Byway, the Bicentennial Scenic Byway 

(U-95), and the Lockhart Basin Road Scenic Backway. The Monticello PA also contains 

thousands of miles of jeep, bike, and foot trails that are traveled as scenic routes, many of which 

are internationally recognized. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.19 Visual Resources

3-175 

3.19.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The current management of visual resources within the Monticello PA is guided by decisions 

made in the San Juan RMP ROD (BLM 1991a). The RMP establishes the Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) goals, which are to: 1) provide a systematic method to identify, evaluate, 

and manage visual resource values; 2) protect certain scenic values; and 3) minimize adverse 

visual impacts in other areas while allowing land-use activities to occur. The management 

guidance to achieve these objectives are to: 1) designate 5 ACECs (Butler Wash, Cedar Mesa, 

Dark Canyon, Indian Creek, and the Scenic Highway Corridor) in accordance with special 

conditions stipulated in Chapter 3 of the RMP; and 2) prepare management plans for these areas. 

Under the current RMP, visual resources have been identified according to VRM classes. These 

classes are based on conditions such as scenic quality, viewing distance zones, and viewer 

sensitivity levels. The VRM class objectives and their descriptions are: 

VRM Class I

The objective of Class I is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class 

provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited 

management activities. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very 

low and should not attract attention. 

VRM Class II

The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not 

attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes to the landscape must repeat the 

basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of 

the characteristic landscape. 

VRM Class III

The Class III objective is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level 

of change to the landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract the 

attention of the casual observer, but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape. 

VRM Class IV

The objective of Class IV is to provide for management activities that require major 

modifications to the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the landscape 

can be high. The management activities may dominate the view and may be the major focus 

of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these 

activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of the basic visual 

elements of form, line, color, and texture (BLM 1986b). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.19 Visual Resources

3-176 

The VRM classes within the Monticello PA are listed in Table 3.60, with their acreages. 

Table 3.60. VRM Classes and Acreages 

VRM Class Acres 

I 397,477 

II 419,536 

III 522,921 

IV 991,331 

Total 2,331,265 

Source: BLM 2003e. 

The current Monticello RMP has established visual resource stipulations for several areas in the 

PA that are considered to have high scenic quality. These include the following: 

• Butler Wash ACEC is managed to maintain its scenic quality, as VRM Class I. This would 

be accomplished by limiting surface disturbance to those projects for which revegetation 

could be successfully established within one year after project completion. 

• Cedar Mesa ACEC is managed to protect cultural resources, scenic and natural values 

associated with primitive recreation. All ROS P class areas within the ACEC are managed as 

VRM Class I. Activities within the ACEC would be approved only with special conditions to 

protect visual resources. 

• The Grand Gulch special emphasis area within the Cedar Mesa ACEC is managed to 

maintain scenic quality; surface disturbance would be managed to be compatible with VRM 

Class I criteria. 

• The Valley of the Gods special emphasis area within the Cedar Mesa ACEC is managed to 

maintain scenic quality; surface disturbance would be managed to be compatible with VRM 

Class I criteria. 

• To maintain scenic quality within the Indian Creek ACEC, surface disturbance will be 

limited to that for which revegetation could be successfully established within 1 year after 

project completion. The ACEC is managed as VRM Class I. Indian Creek ACEC is open for 

mineral leasing with stipulations to prevent surface occupancy; however, the FO manager 

could grant an exception to the No Surface Occupancy stipulation if an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) concludes that the project would not unduly impair the visual quality of the 

area. Recreational use will be limited if the activity causes damage to scenic quality. 

• The Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC covers a visual zone along State Highways U-95, U261, and U-276, and part of the White Canyon viewshed. To maintain scenic quality, surface 

disturbance will be limited to that for which revegetation could be successfully established 

within 5 years after project completion, and also managed as VRM Class I. All revegetation 

must be with native species naturally occurring within the area. The Scenic Highway 

Corridor ACEC will be open for mineral leasing with stipulations to prevent surface 

occupancy. However, the FO manager could grant an exception to the No Surface 

Occupancy stipulation if an EA concludes that the project would not unduly impair the visual 

quality of the area. Recreational use will be limited if the activity causes damage to scenic 

quality. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.19 Visual Resources

3-177 

• Dark Canyon ACEC is managed to protect scenic values associated with primitive recreation, 

and activities within the ACEC would be approved to protect these values. Surface 

disturbances will be limited to those that can be successfully revegetated within 1 year after 

project completion. The ACEC is managed as VRM Class I, and recreation would be limited 

if cultural or scenic values were being damaged by recreational activities. Dark Canyon 

ACEC is closed to mineral leasing, mineral disposal, and OHV use. 

3.19.2.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS

The entire Monticello PA has been visually inventoried and classified according to the BLM 

VRM process. In general, the visual resources in the Monticello PA can be delineated in relation 

to US-191 that runs north-south through the FO PA. The area to the east of the highway is 

designated as VRM Class III and Class IV, with the exception of VRM Class II areas near 

Montezuma Creek and north of the town of Blanding. The remainder of the Monticello PA, to 

the west of US-191, contains all of those areas designated as possessing high scenic and visual 

qualities, that is, VRM Class I and Class II. 

The emphasis on VRM has changed since the 1991 RMP was approved. The current 1991 RMP 

and application of VRM objectives have afforded protection of most resources; however, the 

subsequent rapid increases in recreational resource uses are having an impact on visual 

resources. 

People are attracted to the area because of its extraordinary scenic quality and the many 

opportunities for recreation. Throughout the Monticello PA, impacts to the landscape are 

occurring from increased recreation and tourism, which include the impacts from increased OHV 

use. Additional impacts are also produced by the development of oil and gas resources, seismic 

exploration, livestock grazing improvements, and other land-use disturbances. 

The increasing number of roads being used by recreationists in the Monticello PA is having 

indirect effects on visual resources. Seldom Seen zones (those areas that are not visible from 

major travel routes) are decreasing within the Monticello PA, and an increase in the number of 

vehicles and people on BLM roads is creating changes in foreground and middleground views 

and changes in visual sensitivity. An increasingly utilized network of two-track roads and routes 

is creating conditions that allow OHV users, campers, and woodcutters to expand surface 

disturbances and impact visual resources. 

3.19.2.2 TRENDS

Tourism is increasing within the Monticello PA. Increased recreational and vehicular use, and 

the increase in the number of visitors to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, and Natural 

Bridges National Monument, who remain in the area and then recreate on BLM-administered 

lands (see Section 3.11, Recreation), contributes to the cumulative impact on visual resources.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries

3-178 

The use of OHVs, trail use, and dispersed camping could have long-term cumulative impacts on 

visual resources. Oil and gas exploration and development are expected to continue within the 

Monticello PA and contribute some additional impacts to visual resources. Long-term trends for 

impacts to visual resources are: 

• Increasing OHV-related recreational use could cause visual impacts within the FO PA; 

• Increasing dispersed camping impacts, often as overflow from the nearby National Parks and 

Monuments, could impact VRM through increased surface and vegetative disturbance; 

• Conflicts between OHV recreationists and hikers, sightseers, cultural site tourists, campers, 

hunters, river floaters, etc., who seek a high-level of scenic quality. 

3.20 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

3.20.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Great landscape diversity is found within the Monticello PA with lands associated with the 

Colorado River, San Juan River, and the Abajo Mountains. These land features have produced a 

unique combination of landforms and vegetation types and provide important habitat for wildlife 

and fish species. 

3.20.2 BIG GAME SPECIES 

3.20.2.1 MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS) 

Mule deer occupy most ecosystems in Utah but likely attain their greatest densities in shrublands 

characterized by rough, broken terrain and abundant browse and cover. Mule deer summer range 

habitat types include spruce/fir, aspen, alpine meadows, and large grassy parks located at higher 

elevations. Winter range habitat primarily consists of shrub-covered, south-facing slopes. Winter 

range habitat primarily consists of shrub-covered, south-facing slopes. Winter diets of mule deer 

consist of approximately 75% browse from a variety of trees and shrubs and 15% forbs. In the 

summer months, mule deer populations could be limited during years where there is little 

rainfall, water availability, and summer forage that reduces fawning success. In the winter 

months, insufficient quantity or quality of habitat or deep snow results in heavy concentration of 

deer on winter ranges, increasing the spread of disease, reduction in population, and fawning 

success. 

The middle and higher elevations of the Monticello PA sustain a large mule deer population. 

There is one UDWR wildlife management unit for mule deer located within the Monticello PA 

boundaries. This wildlife management unit contains the San Juan Herd, which is separated into 

two subunits (Abajo Mountains and Elk Ridge). The present population trend of these herds is 

down (Table 3.61). There has also been a significant decline in mule deer populations throughout 

the State of Utah. This has been attributed to the recent drought and loss of winter habitat. 

Within the Monticello PA, there has been a loss/die-off of sagebrush habitat due to overgrazing, 

drought and insect infestations. These include crucial wintering areas, such as Beef Basin and 

Harts Draw. There are plans throughout the state with several agencies to restore sagebrush 

habitats using different treatment techniques (personal communication between Tammy Wallace, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries

3-179 

BLM, and Thomas Sharp, SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003). Population objectives are 

set by UDWR and may only be met if there is available habitat. 

Table 3.61 Current Population and Objectives for Mule Deer 

Herd Unit Current Population Population Objective Percent of Objective 

San Juan, Abajo 

Mountains 

6800 13,500 50 

San Juan, Elk Ridge 2350 7000 34 

Mule deer are a representative guild species for the following habitats in the district, deciduous 

woodland, riparian, mountain shrub, pinyon-juniper woodland and sagebrush. Impacts to this 

species can be partly assessed through the impact to these habitat types. 

3.20.2.2 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK (CERVUS ELAPHUS NELSONI) 

Rocky mountain elk occupy most ecosystems in Utah but likely attain their greatest densities in 

grasslands, aspen and montane coniferous forest. Production or calving areas are used from midMay through June and typically occupy higher elevation sites than winter range. Calving grounds 

are usually characterized by aspen, montane coniferous forest, grassland/meadow, and mountain 

brush habitats, and are generally in locations where cover, forage, and water are in close 

proximity (Fitzgerald et al. 1994; Seidel 1977; Kufeld 1973). Within the Monticello PA, typical 

elk winter range occurs between 5,500 and 7,500 feet elevation and comprises mountain shrub 

and sagebrush habitats. 

The middle and higher elevations of the Monticello PA provide habitat for the local elk 

populations. Elk numbers have increased within San Juan County and have reached the 

population objectives that UDWR set (Table 3.62; personal communication between Chris Colt, 

UDWR, and Thomas Sharp, SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003–2004). Population 

objectives are set by UDWR and may only be met if there is available habitat. 

Table 3.62. Current Population and Objectives for Rocky Mountain Elk 

Herd Unit Current Population Population Objective Percent of Objective 

San Juan 1300 1300 100 

Rocky Mountain elk are a representative guild species for the following habitats in the district, 

grasslands, deciduous woodland, riparian, mountain shrub, pinyon-juniper woodland and 

sagebrush. Impacts to this species can be partly assessed through the impact to these habitat 

types. 

3.20.2.3 PRONGHORN (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA)

Pronghorn antelope can be found and are generally associated with open plains where they feed 

mainly on browse and forbs. Pronghorn prefer to occupy areas with large tracts of flat to rolling 

open terrain where they rely on keen eyesight and swift movement to avoid predators. Within the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries

3-180 

Monticello PA, pronghorn are typically found in the Dry Valley area and rely on this habitat 

year-round. 

The UDWR Hatch Point herd is the only pronghorn herd within the Monticello PA and this herd 

also extends into the Moab FO PA. The antelope herd has expanded the area it inhabits to the 

east side of Highway 191. However, the population trend is down from recent years. UDWR will 

be managing this herd to increase numbers by proposing supplemental transplants. Table 3.63 

shows the current pronghorn population and population objective for this herd unit. Population 

objectives are set by UDWR and may only be met if there is available habitat. 

Table 3.63. Current Population and Objectives for Pronghorn Antelope 

Herd Unit Current Population Population Objective Percent of Objective 

San Juan, Hatch Point 130–150 300 43–50 

Portions of the antelope habitat within the Monticello PA are in less than desired condition. 

There may be insufficient cover available for fawns to hide in because they are born shortly after 

livestock are removed from the area and there typically has not been sufficient time for 

vegetation to grow and provide cover. These areas may also lack forb and shrub compositions 

necessary to provide adequate forage for antelope (personal communication between Tammy 

Wallace, BLM, and Thomas Sharp, SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2003). 

Pronghorn are a representative guild species for grasslands and desert shrub habitats in the 

district. Impacts to this species can be partly assessed through the impact to these habitat types. 

3.20.2.4 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP (OVIS CANADENSIS NELSONI) 

Desert bighorn sheep are uniquely adapted to inhabit some of the most remote and rugged areas. 

They prefer open habitat types with adjacent steep rocky areas for escape and safety. Habitat is 

characterized by rugged terrain including canyons, gulches, talus cliffs, steep slopes, 

mountaintops and river benches (Shackleton et al. 1999). Desert bighorn sheep typically forage 

on shrubs more than grasses and use forbs less than shrubs and grasses. Desert bighorns are 

found in southern Utah and typically do not migrate. 

There are currently 3 UDWR herds units for desert bighorn sheep within Monticello PA. These 

include the San Juan (Lockhart), the North San Juan, and the South San Juan herds. Since the 

RMP was written, there is new data indicating bighorn sheep utilize the Lockhart Basin area. 

Under the current RMP, no provisions or designations of crucial bighorn sheep habitat were 

made in the Lockhart Basin area. The Moab FO of the BLM manages a small part of the habitat 

for the Lockhart herd. There is also evidence of the Lockhart herd going up the Redd Sheep Trail 

to Hatch Point. 

Bighorn sheep habitat in the Monticello PA is generally in good condition, although the recent 

drought has caused forage and water depletions. There has also been a large increase in the 

amount of OHV use in bighorn sheep areas, which can cause stress to the animals. Additionally, 

the increased recreational use of roads could exacerbate habitat fragmentation impacts. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries

3-181 

Bighorn sheep numbers are down from past stable numbers (Table 3.64). UDWR management 

goals are to increase all of these herds, as well as expanding the South San Juan Herd into BLM 

lands along the San Juan River from Bluff downstream to Lake Powell. These may be 

accomplished with supplemental transplants. Population objectives are set by UDWR and may 

only be met if there is available habitat. 

Table 3.64 Current Population and Objective for Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Herd Unit Current Population Population Objective % of Objective 

San Juan, South 120 300 40 

San Juan, North 50 100 50 

San Juan, Lockhart 90 200 45 

3.20.2.5 OTHER BIG GAME SPECIES

Within the Monticello PA, there are UDWR management areas for black bear (Ursus 

americanus) (Map 72) and mountain lion (Felis concolor). These represent areas where 

populations of these species are sufficient to support hunting. In the Intermountain West, black 

bears rarely use open habitats. Here, they are typically associated with forested or brushy 

mountain environments and wooded riparian corridors (Zeveloff and Collett 1988). Black bears 

tend to be nocturnal and are considered omnivorous. Preferred foods include berries, honey, fish, 

rodents, birds and bird eggs, insects, and nuts. Black bears obtain most of their meat from 

carrion. From November to April, bears enter a period of winter dormancy. Winter dens are 

located in caves, under rocks, or beneath the roots of large trees. The black bear is a 

representative guild species for old growth conifer habitat in the district. Impacts to this species 

can be partly assessed through the impact to this habitat type. 

The mountain lion or cougar inhabits most ecosystems in Utah. However, it is most common in 

the rough, broken terrain of foothills and canyons, often in association with montane forests, 

shrublands, and pinyon-juniper woodlands (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Lions feed primarily on large 

mammals, especially deer, but also eat coyotes, porcupines, beavers, mice, rabbits, birds, and 

even grasshoppers. Considering that the mountain lions primary prey item is the mule deer, 

addressing the impacts to mule deer habitat can best assess impacts to mountain lions. 

3.20.3 AVIAN SPECIES 

3.20.3.1 RAPTORS

The Monticello PA includes considerable habitat of value to raptors. Raptors found in this area 

include eagles, falcons, hawks, harriers, and owls. Special habitat needs for raptors include nest 

sites, foraging areas, and roosting or resting sites. There are many red-tailed hawks and Cooper's 

hawk nesting areas as well as a few peregrine and golden eagle nest sites found within the 

Monticello PA. Raptors forage on small mammals or small birds. The most utilized raptor 

nesting habitats in the Monticello PA are generally found along riparian areas and/or cliff faces 

(personal communication between Tammy Wallace, BLM, and Thomas Sharp, SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, 2003). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries

3-182 

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) is a representative guild species for old growth conifer 

habitat in the district. The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and the prairie falcon (Falco 

mexicanus) are representative guild species for cliff rock habitat. The ferruginous hawk and 

burrowing owl (Athene canicularia) are representative guild species for grassland habitat. The 

ferruginous hawk is also a representative guild species for desert shrub habitat. Impacts to these 

species can be partly assessed through the impact to these habitat types. 

3.20.3.2 WATERFOWL

Waterfowl in the Monticello PA is generally associated with the Colorado and San Juan river 

drainages. Some waterfowl can also be found in other riparian areas, such as ponds, reservoirs, 

and perennial streams. Some individuals or species breed, winter, or remain yearlong in the state, 

while larger numbers pass through the area during the spring and fall migration. Many species 

feed on insects and small fish or amphibians in addition to aquatic plant foods. In addition, some 

species feed frequently on upland grasses and forbs in grassy fields and meadows where such 

vegetation is succulent and habitat is sufficiently open to preclude hiding predators and enable 

rapid flight. Within the Monticello PA, the most important areas for waterfowl are the Colorado 

and San Juan rivers, as well as Recapture Reservoir and a couple of permanent ponds such as 

those in Cross Canyon and Nancy Patterson Canyon. 

3.20.3.3 UPLAND GAME BIRDS

There are several species of upland game birds within the Monticello PA (personal 

communication between Dean Mitchell, UDWR, and Thomas Sharp, SWCA Environmental 

Consultants, 2004; UDWR 2002; UDWR 2000). Some of the species include Gunnison Sagegrouse, Chukar (Alectoris chukar), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), and Wild Turkey (both 

Merriams and Rio Grandes) (Meleagris gallopavo): and Gambel's Quail (Callipepla gambelii). 

Chukars prefer open, rocky, barren lands and eat grass shoots, seeds, grain, and insects. Turkeys 

utilize open woodland or forest clearings, as well as riparian areas and eat acorns, fruit, and 

seeds. Mourning doves are found in a variety of habitats, but mostly in farmlands and eat grains, 

small seeds, acorns, and fruit. Gambel's Quail are found in drier habitats and feed on seeds, 

grain, and insects. 

Gunnison Sage-grouse are used as a representative guild species for sagebrush habitat in the 

district. Impacts to this species can be partly assessed through the impact to this habitat type. 

Sage-grouse require large expanses of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) communities below 9,800 feet, 

with a diversity of grasses and forbs and healthy riparian ecosystems. The presence of each 

habitat type in healthy condition in close proximity to winter, lek, nesting, and brood-rearing 

habitat is essential. Population declines within the Monticello FO are attributed to habitat loss 

and fragmentation from increased roads, power lines, sagebrush conversions to farmlands, and 

reduction in riparian areas. Other issues decreasing habitat quality are livestock grazing, drought, 

land treatments, and herbicides. The northeast side of the Monticello PA contains populations 

and habitat for this species. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries

3-183 

3.20.3.4 NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS

There are a wide variety of songbirds and neo-tropical migrants, which spend at least part of the 

year within the Monticello PA (Parrish et. al. 2002). These species utilize a wide variety of 

habitats found within the PA. The Monticello FO maintains information regarding neotropical 

migratory birds by conducting annual breeding bird surveys in June of each year with the U.S. 

Geological Survey and partnering with the UDWR using mist netting and point count surveys. 

Most of the bird species (especially neo-tropical) are decreasing in numbers throughout their 

ranges. This can be seen with the type of species listed on the threatened and endangered species 

list for San Juan County. According to Parrish et al. (2002), riparian habitats are used as either 

breeding or wintering habitat by Utah's birds almost twice as much as any other habitat type. 

Within Utah, 66–75% of all bird species use riparian habitats during some portion of their life 

cycle. Shrublands, forest, and additional habitat groups (e.g. water, rock, playa, agriculture, 

urban, and cliff) all are about equal and second to riparian when considering their importance to 

bird species. To prevent further population declines for bird species, the protection of these 

habitat types, especially riparian are crucial. Certain species can be followed more closely as 

indicators of overall ecosystem health. 

Loggerhead shrikes habitat consists of open country with short vegetation: pastures with fence 

rows, old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf courses, agricultural fields, riparian areas, 

and open woodlands. The loggerhead shrike is a small avian predator that hunts from perches 

and impales its prey on sharp objects such as thorns and barbed-wire fences. The Loggerhead 

shrike is one of the few North American passerines whose populations have declined continent 

wide in recent decades. Changes in human land-use practices, the spraying of biocides, and 

competition with species that are more tolerant of human-induced changes appear to be major 

factors contributing to this decline. 

The sage sparrow is a migrant that summers in Idaho and winters in Arizona, New Mexico and 

northern Mexico. It is found in sagebrush flats and desert shrub areas. It usually nests in 

sagebrush and typically feeds on insects and seeds. This species has been in recent decline. This 

decline is due to reduced, fragmented, and lost sagebrush steppe habitat that has resulted from 

increased wildland fires and cheatgrass invasion. 

This sage thrasher's populations are mostly stable where suitable shrub-steppe habitat remains. 

However, its numbers have been dramatically reduced, and in some cases, local populations have 

been eliminated, where there has been wholesale conversion of sagebrush rangeland. 

The Brewer's sparrow major habitat type is sagebrush shrublands. The Brewer's sparrow is by far 

the most abundant bird there during spring and summer. Recent (1980s and 1990s) surveys 

(Rotenberry et. al. 1999) have shown breeding numbers to be in significant decline throughout 

the species' range. The causes are uncertain, but they may be related to fundamental changes in 

shrubland ecosystems being brought about by agriculture, grazing, and the invasion of exotic 

plant species. 

The Warbling Vireo occupies predominantly riparian habitat, but may also use a variety of other 

habitats including oak/mountain shrub and deciduous forest. It builds its nests in the forked limbs 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries

3-184 

of trees from one to 40 meters (m) above the ground at elevations ranging from sea level to over 

3,000 m. The species appears well adapted to human landscapes, as nests have been found in 

neighborhoods, urban parks, orchards, and farm fencerows. Its reproductive success in these 

areas has never been quantified, however. 

The Green-tailed Towhee prefers species-rich shrub communities within shrub-steppe habitats, 

and disturbed and open areas of montane forest, often created by forest fires. The bulky nests of 

this species are concealed in shrubs, but often are prone to predation. In winter, individuals are 

common in dense mesquite (Prosopis spp.) shrub habitat along desert washes. Breeding bird 

survey data suggest that populations have been stable overall since 1966, with no significant 

broad trends (Dobbs et. al. 1998). 

The juniper titmouse is a year-round resident of the pinyon-juniper and pine woodlands; it is also 

common in suburbs. It nests in snag holes, natural and made by woodpeckers. They typically 

feed on fruit, seeds and insects. This species is generally tolerant of human encroachment. 

The Gray Flycatcher is a migrant species that summers in Utah and Idaho and winters in Mexico. 

It nests in arid pinyon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush areas. It builds its nest in the crotch of 

juniper trees or sagebrush. It feeds exclusively on insects. This species is still quite common but 

faces the same risks that other Sagebrush guild species face. 

No known population of Yellow-billed Cuckoo exist at present within the Monticello PA 

(personal communication between Tammy Wallace, BLM, and Thomas Sharp, SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, 2003). The Yellow-billed Cuckoo, however, is a neotropical migrant 

that utilizes riparian valleys throughout the state. The Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo is 

associated with cottonwoods and Riparian cover, which provides nesting and brood-rearing 

habitat. Western Yellow-billed Cuckoos are obligate riparian nesters and are restricted to more 

mesic habitat along rivers, streams and other wetlands. Yellow-billed Cuckoos are discussed 

further under the sensitive species section of the document. 

The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWFL) utilizes and breeds in patchy to dense riparian 

habitats along streams and wetlands near or adjacent to surface water or saturated soils. These 

dense patches are often interspersed with small openings, open water, and/or shorter/sparser 

vegetation, creating a mosaic habitat pattern. Population declines are attributed to numerous, 

complex, and interrelated factors such as habitat loss and modification, invasion of exotic plants 

into breeding habitat, brood parasitism by cowbirds, vulnerability of small population numbers, 

and winter and migration stress. SWFL are discussed further under the sensitive species section 

of the document. 

Song sparrows are relatively common in riparian habitat. They build open-cup nests near fresh 

water wherever suitable cover and insect food are present. 

Spotted Towhee breed in wide variety of plant associations, all characterized by dense, broadleaf 

shrubby growth (variously described as brush, thickets, or tangles). This shrubby growth is 

typically only a few meters tall, with or without emergent trees, and provides deep, sheltered, 

semishaded litter and humus on ground, and a screen of twigs and foliage close overhead. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries

3-185 

Mallard duck success in the wild reflects its adaptability to varied habitats, its hardiness in cold 

climates, its catholic food tastes, and its tolerance of human activities. The bulk of the Mallard's 

diet outside the breeding season consists of seeds of both natural wetland plants and agricultural 

crops. Although the mallard is the most heavily hunted duck species in North America, its 

populations remain more or less steady, and the species is not considered in danger. 

Nevertheless, managers carefully monitor and manage mallard populations and their habitats to 

ensure the continued prosperity of this extremely popular and successful duck (Drilling et al. 

2002). 

Several of the migratory birds can be used as guild species for different wildlife habitat types. 

The loggerhead shrike is associated with desert shrub habitat, the sage sparrow, sage thrasher and 

Brewer's sparrow are associated with sagebrush and perennial grassland, the Warbling Vireo, 

Green-tailed Towhee and Blue Grouse are associated with oak mountain shrub habitat, the 

juniper titmouse and Gray Flycatcher are associated with pinyon-juniper habitat and Yellowbilled Cuckoo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Song Sparrow, Spotted Towhee, and Mallard 

duck are associated with riparian habitat. For the purposes of this analysis, impacts to these 

habitats will be used, in part, to assess impacts to these species. Unless stated above, the exact 

population status of all these species in the Monticello PA is not known. 

3.20.4 FISH AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES

The Monticello PA provides habitat for fish and amphibian species because of the variety of 

aquatic habitats found within the resource PA, which include rivers, streams, ponds, springs, and 

marsh areas. Aquatic species in the Monticello PA include several TES species such as bonytail, 

Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, roundtail chub, bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth 

sucker. Table 3.65 illustrates the current UDWR inventories of fisheries within the Monticello 

PA (personal communication between Tammy Wallace, BLM, and Thomas Sharp, SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, 2003). 

Amphibians rely on water during a portion of their life cycle and are typically found near water 

sources. The aquatic habitat in the Monticello PA is generally associated with the Colorado and 

San Juan river drainages and perennial water sources. The BLM in partnership with U.S. 

Geological Survey have started conducting amphibian surveys since 2003 on two riparian areas 

within the Monticello PA. These include Indian Creek and Arch Canyon. These studies are to 

determine species and abundance that are within these canyons. To date, the species found in 

Arch Canyon include: Woodhouse's toad (Bufo woodhousii), Red-spotted toad (Bufo punctatus), 

and Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens). In Indian Creek, Bufo species of tadpoles and a few 

red-spotted toads were found. 

Table 3.65. Inventory of Fisheries within Monticello PA

FO Area Species Present 

Colorado River Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail, humpback chub, 

flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), 

roundtail chub, speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), Plains killifish (Fundulus 

zebrinus), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), red shiner (Cyprinella 

lutrensis), sand shiner (Notropis ludibundus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.21 Woodlands

3-186 

Table 3.65. Inventory of Fisheries within Monticello PA

FO Area Species Present 

dolomieu), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), carp (Cyprinus carpio), 

black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) 

San Juan River Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, 

channel catfish, roundtail chub, speckled dace, fathead minnow, red shiner, 

sand shiner, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, carp, black bullhead, yellow 

bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), walleye, northern pike (Esox lucius) 

 Arch Creek Flannelmouth sucker, mountain sucker, speckled dace 

Montezuma Creek flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, channel catfish, roundtail chub, speckled 

dace, carp, fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner 

*Where fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner are added in italics, these are not necessarily documented. However, they are 

prolific in the mainstream Green and Colorado rivers. Thus, it is likely that they are in at least the lower extremities of these 

smaller tributaries. 

3.20.5 OTHER WILDLIFE HABITAT

The Monticello PA contains a high diversity of small mammals because of the variety of habitats 

within the boundaries. Other wildlife species that are found within the field office area includes 

small mammals (cottontails, jackrabbits, squirrels, ground squirrels, mice, voles, and shrews), 

bats, reptiles, and invertebrate (insects). Bats roost in tree and rock crevices and caves. They rely 

on insects for food and are typically found near water sources feeding on insects (Oliver 2000). 

Reptiles have become adapted to living and reproducing entirely on land. They include turtles, 

lizards, and snakes. The Monticello PA contains a high diversity of reptile because of the variety 

of habitats found within the resource management area. Most turtles are aquatic, although a few 

live entirely on land. Lizards are found in grasslands and shrub deserts, boulders, cliffs, trees, 

and loose sand. Snakes can be aquatic, while some live in trees, and some live in burrows. 

3.21 WOODLANDS 

3.21.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Woodland resources are generally defined as those tree species that are used as non-sawtimber 

products and are sold in units other than board feet. Woodland resources within the Monticello 

PA consist primarily of pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma). 

Pinyon–juniper woodlands are characterized by trees that are less than 33 feet tall. 

Closed conifer woodlands (with a greater than 60% canopy cover) are dominated by pinyon pine, 

with Utah juniper as a common associate. This is the most extensive forest type in Utah 

exceeding, in acreage, all other forests combined (Lanner 1984). Utah juniper is the more dryclimate-adapted of the two species, often serving as nurse trees for pinyon in well-developed 

woodlands. The open conifer woodlands (characterized by a 25–60% canopy cover) form a wide 

landscape and are found at elevations of 4,000 to 7,000 feet. Major cover types include Utah 

juniper with associated shrub species such as big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and native 

bunchgrasses. Utah juniper has increased with grazing, and, as grazing has intensified, the 

species has spread from ridges and mountain slopes to deep valleys. Most of the area where 
Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.21 Woodlands

3-187 

pinyon/juniper woodland currently dominates was historically characterized by wildland fires 

burning every 15 to 50 years (Kitchen 2004, Miller and Tausch 2001). Both pinyon and juniper 

seedlings are tolerant of shade, but as wildland fire opens up the canopy cover, juniper seedlings 

tend to establish quickly in cut or burned areas, while pinyon seedlings tend to establish best 

under a canopy cover. 

Cottonwood (Populus spp.) is a component of the Monticello PA's woodland resources that 

grows in riparian areas, with value to the Navajo Nation for ceremonial purposes. Cottonwood 

contributes to the proper functioning of riparian systems, in that it provides bank stabilization, 

shade, and wildlife habitat. 

Timber resources within the Monticello PA consist of small stands of ponderosa pine, Douglas 

fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), cottonwood, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), oak species 

(Quercus spp.), and box elder (Acer negundo). The quantities and concentrations of these timber 

species are too low to have commercial value, though they do have scenic, habitat, and 

watershed resource values. No commercial sales or harvesting of any timber species take place 

within the Monticello PA. 

3.21.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The Monticello FO manages woodland products by controlling harvests and sales. It sells 

woodland resources in informally designated areas for fuel wood, fence posts, Christmas trees, 

and other uses as demand arises. Fuel wood harvests are limited to pinyon and juniper; on-site 

harvests of trees by recreationists, usually as fuel for campfires, are allowed except where 

specifically excluded (BLM 1991a). 

The Monticello FO has conducted 72 pinyon-juniper treatment projects and treated 32,191 acres, 

primarily in the 1960s and 1970s, to remove pinyon-juniper and convert woodlands to grasslands 

for livestock and wildlife forage (BLM 2004f). Because of subsequent re-growth of pinyonjuniper stands, many of these project areas are now in need of re-treatment and additional 

management. These projects are being maintained through the Moab Fire District. Re-treatment 

would consist of prescribed burning and/or other types of treatments (e.g., mechanical, chemical) 

to reduce fuel loads (BLM 1989). 

3.21.2.1 ALLOCATIONS

In accordance with Monticello FO policy, a portion of the value of all woodland sales are 

retained at the Monticello FO to defray the cost of road maintenance and land reclamation in 

woodlandcutting areas. 

The current management of woodland resources within the Monticello PA is guided by decisions 

made in the San Juan RMP (BLM 1991a). This plan identifies management actions to support 

the woodland management objectives of 1) allowing use of woodland products in areas specified 

for this use; and 2) preserving woodland products in other areas to meet RMP goals. The current 

management actions for the resource, as specified in the RMP, include: 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.21 Woodlands

3-188 

• Assigning all forestlands in the resource management area to one of 4 categories: 

1. Lands available for intensive management of forest products 

2. Lands available for restricted management of forest products 

3. Lands where forests are managed to enhance other uses 

4. Forestlands not available for management of forest products 

• Using the RMP goals and management objectives to determine which areas are assigned to 

each category, and imposing conditions on forest products use; and 

• Prior to any land treatment project that would remove woodland products, striving first for 

woodland sales and second for free use of woodland products. 

The current management guidance for developing forest resources is: 

• The Monticello FO may develop forest resources for sustained yield, where feasible, in areas 

where forest product sales are allowed under the RMP; and 

• The RMP may impose conditions of use or reclamation requirement in certain areas. 

3.21.2.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS

It is estimated that pinyon and juniper woodlands have increased ten-fold over the past 130 years 

throughout the Intermountain West (Miller and Tausch 2001). Wildland fire suppression and 

lack of thinning have contributed to dense, over-mature stands of pinyon-juniper throughout the 

Monticello PA, and woodland fuel loading is increasing (see Section 3.4, Fire Management). The 

inadequate harvesting or thinning of pinyon-juniper woodlands within the PA is also creating 

conditions in which growth and succession of woodland stands are exceeding their carrying 

capacity, thus causing a decline in understory vegetation and creating stresses from competition 

that lead to tree mortality. Stressed trees are more susceptible to disease and insect infestations, 

further contributing to fuel loading of dead/down wood. These conditions are also increasing the 

potential for uncontrolled, catastrophic wildland fires. Noxious weed species could replace 

woodland species in those woodland areas that are burned by uncontrolled, catastrophic wildland 

fire. 

Since the approval of the current RMP, drought has weakened the pinyon and juniper trees, and 

an infestation by the Ips engraver beetle (Ips spp.) has caused a severe die-off. Based on the 

current trend, the infestation is likely to increase, exacerbated by current drought conditions and 

the competitive stresses described above. Currently, there is no program to contain the 

infestation, and though the rate of infestation and the degree of damage to woodland resources 

are unknown, the potential for a significant loss of woodland and timber resources is high. The 

loss of these resources would result in more fuel loading, further contributing to conditions that 

could increase the potential for catastrophic wildland fires (personal communication between 

Tammy Wallace, BLM, and David Harris, SWCA, March 21, 2003). 

Past management practices to improve grazing habitat for wildlife and cattle included chaining 

of pinyon-juniper stands. This management technique is no longer a preferred treatment and is 

not being used at this time. Currently, a program is being developed (in coordination with the 

Moab FO) to thin the woodland understory using prescribed fire to decrease fuel loading/ 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.21 Woodlands

3-189 

hazardous fuels and to maintain old chained and reseeded areas (personal communication 

between Tammy Wallace, BLM, and David Harris, SWCA, March 21, 2003). 

Creation of wilderness study areas (WSAs) within the PA have closed these areas to 

woodcutting, prescribed burning, and other woodland management options, with potentially 

long-term adverse impacts on woodland resources. The WSAs also preclude commercial 

harvesting and access trail construction. The WSAs are, in effect, woodcutting and prescribed 

burning exclusion zones. These conditions support the growth and succession of woodland 

stands that exceed their carrying capacity, which can cause a decline in understory vegetation, 

and create stresses from competition that lead to tree mortality, similar to conditions and effects 

described above for woodland resources throughout the Monticello PA. 

Currently, there is no woodland resource monitoring in the Monticello PA, except unscheduled, 

occasional fuel load assessments being made by BLM fire personnel (personal communication 

between Tammy Wallace, BLM, and David Harris, SWCA, March 21, 2003). 

Woodland harvesting that does not follow required stipulations is currently damaging surface 

cultural resource sites and creating a network of unauthorized roads and trails that is degrading 

visual quality, increasing soil erosion and sedimentation, and affecting overall watershed quality. 

In addition to the previously described issues in upland woodlands, in riparian zones, 

cottonwood stands are being encroached upon and impacted by tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) and 

Russian olive, resulting in decreased wildlife habitat and declines in overall watershed health. 

3.21.3 RESOURCE DEMAND AND FORECAST

The current use of woodland resources within the Monticello PA is non-commercial harvesting 

of pinyon and juniper for fence posts, firewood, and Christmas trees. Such harvesting is allowed 

with a permit issued by the Monticello FO. Permits are not issued for collection of dead and 

downed cottonwood for ceremonial purposes. 

A potential conflict exists between the Navajo Tribe's need to use the resource as fuel-wood and 

the Monticello FO's need to manage for woodland sustainability and health. Cedar Mesa is an 

area where the conflict is most obvious between the BLM and tribal resource needs, as most of 

Cedar Mesa is currently a WSA, which does not allow for firewood collection. Native Americans 

also want to be able to collect live cottonwood; however, this species is valuable for wildlife 

habitat, riparian function, and overall watershed health, and is being replaced by invasive species 

including tamarisk. 

The limited information available regarding the current level of woodland harvesting is derived 

from data on woodland harvesting permits sold by the Monticello FO. For FYs 2000–2003, the 

trend indicates an increasing number of permits were issued for harvesting wood products (BLM 

2003f). The actual level of woodland harvesting within the Monticello PA is unknown because 

1) resource monitoring is very limited; 2) the FO area is large, remote, and difficult to access; 

and 3) it is assumed that some people cut wood without purchasing a permit. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.21 Woodlands

3-190 

The demand for woodland products (including firewood) is expected to increase. The number of 

cords of firewood that were sold over recent years has increased from 898 cords in 2000 to 1,137 

cords in 2003 (BLM 2003f). The sale of Christmas trees is highly variable, and fluctuates from 

year to year. There are no limitations on woodland sales except in fire exclusion areas 

(designated as Wilderness Areas and WSAs). 
2.0 PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT ALTERNATIVES

This chapter presents the Proposed Plan for managing public lands in the Monticello Field Office 

(FO). The five alternatives from the Draft RMP/Draft EIS are also provided to illustrate the 

progression to the Proposed Plan. In accordance with the federal guidelines implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a range of reasonable alternatives was analyzed in 

the Draft RMP/Draft EIS that helped accomplish the objectives of the Proposed Plan. In crafting 

the Proposed Plan, the BLM considered all comments provided by the public, the Cooperating 

Agencies and internally on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS, as well as, issues and concerns raised 

during scoping, identified goals and objectives associated with the resources and allowable uses 

on the public lands, and competing uses under the multiple use and sustained yield mandates of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Chapter 2 has been organized 

in the following manner: 

• Section 2.1 provides brief descriptions of the alternatives that were analyzed in detail in the 

Draft RMP/Draft EIS. 

o Table 2.1 defines the Proposed Plan and provides a summary of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS 

alternatives. 

• Section 2.2 provides a comparative summary of the environmental impacts associated with 

the Proposed Plan and each alternative. 

o Table 2.2 provides a summary of the impacts. 

• Section 2.3 outlines those alternatives the BLM has considered but has eliminated from 

detailed analysis, and the justifications for their dismissal from further evaluations. 

2.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIVE ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE DRAFT 

RMP/DRAFT EIS AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

The Draft RMP/Draft EIS analyzed five alternatives in detail. Alternative A (the "No Action" 

Alternative, a continuation of the existing 1991 RMP) was presented for comparison to the four 

action alternatives. There are four action alternatives in addition to the Proposed Plan; 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E, represent variations in the existing management and are generally 

distinguished by the degree of resource protection use. 

The Proposed Plan/Final EIS does not carry forward Alternative C (the Preferred Alternative) 

from the Draft RMP/EIS. Rather, the Proposed Plan/RMP consists of a combination of all the 

alternatives, including Alternative C from the Draft RMP/EIS and information that was modified 

in response to public comment. It is based on public comments; the BLM and Cooperating 

Agency review; and provides the best means to accommodate the widest range of public and 

agency concerns over resources and resource uses. It provides for continued access to and 

development of resources with stipulations and mitigation to protect natural and cultural 

resources. 

Alternative A (No Action) would be a continuation of existing management practices defined in 

the San Juan Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 1991a, as amended). The current plan 

maintained "multiple use management while providing protection or enhancement to unique and 

sensitive resources." Areas were designated as open, limited, and closed to off-highway vehicle 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2-2 

(OHV; also referred to as "off-road vehicle") travel. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs) were used extensively to manage cultural and recreation resource and use. 

Alternative B would minimize human activities, offer more protection for wildlife and other 

natural resources, and favor natural systems over commodities development. Decisions include 

minimizing routes and enlarging crucial habitat for wildlife. All potential ACECs are considered 

in this alternative. All eligible wild and scenic rivers (WSRs) are considered for suitability in this 

alternative. Oil and gas leasing stipulations were determined and used to protect sensitive 

resources. 

Alternative C was identified as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP and would balance 

the protection of important environmental values and sensitive resources with commodities 

development. All areas were designated as open, limited, and closed to OHV travel and routes 

were designated to allow access and protect resources. A balanced use of ACECs and WSRs was 

used to protect important resource values. 

Alternative D emphasizes commodities development over the protection of natural resources. No 

ACECs were considered in this alternative. No eligible WSR segments would be determined as 

suitable under this alternative. Protection of wildlife habitat was minimized to that required by 

law, regulation, or policy. Access was maximized, as no acres were closed to OHV travel and 

almost the entire area was designated as limited to OHV travel. 

Alternative E would be based on Alternative B, except it emphasizes protection of 582,360 acres 

of non–Wilderness Study Area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics and allows for other 

activities consistent with that emphasis. Large areas on the west side of the Monticello FO would 

be difficult to access or do any kind of surface-disturbing activities. Wilderness characteristics 

would be enhanced as would adjacent wilderness found in WSAs. 

The Proposed Plan consists of a combination of proposed decisions taken from an array of all the 

alternatives but using Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) from the Draft RMP/Draft EIS as its 

base. This combination of decisions was developed in response to internal, public and 

cooperating agency comments. It provides a balanced means to accommodate the widest range of 

public and agency concerns over resources and resource uses. It provides for continued access to 

and development of resources with stipulations and mitigation to protect natural and cultural 

resources. 

Table 2.1 provides a detailed description of the Proposed Plan and alternatives carried forward 

from the Draft EIS; the table is organized alphabetically by resource (i.e., air quality, cultural, 

fire management, etc.). There are twenty resources listed. Each section includes the Proposed 

Plan goals, management based on actions common to the Proposed Plan and the Draft RMP 

alternatives, and then itemizes the specific management prescriptions for the Proposed Plan—as 

well as those management prescriptions for the alternatives from the Draft RMP. If management 

prescriptions for two different alternatives were the same, then it is merely indicated by a "same 

as Alternative..." Occasionally, the proposed management decisions are the same but the acreage 

or the time frames they are applicable to changes, this is indicated in the text. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2-3 

2.1.1 BRIEF SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND 

ALTERNATIVES IN TABLE 2.1 

The major resources/uses and associated issues identified during scoping were travel 

management, recreation, oil and gas leasing and development, special designations (ACECs, 

WSRs, and WSAs), special status species, wildlife, and non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. These resources/uses, among others, are displayed under the Proposed Plan and 

range of management alternatives from the Draft RMP that set forth different priorities and 

measures to emphasize some uses or resource values over others to achieve specific goals or 

objectives outlined in detail in Table 2.1. Below is a brief summary of the range of alternatives 

for those major resources/uses brought forward during scoping. Much more detail for each of 

these resources and uses, among others, and their proposed management is in Table 2.1. 

2.1.1.1 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

All public lands are required to have OHV area designations. Areas must be classified as open, 

limited, or closed to motorized travel activities. OHV designation areas, or categories, are listed 

by alternative. Summary Table A portrays how travel and access management would be 

designated under each alternative. 

Summary Table A. OHV Acreage and Mileage Designations by Alternative 

Alternative

A 

(No Action) 

Alternative 

B 

 Alternative 

C 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Open 611,310 0 2,311 2,311 0 0 

Limited—

Seasonal 

Restrictions 

540,260 N/A 3.81 N/A N/A 8.0 

Limited—

Existing 

Roads and 

Trails 

570,390 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Limited—

Designated 

Roads and 

Trails 

218,780 1,359,417 1,362,142 1,780,807 812,679 1,364,453 

Closed 276,430 423,698 418,667 0 970,436 418,667 

Total2 N/A3 1,783,115 1,780,809 1,783,118 1,783,115 1,783,120 

Miles of 

Routes 

Designated 

2,1794 1,521 1,947 2,205 1,342 1,947 

This acreage applies to Arch Canyon. 

2Acreage figures may vary by alternative due to the changes in GIS technology and variances in shapefiles. 

3Acres are not additive under this alternative because of overlap between limited use categories. 4 Miles of existing routes; but undesignated in the 1991 San Juan RMP. 

The BLM, in preparing its RMP designations and its implementation-level travel management 

plans, is following policy and regulation authority found at 43 C.F.R. Part 8340; 43 C.F.R. 

Subpart 8364; and 43 C.F.R. Subpart 9268. Where the authorized officer determines that OHVs 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2-4 

are causing or would cause considerable adverse impacts, the authorized officer shall close or 

restrict such areas. The public would be notified. 

The BLM could impose limitations on types of vehicles allowed on specific designated routes if 

monitoring indicates that a particular type of vehicle is causing disturbance to the soil, wildlife 

habitat, cultural or vegetative resources, especially by off-road travel in an area that is limited to 

designated routes. 

Where routes would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use could continue 

on a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs ("ways" when located within 

WSAs—see Glossary) could continue as long as the use of these routes does not impair 

wilderness suitability, as provided by the IMP (BLM 1995). If Congress designates the area as 

wilderness, the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or noncompliance are found 

through monitoring efforts to impair the area's suitability for wilderness designation, the BLM 

would take further action to limit use of the routes, or close them. The continued use of these 

routes, therefore, is based on user compliance and nonimpairment of wilderness values. 

2.1.1.2 RECREATION

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) are proposed to manage intensively used 

recreation areas, and do not restrict other uses. In Alternative B, nonmotorized recreation is 

emphasized; in Alternative D, motorized recreation is emphasized. Alternative C provides 

opportunities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreation. Alternative E emphasizes 

nonmotorized recreation and protection of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, 

and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. The Proposed Plan 

provides opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized recreation including opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined recreation while providing for protection of sensitive resources. These 

are depicted in Summary Table B. 

Summary Table B. SRMA Acreage by Alternative 

Category Alternative 

A 

(No Action) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

SRMAs 614,490 528,856 525,512 525,018 508,856 554,721 

2.1.1.3 OIL AND GAS LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT

One of the major decisions in a land-use plan (LUP) is to determine which areas should be 1) 

open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form stipulations, 2) 

areas open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as timing limitations (TL) or 

controlled surface use (CSU) restrictions, 3) areas open to leasing subject to major constraints 

such as NSO stipulations, or 4) areas unavailable to leasing. All of these proposed decisions must 

be consistent with the goals and objectives of other resources and uses for each alternative. 

Summary Table C depicts how oil and gas leasing would be managed under each alterative. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2-5 

Summary Table C. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations Acreage, by Alternative 

Stipulation Alternative 

A 

(No Action) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Proposed 

Plan 

Standard 578,604 365,170 629,472 962,283 213,290 495,432 

TL/CSU 659,626 876,740 719,501 421,000 545,641 732,477 

NSO 161,224 125,105 39,323 14,175 53,915 64,848 

Closed 385,316 416,612 395,329 386,853 974,463 491,552 

In addition, this planning revision has applied the same oil and gas stipulations to all other 

surface-disturbing activities where they are not contrary to laws, regulations, or policy under all 

of the action alternatives. For example, if an area has a timing stipulation on it for oil and gas 

development, the BLM would also apply that same timing stipulation on a right-of-way (ROW) 

construction proposal or an organized recreational event. 

2.1.1.4 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

2.1.1.4.1 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

The Federal Register Notice of Intent (June 2003) for this plan revision requested ACEC 

nominations from the public for consideration in the planning effort. In order to be considered 

and carried forward into the range of alternatives for planning, an ACEC must meet the 

relevance and importance criteria in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(a), and must require special management. 

The Monticello FO received and evaluated a total of 17 ACEC nominations of which 13 were 

determined to meet the relevance and importance criteria. The relevance and importance criteria 

encompass scenery, sensitive plant species, rare plants, cultural and historic resources, wildlife, 

fish, natural systems, and natural hazards. Summary Table D shows that all of the 13 potential 

ACECs were brought forward into Alternative B for designation consideration, and 7 potential 

ACECs were brought forward into Alternative C for designation consideration. There are 10 

existing designated ACECs in the Monticello Planning Area (MPA), and therefore 10 in 

Alternative A. There were no ACECs brought forward for consideration in Alternative D. Where 

ACECs are designated, special management attention would be directed at the relevant and 

important values, resources, natural systems and/or natural hazards. 

Summary Table D. Proposed Total Acreage and Number of Potential ACECs by 

Alternative 

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred) 

Alternative D Alternative E Proposed Plan

488,616 521,141 76,764 0 521,141 74,403 

10 12 7 0 12 7 

2.1.1.4.2 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

During planning, the BLM must assess all eligible river segments and determine which are 

suitable or unsuitable per Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1958, as 

amended. The Monticello FO reviewed all river segments for WSR eligibility and suitability as 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2-6 

part of the RMP process. Twelve river segments were found to meet the eligibility criteria. The 

BLM Manual 8351 (BLM 1993b) directs the BLM to provide tentative classifications of Wild, 

Scenic, or Recreational to the eligible river segments. Under the No Action Alternative 

(Alternative A), six river segments were identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic River System. These six segments would be managed to protect their free-flowing 

nature and outstandingly remarkable values until their suitability for inclusion in the Wild and 

Scenic River System is determined. Alternative B and E would recommend and manage all of 

the segments as suitable for Congressional designation into the system, and Alternative C would 

recommend three river segments as suitable for Congressional designation into the system. The 

number of miles of rivers recommended suitable for designation are included in Summary Table 

E below. 

Summary Table E. WSRs Recommended Suitable for the Proposed Plan, Including Draft 

EIS by Alternatives 

Alternative BLM River Miles Total River Miles Classifications 

A1 56.8 59.2 Recreational, Scenic, Wild 

B 92.4 115.3 Recreational, Scenic, Wild 

C 18.4 26.9 Scenic, Wild 

D 0 0 NA 

E 92.4 115.3 Recreational, Scenic, Wild 

Proposed Plan 35.7 44.3 Scenic, Wild 

1

 Miles of river determined eligible under the 1991 San Juan RMP; but suitability not determined. 

The BLM would work with the State of Utah and other federal agencies to reach consensus 

regarding recommendations to Congress for the inclusion of rivers in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. Besides applying consistent criteria across agency jurisdictions, the joint 

review would avoid piecemealing of river segments in logical watershed units in the state. Actual 

designation of river segments would only occur through congressional action or as a result of 

Secretarial decision at the request of the governor in accordance with provisions of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act (the Act). The BLM will work with the state and the agencies involved to 

coordinate its decision making on WSR issues and to achieve consistency wherever possible. 

The BLM recognizes that water resources on most river and stream segments within the State of 

Utah are already fully allocated. Where stream segments are designated on public lands being 

managed under this Plan, the BLM will continue to work with affected local, state, federal, and 

tribal partners to identify in-stream flows necessary to meet critical resource needs including 

values related to the designation. The BLM would then seek to jointly promote innovative 

strategies, community-based planning, and voluntary agreements with water users, under State 

law, to address those needs. 

Should designations occur on any river segment as a result of Secretarial or congressional action, 

existing rights, privileges, and contracts would be protected. Under Section 12 of the Act, 

termination of such rights, privileges, and contracts may happen only with the consent of the 

affected non-federal party. A determination by the BLM of eligibility and suitability for the 

inclusion of rivers on public lands to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System does not create 

new water rights for the BLM. Federal reserved water rights for new components of the National 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2-7 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System are established at the discretion of Congress. If water is reserved 

by Congress when a river component is added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, it 

would come from water that is not appropriated at the time of designation, in the amount 

necessary to protect features that led to the river's inclusion into the system. The BLM's intent 

would be to leave existing water rights undisturbed and to recognize the lawful rights of private, 

municipal, and state entities to manage water resources under state law to meet the needs of the 

community. Federal law, including Section 13 of the Act and the McCarren Amendment (43 

United States Code [U.S.C.] 666), recognizes state jurisdiction over water allocation in 

designated streams. Thus, it is the BLM's position that existing water rights and existing 

developments on such streams would not be affected by designation or the creation of the 

possible federal reserved water right. The BLM would seek to work with upstream water users 

and applicable agencies to ensure that water flows are maintained at a level sufficient to sustain 

the values for which affected river segments were designated. 

2.1.1.4.3 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 

The Monticello FO manages 13 WSAs totaling approximately 389,444 acres. Where routes 

would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use could continue on a 

conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs ("ways" when located within WSAs—

see Glossary) could continue as long as the use of these routes does not impair wilderness 

suitability, as provided by the IMP (BLM 1995). If Congress designates the area as wilderness, 

the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or noncompliance are found through 

monitoring efforts to impair the area's suitability for wilderness designation, the BLM would 

take further action to limit use of the routes, or close them. The continued use of these routes, 

therefore, is based on user compliance and nonimpairment of wilderness values. Please see the 

Special Designation section of Table 2.1 for details. 

2.1.1.5 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Land-use planning decisions should be consistent with the BLM's mandate to recover listed 

species, and should be consistent with objectives and recommended actions in approved recovery 

plans, conservation agreements and strategies, memorandums of understanding (MOUs), and 

applicable biological opinions for threatened and endangered species. The Monticello PA has 10 

threatened, endangered, and candidate wildlife, fish, and plant species. They are the black-footed 

ferret, California Condor, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Mexican Spotted Owl, Western 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and 

the Navajo sedge. Standard stipulations have been developed in coordination with the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under all alternatives. 

In addition, there are 59 Special Status Species (please refer to Section 3.16.3.1 Special Status 

Species, Tables 3.54 and 3.55 for complete lists) where there is some discretion in management. 

Timing Limitations and Controlled Surface Use stipulations are applied to the habitat of some 

species and are spread by alternative. 

2.1.1.6 WILDLIFE

In planning, the BLM should identify actions and area-wide use restrictions needed to achieve 

desired population and habitat conditions while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2-8 

and multiple-use relationships. The range of alternatives for wildlife actions and habitats 

includes: 

• Pronghorn antelope: A Timing Limitation stipulation for surface-disturbing activities, 

including oil and gas development would be applied to pronghorn habitat. The size of habitat 

varies by alternative. 

• Desert bighorn sheep: Recommendations from the BLM Bighorn Sheep Rangeland 

Management Plan (BLM 1993c) would be adhered to where practicable. On-site mitigation 

to replace forage and browse species lost would be required in bighorn habitat. The size of 

the habitat varies by alternative. 

• Deer and elk: A Timing Limitation stipulation for surface-disturbing activities, including oil 

and gas development. Timing limitation and acreage vary by alternative. 

2.1.1.7 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

During planning, the Monticello FO identified decisions to protect or preserve non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics (naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and 

outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation). There are 582,360 acres that 

were found to have wilderness characteristics outside of existing WSAs; all of them would be 

protected and managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics values in Alternative E. 

Likewise, the Proposed Plan would address management of five units totaling 88,871 acres. 

There would not be specific prescriptions for wilderness characteristics under Alternatives A, B, 

C, and D. However, some of these areas would receive indirect beneficial protections from other 

resource prescriptions such as NSO, closed to leasing, VRM Class I, and limited or closed to 

OHV use. 

Table 2.1 provides a comprehensive description of the Proposed Plan and the Draft EIS 

alternatives carried forward for detailed environmental analysis. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-9 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL RESOURCES 

The goals and objectives described below apply to the Proposed Plan in addition to Draft RMP Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Goals and objectives for Alternative A (No Action AlterAcreage figures for Alternative A in this matrix may vary slightly from the acreages in the existing 1991 San Juan RMP. This variance is due to the current GIS technology that wa

designations. For the purpose of this plan, OHVs are defined as any motorized vehicle capable of or designed for travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding themergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; 3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by an authorized officer, or otherwise officiallwhen used in times of national defense emergencies. Designated routes can be categorized as mechanized only (bicycles), single-track motorized (dirt bikes), two-track motorized 

categories. Wilderness Study Areas would be managed according to the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review (IMP). All ACECs would be retained in public ownership, would be subject to appropriate fire management response, and would have travel limited to designated routes unless otherwise 

Education and Interpretation 

The BLM would work with its partners, including local school districts and universities, to develop a variety of opportunities to promote education, research, and interpretation on p

Fire, Drought, and Natural Disasters

The BLM would coordinate actions with affected parties where natural resources may be impacted by fire, drought, insects and diseases, or natural disasters. 

Monitoring 

The BLM would conduct monitoring for all resources to determine the effectiveness of management prescriptions in achieving RMP objectives or making progress toward them. 

Utah Standards for Rangeland Health 

BLM lands would be managed and uses would be authorized in a manner consistent with meeting or moving toward meeting Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997). 

ecological condition and trend objectives, would be incorporated across all resource programs as a minimum management objective. Management prescriptions in the form of con

resource objectives and/or to comply with current regulations. Management prescriptions may consider, but would not be limited to, the following: 

• Surface-disturbing activities: These would be closely monitored to ensure compliance with authorizations/permits, conditions of approval, or terms and conditions. Actions m

would be of paramount concern. During periods of drought, the BLM could require additional actions such as changes to standard seed mix compositions, amounts of seed, an

disturbance could include hydromulching, installation of drip irrigation, and/or temporary fencing to exclude ungulate grazing/browsing. 

• Livestock grazing: Active livestock use would be authorized in animal unit months (AUMs), season, and duration to meet static (no apparent trend) to upward trends towards 

diseases, or other natural disasters, the BLM would work cooperatively to implement a grazing strategy on an individual grazing allotment basis and make changes to the annu

accordance with the grazing regulations. The BLM may temporarily close allotments or portions of allotments to grazing where it is determined that other, less drastic measures 

permitted use or grazing practices, or non-use may also be implemented voluntarily by the permittee with BLM consent. 

• Wildlife management: During periods of prolonged dryness or drought or other natural disaster, to the extent that wildlife grazing ungulate populations may not be sustainable 

and/or available forage and/or overall animal health is compromised, the BLM may enter into discussions with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) regarding tempo

effects of drought. 

• Recreation: During periods of prolonged dryness or drought, the BLM, in cooperation with local and state fire management agencies, may limit campfires to established fire rin

campfires of any kind. 

• OHV use: OHV use during period of prolonged dryness could be further restricted to designated routes. If site-specific conditions warrant, closure to OHVs could be implement

resources, and to minimize the potential of spark caused fires. 

• SOPs: These would be implemented as described in Appendix I. 

AIR QUALITY 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Ensure that authorized uses on public lands meet or comply with and support federal, state, and local laws and regulations.MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES The best available control technology, recommended by the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), would be applied as needed to meet air quality standards. 

Prescribed burns would be consistent with the State of Utah Division of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) permitting process and timed in conjunction with meteorological conditions 

The BLM would comply with Utah Air Conservation (UAC) Regulation R307–205, which prohibits the use, maintenance, or construction of roadways without taking appropriate duThe BLM would comply with the current Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and UDAQ. The MOA, in actype, and estimated air emissions from each prescribed burn. The BLM would manage emissions to prevent deterioration to air quality in Class I Airsheds. The BLM will continue to work cooperatively with state, federal, and tribal entities in developing air quality assessment protocols to address cumulative impacts and regional air qu

The BLM will continue to work cooperatively with the Utah Airshed Group to manage emissions from wildland and prescribed fire activities. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards are enforced by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (UDEQ-DAQ), with EPA oversight. Special requirem

in processing land-use authorizations. The BLM will utilize best management practices (BMPs) and site-specific mitigation measures, when appropriate, based on site-specific conditions, to reduce emissions and enha
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-10 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives Corners Air Quality Task Force Report of Mitigation Options, November 1, 2007. Project specific analyses will consider use of quantitative air quality analysis methods (i.e., modeling), when appropriate as determined by the BLM, in consultation with state, fede

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Identify, preserve, and protect important cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations (FLPMA, Section 103[c], 201 Resources Protection Act, Section 14 [a]). Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural- or human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses (FLPMA, Section 103 [c

use comply with the NHPA Section 106.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES The BLM would nominate appropriate cultural resource objects, sites, districts, and multiple listings to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Priority geographic areas for new field inventory pursuant to Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protec

resources. These inventories would be conducted as funding is available and as opportunities arise. The BLM would ensure that all authorizations for land and resource use would comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), consistent with and subjin the public interest. Impacts to any NRHP-listed or eligible cultural resource sites, objects, or districts would be mitigated in accordance with 43 CFR 800, generally through avoidance of cultural sitesbe avoided, consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) would be initiated and the procedures identified in the National Programmatic Agreement and the Uta

followed. The BLM would consult with Native American tribes to identify, protect, and maintain access for areas of traditional and religious use that includes but is not limited to burials, rock 

Burial sites, associated burial goods, and sacred items would be protected in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the ArCultural resources would be evaluated according to National Register criteria (36 CFR Part 60.4) and assigned to appropriate use categories as the basis for management decisioCultural sites, including ethnographic properties, would continue to be allocated to one of six management use categories: experimental, discharged from management, public, scThe BLM would conduct a consultation process to identify both the resource management concerns and the strategies for addressing them through an interactive dialogue with apThe BLM would work with tribes and other communities with traditional linkage to public lands to identify places of traditional cultural and religious importance. To the extent allow

impacts to important values and to allow continued access for traditional purposes. When new sites are discovered, interim protection may be applied until Section 106 consultation and NAGPRA (CFR 10) processes are completed, if warranted. The BLM would provide for legitimate field research by qualified scientists and institutions. The BLM would work with local communities and other groups to foster heritage tourism throughout the Monticello PA. 

Protective measures would be established and implemented for sites, structures, objects, and traditional use areas that are important to tribes with historical and cultural connectio

auditory, visual, and esthetic settings of the resources. Protection measures for undisturbed cultural resources and their natural settings would be developed in compliance with reMANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES A Cedar Mesa management plan would be developed for culturally sensitive areas unless included in other integrated activity plans. The CRMP would be consistent with the goalmeasures such as restrictions and limitations on recreation around cultural at-risk areas and sites, Native American consultation, and regulatory compliance. These plans would a

sites and areas in need of stabilization and protective measures (e.g., fences, surveillance equipment); developing research designs for selected sites/areas; designating sites/are

inventory where federal undertakings are expected to occur; and developing specific mitigation measures. The plan would designate sites, districts, landmarks, and landscapes th

The BLM would proactively reduce hazardous fuels or mitigate the potential hazard around archaeological and cultural sites that are susceptible to destruction by fire from prescri

Moab District Fire Management Plan. The BLM would promote collaborative partnerships to assist in meeting management goals and objectives for cultural resources. Domestic pets and pack animals would not be allowed in cultural sites or on archaeological resources as defined in ARPA. Ropes and other climbing aids would not be allowed for access to cultural sites or archaeological resources as defined in ARPA, except for emergencies or administrative needs. 

Camping would not be allowed within cultural sites or archaeological resources as defined in ARPA. Cultural sites may be closed to visitation when they are determined to be at risk or pose visitor safety hazards. 

Comb Ridge Cultural Special Management Area (CSMA) (Map 2) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

No was identified in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. These lands are managed according to the 1991 San Juan RMP prescriptions. 

Comb Ridge (30,752) would be managed as a CSMA with the following prescriptions: 

• Managed for heritage tourism 

and traditional cultural values. 

Comb Ridge (30,752 acres) would be managed CSMA as in Alternative B except for the following: 

• Available for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products including on-site 

Comb Ridge would not be managed as a CSMA. The area would be managed with the same management prescriptions as the adjacent areas which are: 

• Available for private and/or 

Comb Ridge (30,7be managed as a following prescript

• Managed for he

and traditional c
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-11 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

• Unavailable for geophysical work, 

disposal of mineral materials, and recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

• Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to NSO. 

• Open for campfires at designated 

sites. 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Available for livestock use but it 

may be limited if cultural resources are impacted. 

• Available for range, wildlife 

habitat, and watershed improvements. 

• Available for non–surfacedisturbing vegetation treatments. • OHV use limited to designated 

routes. 

• The Comb Wash Campground 

would be developed (as proposed in 1991 San Juan RMP). 

• Closed to dispersed camping. 

Camping limited to designated camp areas and campgrounds with designated access routes and parking. 

• Establishment of a permit system 

for day and overnight use if necessary to protect cultural resources. 

• In camp areas without toilets, 

human waste must be packed out. 

• Designation and signing of trails 

from parking areas to cultural sites, which are included in the Cultural Management Plan. 

• Limited parking for day use to 

designated areas. 

collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Available for range, wildlife 

habitat, and watershed improvements, and vegetation treatments. 

• Available for surface-disturbing 

land treatments if consistent with current law, regulations, policy, and management plan objectives. 

• Commercial group size limited to 

12. 

commercial use of woodland products including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Available for range, wildlife 

habitat, and watershed improvements, and vegetation treatments. 

• Available for livestock use but it 

may be limited if cultural resources are impacted. 

• Available for surface-disturbing 

land treatments if consistent with management plan objectives. 

• OHV use limited to designated 

routes. 

• Unavailable for 

disposal of minrecommended from locatable m

• Unavailable for 

leasing. 

• Open for campf

sites. 

• Unavailable for 

commercial use products includcollection of decampfires. 

• Available for liv

may be limited resources are i

• Maintenance of 

improvements aimprovements. 

• Available for no

disturbing vege

• Limited OHV us

routes and closlands with wildecharacteristics. 

• Development o

Campground (a1991 San Juan 

• Closed to dispe

Camping limitecamp areas and with designated and parking. 

• Establishment o

for day and ovenecessary to prresources. 

• In camp areas w

human waste mout. 

• Hiking to cultur

designated traildeveloped in thsize limited to 1

• Limited parking 

designated are

Butler Wash, east of Comb Ridge • No allocation limit • No private group size limit • No commercial permit or group 

size limit 

• Open to camping • Open to OHV use 

Butler Wash, east of Comb Ridge Manage the same as Comb Ridge with the following exceptions: • Private group size limited to 6. • Commercial group size limited to 

12. 

• Butler Wash side canyons close 

Butler Wash, east of Comb Ridge Manage the same as Comb Ridge and the same as Alternative B with the following exceptions: 

• Private group size limited to 8. • Commercial group size limited to 

12. 

Butler Wash, east of Comb Ridge Manage the same as Comb Ridge with the following exceptions: 

• Private group size limited to 12. • Commercial group size limited to 

12. 

Butler Wash, easManage the same with the following e

• Private group s• Commercial gro

12. 

• Butler Wash ca
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-12 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives • Dogs allowed • No fees • Grazing allowed • Fires allowed 

to domestic pets and pack animals. 

• Designated primitive campsites. • If necessary, managed as part of 

Cedar Mesa permits and regulations, including regulations and permit fees. Groups would view low-impact video at Kane Gulch Ranger Station or Sand Island. 

domestic pets a

• Designated prim• Managed as if p

Mesa permits aincluding regulafees. Groups wimpact video at Ranger Station 

Tank Bench Cultural Special Management Area (CSMA) (Map 2) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

No CSMA was identified in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. These lands are managed according to the 1991 San Juan RMP prescriptions. 

Tank Bench (2,646 acres) would be managed as a CSMA with the following prescriptions: 

• Hiking limited to designated trails. • Group size limited to 12 people. • Human waste must be packed 

out. 

• Closed to domestic pets and 

pack animals. 

• Closed to OHV use. • Available for livestock use but it 

may be limited if cultural resources are impacted. 

• Available for watershed, range, 

and wildlife habitat improvements. 

• Available for non–surfacedisturbing vegetation treatments. • Closed to campfires. • Closed to private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products (including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires) with the exception of traditional cultural uses, as long as they do not adversely impact other resource values. 

• Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry, and unavailable for disposal of mineral materials and geophysical work. 

• Available for oil and gas leasing, 

subject to no surface occupancy. 

Tank Bench (2,646 acres) would be managed as a CSMA with the same as Alternative B except for: 

• Hiking not limited to designated 

trails. 

• Available for watershed, range, 

wildlife habitat improvements and vegetation treatments. 

• Available for surface-disturbing 

land treatments if consistent with management plan objectives. 

• Available for locatable mineral 

entry, disposal of mineral materials, and geophysical work. 

• Available for oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard lease terms. 

Tank Bench would not be managed as a CSMA. The area would be managed the same as adjacent areas with the following prescriptions: 

• Available for livestock use but 

may be limited if cultural resources are impacted. 

• Available for watershed, range, 

and wildlife habitat improvements. 

• Available for locatable mineral 

entry. 

• Available for disposal of mineral 

materials and geophysical work. 

• Available for oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard lease terms. 

• Available for campfires. • Available to private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, including the on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

Tank Bench (2,646 managed as a CSfollowing prescript

• Hiking limited to • Group size limit• Human waste m

out. 

• Closed to dome

pack animals. 

• Closed to OHV • Available for liv

may be limited resources are i

• Available for wa

and wildlife habimprovements. 

• Available for no

disturbing vege

• Closed to camp• Unavailable for 

commercial use products (includcollection of decampfires) with traditional cultuas they do not aother resource 

• Recommended 

from locatable munavailable for mineral materiageophysical wo

• Available for oil 

subject to no su

Beef Basin Cultural Special Management Area (CSMA) (Map 2) 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES The BLM would work with USFS and NPS to develop Interagency Recreation Commercial permits. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-13 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives  Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D AlternNo CSMA was identified in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. These lands are managed according to the 1991 San Juan RMP prescriptions. 

Beef Basin (20,302 acres) would be managed as a CSMA with the following prescriptions: 

• Management focus for the SRMA 

would be heritage, tourism, traditional cultural values, and scientific research of prehistoric cultural landscapes. 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products (including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires). 

• Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to timing limitations. 

• Available for livestock use, but 

may be limited if cultural resources are impacted. 

• Available for watershed, range, 

wildlife habitat improvements, and vegetation treatments. 

• OHV use limited to designated 

routes. 

• Development of a car 

campground in Ruin Park for primitive camping. 

• Designated primitive car camping 

areas in Middle Park, House Park, and along Beef Basin Loop Road, as well as other areas as necessary to control impacts to cultural resources. 

• Closure of all campsites that 

impact archaeological sites. 

• Cultural site visitation limited to 

designated trails. 

• Unavailable for campfires. • Group size limited to 12 • Removal of human waste 

required. 

• Parking for day use limited to 

designated areas. 

• Car camping limited to 

designated camp areas and campgrounds with designated access routes and parking. 

• Climbing gear use allowed as an 

aid to hiking routes only. No fixed lines, bolts, chalk, etc. allowed in order to protect rock art. 

Beef Basin (20,302 acres) would be managed as an CSMA the same as in Alternative B, except for the following: 

• Designated primitive car camping 

areas in Middle Park, House Park, and along Beef Basin Loop Road, as well as other areas as necessary to control impacts to cultural resources 

• Open for campfires; fire pan 

required. 

• Groups larger than 20 people 

total required to camp in designated areas and remove their waste. 

Beef Basin would not be managed as a CSMA. The area would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to timing limitations. 

• Available for livestock use but 

may be limited if cultural resources are impacted. 

• Available for watershed, range, 

and wildlife habitat improvements, and vegetation treatments. 

• Designated primitive campsites 

outside of Ruin Park. 

• Development of a (seasonal) 

commercial campground in Ruin Park area. 

• Closure of all campsites that 

impact archaeological sites. 

• No group size limits. • Open for campfires; fire pan 

required. 

• Climbing gear allowed as an aid 

to hiking routes only. No fixed lines, bolts, chalk, etc. allowed. 

Beef Basin (20,302 managed as a CSfollowing prescript

• Management fo

heritage, touriscultural values, research of prelandscapes. 

• Unavailable for 

commercial use products (includcollection of decampfires). 

• Available for dis

materials under conditions and for withdrawal f

• Available for oil 

subject to timin

• Available for ge• Available for liv

may be limited resources are i

• No new improv

maintenance of improvements a

• OHV use limite

routes and closlands with wildecharacteristics. 

• Development o

campground in primitive campi

• Designated prim

within the interiBasin Loop Roa

• Closure of all c

impact archaeonegatively impacharacteristics. 

• Cultural site vis

designated trail

• Closed to camp• Group size limit

total. 

• Removal of hum

required. 

• Parking for day 

designated are

• Car camping lim

designated camcampgrounds w
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-14 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

access routes a

• Climbing gear u

aid to hiking roulines, bolts, chaorder to protect 

McLoyd Canyon–Moon House Cultural Special Management Area (CSMA) (Map 

McLoyd Canyon–Moon House is within a WSA; WSAs are managed under the IMP. The special management prescriptions below apply to Moon House for cultural protection.

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

No SRMA was identified in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. These lands are managed according to the 1991 San Juan RMP prescriptions. 

McLoyd Canyon–Moon House (1,607 acres) would be managed as a Management Zone (MZ) within Cedar Mesa SRMA with the following prescriptions: 

• Develop a cultural resource 

management plan (CRMP) for McLoyd Canyon–Moon House. 

• Public access limited via a permit 

system for day visits. 

• No more than 12 36 people 

allowed to visit Moon House per day. Limitations on visitation may change based on site monitoring of impacts of visitation. 

• One commercial group per day. 

Commercial trip numbers included in the day use number of 36. 

• Access to interior corridor limited 

to three people at any one time. 

• Visitors would not be allowed to 

enter the Moon Room and adjoining rooms. 

• Human waste must be packed 

out. 

• Designated primitive camp and 

park area west of the Snow Flat Road. Camping prohibited outside of this primitive camp area. 

• Hiking to Moon House site limited 

to designated trail. 

• Closed to pack animals and pets. • Closed to campfires. • Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• McLoyd Canyon closed to 

overnight use from the head of the canyon to UTM: 607100E, 4143495N. 

Same as Alternative B except: 

• Access to interior corridor limited 

to 4 people at any one time. 

Same as Alternative C except: 

• 24 people would be allowed to 

visit Moon House per day. Limitations on visitation may change based on-site monitoring of impacts of visitation. 

• Two commercial groups per day 

allowed, but total number of visitors not to exceed more than 24 people per day. 

• Travel allowed on Road D4798, 

limited to the designated route. 

McLoyd Canyon–M(1,607 acres) woua Management ZoCedar Mesa SRMA following prescript

• Develop a CRM

Canyon–Moon 

• Public access l

system for day 

• No more than 1

be allowed to vHouse/day. Limvisitation may csite monitoring visitation. 

• One commercia• Access to interi

to three people 

• Visitors would n

enter the Moon adjoining rooms

• Human waste m

out. 

• Designated prim

park area west Road. Camping outside of this parea. 

• Hiking to Moon 

to designated tr

• Closed to pack • Closed to camp• Unavailable for 

commercial use products, includcollection of decampfires. 

• McLoyd Canyo

overnight use frthe canyon to U4143495N. 

• Utah State Sec

Range 19E, Seacquired. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-15 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

• Utah State Section Township 39S 

Range 19E, Section 2 to be acquired. 

• Development of a site 

stewardship program to monitor site and possibly develop guided tours. 

• Development o

stewardship prosite and possibtours. 

Grand Gulch National Historic District 

Grand Gulch National Historic District is within a WSA; WSAs are managed under the IMP. The special management prescriptions below apply to Grand Gulch National Historic D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area/Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,433 acres) would be managed for Cultural and Recreational values (natural values associated with primitive recreation/scenic): • Unavailable for mineral leasing in 

Grand Gulch Special Emphasis area. 

• Available for geophysical work 

except Grand Gulch Special Emphasis area. 

• Closed to disposal of mineral 

materials. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

classified as segregated from entry (a Secretarial withdrawal would be requested). 

• Excluded from private ownership 

and commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Available for livestock use, 

except Grand Gulch Canyon and associated tributaries, below Kane Gulch fence to the confluence with the San Juan River (approximately 16,599 acres). 

• Closed to OHV use. • Managed as VRM Class I. • Excluded from surface 

disturbance by mechanized or motorized equipment. 

• Managed for Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Primitive (P)-class to provide primitive recreation opportunities in the ROS areas. 

• ROS P-class areas protected 

from surface disturbance to the 

Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,388 acres) would be managed with the following prescriptions: • Unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing 

• Unavailable for geophysical 

activities. 

• Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. Campfires limited to mesa tops only (no campfires in the canyon). 

• Available for livestock use, 

except Grand Gulch Canyon and associated tributaries, below Kane Gulch fence to the confluence with the San Juan River (approximately 16,316 acres). 

• Closed to OHV use. • Excluded from surface 

disturbance by mechanized or motorized equipment. 

• Excluded from habitat 

improvements, watershed improvements, and vegetation treatments. Exceptions are nonmotorized weed control with no surface disturbance. 

• Designate trails and camping 

areas as necessary to protect cultural resources. 

• Closed to pack animals and pets. • Human waste must be packed 

out. 

Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,388 acres) would be managed the same as Alternative B except for the following: 

• Nonmotorized habitat 

improvements, watershed improvements, vegetation treatments, including aerial seeding, hand reseeding, planting seedlings, and control of invasive non-native species allowed as long as they do not impact cultural resources based on a site-specific analysis, and are consistent with the IMP. 

• Limitations on numbers of trips 

may be implemented if cultural resources are impacted. 

• Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 

Grand Gulch National Historic District (37,388 acres) would be managed the same as Alternative C with the following exceptions: 

• Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to NSO. 

• Available for geophysical 

exploration that meets definition of "casual use" as defined 43 CFR 3150. 

• Pets and pack animals allowed. 

Grand Gulch NatioDistrict (37,388 acmanaged as prescand with the follow

• Unavailable to 

leasing. 

• Unavailable for 

activities. 

• Unavailable for 

mineral materia

• Recommended 

from locatable m

• Unavailable for 

commercial use products, excepsite collection ocampfires. Cammesa tops only the canyon). 

• Available for liv

except Grand Gassociated tribuKane Gulch fenconfluence with River (approximacres). 

• Closed to OHV • Excluded from 

disturbance by motorized equip

• Excluded from 

improvements, improvements, treatments. Excnonmotorized wno surface distu

• Designated trai

areas as necescultural resourc

• Closed to pack • Human waste m

out. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-16 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

maximum extent possible. 

• Open to leasing with NSO in 

ROS P-class areas. 

• Managed to limit recreation use if 

cultural resources or scenic values are being damaged. 

• Subject to conditional fire 

suppression with motorized suppression methods used only if necessary to protect life or property. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT

Fire management would adopt the comprehensive Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management, September 2005 (LUP Amendment; BLM 2005c). This docuapproved by the LUP Amendment is incorporated by reference into this RMP. Refer to Map 3, which identifies the Fire Management Areas. Specific decisions for other resources 

content and purpose of the LUP Amendment is adopted and is summarized as follows: 

• Establishes landscape-level fire management goals and objectives. • Describes Desired Wildland Fire Conditions (DWFC) and the management strategies and actions to meet DWFC goals. • Describes areas where fire may be restored to the ecosystem through wildland fire use for resource benefit and areas where wildland fire use is not appropriate. • Identifies Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) for fire management practices to protect natural and cultural resource values. • Identifies criteria used to establish fire management priorities. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Firefighter and public safety are the primary goals in all fire management decisions and actions. Appendix B, Desired Wildland Fire Condition and Condition Class, shows the different responses allowed for the planning area (PA). Wildland fire would be utilized to protect, maintain and enhance resources and, when possible, would be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. Hazardous fuels reduction treatments would be used to restore ecosystems; protect human, natural and cultural resources; and reduce the threat of wildfire to communities. Fires would be suppressed at minimum cost, taking into account firefighter and public safety as well as benefits and values to be protected that are consistent with resource objecThe BLM would implement a consistent, safe, and cost-effective fire management program through appropriate planning, staffing, training, and equipment. 

Fire management objectives would be established for every area with burnable vegetation, based on sound science and consideration of other resource objectives. 

Emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration efforts would be implemented to protect and sustain resources, public health and safety, and community infrastructure. The BLM would work together with partners and other impacted groups and individuals to reduce risks to communities and to restore ecosystems. 

The Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions identified in consultation with the USFWS for the LUP Amendment would be implemented in fire-related actionThe BLM would work together with Native Americans to provide for their use of woodland products as associated with fire, fuels, and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (E

Criteria for Establishing Fire Management Priorities

Protection of human life is the primary fire management priority. Establishing a priority among protecting human communities and community infrastructure, other property and im

the values to be protected, and the costs of protection. When firefighters and other personnel have been committed to an incident, these human resources become the highest va

actions are based on the following: 

• Protection of the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) (including At-Risk Communities and At-Risk Watersheds) • Maintaining existing healthy ecosystems • High priority subbasins or watersheds • Threatened, endangered, or special status species • Cultural resources and/or cultural landscapes Suppression 

An Appropriate Management Response (AMR) procedure is required for every wildland fire that is not a prescribed fire. In all fire management decisions, strategies, and actions, f

and values to be protected as well as suppression costs. The AMR can range from full suppression to managing fire for resource benefit (wildland fire use). Resource goals and omanagement activities in regard to the accomplishment of those objectives. The FMP establishes fire suppression objectives with minimum and maximum suppression targets for are the first priority, considerations for suppression activities also include fire intensity, acreage, and spread potential; threats to life and property; potential to impact high-value re

crucial wildlife habitat; cultural resources and/or riparian areas; historic fire regimes; and other special considerations such as wilderness and/or adjacent agency lands. 

Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit

Wildland fire is authorized as a tool, when appropriate, to allow naturally ignited wildland fire to accomplish specific resource management objectives. Due to existing resource conon all BLM lands in the FO. Consideration of ongoing management decisions and other natural changes would direct periodical reassessment of DWFC and determination of pote
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-17 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives described in the Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP). The FMP identifies FMUs that may have the potential for wildland fire use. Wildland fire use may be authorized for all areas, except when the following resources and values may 

to protect such resources and values: 

• WUI areas • Areas known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or invasive weed invasion • Important terrestrial and aquatic habitats • Non–fire-adapted vegetation communities • Sensitive cultural resources • Areas of soil with high or very high erosion hazard • Class I areas and PM10 nonattainment areas • Administrative sites • Developed recreation sites • Communication sites • Oil, gas, and mining facilities • Aboveground utility corridors • High-use travel corridors, such as interstates, railroads, and/or highways Fuels Treatment

Fuels management activities outlined in the FMP would be consistent with the resource goals and objectives contained in the RMP. To reduce hazards and to restore ecosystems

mechanical, manual, chemical, biological, and seeding treatments. The FMP describes fuels management goals and objectives, and the full range of fuels management strategies 

DWFC of restoring historic fire regimes to ecosystems when feasible, so that future wildland fire use actions can be more easily implemented. Fuels management decisions may include but are not limited to the following activities: 

• Mechanical treatments such as mowing, chopping, or chipping/grinding (brush cutter), chaining, tilling, or cutting • Manual treatments such as handcutting (chainsaw or handsaw) and handpiling • Prescribed fire, including broadcast, underburn, and handpile burning • Chemical spraying or biological treatments such as insects or goats/sheep • Seeding including aerial or ground application (manual or mechanical) Targeted areas may be treated in phases over a period of several years and may involve multiple and varied treatments. Estimated fuels reduction treatments of 5,000 to 10,000 a

Implementation of fuels management decisions would be prioritized using the following criteria: 

• WUI areas • Areas with fuel loading that could potentially result in the loss of ecosystem components following wildland fire • Resource management goals and objectives Prevention and Mitigation

Prevention and mitigation goals target a reduction in unauthorized wildland fire ignitions. Goals include coordination with partners and affected groups and individuals, and a wide 

signing, and defensible space education. Implementation of fire prevention activities would be prioritized using the following criteria: 

• WUI areas • Major travel corridors • Recreation sites • Public lands as a whole Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R)

A Normal Year Fire Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan (NFRP) is in place to meet ES&R needs and to comply with up-to-date ES&R policy and guidance. The NFRP is a progra

communities and dependent upon post-wildland fire conditions and other site-specific considerations. Treatment actions that are designed according to the type and severity of wi

criteria apply: 

• It is necessary to protect human life and safety as well as property. • Unique or critical cultural and/or historical resources are at risk. • It is determined soils are highly susceptible to accelerated erosion. • Perennial grasses and forbs (fire-tolerant plants) are not expected to provide soil and watershed protection within two years. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-18 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives • There is a need to establish a vegetative fuel break of less flammable species (greenstrips). • Unacceptable vegetation, such as noxious weeds, may readily invade and become established. • Shrubs and forbs are a crucial habitat component for wintering mule deer, antelope, sage-grouse, or other special status species. • Stabilization and rehabilitation are necessary to meet RMP resource objectives, including rangeland seedings. • It is necessary to protect water quality. • It is necessary to quickly restore threatened, endangered, or special status species habitat populations to prevent negative impacts. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES Fire suppression on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be through light on the land techniques. The Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (FMP) would be updated and amended to meet the direction and objectives of the RMP.

HEALTH AND SAFETY 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Effectively manage hazardous risks on public lands to protect the health and safety of public land users and stewards; protect the natural and environmental resources; minimize f

in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Human Health and Safety

The BLM would strive to ensure that human health and safety concerns on the public lands it manages are appropriately mitigated if determined hazardous. 

Abandoned Mine Lands

In conformance with the BLM's long-term strategies and National Policies regarding Abandoned Mine Lands (AMLs), this RMP recognizes the need to work with our partners towa

sites on public lands. In order to achieve this goal, a state strategy has been written. National program criteria for determining site priorities were used to develop the work plan. T

following criteria would be established to assist in determining priorities for site and area mitigation and reclamation. AML physical safety program priorities: 

• Highest priority would be cleaning up AML sites where (a) a death or injury has occurred, (b) the site is situated on or in immediate proximity to developed recreation sites and 

high risk level is indicated; 

• AML would be factored into future recreation management area designations, land-use planning assessments, and all applicable use authorizations; • The site is presently listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mines and Site Cleanup Module; • AML hazards should be, to the extent practicable, mitigated or remediated on the ground during site development. • AML water-quality program priorities are ones where the state has identified the watershed as a priority based on 1) one or more water laws or regulations; 2) threat to public h

effort with other land managing agencies; 5) the site is presently listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mines and Site Cleanup Module; and 6) the project would be fu

These priorities would be maintained and updated as needed in the state AML strategy. The BLM would identify and clean up unauthorized dumping and shooting areas in the PA as required to comply with applicable state, local, and federal regulations. These would 

Hovenweep, the Monticello Airport, and Paiute Knoll. Hazardous Materials

Use, transportation, storage and disposal of hazardous materials shall comply with the applicable Federal and State laws. Use of pesticides and herbicides shall be used only in a

the Interior. Hazardous Waste

The BLM would respond to releases as appropriate. 

LANDS AND REALTY 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The BLM would retain lands within its administration except where necessary to accomplish resource goals and objectives outlined in the plan. The BLM would transfer lands out needed to accomplish resource goals and objectives, improve administration of public lands, or to meet essential community needs. 

Make public land available for a variety of ROWs, alternative energy sources, and permits where consistent with resource, goals, objectives, and prescriptions. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES The BLM would not transfer out of federal ownership any habitat for listed threatened or endangered species or any habitat for non-listed special status species if it could be deterendangered. Acquisition of potential/occupied special status species habitat would be high priority. These acquired/exchanged lands would be managed according to BLM land mUnder IMP and Congressional action, WSAs and Wilderness Areas would be exclusion areas for any ROWs (Section 501[a] FLPMA). Land Tenure Adjustments 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-19 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives Lands would be considered for disposal or acquisition if the changes are in accordance with resource management objectives and other RMP decisions, and would meet one or m• Such changes are determined to be in the public interest and would accommodate the needs of local and state governments, including needs for the economy, public purposes• Such changes would result in a net gain of important and manageable resources on public lands such as crucial wildlife habitat, important cultural sites, quality riparian areas, • Such changes would ensure public access to lands in areas where access is needed and cannot otherwise be obtained. • Such changes would promote effective management and meet essential resource objectives through land ownership consolidation. • Such changes would result in acquisition of lands that serve regional or national priorities identified in applicable policy directives. • Such changes have been identified in existing activity plans (i.e., habitat management plans, etc.). 

Acquisitions would be managed in the same manner as adjoining lands unless they are acquired for a specific purpose (i.e., wildlife habitat, buffer zones near other federal lands, 

• A priority section for acquisition would be Utah State Section Township 39S Range 19E, Section 2, to acquire culturally sensitive lands in the McLoyd Canyon–Moon House are

Give land exchanges with the State of Utah priority consideration to resolve in-holdings issues. The BLM would recognize the mission, goals, and objectives of the State of Utah a

would work cooperatively with the State of Utah in identifying opportunities for Land Tenure Agreements (LTAs) that may assist the state in furthering its mission. These agreemen

LTA criteria; and comply with goals and objectives for resource management prescribed in the RMP. They would be processed on a case-by-case basis, with consideration given 

Filming Permits

Applications for filming permits in the Monticello PA would be limited to existing highways, roads, and pullouts and previously disturbed or cleared areas throughout the Field Offic

Highway 95) and would have to meet the following criteria of minimal impact to be approved without any NEPA analysis. Filming projects that do not meet these criteria would be NEPA documents including EAs, on BLM-managed lands in Utah within WSAs (EA USO-06-004), or other programmatic NEPA documents that may be developed on a local, stat

• Project would not impact sensitive habitat or species. • Project would not impact cultural resources or Native American sacred sites. • Project would not involve use of pyrotechnics. • Project would not involve more than minimum impacts to land, air, or water. (Minimum is defined as temporary impact only; no permanent impacts; no surface disturbance allow

the filming). 

• Project would not involve use of explosives. • Project would not involve use of exotic plant or animal species that could cause danger of introduction into the area. • Project would not involve WSAs, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, WSR corridors, National Register Eligible Sites, and Native American Sacred Sites. • Project would not involve adverse impacts to sensitive surface resource values including: historic, cultural or paleontological sites; sensitive soils; relict environments; wetlands • Project does not involve substantial restriction of public access. • Project does not involve substantial use of domestic livestock. • Project does not involve 15 or more production vehicles within sensitive area. • Project does not involve 75 or more people within sensitive area. • The activity within the sensitive area would not continue in excess of 10 days. • No refueling allowed within sensitive areas. • Aircraft use in area with wildlife concerns is not proposed during crucial wildlife period for more than 1 day and does not exceed frequency of 2 projects per 30-day period. • Aircraft use in area with no wildlife concerns is proposed for no more than 2 days and does not exceed frequency of 3 projects per 30-day period. • Use of aircraft is not proposed within 0.5 mile of a designated campground located within a sensitive area and the number of low-elevation passes would not exceed 4 passes 

Recreation and Public Purpose Act (R&PP) and Other Authorizations for Disposal 

Lands conveyed to state or local governments or non-profit organizations under the R&PP Act may include those identified in LTAs. In addition, requests for lands other than thos

a greater public benefit than that which the current management provides, and that the action is otherwise consistent with this RMP. Examples may include but are not limited to lo

shooting ranges, landfills, motocross tracks, racetracks, etc. Other authorizations for disposal include the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, state selections under the Enabling Trespass Resolution

Resolution of intentional trespass would be limited to removal and/or restoration as appropriate. Resolution of unintentional trespass may include authorization under ROW grant, exchange; or removal, depending on the nature of the trespass. In all such trespass cases, administrative costs incurred by the BLM for investigating and resolving trespasses wo

or permits would be subject to payment by the holder/lessee/permittee of rent based on market value. Trespass cases resolved by land sales would be based on fair market valueAccess 

ROWs for state and private in-holdings, in-field oil and gas leases, and pipelines for producing oil and gas wells would be approved subject to a determination of "reasonable" acc

As per the State of Utah v. Andrus, October 1, 1979 (Cotter Decision), the BLM would grant the State of Utah reasonable access to state lands for economic purposes, on a case 

Easements 

Easements would be acquired from willing landowners and the State of Utah to gain access to public lands or placement of facilities on non-public lands, and acquire easements t

Rights-of-ways

Right-of-way (ROW) avoidance and exclusion areas would generally be consistent with the stipulations identified in Appendix A for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-20 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives values. Areas identified as NSO are open to oil and gas leasing but surface-disturbing activities cannot be conducted on the surface of the land. Access to oil and gas deposits wo

areas are avoidance areas for ROWs; no ROW would be granted in NSO areas unless there are no feasible alternatives. Applications for new ROW on public lands would be considered and analyzed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration areas identified for avoidance and exclusion. Prounder requirements of applicable laws for resource protection. Wind and Solar Development

ROW applications for wind or solar energy development would incorporate best management practices (BMPs) and provisions contained in the Wind Energy or Solar Programma

grants. Sale Disposal Criteria

As described under Sections 203 (a) of FLPMA (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1713; 1716), public lands have potential for disposal by sale when they are isolated and/or difficu

Sale or other disposals, approximately 6,580 acres of land, are identified for disposal by legal description in Appendix C (Lands and Realty, Tracts Identified for Disposal) These la

203 criteria. Transportation and Utility Corridors 

This RMP would adopt the existing designated ROW corridors including the Western Utility Group (WUG) updates to the Western Regional Corridor Study (Map 4 and Section 36

additional corridors subject to physical barriers and sensitive resource values. Designated transportation and utility corridors include existing groupings of ROWs for electric transmstate highways, and major county road systems. 

Rights-of-way (ROW)

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Lands available for ROWs are divided into four categories according to the 1991 San Juan RMP prescriptions (page 37): 1) Lands within designated transportation and utility corridors, 2) lands outside designated transportation and utility corridors, 3) lands to be avoided, and 4) lands to be excluded. Avoidance Areas: 120,800 acres • Cedar Mesa ACEC • Portion of Grand Gulch • Dark Canyon ACEC • ROS SPM area of San Juan 

River SRMA 

• Developed Recreation Sites Exclusion Areas: 253,790 acres • Alkali Ridge ACEC • Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC • Butler Wash ACEC • Cedar Mesa ACEC, partial • Hovenweep ACEC • Indian Creek ACEC • Lavender Mesa ACEC • Pearson Canyon Hiking Area • Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC • Shay Canyon ACEC • Most ROS P-class areas 

Consider lands available for ROWs except for : • Avoidance Areas: 125,105 acres. • Exclusion Areas: 416,612 acres. 

Consider lands available for ROWs except for: 

• Avoidance Areas: 39,323 acres. • Exclusion Areas: 395,329 acres. 

Consider lands available for ROWs except for: 

• Avoidance Areas: 14,175 acres. • Exclusion Areas: 386,853 acres. 

Consider lands avexcept for: 

• Avoidance Area• Exclusion Area

Withdrawal Processing and Review

General Management Guidance
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-21 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives FLPMA requires the BLM to review agency withdrawals and prior Classification and Multiple Use Act (C&MU) classifications according to schedules prepared by USO or upon spewithdrawals (24,140 acres); withdrawals found to be obsolete can be removed. New withdrawals are processed upon request from the BLM or other federal agencies, but can be 

Support 

Support from Utah State Office and Washington Office would be needed for requests for withdrawal. Interdisciplinary staff support would be needed for coordination and developm

administering agencies, or the State of Utah may also be required. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be required where threatened or endangered specie

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Withdraw 132,380 acres (Map 5) from locatable mineral entry as listed below. Review existing withdrawals and remove unnecessary ones. • C&MU classification (prior to 

RMP) (92,130 acres) 

• Acquired lands (9,730 acres) • Lands open prior to the RMP 

(30,520 acres) 

Areas recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry (251,710 acres) (Map 6): • Tank Bench (2,646 acres) • Comb Ridge (42,428 acres) • Grand Gulch NHD (37,388 acres) • All developed recreation sites 

(232 acres) 

• San Juan River SRMA (10,203 

acres) 

• Alkali Ridge NHL (2,146 acres) • Valley of Gods ACEC (22,863 

acres) 

• Colorado River Segment 3 (1,040 

acres) 

• Dark Canyon River Segment 

(2,048 acres) 

• Dark Canyon ACEC 

(61,660acres) 

• Indian Creek ACEC (3,908) 

acres) 

• Lockhart Basin ACEC (47,783 

acres) 

• Butler Wash North ACEC (17,365 

acres) 

Areas recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry (121,912 acres (Map 7): 

• Comb Ridge (42,428 acres) • Grand Gulch NHD (37,388 acres) • All developed recreation sites 

(232 acres) 

• San Juan River SRMA (9,859 

acres) 

• Alkali Ridge NHL (2,146 acres • Valley of Gods ACEC (22,863 

acres) 

• Colorado River Segment 3 (1,040 

acres) 

• Dark Canyon River Segment 

(2,048 acres) 

• Indian Creek ACEC (3,908 acres) 

Areas recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry (46,131 acres (Map 8): 

• Grand Gulch NHD (37,388 acres) • All developed recreation sites 

(232 acres) 

• San Juan River SRMA (6,365 

acres) 

• Alkali Ridge NHL (2,146 acres) 

Same as Alternativall non-WSA lands characteristics (839) would be recomwithdrawal. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Achieve Rangeland Health Standards (BLM 1997) and other desired resource conditions. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Manage grazing according to Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management (BLM 1997) (Appendix D). Maintain lands currently unavailable (128,098 acres) for livestock grazing (due to vegetation, recreation, wildlife, or other concerns). Maintain existing land treatments as prioritized in Appendix D, to meet RMP objectives and Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997). Any new land treatments developed in a

and Standards for Rangeland Health. Modify and implement existing (Tank Draw and East Canyon) and new Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) as necessary to meet RMP objectives and Standards for Rangeland site-specific basis, for which resource concerns develop that require such action. Continue to authorize current active permitted grazing use unless monitoring data or other factors indicate a need for change (e.g., change in federal land ownership, etc.). 

Continue to categorize allotments in accordance with BLM policy. Manage allotments towards mid- to late-seral ecological condition that meet other goals and objectives of this RMP until replaced by a more specific allotment objective classificat

Forage, Livestock/Wildlife 

Coordinate with UDWR and grazing permittees to manage for long-term forage and habitat and/or ecological condition requirements or needs for livestock and wildlife, consistent 

Seasons of Use

Changes in livestock season of use would be made by the FO on an allotment-specific basis to meet RMP objectives or Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997), as shown b
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-22 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives *Allotment seasons of use, subject to the statement above, would be the same as in the current RMP (see Appendix D Livestock Grazing) with the following exceptions noted in MMANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES *Season of Use Changes (modified to match grazing permits as currently authorized, yet altered from the 1991 San Juan RMP):1• Church Rock season of use would end May 31.1• Indian Rock season of use would end April 15.1 • Owens Dugout season of use would end April 30.1 • Laws season of use would be April 16–November 15.1 • Bear Trap Season of use would be September 1–December 12.1• Monument Canyon season of use would be December 1–May 31.1

*New Allotments—Established Since 1991 San Juan RMP (grazing permits as currently authorized):1

• South Vega season of use would be January 6–February 28.1• Upper Mail Station season of use would be November 14–February 28.1• Big Westwater season of use would be April 1–May 31 or October 15–December 15.1 Glen Canyon NRASpecific management direction for livestock grazing is provided for under the Glen Canyon NRA 1999 Grazing Management Plan. Areas Unavailable for Grazing

Areas made unavailable for grazing may be reconsidered as available for grazing during subsequent revision or amendment of the RMP. 

Utilization 

Desired utilization levels as management guidelines for key forage species would be identified as needed to monitor use levels on an allotment specific basis to achieve Desired F

of 50% would be the management guideline. Utilization is the proportion or degree of current year's forage production that is consumed or removed by animals (including insects)current or historic impacts (wildfire, livestock, wildlife, insects, etc.), and long-term trend data to help evaluate existing and design future management to meet LUP objectives. Relinquishment of Preference 

Voluntary relinquishments of grazing permits and preference, in whole or in part, by a permittee in writing to the BLM will be handled on a case by case basis. The BLM will not re

BLM will not be bound by them. Relinquished permits and the associated preference will remain available for application by qualified applicants after BLM considers if such action 

and objectives. Prior to re-issuance of the relinquished permit the terms and conditions may be modified to meet LUP goals and objectives and/or site-specific resource objectivesHowever, upon relinquishment, BLM may determine through a site-specific evaluation and associated NEPA analysis that the public lands involved are better used for other purpo

the existing LUP or a new LUP effort. Any decision issued concerning discontinuance of livestock grazing is not permanent and may be reconsidered and changed through future 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Continue to make unavailable for grazing 128,098 acres as follows (Map 12): • Comb Wash side canyons 

(Mule Canyon south of U-95, Arch, Fish, Owl, and Road). These areas were made unavailable to grazing by court decision and are also made unavailable to grazing in this RMP revision. 

• Bridger Jack Mesa (near relict 

vegetation) 

• Grand Gulch area (within the 

canyon) of Cedar Mesa 

Same as Alternative A with the additional following areas made unavailable to grazing (Map 13): • Slickhorn Canyon (Perkins 

Brother's Allotment) 

• Rone Bailey Mesa (Upper Mail 

Station Allotment) 

• Dodge Canyon Allotment • Mule Canyon (including North 

and South Forks north of U-95) 

• Rogers Allotment • Portions of West Butler Wash 

Canyons 

• Horsehead Canyon within 

Same as Alternative B except for Mule Canyon, which would be made unavailable for grazing south of U-95 (North and South Forks north of U95 would be open) (Map 14). 

Same as Alternative A with the additional following areas made unavailable for grazing (Map 15): 

• Slickhorn Canyon (within Perkins 

Brother's Allotment) 

• Rone Bailey Mesa (within Upper 

Mail Station Allotment) 

• Mule Canyon south of U-95 • Rogers Allotment • Portions of West Butler Wash 

Canyons 

Grazing in the riparian area of the San Juan River SRMA would be restricted to October 1–May 31 and must meet or exceed PFC, and 

Same as Alternaadditional followiunavailable for gra

• Slickhorn Cany

Brother's Allotm

• Rone Bailey Me

Mail Station All

• Dodge Canyon • Mule Canyon (i

and South Fork

• Rogers Allotme• Portions of Wes

Canyons 

• Horsehead Can

1 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information2 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-23 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives • Lavender Mesa (relict 

vegetation) 

• Five identified mesa tops (White 

Canyon area) 

• Pearson Canyon (hiking area 

boundary) 

• Developed recreation sites 

(currently developed and proposed and listed in the recreation section. Any sites additional to those listed may be unavailable for grazing without a plan amendment and would be analyzed with site-specific NEPA). 

• Parts of the slopes of Peter's 

Canyon and East Canyon (15,720 acres of wildlife habitat). 

• Dark Canyon Area, with the 

exception of 962 acres in Fable Valley that is limited to trailing on an annual basis and grazing use under emergency conditions. 

Montezuma Canyon allotment 

Harts Canyon, Shay Canyon ACEC, and Indian Creek from Kelly Ranch vicinity to USFS boundary would be restricted to livestock trailing only, no grazing, as stipulated as a Term and Condition on the pertinent grazing permit. Moki Canyon and Lake Canyon would be restricted to trailing only except in the spring and fall for up to 1 to 2 weeks to gather livestock prior to moving to and from these areas. The BLM would develop seasonal restrictions, closures, and/or forage utilization limits on grazing in riparian areas deemed Functioning at Risk and/or Non-functional. Moki Canyon is open to grazing above the fence (northeast) at Harrison Spring and below the fence (southwest) downstream where the sand slide and road join Moki Canyon. Grazing in the riparian area of the San Juan River SRMA would be restricted to October 1–May 31 and must meet or exceed PFC, and incorporate rest-rotation and/or deferment systems. This would include Perkins Brothers, East League, and McCracken Wash Allotments. Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage Grouse, and Dry Farm allotments would not be grazed from March 20 to May 15 (Gunnison Sage-grouse nesting season)2. 

incorporate rest-rotation and/or deferment systems. This would include Perkins Brothers, East League, and McCracken Wash Allotments. Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage-grouse and Dry Farm allotments would not be grazed March 20–May 15 (Gunnison Sagegrouse nesting season). 

Montezuma Ca

Moki Canyon, LaCanyon, and InKelly Ranch vicinboundary would livestock trailing ostipulated as a Teon the pertinent gBLM would drestrictions, closuutilization limits riparian areas Fuand/or Non-functioGrazing in the ripSan Juan River restricted to Octobmust meet or eincorporate restdeferment systeinclude Perkins League, and MAllotments. Sage Flat, UppeSage Grouse allotments would nMarch 20 to MaSage-grouse nesti

MINERAL RESOURCES

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Continue to meet local and national energy and other public mineral needs to the extent possible. Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible exploration and developm

regulations. Ensure a viable long-term industry related to leasable, locatable, and salable mineral development while providing reasonable and necessary protections to other resources. EstaThe following principles would be applied: Encourage and facilitate the development by private industry of public land mineral resources in a manner that satisfies national and local needs and provides for economical and Process applications, permits, operating plans, mineral exchanges, leases, and other use authorizations for public lands in accordance with policy and guidance; and Monitor salable and leasable mineral operations to ensure proper resource recovery and evaluation, production verification, diligence and inspection, and enforcement of the leas

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES The plan would provide for a variety of mineral exploration and development activities. These activities would be allowed in the PA unless precluded by other program prescriptionare applicable. Seasonal wildlife conditions would not apply to maintenance and operation activities for mineral production (see also Wildlife). WSAs and designated Wilderness would remain closed, by law, to mineral leasing and development. Management for geophysical work would be available unless stated specifically in alternatives that it is unavailable. The Monticello PA would be open for mineral entry unless specifically withdrawn by Secretarial Order, public law or segregated from mineral entry under specific reservations, suc
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-24 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives In areas where the No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation for oil and gas leasing is applied, the same restriction would also, where appropriate and practical, to other surface-d

and leases issued on BLM lands. The restrictions would not apply to activities and uses where they are contrary to laws, regulations or specific program guidance. The intent is to 

surface-disturbing activities. Leasable Minerals 

Oil and Gas The plan would recognize and be consistent with the l National Energy Policy Act and related BLM policy by adopting the following objectives: 

recognizing the need for diversity in obtaining energy supplies; encouraging conservation of sensitive resource values; and improving energy distribution opportunities. All lands are available for leasing subject to standard lease terms, unless otherwise specified in the plan. Lease stipulations would be developed in the plan, where necessary, to m

adhere to the Uniform Format prepared by the Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinating Committee in March 1989. Stipulations reflect the minimum requirements necessary to acc

allow for exception, waiver and modification if warranted. Stipulations from Section 6 of the Standard Lease Terms are incorporated for all leases. Best Management Practices (BM

These procedures are based on WO IM 2007-021 and the Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Development (Gold Book), 2006.

Oil and gas leases issued prior to the plan would continue to be managed under the stipulations in effect when issued. Those issued subsequent to this plan would be subject to tCertain federal oil and gas resources within the Monticello PA underlie lands not administered by the BLM. The BLM administers the federal leases on these lands. These lands in

• 101,720 acres within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (NRA) (see Glen Canyon NRA Minerals Management Plan) • 366,850 acres within the Manti–La Sal National Forest (NF), Monticello Ranger District • 51,610 acres within the Navajo Indian Reservation • 1,080 acres within Indian Trust lands • 55,390 acres on split-estate lands Split-estate lands (private surface/federal minerals) and lands administered by other federal agencies are not managed by the BLM. The surface owner or surface management a

and gas leases. On lands administered by other federal agencies, lease stipulations would include those required by the SMA. On split-estate lands, lease stipulations would cons

Endangered Species Act. The one exception to this would be the stipulations developed for Gunnison Sage-grouse as identified in Appendix A. Mitigation measures would also be federally protected fish and wildlife species consistent with Section 6 of the standard lease terms. These mitigation measures would be developed during site-specific environmen

with the surface owner or SMA. In accordance with an UDEQ-DAQ letter dated June 6, 2008, (see Appendix T) requesting implementation of interim nitrogen oxide control measures for compressor engines; the 

Applications for Permit to Drill: 

• All new and replacement internal combustion gas field engines of less than or equal to 300 design-rated horsepower must not emit more than 2 gms of NOx per horsepower-ho

design-rated horsepower. 

• All new and replacement internal combustion gas field engines of greater than 300 design rated horsepower must not emit more than 1.0 gms of NOx per horsepower-hour. 

Coal The coal resources within the Monticello PA are limited to the San Juan Coal Field, totaling about 530,000 acres. Approximately 60% of this field is under private ownership (both minerals in the coal field are administered by the Monticello FO. The potential for development of coal resources is low (see Mineral Potential Report and RFD [BLM 2005]). The p

conditions for coal leasing or exploration requirements. This would be done through a plan amendment, should sufficient interest warrant. At such time as interest is expressed in 

3461) would be applied by the Monticello FO before any coal leases are issued. If coal leases are issued, they would be subject to special conditions developed in the RMP amen

techniques. Before any coal could be removed, Monticello FO would have to approve the mining permit application package, incorporating stipulations developed in the RMP. 

Tar Sand An Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) is being prepared for oil shale and tar sands resources leasing on lands administered 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Based upon the information and analyses developed in this PEIS, the BLM would amend LUPs for these areas. Potash (Nonenergy Leasable) Within the Monticello PA, two areas fall within Known Potash Leasing Areas (KPLAs). KPLA designations, based on known geologic data, would remain in place until potash reso

bidding. In areas where potash values are not known, the Monticello PA could issue prospecting permits, which could lead to issuance of a preference right lease. The RMP estab

available for leasing subject to the same lease stipulations developed in the RMP for oil and gas. Additional KPLAs could be designated, based on geologic data, if interest warran

potash are conducted in accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR 3590. Geothermal A portion of the Warm Springs Canyon geothermal area (approximately 16,320 acres) extends into the Monticello PA. Low temperature geothermal waters have been recorded frogeologic province, where heat flow through the earth's crust is generally low, no high-temperature geothermal resources are expected at reasonable drilling depths. Therefore, depublic has expressed no interest in geothermal leasing. The RMP does not establish conditions for geothermal leasing or exploration requirements. This would be done through a Locatable Minerals 

All public domain lands overlying federal minerals are available for mining claim location unless specifically withdrawn from mineral entry by Secretarial Order or public law or seg

The RMP may be used to recommend lands to be withdrawn from mineral entry. Claims located on these areas prior to withdrawal would not be impacted. Operations on BLM-adBLM's surface management regulations (43 CFR Subparts 3802, 3809, 3715 and 3814). BLM surface management regulations do not apply to operations on other federal lands b
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-25 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives mineral interest is reserved to the United States, including Stock Raising Homestead lands. The BLM would evaluate all operations authorized by the mining laws in the context of its requirement to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of Federal lands and resou

would conform to the management prescriptions in the plan. Federally owned locatable minerals underlying federal lands administered by the NPS are not generally available for mineral entry. However, locatable minerals under Glen Canyo

(43 CFR 3500) in accordance with the Mineral Management Plan for the NRA. Salable Minerals

All BLM-administered lands in the Monticello PA would be placed in one of the following three categories: 

• Available for disposal of mineral material subject to standard conditions. • Available for disposal of mineral material subject to special conditions. • Unavailable for disposal of mineral material. The plan would develop management conditions for disposal of mineral materials under each category. These management conditions would correspond respectively to the oil an• Standard lease terms • TL and CSU • NSO and closed There are currently 16 community pits, totaling about 5,505 acres, designated in the current 1991 San Juan RMP. 

Lands Available for Oil and Gas Leasing1 

Alternative A (No Action) 

(Map 27) 

Alternative B 

(Map 28) 

Alternative C (Preferred) 

(Map 29) 

Alternative D 

(Map 30) 

Altern

(Map 

Acres available for leasing subject to standard lease terms (Category 1): 578,604 The RMP reported 584,270 acres but was modified as discussed below*** 

Approximately 365,170 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing, subject to standard lease terms. 

Approximately 629,472 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing, subject to standard lease terms. 

Approximately 962,283 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing, subject to standard lease terms. 

Approximately 213be administratively and gas leasing, slease terms. 

Acres available for leasing subject to special conditions (Category 2): 659,626 The RMP reported 815,690 acres but was modified as discussed below*** 

TL: Approximately 786,489 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to timing limitations. CSU: Approximately 67,288 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to controlled surface use. CST: Approximately 22,963 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to timing limitations and controlled surface use. 

TL: Approximately 569,657 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to timing limitations. CSU: Approximately 51,419 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to controlled surface use. CST: Approximately 98,425 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to timing limitations and controlled surface use. 

TL: Approximately 418,242 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to timing limitations. CSU: Approximately 2,758 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to controlled surface use. CST: Approximately 0 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to timing limitations and controlled surface use. 

TL: Approximately would be administfor oil and gas leastiming limitations. CSU: Approximatewould be administfor oil and gas leascontrolled surface CST: Approximatewould be administfor oil and gas leastiming limitations asurface use. 

Acres available subject to NSO: 161,224 The RMP reported 268,080 acres but was modified as discussed below*** 

NSO: Approximately 125,105 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to no surface occupancy. 

NSO: Approximately 39,323 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing subject to no surface occupancy. 

NSO: Approximately 14,175 acres would be administratively available subject to no surface occupancy. 

NSO: Approximatewould be administfor oil and gas leassurface occupancy

Acres unavailable for leasing: 385,316—current management The RMP reported 111,170 acres but was modified as discussed below.** 

Approximately 416,612 acres would be unavailable for leasing. 

Approximately 395,329 acres would be unavailable for leasing. 

Approximately 386,853 acres would be unavailable for leasing. 

Approximately 974be unavailable for 

*** Actual acreage for current management differs from the RMP acreage because WSAs were unavailable for leasing by the IMP. The 1991 San Juan RMP did not close the WS

these areas were ACECs and available for leasing subject to special conditions. 1 NSO—No Surface Occupancy; TL—Timing Limitations; CSU—Controlled Surface Use; CST—Controlled Surface Use and Timing Limitations 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-26 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Lands Available for Mineral Entry

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Approximately 1,652,743 acres would be available for mineral entry. 

Approximately 1,533,413 acres would be available for mineral entry. 

Approximately 1,663,211 acres would be available for mineral entry. 

Approximately 1,738,992 acres would be available for mineral entry. 

Approximately 951be available for mi

Approximately 132,380 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (Map 5). 

Approximately 251,710 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (Map 6). 

Approximately 121,912 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (Map 7). 

Approximately 46,131 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (Map 8). 

Approximately 834be recommended from locatable min9). 

Lands Available for Mineral Material Disposal

Alternative A (No Action) 

(Map 21) 

Alternative B 

(Map 22) 

Alternative C (Preferred) 

(Map 23) 

Alternative D 

(Map 24) 

Altern

(Ma

Approximately 584,270 acres would be available for disposal of mineral materials subject to standard terms and conditions. 

Approximately 365,168 acres would be available for disposal of mineral materials subject to standard terms and conditions. 

Approximately 624,734 acres would be available for disposal of mineral materials subject to standard terms and conditions. 

Approximately 962,279 acres would be available for disposal of mineral materials subject to standard terms and conditions. 

Approximately 213be available for dismaterials subject tand conditions. 

Approximately 821,070 acres would be available for disposal of mineral materials subject to special conditions. 

Approximately 876,736 acres would be available for disposal of mineral materials subject to special conditions. 

Approximately 724,234 acres would be available for disposal of mineral materials subject to special conditions. 

Approximately 420,998 acres would be available for disposal of mineral materials subject to special conditions. 

Approximately 545be available for dismaterials subject tconditions. 

Approximately 373,850 acres would be unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. 

Approximately 542,402 acres would be unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. 

Approximately 435,338 acres would be unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. 

Approximately 401,026 acres would be unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. 

Approximately 1,0would be unavailamineral materials. 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTI

The BLM has identified non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for management consideration in this planning effort. Wilderness characteristics include the appearance of 

recreation. 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: Protect, maintain and preserve wilderness characteristics (appearance of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation or solitude) of non-WS

the context of competing resource demands. Manage these primitive lands and backcountry landscapes for their undeveloped character, and to provide opportunities for primitive 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES: There would be no management common to all for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics were not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. These lands are managed according to the 1991 San Juan RMP prescriptions. 

No management prescriptions identified for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

No management prescriptions identified for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

No management prescriptions identified for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Manage 582,360 alands with wildernefor their wilderness (Map 33) in 29 aremanagement woul

• Unavailable for • Closed for OHV • ROW exclusion • Closed to dispo

materials 

• Unavailable for 

commercial wo

• Unavailable for • VRM Class I • Recommended 

from mineral en
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-27 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

• Unavailable for 

leasing 

• Unavailable for • Fire suppressio

through light on techniques 

PALEONTOLOGY 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Identify area-wide criteria or site-specific use restrictions where necessary to protect paleontological resources from surface-disturbing activities and to promote the scientific, eduthe paleontological heritage. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common invertebrate and plant fossils for personal, noncommercial use. Surface disturbance must be negligPetrified wood collection would be limited to amounts mandated in BLM regulations. Collection of scientifically noteworthy and/or uncommon invertebrate and plant fossils may require a permit. Vertebrate fossils may be collected only under a permit issued by the authorized officer to qualified individuals. Vertebrate fossils include bones, teeth, eggs, and other body parts 

fossils also include trace fossils such as footprints, burrows, and dung. Casting of vertebrate fossils, including dinosaur tracks, would be prohibited unless allowed under a scientific/research permit issued by the Utah State BLM Office. 

Fossils collected under a permit remain the property of the federal government and must be placed in a suitable repository (such as a museum or university) identified at the time 

Lands identified for disposal or exchange would be evaluated to determine whether such actions would remove important fossils from federal ownership. In areas where surface disturbance, either initiated by the BLM or by other land users, may threaten substantial or noteworthy fossils, the BLM would follow its policy per Paleonto

any threat and mitigate damage. Where scientifically noteworthy fossils are threatened by natural hazards or unauthorized collection, the BLM would work with permittees and other partners to salvage specimens 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Not specified. Conduct on-site evaluation of 

surface-disturbing activities for all Category 3, 4/5, and 5 areas, and avoid impacts to paleontological resources. 

Conduct on-site evaluation of surface-disturbing activities for all Category 5 areas and minimize impacts to paleontological resources to the degree practicable. Evaluation will consider the type of surface disturbance proposed and mitigation will be developed based on sitespecific information. 

Not specified. Same as Alternativ

RECREATION 

GOAL To provide for multiple recreational uses of the public lands and to sustain a wide range of recreation opportunities and potential experiences for visitors and residents while suppo

sensitive resource values. Explanation of Recreation Planning Concepts

Under all alternatives, the primary framework for recreation management in the Monticello PA is the Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). This is used to define the follo

developed recreation facilities, campsite designation, tourism, and heritage tourism. SRMAs are discussed below to provide the reader with an understanding of how this concept 

techniques that would be used to support these concepts are discussed within each alternative. Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) SRMAs are defined under LUP Handbook Appendix C, Recreation and Visitor Services, as "... having a distinct, primary recreation-tourism market as well as a corresponding and 

delineate discrete recreation management zone (RMZ) boundaries. Each RMZ has four defining characteristics; it: 1) serves a different recreation niche within the primary recreat

attainment of different experience and benefit outcomes (to individuals, households and communities, economies, and the environment; 3) has distinctive recreation setting chara

strategically targeted primary recreation market demand." SRMAs are designated in each of the alternatives to meet the goals and objectives of the recreation program and to adhere to agency guidance as described above. Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-28 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives The LUP Handbook Appendix C, Recreation and Visitor Services, defines an extensive recreation management area (ERMA) as an areas not delineated as an SRMA. ManagemeMANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Continue existing reservations issued to the BLM for all existing developed recreation sites and facilities. Issue similar protective reservations for all new recreation facilities. 

Manage recreation to meet Utah's Rangeland Health Standards guided by the Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management. (Appendix E). The g

rangeland health within the recreation program. BLM Recreation Guidelines

• Recognize that various levels of regulations and limits are necessary. Restrictions and limitations on public uses should be as minimal as possible without compromising the pr• Use on-the-ground presence (BLM, site stewards, volunteers) as a tool to protect public lands. • Limit or control activities where long-term damage by recreational uses is observed or anticipated through specialized management tools such as designated campsites, permi

recreation area management plans (RAMP) as necessary to maintain public land health. 

• Coordinate with federal and state agencies, county and local governments, and tribal nations in recreation planning and managing traffic, search and rescue operations, trash c• Consider and, where appropriate, implement management methods to protect the resource, as well as maintain the quality of experience of the various user groups. These me• Encourage the location of public land recreational activities near population centers and highway corridors by placement of appropriate visitor-use infrastructure. Provide restro

campgrounds, trailheads, and other areas where there is a concentration of recreational users. 

• Emphasize "Leave No Trace" camping and travel techniques throughout the Monticello PA. • Consider and, where appropriate, implement management methods to protect natural and cultural resources and while giving consideration to community and economic impac

Management methods may include limitation of visitor numbers, camping and travel controls, implementation of fees, alteration of when use takes place, and other similar actio

• Coordinate management of recreation use with other agencies, state and local government, and tribal units to provide public benefits, help assure public safety, and make effe• Recreational OHV and mechanized travel would be consistent with route and area designations described in the travel management decisions. The BLM would work with agen

permits or other types of authorization, as appropriate, to provide reasonable access for non-recreational use of OHVs for military, search and rescue, emergency, administrativ

• OHV access for game retrieval would follow all area and route designations. (There would be no off-road retrieval.) • Dispersed camping, where allowed when not specifically restricted, may be closed seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions warrant. 

General Recreation Management Decisions

Allow development of hiking paths and trails within the PA subject to site-specific NEPA. The following actions require a signed agreement with the specified agency: 

• Manage the BLM portion of the Colorado River in coordination with Canyonlands National Park and the Moab BLM FO. • Manage the BLM portion of the San Juan River in coordination with Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and the Navajo Nation. • Manage the BLM portion of Dark Canyon Complex in coordination with Manti–La Sal National Forest and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. • Manage the BLM portion of the Keeley Trail in coordination with Hovenweep National Monument. Management of Existing and Development of Future Recreation Facilities 

Existing developed recreation sites would be maintained. New sites/facilities/trails would be developed in response to user demand, amenity value, and critical resource protection 

All developed recreation sites would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Recreation facilities would be closed to disposal of mineral materials. Developed recreation sites would be available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. NSO boundaries around developed recreation sites are defined as one quarter mile from the 

recreation sites. These sites would also be available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO and unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. Grazing would be excluded from developed recreation sites. Developed recreation facilities are unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES General Recreation Management Decisions

Benefits Based Management Goals and Objectives (BBMs) have been written for most SRMA. (See Appendix E, Recreation.) 

No camping within 200 feet of isolated springs to allow space for wildlife to access water. 

No camping is allowed within cultural sites or archaeological resources as defined ARPA. Management of Existing and Development of Future Recreation Facilities 

Develop or improve development of recreation sites as prioritized below. 

• Kane Gulch Ranger Station (40 acres) • Sand Island Campground (21 acres) 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-29 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives • Mexican Hat Launch site (20 acres) • Hamburger Rock Campground (20 acres) • Comb Wash Campground (10 acres) • Butler Wash Ruin (60 acres) • Mule Canyon Ruin (10 acres) • Three Kiva Pueblo (10 acres) • Shay Mountain Vista Campground (20 acres) • Indian Creek Recreational and Camping Facilities as outlined in the Indian Creek Recreation Corridor Plan (BLM 2005). • The BLM would work with Natural Bridges National Monument to develop an overflow camping area. No campfires would be allowed in these overflow camping areas. • The BLM would work with Canyonlands National Park Needles District to develop an overflow camping area. 

SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMA) 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES Provide general recreation management guidance and subsequent implementation of management decisions for activity plan–level actions for SRMAs through continuation of app

RAMPs for all SRMAs. If necessary, activity plans would be written for SRMAs. Review and update RAMPS as necessary to make adjustments for changing conditions and opportunities. Domestic pets and pack animals would not be allowed in cultural sites or on archaeological resources as defined in ARPA. Ropes and other climbing aids would not be allowed for access to cultural sites or archaeological resources as defined in ARPA, except for emergencies or administrative needs. 

Camping would not be allowed within cultural sites or archaeological resources as defined in ARPA. Cultural sites may be closed to visitation when they are determined to be at risk or pose visitor safety hazards. General SRMA Guidelines

Identify additional SRMAs or add areas to SRMAs as necessary to respond to changing management circumstances. Establishment of post-RMP SRMAs or revision of SRMA bo

SRMAs or revising SRMA boundaries include: 

• Recreation use requires intensive management to provide recreation opportunities or maintain resource values. • A recreation area management plan or interdisciplinary plan with intensive recreation management decisions is approved. • The BLM announces designation and plan approval through media. All recreation management activities and developments in the SRMA would be in support of the individual SRMA goals and objectives. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES General SRMA Guidelines

All SRMAs would be designated as special areas under the Land and Water Conservation Fund definition. As per the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and the Federal Lan

recreation use. 

San Juan River SRMA 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Provide outstanding river related recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting natural and cultural resource values with integrated management between the Allow for boating and rafting activities regulated through permit issuance. By the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and ma

responding visitors and impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits: (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = mo

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Permits would be issued to commercial companies on a five-year designated basis. They would also be issued to private users through an annual lottery system. River trips on the San Juan River would require a special use permit. Unavailable for woodland product use, except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. Woodland use within the floodplain would be limited to collection of driftwooCottonwood and willow harvest would be allowed for Native American ceremonial uses only by permit. Restrictions on this permitted harvest would be implemented as necessary 

improve threatened and endangered species/special status species (TES/SSS) habitat. Backpackers in Slickhorn Canyon and Grand Gulch would not be allowed to camp within 1 mile of the river. Campfire use only with a fire pan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-30 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives The bench above Sand Island Campground (256 acres) would be closed to camping. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

SRMA, 15,100 acres (non-GIS calculation from the 1991 RMP) managed to preserve ROS P-class and protect ROS SPNM-class (9,380 acres) (Map 36). 

The San Juan River would be managed as an SRMA (10,203 acres) (Map 37). The boundary would remain as in previous RMP. Efforts would be made to purchase private lands within the SRMA boundary. The SRMA boundary east of existing oil and gas leasing category III (NSO) would be below the bench, thereby allowing access to highquality gravel. 

The San Juan River would be managed as an SRMA (9,859 acres) (Map 38). The boundary would remain as in the previous RMP with the exception of State Section 16 and the Holliday Pit Quarry on Lime Ridge. The SRMA boundary east of existing oil and gas leasing category III (NSO) would be below the bench, thereby allowing access to highquality gravel. 

The San Juan River would be managed as an SRMA (6,365 acres) (Map 39). The SRMA boundary east of existing oil and gas leasing category III (NSO) would be below the bench, thereby allowing access to highquality gravel. 

Same as Alternativexcept for non-WSwilderness characmanaged as unavaleasing, unavailabROW exclusion arfor disposal of minunavailable for privcommercial woodlClass I, and recomwithdrawal from m

Motorized Boating Downstream travel is allowed at low, wakeless speed. Upstream travel is prohibited, except for emergency purposes (SPM). 

No motorized boating would be allowed, except for emergency purposes. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternativ

Launch Limits Current launch limits allow approximately 40,000 user/days per year, private and commercial trips combined. Trip size is limited to 25 people on private trips, and 25 passengers plus 8 crew on commercial trips. 

Launch limits would be reduced to provide a river experience that improves visitor experience and perception of solitude, and would reduce potential impacts on the resource. Launch schedules would allow approximately 30,000 user/days per year. Trip size would be limited to 20 people (including crew) for both private and commercial use. 

Launch limits would be changed to allow for an improved visitor experience (e.g., hiking opportunities) and increased perception of solitude below Mexican Hat while remaining within the limitations set by the availability of campsites between Slickhorn Canyon and Clay Hills. Launch limits would allow approximately 40,000 user/days per year. Trip size would be limited to 25 people (including crew) total for both private and commercial trips. 

Launch limits would be raised to allow for increased visitor access to resources. Launch schedules would allow approximately 45,000 user/days per year, private and commercial trips combined. Trip size would be increased to a maximum of 35 people per trip for both private and commercial use. 

Same as Alternativoil and gas leasing 

Commercial/Private Allocations Commercial use, including day trips, is allowed up to 50% of total use. Commercial day trips are not included in launch limits. 

Commercial use would be restricted to 30% of total use. One commercial day trip would be allowed and would be included in the allocation and launch limits. 

Commercial use would be allowed up to 40% of total use. One commercial day trip per day would be allowed and would not be included in the launch limits. 

Commercial/private allocation would be split on a 50/50 basis. Commercial day trips would be allowed on an unlimited basis and would not be included in the launch limits. 

 Same as Alternat

Administrative/Research Use Administrative and research use is currently not included in the launch limits. 

Administrative and research use would be restricted to use that can be accommodated within the launch limit. 

Administrative and research use would be authorized on a case-bycase review and determination. 

Same as Alternative C. Same as Alternativ

Visitor Services Minimal visitor services at Sand Island and Mexican Hat ramp areas 

Minimal visitor services at Sand Island and Mexican Hat ramp areas 

Same as Alternative B. Increased visitor services, including 

trash receptacles and toilet clean-out 

Same as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-31 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives are provided for visitor health and safety and resource protection. 

would be provided for visitor health and safety and resource protection. 

facilities, would be provided for visitor health and safety and resource protection at Sand Island, Mexican Hat ramp areas. 

Designated Campsites To minimize conflict in the area from Slickhorn Canyon to Clay Hills, 9 campsites are available for reservation at the time the permit is issued. From May 15 to June 15, only 1 night is allowed in the reserved area. At other time, 2 nights are allowed if available, but must be at 2 different campsites (i.e., 2 nights cannot be spent at the same campsite). 

An MOU would be signed between the NPS/GCNRA and the Navajo Nation. This memorandum would include details on numbers of campsites and their associated permit restrictions. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternativ

Non-boating Use Vehicle camping is not restricted. With the exceptions of along Lime 

Creek Road, the Mexican Hat Rock area, and Mexican Hat Boat Ramp, vehicle camping would be allowed within the San Juan SRMA only upstream of Comb Wash. Lime Creek campsite would be reserved for river runners only. All campers (including backpackers) must have carry-out toilets. The bench above Sand Island Recreation Area would be closed to camping, including portions outside of the SRMA. Area wide, camping would be closed within 0.5 mile of designated campsites. 

Same as Alternative B. Vehicle camping would not be 

restricted within the San Juan River SRMA, except for the following: The bench above Sand Island Recreation Area would be closed to camping, including portions outside of the SRMA. Area wide, camping would be closed within a 0.5 mile of designated campsites. 

With the exception Creek Road, and tRock area, and MeRamp, vehicle camallowed within the only upstream of CLime Creek campsreserved for river rAll campers (includmust have carry-oThe bench above Recreation Area wcamping, including of the SRMA. Area wide, campinwithin a 1⁄2 mile of campsites. 

Minerals Managed as described in 1991 San Juan RMP (BLM 1991a), pages 78 and 100. Available for mineral leasing with special conditions. Available for geophysical. Available for mineral entry with an approved plan of operations. 

Available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO and recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry and unavailable for disposal of mineral materials. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. Available for oil an

subject to NSO anunavailable for locentry. and disposawith wilderness chwould be unavailaleasing. 

Grazing Available for livestock use. Grazing in the riparian area would 

be restricted to October 1–May 31 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternativ

3 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-32 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

and must meet or exceed PFC, and incorporate rest-rotation and/or deferment systems. This would include Perkins Brothers, East League, and McCracken Wash Allotments. 

Watershed 

Watershed control structures would be subject to surface restrictions and seasonal restrictions to protect bighorn sheep lambing and rutting areas. Vehicle access in other areas within the SRMA would be limited to designated routes. Area would be subject to fire suppression to protect riparian habitat. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. No vehicle access 

lands with wildernecharacteristics. Wastructures would hClass I objectives. 

Other 

Would be managed to maintain an environment of isolation insofar as allowed by river permit and patrol system. Surface disturbance from mining activities on existing claims would be limited to the extent possible without unnecessary impact to valid existing rights. The area above the rim in the vicinity of the Bluff airport lease would be available for mineral materials disposal. No vehicle access would be allowed from Comb Wash downstream to Lime Creek, and below Mexican Hat Bridge. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

Would be managed to maintain an environment of isolation insofar as allowed by river permit and patrol system. Surface disturbance from mining activities on existing claims would be limited to the extent possible without unnecessary impact to valid existing rights. No vehicle access would be allowed from Comb Wash downstream to Lime Creek and below Mexican Hat Bridge (except for motorized boat use on the river). Mechanized/motorized travel would be limited to designated routes. 

Would be managed to maintain an environment of isolation insofar as allowed by river permit and patrol system. Surface disturbing from mining activities on existing claims would be limited to the extent possible without unnecessary impact to valid existing rights. The area above the rim in the vicinity of the Bluff airport lease would be available for minerals materials disposal. No vehicle access would be allowed from Comb Wash downstream to Lime Creek, and below Mexican Hat Bridge. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

Same as Alternativ

Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA (C-SRMA) 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting natural and cultural resource values through integrated management between the BLM and Provide a safe, natural well-designed accessible recreational experience for all visitors to enjoy the world renowned cultural resources and scenic values. Use visitor information a

vandalism, and encourage visitor appreciation of public lands. By the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and ma

responding visitors and impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = mod

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Portions of the Cedar Mesa SRMA overlay four existing WSAs (Grand Gulch ISA Complex, Fish Creek Canyon, Mule Canyon and Road Canyon, Map 56) and the Valley of the G

ACEC would be managed as VRM Class I, unavailable for private and commercial use of woodland products, campfires are not allowed, among other restrictions (see the Valley 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES A joint recreation/cultural resources management plan (CRMP) would be written for this area based on the RMP. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-33 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

The following stipulations would apply to the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA (385,000 acres) (Map 36): Camping

Allowed only at existing campsites. No new campsites may be developed. Camping in Grand Gulch between Kane Gulch and Bullet Canyon is limited to no more than 2 consecutive nights at one campsite. The bench surrounding Split Level Ruin in Grand Gulch is closed to camping. No unauthorized use of existing corrals. Campfires 

Prohibited in all canyons. Areas for Day Stock Use OnlyBullet Canyon from Grand Gulch to Jailhouse Ruin. Two miles upstream Fish Canyon from the confluence with Owl Canyon, McLoyd Canyon to impassable pour-off, and Owl Canyon to Nevills Arch. Pets

No limit or fees for pets. All pets must be collared, leashed, and under human control at all times. No pets are allowed in Slickhorn Canyon or below Collins Canyon in Grand Gulch. Pets are not allowed in or at any alcoves, rock art sites, or ruins. Pets must not harass or harm wildlife. Pets must not harass visitors and other visitors' pets. Pets are not allowed to swim in springs, pot holes, or other natural water sources. Pet waste must be buried in a shallow hole away from trails, campsites, cultural sites, and natural water sources. Stock (horses, llamas, goats, etc.)

All commercial and private stock use requires a permit. GGPA allows 1 stock trip at any one time allowed in GGPA, includes day use. Other Cedar Mesa canyons allow 1 overnight stock trip at any one time, and unlimited day use. Overnight Stock Use Areas

Kane Gulch, Collins Canyon, Government Trail, Grand Gulch from Kane Gulch to Collins Canyon, Fish Creek Canyon from Comb Wash to confluence with Owl Canyon, Mule Canyon South of UCedar Mesa Cultural Special Recreation Management Area (375,739 acres) (Map 37), formerly the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA, would be managed according to guidelines stipulated below: 

• Where livestock grazing is 

permitted mitigation activities may be implemented if cultural resources are determined to be at risk. 

• Available for watershed, range, 

and wildlife improvements and vegetation treatments. 

• Mesa tops and canyons closed to 

campfire use. 

• Unavailable for commercial 

and/or private use of woodland products including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Open to dispersed camping, 

except in areas where cultural resources are at risk. 

• Managed as VRM Class III and 

IV. 

Pets and Stock

Same as Alternative A with the following exceptions: 

• Pets would not be allowed in 

canyons requiring permits. (Grand Gulch and its tributaries), Fish Canyon, Owl Canyon, McLoyd Canyon, Slickhorn Canyon, Road Canyon, Lime Canyon, and North and South Mule Canyons). 

• Recreational stock (horses, pack 

animals, etc.) would not be allowed in canyons requiring permits. 

Cedar Mesa Cultural Special Recreation Management Area (375,739 acres) (Map 38), formerly the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA, would be managed the same as Alternative B, except for the following: 

• Campfires allowed on mesa tops 

only; fire pan required. 

• Available for commercial and/or 

private use of woodland products including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires (outside WSAs and canyons bottoms). 

Pets and Stock

Same as Alternative A with these exceptions: 

• If resources or the visitors' 

experiences are adversely impacted, pets and or stock animals may be limited or prohibited in canyons requiring permits. 

• Limitations on stock use would be 

identical to Alternative A with the exception that stock day use would be limited to 1 party per day per trailhead in all canyons requiring permits (except Grand Gulch and McLoyd). 

• Stock would be limited to 8 

animals. 

Cedar Mesa Cultural Special Recreation Management Area (375,739 acres) (Map 39), formerly the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA, would be managed the same as Alternative C, except for the following: Pets and Stock

Same as Alternative A with the exceptions: 

• If resources or the visitors' 

experiences are adversely impacted, pets and or stock animals may be limited or prohibited. People with pets would be required to conform to stipulations described in Alternative A. 

• Stock limitations would be the 

same as Alternative A. 

Cedar Mesa CultuRecreation Manag(375,739 acres) (Mthe Grand Gulch Pwould be managed guidelines stipulate

• Where livestock 

permitted mitigamay be implemresources are dat risk. 

• Available for wa

and wildlife impvegetation treatwithout wildern(acreage). On lwilderness chamaintenance of improvements iimprovements w

• Mesa tops and 

campfire use. 

• Unavailable for 

and/or private uproducts includcollection of decampfires. 

• Open to dispers

except in areas resources are a

• Permits will be 

total) for day hicamping to prevdamage. 

• Lands without w

characteristics as VRM Class with wilderness be managed as 

Pets and Stock

Same as Alternativfollowing exception

• Pets would not 

canyons requiri(Grand Gulch aFish Canyon, OMcLoyd CanyoCanyon, Road Canyon, and NMule Canyon). 

• Recreational st

animals, etc.) wallowed in canypermits. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-34 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 95, Road Canyon, Lime Creek Canyon, Johns Canyon, and Arch Canyon. Areas Closed to Stock Use

Grand Gulch below Collins Canyon, all the Slickhorn Canyons, Mule Canyons north of U-95, Bullet Canyon above Jailhouse Ruin, Fish Creek Canyon from 2 miles upstream from Fish Creek and Owl Creek confluence, and Owl Canyon above Nevill's Arch. Use Limitations

Stock use, both day and overnight, is subject to the provisions of the Grand Gulch Plateau Cultural and Recreation Management Plan, which allows for no more than 1 overnight stock party at a time in any canyon on Cedar Mesa. However, Grand Gulch is limited to only one stock trip at any time, day or overnight. In the other canyon systems on Cedar Mesa, day stock use is not restricted at this time. The BLM would monitor day use, and reserves the right to implement a day-use allocation and reservation future date if the impacts of day-use visitation warrant. Group Size

Overnight and day use in the Grand Gulch Primitive area and other Cedar Mesa Canyons restricted to 12 individuals and 10 animals (pack and/or saddle). Feed

Stock users would be required to take all feed (non-germinating, weed free) necessary to sustain their animals while on the trip. Loose Herding 

Loose herding of pack and saddle stock is prohibited. All stock must be under physical control. When tethered, all stock must be at least 200 feet away from any water source and archaeological sites and their surrounding benches. No New Trails 

No new trails would be established for stock use. Use would be restricted to existing trials and routes in areas open to recreational stock use. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-35 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives Mesa Top Day Use

There is no allocation or group size. 

Mesa Top Day Use

No allocations on group numbers. Group size limited to 10 people for both private and commercial use, both within and outside of the WSA. 

Mesa Top Day Use

No allocations on group numbers. Group size limited to 12 people for both private and commercial use, both within and outside of the WSA. No group size limits for groups going to the following areas: Mule Canyon Ruin, Kane Gulch Ranger Station, Salvation Knoll, and other sites as identified. 

Mesa Top Day Use

No allocations on group numbers. Group size limit of 12 people for private and commercial use within the WSA and 25 people outside of the WSA. No group size limits for groups going to the following areas: Mule Canyon Ruin, Kane Gulch Ranger Station, Salvation Knoll, and other sites as identified. 

Mesa Top Day Us

No allocations on gGroup size limited private and commewithin and outside 

Mesa Top Camping

Cedar Mesa is open to dispersed camping. There is no allocation, no group size. No permits or fees required for private or commercial camping. 

Mesa Top Camping

Designated primitive and vehicle campsites. Group size limited to 12 people for both private and commercial use. Closure of campsites impacting cultural sites. Overnight campers required to remove their human waste. 14-day camping limit within any 28 consecutive days, with the options of reducing the number of days or closing campsites if impacts occur. 

Mesa Top Camping

Designated primitive and vehicle campsites. Designated campsites for large groups (12 to 24 people). Group size limited to 24 people for both private and commercial use. Closure of campsites impacting cultural sites. Overnight campers required to remove their human waste. 14-day camping limit within any 28 consecutive days, with the options of reducing the number of days or closing campsites if impacts occur. 

Mesa Top Camping

No designated campsites for groups under 24. Designated campsites for groups of 24 and larger. No group size limit. Closure of campsites impacting cultural sites. Campsite facility development as needed (fire grates, picnic tables, toilets, etc.). 14-day camping limit within any 28 consecutive days, with the options of reducing the number of days or closing campsites if impacts occur. 

Mesa Top Campi

Designated primitivcampsites. Group size limited both private and coClosure of campsicultural sites. Overnight campers remove their huma14-day camping limconsecutive days, reducing the numbclosing campsites 

In Canyon Private/Commercial Day UsePrivate No limits on numbers of parties per day per trailhead for day use. Group size limited to 12. Commercial Group size limited to12. No limits on number of parties per day per trailhead. Revise The Grand Gulch Plateau Cultural and Recreation Area Management Plan. Advanced permit required through Monticello PA. 

In Canyon Private/Commercial Day Use

Private Limit of 10 people per day per trailhead. Group size limited to 10. Mandatory permits during high-use season. Commercial Group size limited to 10. One commercial group every other day per trailhead. Limit commercial use or close areas to commercial use as necessary to protect cultural and other resources. Advanced permit required through Monticello PA. 

In Canyon Private/Commercial 

Day UsePrivate Limit of 12 people per day per trailhead. Group size limited to 12. A limited day use permit system implemented as necessary to protect cultural and other resources. Commercial Group size limited to 12. One commercial group per day per trailhead. Implement additional restrictions on group size and visitor frequency (based on monitoring of impact) as necessary to protect cultural or other resources. Advanced permit required through Monticello PA. 

In Canyon Private/Commercial 

Day Use

Same as Alternative C with the following exception limiting 2 commercial groups per trailhead per day. 

In Canyon Private

Day Use

Private Limit of 10 people trailhead. Group size limited Mandatory permits season. Commercial Group size limited One commercial gday per trailhead. Limit commercial uto commercial use protect cultural and Advanced permit rMonticello PA. 

In Canyon Overnight Camping

Pack it in, pack it out. All cans, trash, organic garbage, and burnable refuse including toilet paper must be carried out. Liquid garbage may be discarded 200 feet 

In Canyon Overnight Camping

Same as Alternative A, except for: 

• Designated campsites for groups 

up to 4, up to 8, and up to 10 people, and groups with stock. 

• In-canyon camping could be 

In Canyon Overnight Camping

Same as Alternative A, except for: 

• Designated campsites for large 

groups of 8–12 people, and for groups with stock animals. 

• Groups of 1–7 people would not 

In Canyon Overnight Camping

Same as Alternative A, except for: 

• Dispersed camping for groups of 

1–7. 

• Designated campsites for groups 

of 8–12 and groups with stock. 

In Canyon Overn

Same as Alternativ

• Designated cam

up to 4, up to 8people, and gro

• In-canyon camp
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-36 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives away from water sources. Dish water must be strained and discarded 200 feet from camps, trails, and water sources. No swimming or bathing is allowed in the pools. Commercial allocation would be 30% of the Cedar Mesa permitted use. Group size limited to 12 people for overnight use. Groups of 8 or more must obtain an advanced reservation. Camping permitted in well-used campsites only. No new campsites may be created. No party may spend more than 2 consecutive nights at campsites near Junction Ruin, Turkey Pen Ruin, Jailhouse Ruin, and the mouth of Bullet Canyon. No camping allowed at any ruins, rock art sites, or alcoves, nor on the bench area surrounding Split Level Ruin. Backpacker camping is not allowed within 1 mile of the San Juan River in either Grand Gulch or Slickhorn Canyon. No fires allowed in any of the Cedar Mesa Canyons, including Grand Gulch. Latrines or shallow cat-holes for human waste disposal should be dug 4–6" deep and covered with soil. Pack out toilet paper, do not burn it. Burial of human waste prohibited within one mile of the San Juan River. Disposal of human waste at least 200 feet from water sources or dry creek beds. Camping, bathing, and dish washing must be at least 200 feet from water sources or dry creek beds. Soap may not be used in water sources, even if biodegradable. Commercial trips limited to 1 commercial trip per day per trailhead. 

limited to certain designated areas if resource or cultural damage occurs. 

• If human waste becomes a public 

safety and/or resource issue, a requirement to carry out waste may be implemented. 

Private • Private group size limited to 6 

people per day per trailhead. 

• Total caps on visitor numbers for 

each trailhead are shown below. 

Commercial • Commercial guides would be 

required to meet all pertinent state requirements. 

• Commercial group size limited to 

10 people per day per trailhead. 

• Total caps on visitor numbers for 

each trailhead are shown below. 

have designated campsites and would camp in dispersed campsites. 

• In canyon camping could be 

limited to certain designated areas if resource or cultural damage occurs. 

• If human waste becomes a 

problem, carrying out waste may become implemented. 

• Total caps on visitor numbers for 

each trailhead are shown below. Caps on visitor numbers or group size may be modified as necessary to protect resources. 

Private • Private group size limited to 8 

people per day per trailhead. 

Commercial • Commercial group size limited to 

12 people per day per trailhead. 

• One commercial group per 

trailhead per day. 

• Commercial guides are required 

to meet all pertinent state guidelines. 

• If human wasted becomes a 

problem, carrying out waste may be implemented. 

• Total caps on visitor numbers for 

each trailhead are shown below. Caps on visitor numbers or group size may be modified as necessary to protect resources. 

Private 

• Private group size limited to 12 

people per day per trailhead. 

• If no commercial group allocation, 

12 additional permits would be available. 

Commercial 

• Group size limited to 12 people 

per day per trailhead. 

• Commercial guides would be 

required to meet all pertinent state requirements. 

• Commercial trips would be limited 

to one commercial trip per day per trailhead. 

limited to certaiareas if resourcdamage occurs

• If human waste 

safety and/or rerequirement to may be implem

Private 

• Private group s

people per day 

• Total caps on v

each trailhead a

Commercial 

• Commercial gu

required to meestate requireme

• Commercial gro

10 people per d

• Total caps on v

each trailhead a
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-37 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives Trailhead Allocations

Total overnight visitors per day: Kane 26 Bullet 22 Government 12 Collins 22 Fish/Owl 26 Road Canyon 22 Lime Creek 22 Mule Canyons 22 Slickhorn Canyons 22 

Trailhead Allocations

Total overnight visitors per day: Kane 16 Bullet 16 Government 16 Collins 16 Fish/Owl 16 Road Canyon 16 Lime Creek 16 Mule canyons 16 Slickhorn Canyons 16 

Trailhead Allocations

Total overnight visitors per day: Kane 20 Bullet 20 Government 20 Collins 20 Fish/Owl 20 Road Canyon 20 Lime Creek 20 Mule Canyons 20 Slickhorn Canyons 20 If commercial cap limits are not met on a given day, additional private visitors would be allowed provided the overall cap of 20 people per trailhead is not exceeded. 

Trailhead AllocationsTotal overnight visitors per day Kane 24 Bullet 24 Government 24 Collins 24 Fish/Owl 24 Road Canyon 24 Lime Creek 24 Mule Canyons 24 Slickhorn Canyons 24 If commercial cap limits are not met on a given day, additional private visitors would be allowed provided the overall cap of 24 people per trailhead is not exceeded. 

Trailhead Allocat

Total overnight visKane Bullet Government Collins Fish/Owl Road Canyon Lime Creek Mule canyons Slickhorn Canyons 

There are no Recreation Management Zones within the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA or the Cedar Mesa C-SRMA under Alternatives A–E. However, under the Cultural Resources Chapter, the Grand Gulch NHD is identified as a Cultural Special Management Area and provides management prescriptions for recreation use to protect cultural resources. Thesprescriptions have been carried forward from the range of alternatives and included in the Cedar Mesa SRMA Grand Gulch NHD Recreation Management Zone for the Proposed 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-38 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives There are no Recreation Management Zones within the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA or the Cedar Mesa C-SRMA under Alternatives A–E. However, under the Cultural Resources Chapter, Comb Ridge is identified as a Cultural Special Management Area and provides management prescriptions for recreation use to protect cultural resources. These manage

prescriptions have been carried forward from the range of alternatives and included in the Cedar Mesa SRMA Comb Ridge Recreation Management Zone for the Proposed Plan. 

There are no Recreation Management Zones within the Grand Gulch Plateau SRMA or the Cedar Mesa C-SRMA under Alternatives A–E. However, under the Cultural Resources Chapter, the McLoyd Canyon–Moon House areas has been identified as a Cultural Special Management Area and provides management prescriptions for recreation use to prote

resources. These management prescriptions have been carried forward from the range of alternatives and included in the Cedar Mesa SRMA McLoyd-Moon House Recreation Mfor the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-39 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Dark Canyon SRMA 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences, while protecting natural and cultural resource values through integrated management between the BLM, US

Provide a primitive, roadless, and undeveloped recreational experience in an essentially unmodified natural environment. Continue to provide a scenic backcountry experience of 

By the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and ma

responding visitors and impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits: (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = mo
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-40 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Create and allocate an interagency permit and fee system for these canyons as necessary to preserve resources and the visitor experience. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES The existing Canyon Basins SRMA would be separated into three new SRMAs: the Dark Canyon SRMA, the Indian Creek SRMA and the Beef Basin SRMA. Management prescr

The Dark Canyon SRMA would include canyon rims and bottoms for Dark Canyon, Gypsum Canyon, Bowdie Canyon, Lean To Canyon, Palmer Canyon, Lost Canyon, Black Steeparking/camping areas are included within the SRMA boundaries where the canyons are specified as the SRMA. The Dark Canyon WSA overlays the SRMA and would be managed according to the IMP. The SRMA would be unavailable for livestock grazing in the canyons and available to livestock grazing on mesa tops. An Interagency Management Plan would be written in coordination with the contiguous NPS and USFS agencies. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Note: In the current RMP, this area is part of the Canyon Basin's SRMA. The Canyon Basin (214,390) SRMA (Map 36) would include both the proposed Dark Canyon SRMA and the proposed Indian Creek SRMA, and would be managed according to the following stipulations: • No group size limit • Commercial permits required • No private permits required • No group limits • No permit fees • No interagency permitting • Little ranger presence • Fires permitted • Dogs permitted • Open dispersed camping 

permitted 

• Vehicle use • Closed to OHV use 

Dark Canyon (30,820 acres) (Map 37) would be managed as a SRMA with the following prescriptions: • Group size limit would be limited 

to 10 people for private groups, 12 people for commercial groups. 

• Implementation of an allocated 

permit and fee system. 

• One commercial trip allowed per 

week. 

• Fifteen total private users per 

day. This number could be altered depending upon future visitor impacts. 

• Camping in designated sites only. • Campfires limited to mesa tops. • Human waste must be packed 

out. 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial collection of woodland products, including onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• No pets would be allowed. • Closed to OHV use 

Dark Canyon (30,820 acres) (Map 38) would be managed as a SRMA with the following prescriptions: 

• Group size would be limited to 15 

people for private and commercial groups. 

• Three commercial trips would be 

allowed per week. 

• Twenty total private users 

allowed per day. This number may be altered, depending upon future visitor impacts. 

• If and where necessary, camping 

would be restricted to designated sites only. 

• Campfires would be allowed on 

mesa tops (fire pan required); cook stoves only in canyons. 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial collection of woodland products, except for the on-site collection of dead wood for campfires on mesa tops. 

• If human waste becomes a 

problem, carrying out waste may be implemented in canyon. 

• Pets would be allowed on leash 

and under physical control. 

• Closed to OHV use 

Dark Canyon (30,820 acres) (Map 39) would be managed as a SRMA with the following prescriptions: 

• Group size limited to 15 people 

for private and commercial. 

• Seven commercial trips would be 

allowed per week. 

• Dispersed camping would be 

allowed in canyon and on mesa top. 

• Campfires would be allowed on 

mesa tops and in canyons (fire pan required). 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial collection of woodland product use, except ro on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Pets would be allowed on leash 

and under physical control. 

• OHV use limited to designated 

routes 

Dark Canyon (30,837) would be manawith the following p

• Group size limit 

to 10 people fo12 people for c

• An allocated pe

system would b

• One commercia

allowed per we

• Fifteen total priv

be allowed per could be altered future visitor im

• Camping would 

designated site

• Campfires wou

mesa tops. 

• Human waste m

out. 

• Unavailable for 

commercial colwoodland produsite collection ocampfires. 

• No pets would • Closed to OHV 

Indian Creek SRMA 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting natural and cultural resource values through integrated management between the BLM, NPProvide for premier rock climbing experiences, outstanding OHV opportunities, scenic vistas, cultural site interpretation at Newspaper Rock, destination camping areas, and a gatBy the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and ma

responding visitors and impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits: (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = mo

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES The existing Canyon Basins SRMA would be separated into three new SRMAs: the Indian Creek SRMA, the Dark Canyon SRMA, and the Beef Basin SRMA. Management prescIndian Creek (89,271 acres) would be managed as an SRMA. Indian Creek SRMA includes all of the Indian Creek and Bridger Jack Mesa WSAs and Shay Canyon, Lavender Mesa and Indian Creek ACECs. WSAs are managed under the IM
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-41 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives outlined in this plan. Indian Creek SRMA boundary would match the boundary for the Indian Creek Corridor Plan and EA UT-090-00-47 (BLM 2005). Management of the Indian Creek Corridor would b

includes the following guidelines: 

• Camping would be prohibited in the Indian Creek riparian corridor from Newspaper Rock to approximately 1 mile downstream of the Dugout Ranch. • Camp sites would be removed from the Newspaper Rock area and rehabilitated. • A picnic area would be constructed adjacent to the Newspaper Rock parking area. • Camping along the Bridger Jack Mesa Bench would be limited to designated sites. • A new campground called Shay Mountain Vista Campground would be constructed. • The area would be unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products, including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. Campers must bring in their ow• Campfires would be restricted to fire rings where fire rings are available. In dispersed camping areas, where fire rings are not available, fires would be subject to "Leave No Tra• Rock-climbing routes in conflict with cultural sites would be closed. • Camping fees would be charged if deemed necessary to provide needed facilities. • Parking areas would be developed. • Additional camping stipulations and regulations could be implemented if monitoring data shows this is necessary. • If new climbing routes are established, the BLM may designate a footpath to access the base of the climb to protect wildlife/raptors. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Canyon Basins SRMA (214,390 acres) (Map 36) Dispersed camping would be allowed in Indian Creek Corridor. The Canyon Basins SRMA would include: the Indian Creek SRMA, the Dark Canyon SRMA, and the Beef Basin SRMA (proposed in Alternatives B & E and the Proposed Plan) 

Indian Creek SRMA (89,271 acres) (Map 37) Dispersed camping would not be allowed in the Indian Creek Corridor. Camping would only be allowed in designated sites. Within Shay Canyon portion of this 

SRMA, the ACEC prescriptions require that hiking be limited to designated trails, except within the side canyons, closed to all camping and campfires are not allowed. 

Indian Creek SRMA (89,271 acres) (Map 38) Dispersed camping would be allowed in the Indian Creek Corridor, except within the following designated dispersed camping zones that have been established: Bridger Jack Mesa, Indian Creek Falls, and Creek Pasture. Camping within these zones is limited to designated sites. Within Shay Canyon portion of this SRMA, the ACEC prescriptions require that hiking be limited to designated trails, except within the side canyons, closed to all camping and campfires are not allowed. 

Same as Alternative C (Map 39). Same as Alternativ

Within Shay CanyoSRMA, the ACEC require that hiking designated trails, eside canyons, closand campfires are 

White Canyon SRMA

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences, while protecting natural and cultural resource values through integrated management between the BLM anNational Monument). Provide a spectacular canyoneering recreational experience in a popular, world renowned and easily accessible slot canyon; including, backcountry hiking and backpacking, remoBy the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and ma

responding visitors and impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits: (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = mo

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Trailheads and associated parking/camping areas are included within the SRMA boundaries where the canyons are specified as the SRMA. The White Canyon SRMA is defined a

Canyons excluded from woodland product use including on-site collection of dead wood for campfire. The Cheesebox Canyon WSA overlays a portion of the White Canyon SRMA; this area would be managed in accordance with the IMP. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

This area was not identified as an SRMA in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. These lands are managed 

White Canyon (2,828 acres) (Map 37) would be managed as a SRMA with the following prescriptions: 

• A backcountry allocated permit 

White Canyon (2,828 acres) (Map 38) would be managed as a SRMA with the same management prescriptions as Alternative B, 

White Canyon (2,828 acres) (Map 39) would be managed as a SRMA with the following prescriptions: 

• No permit system would be 

Same as Alternativ

• VRM Class I • OHV use close
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-42 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives according to the 1991 San Juan RMP prescriptions. Designated as VRM Class I OHV use limited to designated routes Unavailable or NSO to oil and gas leasing. 

system would be established as necessary to protect resources. 

• Fire pans would be required for 

mesa tops. 

• Campfires would not be allowed. • Human waste must be packed 

out. 

• Designated as VRM Class I and 

II 

• OHV use closed and limited to 

designated routes 

• Unavailable and CSU to oil and 

gas leasing. 

except for the following: 

• If human waste becomes a 

problem, carrying out waste may be implemented in the canyon. 

• Cook stoves would only be 

allowed in canyons. 

• Campfires would not be allowed 

in the canyons. 

• Designated as VRM Class I and II • OHV use closed and limited to 

designated routes 

• Unavailable and CSU to oil and 

gas leasing. 

required. 

• If human waste becomes a 

problem, carrying out waste may become implemented in the canyon. 

• Campfires would be allowed on 

mesa tops and canyons (fire pan required). 

• Designated as VRM Class I and 

III 

• OHV use limited to designated 

routes 

• Unavailable and CSU to oil and 

gas leasing. 

• Unavailable to 

leasing. 

Tank Bench CSMA 

There is no Tank Bench SRMA under Alternatives A–E in the Draft RMP EIS. However, under the Cultural Resources section of this Chapter, the Tank Bench Cultural Special Ma

identified and outlines management prescriptions for recreation use to protect cultural resources. These management prescriptions have been carried forward from the range of aincluded in the White Canyon SRMA for the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-43 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Beef Basin CSMA 

There is no Beef Basin SRMA under Alternatives A–E in the Draft RMP EIS. However, under the Cultural Resources section of this Chapter, the Beef Basin Cultural Special Mana

identified and outlines management prescriptions for recreation use to protect cultural resources. These management prescriptions have been carried forward from the range of aincluded in the Beef Basin SRMA for the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-44 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES An ERMA is defined as an administrative unit where recreation management is only one of several management objectives, and where limited commitment of resources is requireassociated with ERMAs is restricted to custodial actions only. ERMA lands would be managed to provide an undeveloped setting where visitors can disperse and recreate in a generally unregulated manner, as long as the use is consistent wThe objective of an ERMA is to provide dispersed recreational opportunities consistent with other resource objectives. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Manage all lands within the PA, not within an SRMA (either initially or through subsequent action as described above) as the Monticello Extensive Recreation Management Area 

Any portions of an ERMA subject to other management prescriptions (i.e., ACEC, WSA, etc.) would be managed according to those prescriptions. Monitor ERMA to determine if more intensive recreational management is required to protect resource values and preserve the recreational experience. Encourage "Leave No Trace" and "Tread Lightly" principles throughout the ERMA. ERMA lands may be designated as SRMAs in the future based on intensity of use and would be analyzed through the plan amendment process. Minimal facilities may be constructed in the ERMA as needed to insure visitor health and safety, reduce user conflict, and protect resources. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES Mesa Top Camping (other than Cedar Mesa): • Limit the Bears Ears Road to designated camping only from the intersection of Highway 275 to the USFS boundary. • Limit the Deer Flat Road to designated camping only from the first 4 miles from Highway 275. • Coordinate with Glen Canyon National Recreation Area on building a campground at Muley Point or pursuing a land exchange for Muley Point in order to develop a campgroun

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Not specified. Dispersed vehicle camping would be 

allowed only in previously disturbed areas off of designated routes. If use is such that undue environmental impacts are taking place, the BLM would close and rehabilitate damaged areas. 

Dispersed vehicle camping would be allowed within 150 feet of the centerline of designated route on each side. If use is such that undue environmental impacts are taking place, the BLM would close and rehabilitate damaged areas. Dispersed camping would be encouraged in previously disturbed areas. 

Dispersed vehicle camping would be allowed 300 feet of the centerline of the road on each side. If use is such that undue environmental impacts are taking place, the BLM would close and rehabilitate damaged areas. Dispersed camping would be encouraged in previously disturbed areas. 

Dispersed vehicle allowed only in preareas off of designexcept in non-WSA wilderness characroutes would be clsuch that undue eimpacts are taking would close and redamaged areas. 

General Policy for Issuance and Management of Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) in SRMA

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES There would be no competitive mechanized or motorized events in WSAs in accordance with IMP. Under all alternatives, SRPs would be issued as a discretionary action as a means to help meet management objectives, control visitor use, protect recreational and natural resou

standard stipulations appropriate for the type of activity and may include additional stipulations (see Appendix E: Recreation) necessary to protect lands or resources, reduce user 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES SRPs would be used to manage different types of recreation associated with commercial uses, competitive events, organized groups, vending, and special areas. These recreatiocommercial recreation activities. The BLM would follow the 43 CFR 2930, October 1, 2004, the National Guidelines on Cost Recovery (Federal Register, Volume 67, October 1, 2002), and the Utah Special RecreIn accordance with the BLM's Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services Work Plan (May 2003, as amended), commercial SRPs would also be issued as a mechanism to provid

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Commercial use of any kind requires a permit. 

Criteria for requiring an SRP

• Any commercial use. • Day use organized group or 

event of more than 25 people in ERMA. 

Criteria for requiring an SRP

• Any commercial use. • Non-mechanized/non-stock day 

use organized group or event of more than 50 people in ERMA. 

Criteria for requiring an SRP

• Any commercial use. • Non-mechanized/non-stock day 

use organized group or event of more than 75 people in ERMA. 

Criteria for requir

• Any commercia• Day use organi

event of more tERMA. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-45 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

• Overnight with group or event of 

more than 15 people in ERMA. 

• More than 15 motorized 

vehicles/OHVs on designated routes (does not include County B Roads or state and federal highways). 

• More than 15 nonmotorized 

mechanized vehicles on designated routes (does not include County B Roads or state and federal highways). 

• A group size of more than 10 

riding and/or pack animals. 

• Car camping with more than 10 

vehicles or more than 50 people. 

• Activities or events with the 

potential to conflict with existing resource management guidelines/prescriptions. 

• Events with the potential for user 

conflict. 

• Events that could impact public 

health and safety. 

• Permitted use would only be 

allowed on designated routes consistent with the travel plan. 

• Non-mechanized/non-stock 

overnight with group or event of more than 25 people in ERMA. 

• More than 25 motorized 

vehicles/OHVs on designated routes (does not include County B Roads or state and federal highways). 

• More than 25 nonmotorized 

mechanized vehicles on designated routes (does not include County B Roads or state and federal highways). 

• A group size of more than 15 

riding and/or pack animals. 

• Car camping with more than 15 

vehicles or more than 50 people. 

• Activities or events with the 

potential to conflict with existing resource management guidelines/prescriptions. 

• Events with the potential for user 

conflict. 

• Events that could impact public 

health and safety. 

• Permitted use would only be 

allowed on designated routes consistent with the travel plan. 

• Non-mechanized/non-stock 

overnight with group or event of more than 50 people in ERMA. 

• No limits on motorized 

vehicles/OHVs on designated routes (does not include County B Roads or state and federal highways). 

• No limits on nonmotorized 

mechanized vehicles on designated routes (does not include County B Roads or state and federal highways). 

• A group size of more than 20 

riding and/or pack animals. 

• Car camping with more than 20 

vehicles groups or more than 50 people. 

• Activities or events with the 

potential to conflict with existing resource management guidelines/prescriptions. 

• Events with the potential for user 

conflict. 

• Events that could impact public 

health and safety. 

• Permitted use would only be 

allowed on designated routes consistent with the travel plan. 

• Overnight with 

more than 15 p

• More than 15 m

vehicles/OHVs routes (does noB Roads or stathighways). 

• More than 15 n

mechanized vedesignated routinclude County and federal hig

• A group size of 

riding and/or pa

• Car camping w

vehicles or mor

• Activities or eve

potential to conresource managuidelines/pres

• Events with the 

conflict. 

• Events that cou

health and safe

• Permitted use w

allowed on desconsistent with 

Commercial

Commercial use of any kind requires a permit. 

Commercial• Commercial 

motorized/mechanized events/tours allowed on designated routes, except in WSAs. 

• Commercial use permits 

authorized in conjunction with organized events or when the use supports resource protection and management. 

• Arch Canyon closed to OHV use. • No commercial motorized or 

mechanized use in Arch Canyon. 

• No commercial motorized/ 

mechanized events/tours in crucial bighorn sheep lambing and rutting areas from April 1 to July 15 (lambing) and from October 15–December 31 

Commercial

Managed the same as Alternative B, except for the following: 

• OHV use in Arch Canyon limited 

to the designated route to the end of the state Section (T37S R20E Section 16) year-round. The canyon would be closed yearround from west boundary of the state Section to the end of the route at the National Forest boundary. 

• No commercial motorized or 

mechanized events or tours in crucial bighorn sheep lambing and rutting areas from April 1 to June 15 (lambing) and from October 15–December 15 (rutting), unless it can be shown that the animals are not present in a specific project location or 

Commercial

• Commercial 

motorized/mechanized events/tours allowed on designated routes. 

• Commercial use permits 

authorized to enhance recreational experiences and provide recreational opportunities to the public. 

• OHV use in Arch Canyon limited 

to designated route year-round. 

• No commercial motorized or 

mechanized events or tours in crucial bighorn sheep lambing and rutting areas from April 15 to May 15 (lambing), and from November 1–December 15 (rutting), unless it can be shown that the animals are not present 

Commercial

• There would be 

mechanized or in lands with wicharacteristics. 

• Commercial 

motorized/mechevents/tours alldesignated routWSAs. 

• Commercial us

authorized in coorganized evenuse supports reand manageme

• Arch Canyon cl• No commercial 

mechanized us

• No commercial 

mechanized ev

4 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-46 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

(rutting), unless it can be shown that the animals are not present in a specific project location or the activity can be conducted so the animals are not adversely impacted. 

• No commercial motorized or 

mechanized events or tours in crucial antelope habitat restrictions April 15–June 30. 

• No commercial motorized or 

mechanized events or tours in crucial deer and elk winter range November 1–May 15. 

• Group size for commercial 

motorized events/tours limited to 2 groups of 12 vehicles per route per day. 

• Special OHV events limited to 

350 total vehicles and approved OHV event routes. 

• Balloon Festival limited to 35 

balloons with their associated support vehicles. 

• Commercial hiking tours in Comb 

Wash and Butler Wash limited to 10 individuals. A permit system would be established for commercial day and overnight use. 

• Commercial camping limited to 

designated areas. 

• Commercial hiking to cultural 

sites limited to designated trails and human waste must be packed out. 

• Ropes and other climbing aides 

not allowed to access cultural sites. 

• Commercial guides using dogs to 

hunt/pursue mountain lion and black bears would not operate in areas where dogs are prohibited (Map 72). 

• No commercial motorized or 

mechanized use in Cedar Mesa ACEC. 

the activity can be conducted so the animals are not adversely impacted. 

• No commercial motorized or 

mechanized events or tours allowed in crucial antelope habitat restrictions May 1–June 15. 

• No commercial motorized or 

mechanized events or tours allowed in crucial deer and elk winter range November 15–April 15. 

• Special OHV events limited to 

350 total vehicles and approved OHV event routes. 

in a specific project location or the activity can be conducted so the animals are not adversely impacted. 

• No commercial motorized or 

mechanized events or tours allowed in crucial antelope habitat restrictions May 15–June 15. 

• No commercial motorized or 

mechanized events or tours allowed in crucial deer and elk winter range December 15–March 31. 

• Group size for commercial 

motorized events/tours limited to 2 groups of 25 vehicles per route per day. 

• Special OHV events limited to 

350 total vehicles and approved OHV event routes. 

• Balloon Festival limited to 35 

balloons with their associated support vehicles. 

crucial bighorn and rutting areaJuly 15 (lambinOctober 15–De(rutting), unless that the animals in a specific prothe activity can the animals are impacted. 

• No commercial 

mechanized evcrucial antelope restrictions Apr

• No commercial 

mechanized evcrucial deer and November 1–M

• Group size for c

motorized even2 groups of 12 per day. 

• Special OHV ev

350 total vehiclOHV event rout

• Balloon Festiva

balloons with thsupport vehicle

• Commercial hik

Wash and Butle10 individuals. A would be estabcommercial day use. 

• Commercial ca

designated are

• Commercial hik

sites limited to dand human waspacked out. 

• Ropes and othe

not allowed to asites. 

• Commercial gu

hunt/pursue moblack bears woareas where do

• No commercial 

mechanized usACEC. 

Competitive Events 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES Motorized/mechanized competitive events would be authorized consistent with OHV designations. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-47 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives Motorized and mechanized competitive events would not be permitted in WSAs. 

RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Manage riparian resources for desired future conditions, ensuring ecological diversity, stability, and sustainability, including the desired mix of vegetation types, structural stages, 

plant, fish, and wildlife habitats. Manage riparian areas for properly functioning condition (PFC) and ensure stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate to the local soil type, climate, and landform. Avoid or minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of riparian, wetland and associated floodplains, and preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values. 

Public lands would be managed in accordance with laws, executive orders, and regulations on floodplain and wetland areas to reduce resource loss from floods and erosion. The BLM would take appropriate actions to maintain water quality in streams within Monticello PA to meet state and federal water quality standards, including designated benefici

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Oil and gas leasing would be NSO in riparian areas. The BLM would follow Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing and Recreation Management (BLM 1997) to achieve riparian PFC. No new surface-disturbing activities would be allowed within active floodplains or within 100 meters of riparian areas unless it can be shown that: a) there are no practical alternati

enhance the riparian area. BLM guidelines would be followed as appropriate for managing riparian areas (See Technical Reference 1737-6: Riparian Area Management as amended) and Utah Riparian Ma

All floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas would be managed in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, Sections 303 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Endangerfor implementing BLM riparian area management policy. Floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas would be: 

• Subject to fire suppression to protect riparian habitat. • Excluded from private and/or commercial use of woodland products, except for Native American traditional purposes as determined on site-specific basis; limited on-site collec• Available for habitat, range, and watershed improvements and vegetation treatments described in 1991 Vegetation EIS (as amended). • Excluded from surface disturbance by mechanized or motorized equipment (except as allowed above) and from structural development (unless there is no practical alternative 

Unnecessary multiple social foot trails in riparian/floodplain areas would be minimized. Social foot trails in Road Canyon, Fish Creek, and Mule Canyon would be closed to protect The BLM would follow/implement the Southwest Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan as appropriate. Monitoring and management strategies and restrictions would be developed as necessary to meet or maintain PFC. Cottonwood and willow harvest would be allowed for Native American ceremonial uses only, through a permit system. Restrictions on this harvest would be implemented as nece

No camping would be allowed within 200 feet of isolated springs or water sources. Pipeline Crossings 

Pipeline crossings of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream channels should be constructed to withstand 100-year floods to prevent breakage and subsequent accidental 

constructed high enough to remain above stream flows at each crossing, and subsurface crossings must be buried deep enough to remain undisturbed by scour throughout passathe project proponent to eliminate potential environmental degradation associated with pipeline breaks at stream crossings to avoid repeated maintenance of such crossings. SpeGuidance for Pipeline Crossings (see Appendix F). 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

BLM would act to avoid degradation of stream banks or aquatic habitats and loss of riparian vegetation. Special conditions found in the 1991 San Juan RMP (BLM 1991a, page 98) for floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas would be implemented. 

Close Harts Canyon from private land to Yancy's Fence to OHV and mechanized use. Close routes in other selected riparian areas considered Functioning at Risk if site-specific analysis determines that OHV use is contributing to riparian degradation. Restrict Harts Canyon, Shay Canyon ACEC, and Indian Creek from Kelly Ranch vicinity to Forest Service to livestock trailing only, not 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternativ

WSA lands with wcharacteristics wouas unavailable for as unavailable for ROW exclusion arunavailable for dismaterials, as unavand commercial was VRM Class I, afor withdrawal from 

5 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-48 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

grazing. Moki Canyon and Lake Canyon would be restricted to trailing only, except in the spring and fall for up to 1 to 2 weeks to gather livestock prior to moving to and from these areas. Develop seasonal restrictions, closures, and/or forage utilization limits on grazing in riparian areas considered Functioning at Risk. Temporarily close riparian areas considered Functioning at Risk to dispersed motorized camping until PFC is restored. 

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Manage soils and water resources to maintain watershed health, thereby insuring ecological diversity and sustainability. Provide for favorable conditions of water flow (quality, quantity, and timing), and maintain stable and efficient stream channels as required and provide for fish and wildlife habitat, MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Manage all floodplains and riparian/wetlands in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, Sections 303 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species 

Maintain satisfactory watershed conditions as indicated by maintenance of riparian PFC and Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management (BLM 1991Recreation Management for BLM Lands in Utah (Appendix E). Manage public lands consistent with the Colorado River Salinity Control Act. Comply with Utah's state water quality standards. Collaborate with San Juan County, the State of Utah, tribal governments, and local municipalities on management of municipal watersheds to meet local needs. 

Maintain or improve soil quality and long-term soil productivity through the implementation of Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management (BLM 1997

Manage uses to minimize and mitigate damage to soils. Maintain and/or restore overall watershed health and reduce erosion, stream sedimentation, and salinization of water. Watershed Health

Modify the BMPs and vegetation management as appropriate to meet water quality standards and maintain watershed function (Montezuma Creek, Indian Creek [the USFS boun

Recapture Creek to headwaters], and Recapture Reservoir). Assess watershed function using Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health, riparian PFC, and state water quality standards. Where Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health are not met due to the impairment of biological soil crusts, apply guidelines from Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management (

Reduce tamarisk where appropriate using allowable vegetation treatments (refer to vegetation section for treatment acreages). Sensitive Soils 

Any proposed activities that would be located in sensitive soils (e.g., hydric, saline, gypsiferous, or highly erodible soils, (Maps 41–47) would incorporate BMPs and other mitigatio

measures and other additional mitigation measures required to protect soil resources and maintain soil productivity, would be determined in site-specific NEPA analysis. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Protect and manage soil resources to maintain or increase soil productivity as needed. 

If surface-disturbing activities cannot be avoided on slopes between 21% and 40%, an erosion control plan would be required. The plan must be approved by the BLM prior to construction and maintenance and include the following: 

• An erosion control strategy • The BLM accepted and/or 

approved survey and design 

If surface-disturbing activities cannot be avoided on slopes between 21% and 40%, an erosion control plan would be required. The plan must be approved by the BLM prior to construction and maintenance and include the following: • An erosion control strategy • The BLM accepted and/or 

approved survey and design 

For slopes greater than 40%, no surface disturbance would be allowed unless it is determined that it 

If surface-disturbing activities cannot be avoided on slopes greater than 40%, a plan would be required. The plan must be approved by the BLM prior to construction and maintenance, and include the following: 

• An erosion control strategy • The BLM accepted and/or 

approved survey and design 

Same as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-49 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

would cause undue or unnecessary degradation to pursue other placement alternatives. An erosion control plan would be required. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS—AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTA

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR ALL ACECS Designate, modify, and manage areas as ACECs where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or sce

protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

ALKALI RIDGE ACEC—Relevance and Importance Value: Cultural Resourc

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Alkali Ridge ACEC (39,202 acres) (Map 50) : Would be designated as a Cultural ACEC. It contains a National Historic Landmark (2,340 acres) and would be managed with the following management prescriptions: • Where riparian areas overlap this 

ACEC, the special conditions for floodplain and riparian/aquatic areas would take precedence. 

• Requirements of appropriate 

regulations would be met. 

• All cultural properties eligible for 

the NRHP, would be surrounded by an avoidance area sufficient to allow permanent protection. 

• If cultural resources or their 

avoidance areas cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation would be applied, ranging from limited testing to extensive excavation. 

• In any given situation, mitigation 

would be designed to fit the specific circumstances and reviewed by the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

• Available for mineral leasing 

(Category 1). 

• Available for geophysical work. • Available for the disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Available for locatable mineral 

entry with an approved plan of operations. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

not classified, segregated, or withdrawn from entry. 

• Available for private and 

commercial use of woodland 

Alkali Ridge would be designated as an ACEC (39,196 acres) (Map 51) and would be managed the same as Alternative A, except for the following changes in management prescriptions: • Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Watershed improvements 

allowed. 

• Livestock use may be restricted if 

cultural resources are being impacted. 

• No surface-disturbing vegetation 

treatments. Any treatment must avoid cultural sites by sufficient margin as to have no impact. 

• Managed as VRM Class IV. 

Alkali Ridge would be designated as ACEC (39,196 acres) (Map 52) and would be the same as Alternative A, except for the following changes in management prescriptions: • Available for woodland harvest, 

limited to designated routes. Offroad travel would only be allowed in chained areas. If woodland product use is impacting cultural resources, woodland product use may be confined to specific areas within Alkali Ridge. 

• Available for watershed 

improvements. 

• Livestock may be restricted if 

cultural resources are being impacted. 

• Vegetation treatments would 

avoid cultural sites wherever possible to prevent impacts. Access routes used for vegetation treatments would be reclaimed to prevent future use. Non–surface-disturbing treatments would be preferred. 

• Managed as VRM Class IV. 

Alkali Ridge would not be designated as an ACEC. The area would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• Available for woodland harvest, 

limited to designated routes. 

• Available for watershed 

improvements. 

• Livestock use would conform to 

Rangeland Health Standards. 

• Vegetative treatments would 

avoid eligible cultural sites and NHL. 

• Managed as VRM Class IV. • Available for mineral leasing 

under standard stipulations 

• Available for geophysical work. • Available for the disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Available for locatable mineral 

entry with an approved plan of operations. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

not classified, segregated or withdrawn from entry. 

• Subject to conditional fire 

suppression. 

• OHV use limited to designated 

roads and trails. 

• Campfires allowed. • Available for wildlife habitat 

improvement. 

• Surface disturbance limited to 

what can be successfully established within 5 years after project completion. 

Same as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-50 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

products. 

• Available for livestock use. • Available for land treatments or 

other range improvements. 

• Subject to conditional fire 

suppression. 

• OHV use limited to existing roads 

and trails. 

• Managed as VRM Class III. • Campfires allowed. • Available for wildlife habitat 

improvement. 

• Surface disturbance limited to 

what can be successfully established within 5 years after project completion. 

In the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (Contained within the Alkali Ridge ACEC) (2,340 acres) management would be the same as the Alkali Ridge ACEC above,, except that all cultural resources would be avoided by 100 feet. 

In the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (Contained within the Alkali Ridge ACEC) (2,146 acres),management would be: • Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to NSO. 

• All mechanized/motorized traffic 

limited to designated routes. 

• Campfires not allowed. • Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Available for watershed 

improvements. 

• Open to livestock use with 

restrictions if cultural resources become impacted. 

• No surface-disturbing vegetation 

treatments. Any treatment must avoid cultural sites by sufficient margin as to have no adverse impact. 

• Unavailable for geophysical work. • Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 

• Surface disturbance allowed for 

emergency fire suppression. 

• Recreation use limited if cultural 

resources become impacted. 

• Climbing aids such as ropes not 

allowed for access into cultural 

In the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (Contained within the Alkali Ridge ACEC) (2,146 acres), management would be the same as for Alternative B, except for: 

• Appropriate Management 

Response to fire. 

• Available for geophysical 

exploration that meets the definition of "casual use" as defined 43 CFR 3150. 

In the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark (Contained within the Alkali Ridge ACEC) (2,146 acres),,management would be the same as Alternative C. 

In the Alkali Ridge Landmark (ContainAlkali Ridge ACECmanagement woulAlternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-51 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

sites/ruins. 

BRIDGER JACK MESA (Mesa Top Only) ACEC—Relevance and Importance Value: Near R

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC lies entirely within a WSA and will be managed under the IMP, unless more restrictive management is prescribed. Management under the IMP will provi

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC (6,260 acres) (Map 50), is designated as an ACEC for Range Management Program/Near-relict Vegetation, and would be managed with the following management prescriptions: • Unavailable for mineral leasing • Available for geophysical 

exploration. 

• Unavailable for the disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Available for locatable mineral 

entry with approved plan of operations, subject to stipulations precluding surface use of the mesa top, insofar as possible. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

not classified, segregated, or withdrawn from entry. 

• Excluded from livestock grazing, 

including grazing by saddle stock and pack animals allowed for access. 

• Excluded from land treatments or 

other improvements, except for test plots and facilities necessary for study of the near-relict plant communities. 

• Closed to OHV use. • Subject to conditional fire 

suppression. 

• Managed to limit recreation use if 

vegetation resources are being damaged. 

• Semiprimitive nonmotorized 

(SPNM) ROS class. 

• Excluded from private or 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Excluded from wildlife habitat 

improvements. 

• Excluded from watershed control 

structures. 

• Surface disturbance limited to 

what can be successfully 

Bridger Jack Mesa would be designated as ACEC (6,225 acres). (Map 51), The prescriptions are the same as Alternative A, except for the 35 acre boundary change. 

Bridger Jack Mesa would not be managed as an ACEC. Bridger Jack Mesa WSA would be managed according to the IMP, except for the following: 

• Unavailable for livestock grazing, 

including grazing by saddle stock and pack animals allowed for access. 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, except for the limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

Bridger Jack Mesa would not be designated as an ACEC. The prescriptions are the same as Alternative C. 

Bridger Jack Mesa designated as ACE(Map 51). The presame as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-52 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

established within 5 years after project completion. 

• Excluded from surface 

disturbance by mechanized or motorized equipment, except helicopter access for scientific study and heliportable equipment, insofar as legally possible. 

• Excluded from improvements for 

wildlife habitat, watershed, or vegetative treatments. 

BUTLER WASH NORTH ACEC—Relevance and Importance Value: Scenic 

Butler Wash North ACEC lies within the Butler Wash WSA and will be managed under the IMP, unless more restrictive management is prescribed. Management under the IMP w

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Butler Wash ACEC (17,464 acres) (Map 50) is designated as an ACEC for scenic values and is managed with the following management prescriptions: • Managed under the special 

conditions developed for ROS-P class areas. 

• Closed to mineral leasing. • Closed to mineral leasing • Available for geophysical work. • Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Available for mineral entry with 

an approved plan of operations. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

not classified, segregated, or withdrawn from entry. 

• Excluded from private and 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Available for livestock use. • Closed to OHV use. • Managed to limit recreation use if 

scenic values are being damaged. 

• Managed as VRM Class I. 

The Butler Wash North ACEC (17,365 acres) (Map 51) would be designated as a ACEC and would be managed with the following prescriptions: • Managed as VRM Class I. • Closed to mineral leasing. • Closed to mineral leasing. • Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

withdrawn from entry. 

• Closed to private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood. 

• Available for livestock use but 

may be limited if cultural resources are being impacted. 

• Managed to limit recreation use if 

scenic values are being damaged. 

• The BLM would seek to acquire 

state in-holdings in this ACEC. 

• Closed to OHV use. 

The Butler Wash North area would not be designated as an ACEC, but would be managed under the IMP. Additional management prescriptions include: • Retained in public ownership. • Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, with the exception of the limited on-site collection of wood for campfires. 

• Available for livestock use but 

may be limited if cultural resources are impacted. 

• Closed to OHV use. • Managed as VRM Class I 

• Same as Alternative C, except for 

OHV use is limited to designated roads and trails (ways). 

Same as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-53 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

CEDAR MESA ACEC—Relevance and Importance Values: Fish and Wildlife, Cultural 

Note: In the 1991 San Juan RMP, the Cedar Mesa ACEC was described as protecting values for Recreation/Visual (VRM) because these two programs were combined and man

separated and are now managed under their own resource management program. Scenic is considered a relevant value under ACEC evaluation processes, however, Recreation 

include Recreation as a value. Management for recreational values would be managed as an SRMA under the Recreation program. 

Portions of the Cedar Mesa ACEC lie within 4 WSAs (Maps 87–90): Mule Canyon, Grand Gulch ISA Complex Fish Creek Canyon, and Road Canyon. Where the ACEC overlies t

management is prescribed. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Cedar Mesa ACEC (295,336 acres) (Map 50) is designated as an ACEC for cultural and scenic values. Recreation/Primitive Area/Natural Area values would be maintained and would continue to be managed under the existing Grand Gulch Plateau Cultural and Recreation Management Plan and Recreation/Scenic programs with the following management prescriptions: • Where riparian areas overlap 

Cedar Mesa ACEC, the special conditions for floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas would take precedence. 

• The ROS special conditions 

include both P and SPNM classes apply, and would be managed for these classes. ROS P-class areas would be managed as NSO. 

• If cultural resources or their 

avoidance areas cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation would be applied, ranging from limited testing to extensive excavation. 

• In any given case, mitigation 

would be designed to fit the specific circumstances and reviewed by the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Cedar Mesa Management Plan developed for the ACEC would guide site protection, data recovery, and all other necessary cultural management activities. 

• Revegetation for surface 

disturbance would be limited to what can be successfully established within 5 years after project completion. 

• Available for mineral leasing 

(Category 1), except within WSAs where it is closed. 

Cedar Mesa ACEC (306,742 acres) (Map 51) would continue to be managed as a ACEC (same as Alternative A) with the following additional prescriptions: • Available for livestock use with 

special conditions to protect atrisk cultural resources. 

• Available for watershed, range, 

habitat improvements and vegetation treatments. 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Campfires limited to mesa tops, 

would be closed if there are impacts to cultural sites. 

• Closed to dispersed camping. • Designated parking areas 

adjacent to designated routes. 

• Limited number of recreation 

permits issued for day hikes and overnight camping as necessary to prevent cultural site damage from over-visitation. 

• Overnight campers must pack out 

their human waste. 

• Managed as VRM Class III 

(except for WSAs within the boundary of the ACEC which would be managed as VRM Class I). 

Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area• Same as Alternative A. • Intersection of Cedar Mesa 

ACEC and the Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC 

The Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC would not be designated under this alternative. Management would be in accordance with the Cedar Mesa ACEC. 

Cedar Mesa area would not be designated as an ACEC. It would be managed as a Cultural Special Recreation Management (CSRMA) area (375,734 acres) described under the Recreation section in this Chapter. In addition, 

there would be two Cultural Special Management Areas (CSMAs) (McLoyd Canyon–Moon House and Grand Gulch NHD) with restrictive management for the protection of cultural resources, described under the Cultural Resource section of this Chapter. The WSAs (209,619 acres) would be managed according to the IMP. 

Cedar Mesa area would not be designated as an ACEC, same as Alternative C. 

Cedar Mesa area designated as an Amanaged the samexcept for non-WSwilderness characwhich would be maunavailable for minclosed to OHV useareas, closed to dimaterials, unavailaand commercial wVRM Class I, and withdrawal from m
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-54 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives • Surface use limited by special 

conditions. 

• Available for geophysical 

exploration. 

• Available for disposal of mineral 

materials, except within WSAs where it is closed. 

• Available for mineral entry with 

an approved plan of operations. 

• Available for livestock use. • Available for land treatments or 

other range improvements. 

• Available for wildlife habitat 

improvements. 

• Subject to conditional fire 

suppression with motorized suppression methods used only if necessary to protect life or property. 

• Excluded from surface 

disturbance by mechanized or motorized equipment. 

• OHV use limited to designated 

roads/trails. 

• Available for private and 

commercial use of woodland products in designated areas with designated access, except that on-site collection of dead fuelwood for campfires would be allowed throughout the area. 

Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area 

Contained within the Cedar Mesa ACEC; would be managed as: 

• Closed to mineral leasing 

(Category 4). 

• Not available for geophysical 

exploration. 

• Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

classified as segregated from entry (a Secretarial withdrawal would be requested). 

• Excluded from private and 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Available for livestock use, 

except Grand Gulch itself, below Kane Gulch fence to the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-55 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

confluence with the San Juan River, 11,200 acres. 

• Designated as closed to OHV 

use. 

• Managed to limit recreation use if 

cultural resources or scenic values are being damaged. 

• Managed as VRM Class I. • Intersection of Cedar Mesa 

ACEC and the Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC. 

Where these two ACECs intersect along U-95 and U-261, that portion would be managed as: • Available for mineral leasing 

subject to NSO. 

• Managed as VRM Class I. 

DARK CANYON ACEC—Relevance and Importance Values: Scenic and Fish and W

Note: In the 1991 San Juan RMP, the Dark Canyon ACEC was described as protecting values for Recreation/Visual (VRM) because these two programs were combined and man

separated and are now managed under their own resource management program. Scenic is considered a relevant value under ACEC evaluation processes, however, Recreation 

include Recreation as a value. Management for recreational values would be handled under the Recreation program, specifically SRMAs. 

Dark Canyon ACEC lies entirely within the Dark Canyon WSA (Maps 87–90) and partially within the Dark Canyon SRMA (Maps 36–40). WSAs are managed under the IMP, unles

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Dark Canyon ACEC (61,660 acres) (Map 50) would continue to be designated as an ACEC for Recreation/Natural Area and Visual/VRM values, and would be maintained and managed with the following management prescriptions: • Unavailable for mineral leasing. • Unavailable for geophysical 

work. 

• Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Retained in public ownership • Recommended for mineral 

withdrawal 

• Excluded from private and 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Unavailable for livestock use 

except in Fable Valley, where livestock trailing and emergency grazing (drought or severe winter) would be allowed. 

• Closed to OHV use. • Managed as VRM Class I with 

projects that meet these visual 

Dark Canyon (61,660 acres) (Map 51) would be designated as a ACEC, and would be managed with the following prescriptions: • Unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing. 

• Unavailable for geophysical 

exploration. 

• Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires on mesa tops. 

• Campfires limited to mesa top 

with fire pan (no campfires in canyons). 

• Human waste to be packed out. • Unavailable for livestock use 

except in Fable Valley, where livestock trailing and emergency grazing (severe winter) would be allowed. 

• Closed to OHV use. 

Dark Canyon would not be managed as an ACEC. Dark Canyon WSA would be managed according to the IMP with the following additional restrictions: 

• Campfires limited to mesa top 

with fire pan (no campfires allowed in canyon). 

• Excluded from private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products, except for on site collection of dead wood for fires on mesa tops. 

• Unavailable for livestock grazing 

except in Fable Valley, where livestock trailing and emergency grazing (severe winter) would be allowed. 

• Closed to OHV/mechanized use. • Managed to limit recreation use if 

wildlife habitat or scenic values are being damaged. 

• Subject to appropriate fire 

management response with habitat-disturbing suppression methods used only if necessary to protect life or property. 

• The Dark Canyon Wild and 

Scenic suitable river segment 

Dark Canyon would not be managed as an ACEC. Same as Alternative C. 

Dark Canyon (61,651) would be desigACEC, Same as A
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-56 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

standards allowed. 

• Managed to limit recreation use if 

cultural resources or scenic values are being damaged. 

• Subject to conditional fire 

suppression, with motorized suppression methods used only if necessary to protect life or property. 

• Managed as VRM Class I with 

projects that meet these visual standards allowed. 

• Managed to limit recreation use if 

wildlife habitat or scenic values are being damaged. 

• Subject to conditional fire 

suppression, with motorized suppression methods used only if necessary to protect life or property. 

• Improvements conditionally 

allowed for wildlife habitat, watershed, and vegetative treatments that meet VRM Class I and IMP management. 

would be recommended for mineral withdrawal. 

HOVENWEEP ACEC—Relevance and Importance Values: Scenic, Habitat, and Cu

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Hovenweep ACEC (1,798 acres) (Map 50). would continue to be managed as an ACEC for Cultural and Habitat Management values with two special emphasis zones. The following management prescriptions would apply: General Area Exclusive of Special Emphasis Zones• Where riparian areas overlap 

Hovenweep ACEC, the special conditions for floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas would take precedence. 

• Within Hovenweep ACEC, 

cultural properties eligible for the NRHP would be avoided by 100 feet. 

• Cultural properties eligible for the 

NRHP would be surrounded by an avoidance area sufficient to allow permanent protection. 

• If cultural resources or their 

avoidance areas cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation would be applied, ranging from limited testing to extensive excavation. 

• In any given case, mitigation 

would be designed to fit the specific circumstances and reviewed by the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. A Hovenweep National Monument Cooperative Management Strategy (1987) 

Hovenweep would be designated as an ACEC (2,439 acres) (Map 51). and would be managed the same as Alternative A with the addition of 641 acres contiguous with the existing ACEC and east of Hovenweep National Monument The ACEC, exclusive of special emphasis zones, would be managed the same as the general area with the following changes to stipulations: • Cultural properties eligible for the 

NRHP would be avoided as necessary to provide permanent protection. This would be implemented on a case-by-case basis. 

• No new routes designated in this 

ACEC. 

• No surface-disturbing habitat, 

watershed, or vegetation treatments. Any treatment must avoid cultural sites by sufficient margin as to avoid adverse impact. 

• Available for mineral leasing with 

standard stipulations. 

Hovenweep would be designated as an ACEC (2,439 acres) (Map 52). and would be managed the same as Alternative A with the addition of 641 acres contiguous with the existing ACEC and east of Hovenweep National Monument The ACEC, exclusive of special emphasis zones, would be managed the same as the general area with the following changes to stipulations: 

• Available for watershed 

improvements and vegetative treatments as long as cultural sites are not impacted. Emphasis would be on non–surfacedisturbing vegetation treatments. 

• Available for mineral leasing with 

standard stipulations. 

Hovenweep would not be designated as an ACEC. Management prescriptions for this area would be the same as the surrounding lands and include but are not limited to the following prescriptions: 

• Available for watershed 

improvements and vegetative treatments as long as cultural sites are not impacted. Emphasis would be on non–surfacedisturbing vegetation treatments. 

• Managed as VRM Class III and 

IV. 

• Available for disposal of mineral 

materials. 

• Available for mineral leasing with 

standard stipulations. 

Hovenweep would an ACEC (2,439 aand would be manAlternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-57 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

helps to guide site protection, data recovery, and all other necessary cultural management activities. 

• Available for mineral leasing 

(Category 2). 

• Available for geophysical 

exploration. 

• Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Available for mineral entry with 

an approved plan of operation. 

• Available for livestock use. • Subject to conditional fire 

suppression. 

• OHV use limited to designated 

roads/trails. 

• Excluded from private or 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Open for improvement in habitat, 

watershed and vegetation treatments. 

• Managed as VRM Class III. Visual Emphasis Zone (880 acres) 

Surrounds the west, south and east sides of Hovenweep National Monument and would be managed in accordance with the general prescriptions and with the following special prescriptions: 

• NSO for mineral leasing. • Excluded from watershed and 

grazing (vegetative) treatment improvement. 

• Managed as VRM Class III. Cajon Pond Emphasis Zone (Habitat) 

Approximately 1 acre fenced exclusion area in the northern part of the ACEC. It would be managed in accordance with the general prescriptions and with the following special prescriptions: 

• Mineral leasing would be in 

accordance with a controlled timing stipulation during the shorebird and waterfowl courtship and nesting season of March 1–June 30. 

• Excluded from livestock use. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-58 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

INDIAN CREEK ACEC—Relevance and Importance Value: Scenic 

Note: In the 1991 San Juan RMP, Indian Creek ACEC was described as protecting values for Recreation/Visual (VRM) because these two programs were combined and manage

separated and are now managed under their own resource management programs. Scenic is considered a relevant value under ACEC evaluation processes, however, recreation 

include recreation as a value. Management for recreational values would be handled under the recreation program, specifically SRMAs. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Indian Creek ACEC (8,510 acres) (Map 50) covers an area adjacent to Canyonlands National Park, falls within Canyon Basins SRMA. Portions of the Indian Creek ACEC lie within portions of the Indian Creek WSA, which would be managed under the IMP. The ACEC would be managed to maintain scenic quality with the following prescriptions: • Almost all the ACEC would be in 

ROS P-class areas. 

• All vegetation must be with 

native species naturally occurring in the vicinity. 

• Available for mineral leasing with 

stipulations to prevent surface occupancy (Category 3) NSO; however, the are manager would grant an exception to the NSO stipulation in the event it is determined through and EA or EIS, is necessary, with the adoption and use of appropriate mitigation measures, that the project would meet visual quality standards for the area. 

• Available for geophysical 

exploration. 

• Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Available for mineral entry with 

an approved plan of operations. 

• Retained in public ownership. • Excluded from private and 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Closed to OHV use. • Managed to limit recreation use if 

scenic values are being damaged. 

• Managed as VRM Class I. • Subject to conditional fire 

suppression, with motorized suppression methods used only 

Indian Creek (8,510 acres) (Map 51) would be designated as a ACEC. It would be managed the same as Alternative A with the following changes: • Recommended for withdrawal 

from mineral entry. 

• Campfires are restricted to fire 

rings where fire rings are available. 

• Excluded from on-site collection 

of dead wood for campfires. 

Indian Creek (3,908 acres) (Map 52) would be designated as an ACEC. The WSA would be eliminated from within the boundary. Management would be the same as Alternative B, except OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

Indian Creek would not be designated as an ACEC. Management prescriptions for this area would be the same as the surrounding lands. Recreational restrictions are described under the Indian Creek SRMA in this Chapter. Other management in this area would include, but is not limited to: 

• OHV use limited to designated 

roads and trails. 

• Mineral leasing subject to 

standard stipulations and minor constraints. 

• Open to mineral material sales. • Managed as VRM Class III. 

Indian Creek (8,51would be designatSame as Alternativnon-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouas unavailable for as unavailable for ROW exclusion arunavailable for dismaterials, as unavand commercial was VRM Class I, afor withdrawal from 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-59 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

if necessary to protect life and property. 

LAVENDER MESA (Mesa Top Only) ACEC—Relevance and Importance Value: Relict 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Lavender Mesa ACEC (Map 50). Grazing Management Program, Relict Vegetation, (649 acres): Would be maintained and would continue to be managed with the following management prescriptions: • Managed to provide a baseline 

for rangeland studies through research and experiments and to allow for SPNM recreation. 

• Managed as ROS SPNM class. • Available for mineral leasing with 

an approved plan of operations, subject to stipulations precluding surface use of the mesa top insofar as possible (NSO). 

• Available for geophysical work. • Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Available for mineral entry with 

an approved plan of operations, subject to stipulations precluding surface use of the mesa top insofar as possible. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

not classified, segregated, or withdrawn from entry. 

• Excluded from private or 

commercial use of woodland products, including limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Unavailable for livestock grazing, 

including grazing by saddle stock and pack animals allowed for access. 

• Excluded from land treatments or 

other improvements, except for test plots and facilities necessary for study of relict plant communities. 

• Excluded from wildlife habitat 

improvements. 

• Excluded from watershed control 

structures. 

• Subject to conditional fire 

suppression. 

• Closed to OHV use. 

Lavender Mesa (649 acres) (Map 51) would continue to be designated as a ACEC, and would be managed with the same management prescriptions as the Alternative A, except for the following changes: • Non-surface-disturbing vegetative 

treatment allowed to control invasive species and for rehabilitation of disturbed surfaces. 

• Managed as NSO for oil and gas 

leasing. 

• Available for locatable mineral 

entry with approved plan of operations (for the sides of the mesa, not the top), subject to stipulations protecting vegetation on the mesa top. 

• No campfires allowed. • Managed to limit recreation use if 

vegetation communities are being adversely impacted. 

• Helicopter access allowed for 

scientific study and heliportable equipment. 

• Managed as VRM Class II. 

Lavender Mesa (649 acres) (Map 52) would continue to be designated as a ACEC and would be managed with the same management prescriptions as Alternative A, except for the following changes: 

• Excluded from land treatments or 

other improvements, except for test plots and facilities necessary for study of the plant communities, and restoration/reclamation activities. 

• Managed as NSO for oil and gas 

leasing. 

• Available for locatable mineral 

entry with approved plan of operations, subject to stipulations protecting vegetation on the mesa top. 

• No campfires allowed. • Managed to limit recreation use if 

vegetation communities are being adversely impacted. 

• Geophysical exploration allowed 

if it does not adversely impact vegetation communities. 

• Managed as VRM Class II. • Helicopter access allowed for 

scientific study and heliportable equipment. 

Lavender Mesa would not be designated as an ACEC and would be managed the same as the surrounding area. 

• Mechanized/motorized travel 

limited to designated routes. However, it should be noted that the area is inaccessible to motorized travel or grazing. 

• Helicopter access allowed for 

scientific study and heliportable equipment. 

• Managed as VRM Class III. • Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products including limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

Lavender Mesa wobe designated as a51). It would be maas Alternative B exlands with wildernewould be managed for mineral leasinguse, ROW exclusiounavailable for dismaterials, unavailaand commercial wVRM Class I, and withdrawal from m
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-60 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives • Managed to limit recreation use if 

cultural resources or scenic values are being damaged. 

• Excluded from surface 

disturbance by mechanized or motorized equipment, except helicopter access for scientific study and heliportable equipment, insofar as possible. 

LOCKHART BASIN ACEC—Relevance and Importance Values: Scenic and Cult

Lockhart Basin ACEC overlays the Indian Creek WSA (6,870 acres). WSAs are managed under the IMP, unless more restrictive management is prescribed. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

There is not an existing ACEC for Lockhart Basin. A portion of the potential Lockhart Basin ACEC area includes the Indian Creek existing ACEC. Refer to the Indian Creek ACEC (Alternative A) for management prescriptions. 

Lockhart Basin (47,783) (Map 51) acres would be designated as a ACEC and would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• Managed as VRM Class I. • Available for mineral leasing 

subject to NSO. Exemptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis if site-specific NEPA determines that VRM Class I can be met. 

• Surface-disturbing activities 

would be prohibited. Exemptions may be granted on a case-bycase basis if site-specific NEPA determines that VRM Class I can be met. 

• Available for geophysical 

exploration if VRM Class I can be met. 

• Unavailable for disposal of 

mineral materials. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

• Available for livestock use. • Pursue acquisition of state inholdings in this ACEC. • Open for campfires. • Unavailable for woodland product 

use except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

Lockhart Basin would not be designated as an ACEC. It would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• Managed as VRM Class II and III. • Available for mineral leasing 

subject to timing limitations and controlled surface use in Bighorn Sheep area, and Standard lease terms in remaining area. 

• Retained in public ownership. • Available for livestock use. • Open for campfires. • Unavailable for woodland product 

use except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

Same as Alternative C. Lockhart Basin (47

acres would be deACEC and would bsame as Alternativnon-WSA lands wcharacteristics. Thbe managed as unmineral leasing, clROW exclusion arfor disposal of minunavailable for privcommercial woodlClass I, and propofrom mineral entry

SAN JUAN RIVER ACEC—Relevance and Importance Values: Scenic, Cultural, Fish and Wildlife, Natural System

A Cultural Resources Management Plan would be written for the San Juan River. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

There is not an existing ACEC for the San Juan River. The area would continue to be managed as the San 

The San Juan River (7,590 acres) (Map 51). would be designated as ACEC and would be managed with 

Same as Alternative B (Map 52). The area would not be designated 

as an ACEC. Recreation management 

The San Juan Rive(Map 51) would be ACEC and manag
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-61 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives Juan River SRMA (15,100 acres). the following prescriptions: 

• Vehicle access, including 

OHVs/mechanized, limited to designated routes. 

• Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires; woodland use within the floodplain would be limited to collection of driftwood for campfires. 

• Available for livestock use 

October 1–May 31. (Grazing must incorporate rest-rotation and/or deferred management systems. Riparian areas must meet or exceed PFC to the extent affected by grazing. 

• Available for watershed, range, 

wildlife habitat improvements and vegetation treatments. 

• West Montezuma Creek to 

Private land managed as VRM Class II. 

• West of accreted land at Town of 

Bluff to River mile 9 managed as VRM Class III. 

• River mile 9 to river mile 23 

(above Mexican Hat formation) managed as VRM Class I. 

• River mile 23.8 to river mile 28 

managed as VRM Class III. 

• River mile 28 to Glen Canyon 

NRA managed as VRM Class I. 

• Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to NSO. 

• Unavailable for mineral material 

disposal. 

• Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 

• Managed to limit recreation use if 

wildlife values are being adversely impacted. 

• Camping closed in areas as 

necessary to protect cultural, wildlife, and natural processes. 

• Designated access trails to 

cultural sites as necessary to protect cultural resources. 

• No camping in cultural sites. • Ropes and other climbing aids 

not allowed for access to ruins, 

prescriptions identified under the San Juan River SRMA in the Recreation Section of this Chapter would also be followed. 

Alternative B excelands with wildernewould be managed for mineral leasinguse, ROW exclusiounavailable for dismaterials, unavailaand commercial wVRM Class I, and withdrawal from mRecreation managprescriptions identSan Juan River SRRecreation Section would also be follo
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-62 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

cultural sites, and nesting raptors. 

• Recreation management 

prescriptions identified under the San Juan River SRMA in the Recreation Section of this Chapter would also be followed and is consistent with the management outlined above. 

SCENIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR ACEC—Relevance and Importance Value: Sc

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

For the 21,380 acres where the Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC (79,017 acres) (Map 50) overlaps the Cedar Mesa ACEC (295,336 acres), the special conditions for Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC would take precedence. Special conditions for the Corridor would be: • Open for mineral leasing with 

stipulations to prevent surface occupancy (Category 3); however, the area manager would grant an exception to the NSO stipulation in the event it is determined, through an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, if necessary, with the adoption and use of appropriate mitigation measures, that the project would meet visual quality standards. 

• Available for disposal of mineral 

materials subject to visual quality considerations. 

• Managed to limit recreation use if 

scenic values are being damaged. 

• Managed as VRM Class I with 

projects that meet these visual quality standards allowed. 

The Scenic Highway Corridor would not be designated as an ACEC. The scenic values would be protected throughout this linear feature through management prescription for the overlying SRMAs, WSAs, ACECs, among others. 

The Scenic Highway Corridor would not be designated as an ACEC. The scenic values would be protected throughout this linear feature through management prescription for the overlying SRMAs, WSAs, ACECs, among others. 

The Scenic Highway Corridor would not be designated as an ACEC. The scenic values would be protected throughout this linear feature through management prescription for the overlying SRMAs, WSAs, ACECs, among others. 

The Scenic Highwnot be designated The scenic values protected throughofeature through maprescription for the SRMAs, WSAs, AClands with wildernecharacteristics, am

SHAY CANYON ACEC—Relevance and Importance Value: Cultural 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Shay Canyon ACEC (3,561 acres) (Map 50): Cultural and Special Emphasis Area for conservation value would be maintained with the following management prescriptions: • Where riparian areas overlap 

part of Shay Canyon ACEC, the special conditions for floodplains 

Shay Canyon (119 acres) (Map 51) would be designated as a ACEC and would be managed with the following prescriptions: • A CRMP would be written for 

Shay Canyon ACEC. 

• OHV and mechanized travel 

limited to designated routes. 

• No surface disturbance for 

Same as Alternative B (Map 52). Shay Canyon would not be 

designated as an ACEC. It would be managed the same as the surrounding area, with the following prescriptions; 

• Open to grazing. • Managed as VRM Class III. • OHV use limited to designated 

routes. 

Same as Alternativexcept for non-WSwilderness characmanaged as unavaleasing, as unavaias ROW exclusion unavailable for dismaterials, as unavand commercial was VRM Class I, a
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-63 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

and riparian/aquatic areas would take precedence. 

• Within Shay Canyon ACEC, 

cultural properties eligible for NRHP would be surrounded by a buffer sufficient to allow permanent protection. If cultural resources or their buffers cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation would be applied ranging from limited testing to extensive excavation. 

• In any given case, mitigation 

would be designed to fit the specific circumstances and reviewed by the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Cedar Mesa Management Plan developed for the ACEC would guide fire protection, data recovery, and all other necessary cultural management activities. 

• Revegetation must be 

successfully established within 5 years after project completion. 

• Available for mineral leasing; 

surface use limited by special conditions. 

• Available for geophysical work. • Available for disposal of mineral 

materials. 

• Available for mineral entry with 

an approved plan of operations. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

not classified, segregated, or withdrawn from entry. 

• Excluded from private and 

commercial use of woodland products, except for limited onsite collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Available for livestock use. • Managed as VRM Class I, with 

projects that meet these visual quality standards allowed. 

• Subject to conditional fire 

suppression. 

• OHV use limited to designated 

roads/trails. 

• Open for improvements in habitat 

and watershed. 

• Special Emphasis Area (corridor 

averaging 275 feet wide centered 

vegetation, watershed, or wildlife treatments/improvements. 

• NSO for mineral leasing. • Open to geophysical exploration 

as long as it is consistent with the objectives of the ACEC. 

• Grazing restricted to trailing only. • With the exception of side 

canyons, hiking limited to designated trails. 

• Open to mineral entry with an 

approved plan of operations to avoid impacts to cultural and paleontological resources. 

• Closed to disposal of mineral 

materials. 

• Campfires not allowed. • Unavailable for private or 

commercial use of woodland products including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Recreation use may be limited if 

cultural and paleontological resources are impacted. 

• Managed as VRM Class II. • Closed to camping. 

• Unavailable for private or 

commercial use of woodland products including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

for withdrawal from 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-64 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

on [upper] Indian Creek): Managed to maintain and enhance riparian/aquatic habitat quality and to increase the extent of fishery habitat. 

VALLEY OF THE GODS ACEC—Relevance and Importance Value: Scenic 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Valley of the Gods: (31,387 acres) Special Emphasis Area for Scenic Value within the Cedar Mesa ACEC. • Surface disturbance would be 

managed to be compatible with VRM Class I criteria. 

• Surface disturbance would be 

limited to what can be successfully established within 1 year after project completion. Revegetation must be with native species naturally occurring in the vicinity. 

• Available for mineral leasing, 

NSO; however, the manager would grant an exception to the NSO stipulation in the event it is determined through an EA (or EIS, if necessary) that with the adoption and use of appropriate mitigation measures, the project would meet visual quality standards for the area. 

• Available for geophysical work. • Available for disposal of mineral 

materials with an approved plan of operations. 

• Available for mineral entry with 

an approved plan of operations. 

• Retained in public ownership and 

not classified, segregated, or withdrawn from entry. 

• Available for private and 

commercial use of woodland. 

• Open for livestock use. • Managed as VRM Class I. • OHV use limited to designated 

roads and trails. 

• Subject to conditional fire 

suppression. 

Valley of the Gods (22,863 acres) (Map 51) would be designated as an ACEC and would be managed with the following prescriptions: • Managed as VRM Class I. • Unavailable for mineral leasing. • Closed to the disposal of mineral 

materials. 

• Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 

• Available for vegetation 

treatments if meets VRM Class I objectives. 

• No campfires allowed. • Unavailable for private and/or 

commercial use of woodland products. 

• The BLM would pursue 

acquisition of state in-holdings in this ACEC. 

• Valley of the Gods ACEC lies 

within the Cedar Mesa SRMA. Recreational management prescriptions including limitations on group size, pets and stock animals are provided. See Recreation section in this Chapter under Cedar Mesa SRMA. 

Valley of the Gods (22,863 acres) (Map 52) would be designated as an ACEC and would be managed the same as Alternative B. Valley of the Gods ACEC lies within the Cedar Mesa SRMA. Recreational management prescriptions including limitations on group size, pets and stock animals are provided. See Recreation section in this Chapter under Cedar Mesa SRMA. 

Valley of the Gods would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Valley of the Gods (Map 51) would be ACEC. Managemesame as Alternativnon-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouas unavailable for closed to OHV useareas, unavailable mineral materials, private and commeharvest, VRM Clasfor withdrawal from Valley of the Gods the Cedar Mesa SRecreational manaprescriptions inclugroup size, pets anare provided. See section in this ChaMesa SRMA. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS—WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Review all eligible rivers to determine suitability for congressional designation into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). 

To the extent of the BLM's authority (limited to BLM lands within the river corridor), maintain and enhance the free-flowing character, preserve and enhance the ORVs, and allow n
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-65 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives river segments determined suitable for congressional designation into the NWSRS until Congress acts on the designation. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES River segments found suitable and/or recommended for designation would be managed in accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect the free-flowing nature of the 

outstandingly remarkable values within 0.25 mile from high water mark on each side of the river not to exceed 320 acres per mile. On the San Juan River the area would be 0.25 San Juan River, the BLM has jurisdiction on the lands north of the river; and the Navajo Nation has jurisdiction on the southern side of the river. The BLM would coordinate with thThe White Canyon had a river segment found eligible in the 1991 San Juan Resource Management Plan. There were 30 miles from the Manti-La Sal National Forest boundary to 

eligibility evaluation was conducted in 2004 (Appendix H, page 80), which determined this segment did not meet the eligibility criteria outlined in BLM policy due to a lack of interm

into this RMP revision. Management prescriptions for designated WSRs are listed in the BLM Manual 8351, WSRs—Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management (BLM 1

The BLM would work with state, local, and tribal governments, and other federal agencies, in a state-wide study, to reach consensus regarding recommendations to Congress for applying consistent criteria across agency jurisdictions, the joint study would avoid piecemealing of river segments in logical watershed units in the state. The study would evaluat

economies, agricultural and industrial operations and interests, outdoor recreation, natural resources (including the outstandingly remarkable values for which the river was deemeacross river corridors within, and upstream and downstream from the proposed segment(s). Actual designation of river segments would only occur through congressional action o

provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (the Act). The BLM will work with the state, local, and tribal governments, and the agencies involved to coordinate its decision making The BLM recognizes that water resources on most river and stream segments within the State of Utah are already fully allocated. Before stream segments that have been recommdesignation, the BLM will continue to work with affected local, state, federal, and tribal partners to identify in-stream flows necessary to meet critical resource needs, including valu

recommendation for designation. The BLM would then seek to jointly promote innovative strategies, community-based planning, and voluntary agreements with water users, unde

Should designations occur on any river segment as a result of Secretarial or congressional action, existing rights, privileges, and contracts would be protected. Under Section 12 o

the consent of the affected non-federal party. A determination by the BLM of eligibility and suitability for the inclusion of rivers on public lands to the National Wild and Scenic Rive

for new components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System are established at the discretion of Congress. If water is reserved by Congress when a river component is added to the 

appropriated at the time of designation, in the amount necessary to protect features, which led to the river's inclusion into the system. The BLM's intent would be to leave existing 

state entities to manage water resources under state law to meet the needs of the community. Federal law, including Section 13 of the Act and the McCarren Amendment (43 Uni

designated streams. Thus, it is the BLM's position that existing water rights, including flows apportioned to the State of Utah interstate agreements and compacts, including the Up

by designation or the creation of the possible federal reserved water right. The BLM would seek to work with upstream and downstream water users and applicable agencies to en

which affected river segments were designated. 

Colorado River Segment 1 (Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Recommendation: This segment of the Colorado River was not evaluated for eligibility in the 1991 San Juan RMP (see Segments 2 and 3 below). 

Recommendation: Suitable—

Recreational Size: 352 acres Location: Northern-most Monticello 

PA boundary, east side of Colorado River (1 mile north of Potash land) south of private land. Total river miles: 6.2 BLM river miles: 2.2 This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• VRM Class III. • Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to standard lease terms, except for floodplains and riparian corridors, which would be managed as available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ

Colorado River Segment 2 (Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Recommendation: The Colorado River was determined eligible in the 1991 San Juan RMP; suitability was not evaluated at that time. Location: From state lands near 

Recommendation: Suitable—

Scenic.Size: 880 acres Location: State lands near river 

Recommendation: Suitable—

Scenic. Size: 880 acres Location: State lands near river mile 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ

non-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouunavailable for minclosed to OHV use
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-66 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives river mile 44 to the boundary of Canyonlands National Park, 12.5 miles. The eligible segment includes the BLM portion of the Colorado River, from the north line of public land south of the San Juan County line down river to the north boundary of Canyonlands National Park. This segment would be managed under special conditions for floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas (entire 12.5-mile segment) and SPNM class (lower 9.5-mile segment). Floodplains and riparian/aquatic areas would be: • Available for mineral leasing with 

stipulations to prevent surface occupancy within actual floodplains or riparian/aquatic areas (Category 3). 

• Managed as ROS SPNM. Note: These stipulations apply to proposed Colorado River Segments 2 and 3. 

mile 44 to approximately river mile 38.5. Total river miles: 6.8 BLM river miles: 5.5 miles This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: • VRM Class II. • Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to NSO. 

44 to approximately river mile 38.5 (5.5 miles). This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• VRM Class II. • Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to NSO. 

• Motorized boat use allowed on 

the river. 

areas, unavailable mineral materials, private and commeharvest, VRM Clasfor withdrawal from 

Colorado River Segment 3 (Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

See management prescriptions above. 

Recommendation: Suitable—

Scenic. Size: 1,040 acres Location: From approximately river 

mile 37.5 at state land to boundary of Canyonlands National Park near river mile 31. Total river miles: 6.5 BLM river miles: 6.5 This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• VRM Class I. • Unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing. 

• Closed to OHV use. • Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 

• Closed to motorized boat use. 

Recommendation: Suitable—

(Scenic). Size: 1,040 acres Location: From approximately river 

mile 37.5 at state land to boundary of Canyonlands National Park near river mile 31 (6.5 miles). This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• VRM Class I. • Unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing. 

• Closed to OHV use. • Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 

• Closed to motorized boat use. 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ

non-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouunavailable for minclosed to OHV useareas, unavailable mineral materials, private and commeharvest, VRM Clasfor withdrawal from 

Indian Creek (Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Recommendation: This segment of Indian Creek was not evaluated for eligibility in the 1991 San Juan RMP. 

Recommendation: Suitable—

Recreational. Size: 1,536 acres Location: Forest boundary to 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ

non-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouunavailable for minclosed to OHV use
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-67 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Donnelly Canyon. Total river miles: 6.5 BLM river miles: 4.8 miles This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: • VRM Class III. • Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to standard lease terms, except for floodplains and riparian corridors, which would be available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. 

• OHV travel would be limited to 

designated routes. 

areas, unavailable mineral materials, private and commeharvest, VRM Clasfor withdrawal from 

Fable Valley (Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Recommendation: This segment of Fable Valley was not evaluated for eligibility in the 1991 San Juan RMP. 

Recommendation: Suitable—

Scenic. Size: 2,176 acres Location: Source to mouth at 

Gypsum Creek Total river miles: 6.8 BLM river miles: 6.8 Recommended as Suitable—Scenic. This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• VRM Class I. • Unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing. 

• Managed per IMP. 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ

non-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouunavailable for minclosed to OHV useareas, unavailable mineral materials, private and commeharvest, VRM Clasfor withdrawal from 

Dark Canyon (Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Recommendation: This segment of Dark Canyon was not evaluated for eligibility in the 1991 San Juan RMP. 

Recommendation: Suitable—Wild. 

Size: 2,048 acres Location: Forest boundary to Glen 

Canyon NRA below Young's Canyon. Total river miles: 13.6 BLM river miles: 6.4 This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• VRM Class I. • Unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing. 

• Closed to OHV use. • Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 

Same as Alternative B. Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ

non-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouunavailable for minclosed to OHV useareas, unavailable mineral materials, private and commeharvest, VRM Clasfor withdrawal from 

San Juan River Segment 1 (Maps 54 and 55) 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-68 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Recommendation: This segment of the San Juan River and the upper portion of proposed Segment 2 were not evaluated for eligibility in the 1991 San Juan RMP (see Segments 2, 3, 4, and 5 below). 

Recommendation: Suitable—

Recreational. Size: 1,360 acres Location: West Montezuma Creek 

to private land just before "avulsed" parcel of Navajo land at St. Christopher's Mission. Total river miles: 15.3 BLM River Miles: 8.5 This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• VRM Class III. • Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to standard lease terms except for floodplains and riparian corridors which would be available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ

San Juan River Segment 2(Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

San Juan River (This description covers a portion of proposed San Juan River Segment 2 and all of proposed Segments 3, 4, and 5.) The eligible segment includes the BLM portion of the San Juan River from the bridge on US Highway 191 south of Bluff to the Glen Canyon NRA boundary. This segment would be managed under the special conditions listed below: ROS P-Class Conditions for San Juan River• Excluded from private and 

commercial use of woodland products, except for on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. 

• Available for livestock use. • Excluded from new land 

treatments. 

• Managed to allow cultural 

resources to remain subject to natural forces. 

• Managed as VRM Class I, with 

only those projects that meet class-I objective allowed; subject to conditional fire suppression, with motorized suppression methods used only if necessary to protect life and property. 

• Excluded from surface 

Recommendation: Suitable—

Recreational. Size: 1,600 acres Location: West of "accreted" land at 

town of Bluff, Utah at river mile (minus) -1 to river mile 9. Total river miles: 10 BLM river miles: 10 This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• VRM Class III. • Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to standard lease terms except for floodplains and riparian corridors which would be managed as available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-69 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

disturbance by mechanized or motorized equipment. 

Semiprimitive Motorized (SPM) Class within San Juan River SRMA 

The SPM-class area within San Juan River SPRA (9,380 acres) would be managed under certain conditions listed above for P-class areas, except that motorized boat use on San Juan River would be allowed. This area would be managed to maintain an environment of isolation insofar as allowed by river permit and patrol system. Levels of management and use are aimed at maintaining safety and the riverine ecosystem. The following special conditions are in addition to those listed above for P-class areas: 

• The area would be 

recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

• Surface disturbance from mining 

activities on existing claims would be limited to the extent possible without curtailing valid existing rights. 

• The area above the rim in the 

vicinity of the Bluff airport lease would be available for mineral material disposal. 

• Except for motorized boat use on 

the San Juan River, no vehicle access would be allowed from Comb Wash downstream to Lime Creek and south of Mexican Hat bridge. In areas closed to OHV use, a plan of operations is required for any mining-related activity other than casual use. In other areas within the SRMA, vehicle access would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

San Juan River Segment 3 (Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

See management prescriptions above. 

Recommendation: Suitable—Wild. 

Size: 2,128 acres Location: River mile 9 to river mile 

23 above the Mexican Hat formation. Total river miles: 13.3 BLM river miles: 13.3 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ

non-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouunavailable for minclosed to OHV useareas, unavailable mineral materials, private and comme
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-70 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: • VRM Class I. • Unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing. 

• Closed to OHV use. • Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 

harvest, VRM Clasfor withdrawal from 

San Juan River Segment 4 (Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

See management prescriptions above. 

Recommendation: Suitable—

Recreational. Size: 672 acres Location: River mile 23.8 west to 

river mile 28. Total river miles: 5.3 BLM river miles: 4.2 This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• VRM Class III. • Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to standard lease terms, except for floodplains and riparian corridors, which would be available for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Recommendation: Not Suitable Same as Alternativ

non-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouunavailable for minclosed to OHV useareas, unavailable mineral materials, private and commeharvest, VRM Clasfor withdrawal from 

San Juan River Segment 5 (Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

See management prescriptions above. 

Recommendation: Suitable—Wild. 

Size: 2,768 acres Location: River mile 28 to Glen 

Canyon NRA at river mile 45. Total river miles: 17.3 BLM river miles: 17.3 This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: 

• VRM Class I. • Available for oil and gas leasing 

subject to NSO. 

• Closed to OHV use. • Recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ

Arch Canyon (Maps 54 and 55) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

This segment was not evaluated for eligibility in the 1991 San Juan RMP. 

Recommendation: Suitable—

Recreational. Size: 2,208 acres Location: Forest boundary to 0.5 

mile west of its confluence with 

Recommendation: Not suitable. Recommendation: Not suitable. Same as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-71 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Comb Wash. Total river miles: 7.7 BLM river miles: 6.9 This segment would be managed with the following prescriptions: • VRM Class III. • Open to oil and gas leasing 

subject to standard lease terms, except for floodplains and riparian corridors, which would be managed as open to oil and gas leasing subject to NSO. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS—WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (M

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Manage FLPMA Section 603 WSAs in a manner that does not impair their suitability for congressional designation into the National Wilderness Preservation System. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES All lands studied during the FLPMA Section 603 wilderness review will continue to be managed in a manner that does not impair their suitability for congressional designation in a

allowed on a case-by-case basis only where the BLM determines that such action would not impair the lands' wilderness suitability. The Monticello FO manages 13 WSAs [389,444 acres as identified in the Statewide Report to Congress and (386,027 GIS acres)]: Mancos Mesa (51,440 acres), Grand Gulch ISA Canyon (5,990), Cheesebox Canyon (15,410), Dark Canyon ISA Complex (68,030), Butler Wash (24,190), Bridger Jack Mesa (5,290), Indian Creek (6,870), South Needles (160)Only Congress can release a WSA from wilderness consideration. Should any WSA, in part or in whole, be released from wilderness consideration, examine proposals in the releRMP decisions. Actions inconsistent with RMP goals and objectives would be deferred until completion of requisite plan amendments. Because the management direction of the r

in the RMP, no separate analysis is required in this LUP to address resource impacts if any WSAs are released by Congress. 

Within the area managed by the Monticello FO, there is an area totaling 2,155 acres contiguous to the Butler Wash WSA that was studied as a boundary variation during the wilde

were addressed in the Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness Final EIS (November, 1990) and were recommended for congressional wilderness designation in the Utah Statewide Wild

President of the United States to Congress in 1993. The lands would continue to be managed in a manner that does not impair their suitability for congressional designation in acc

case actions that would be considered would be those where it is determined that wilderness suitability would not be adversely impacted. Lands within this administratively endors

those lands until Congress acts. WSAs are managed in a manner consistent with the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP) (BLM 1995). The only decisions related to WSA mana

use of specific ways. Any ways established for use through this planning effort must have been previously identified during the initial wilderness inventory. WSA management prescriptions, as stipulated in the IMP, would take precedence over other management prescriptions throughout this RMP, unless the other management pres

Only Congress can release a WSA from wilderness consideration. Actions inconsistent with RMP goals and objectives would be deferred until completion of requisite plan amend

consideration, proposals in the released area would be examined on a case-by-case basis for consistency with the goals and objectives of the RMP decisions. Because the mana

and objectives established in the RMP, there is no separate analysis required in this LUP to address resource impacts if any WSAs are released. Where vehicle ways would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use could continue on a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs ("ways" when 

does not impair wilderness suitability, as provided by the IMP. If Congress designates the area as wilderness, the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or noncompliance designation, the BLM would take further action to limit use of the ways or close them. The continued use of these ways, therefore, is based on user compliance and nonimpairmen

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Manage to a VRM Class I objectives. Manage OHV use as (Map 58): • Mancos Mesa: closed • Dark Canyon ISA: closed • Grand Gulch ISA: closed and 

limited 

• Fish Creek Canyon: closed and 

limited 

• Road Canyon: closed and limited • Mule Canyon: limited • Cheesebox Canyon: limited 

Designated as VRM Class I. Manage OHV use as (Map 59): • Mancos Mesa: closed • Dark Canyon ISA: closed • Grand Gulch ISA: closed • Fish Creek Canyon: closed • Road Canyon: closed • Mule Canyon: closed • Cheesebox Canyon: closed • Butler Wash and associated 

administratively endorsed lands: 

Designated as VRM Class I. Manage OHV use as (Map 60): 

• Mancos Mesa: closed • Dark Canyon ISA: closed • Grand Gulch ISA: closed • Fish Creek Canyon: closed • Road Canyon: closed • Mule Canyon: closed • Cheesebox Canyon: closed • Butler Wash and associated 

administratively endorsed lands: 

Designated as VRM Class I. Manage OHV use as (Map 61): 

• Mancos Mesa: limited • Dark Canyon ISA: limited • Grand Gulch ISA: limited • Fish Creek Canyon: limited • Road Canyon: limited • Mule Canyon: limited • Cheesebox Canyon: limited • Butler Wash and associated 

administratively endorsed lands: 

Designated as VRManage OHV use 

• Mancos Mesa: • Dark Canyon IS• Grand Gulch IS• Fish Creek Can• Road Canyon: • Mule Canyon: c• Cheesebox Ca• Butler Wash an

administratively 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-72 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives • Butler Wash: closed • Indian Creek: closed • Squaw and Papoose Canyon: 

limited (by IMP) 

• Cross Canyon: limited (by IMP) • Bridger Jack Mesa: closed • South Needles: closed 

closed 

• Indian Creek: closed • Squaw and Papoose Canyon: 

closed 

• Cross Canyon: closed • Bridger Jack Mesa: closed • South Needles: closed 

closed 

• Indian Creek: closed • Squaw and Papoose Canyon: 

closed 

• Cross Canyon: closed • Bridger Jack Mesa: closed • South Needles: closed Within the Grand Gulch ISA Complex, Fish Creek Canyon WSA, Road Canyon WSA, and Mancos Mesa WSA, there remain 7 ways that would continue to temporarily provide motorized access to existing trailheads. These trailheads would be relocated outside of the WSA boundary and rehabilitated in the future. 

limited 

• Indian Creek: limited • Squaw and Papoose Canyon: 

limited 

• Cross Canyon: limited • Bridger Jack Mesa: limited • South Needles: limited 

closed 

• Indian Creek: c• Squaw and Pap

closed 

• Cross Canyon: • Bridger Jack M• South Needles: 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS—HISTORIC TRAILS 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES The designated Old Spanish National Historic Trail would be managed to protect the resource values for which it was designated (Public Law 107-325). Hole in the Rock Trail would be managed for Heritage Tourism in consultation with Utah State Historic Preservation Office and Native American tribes, as well as interested stake

The BLM would coordinate with the NPS and other managing agencies in management of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. All interpretation projects would be done in consultation with Native Americans and other interested parties including the Old Spanish Trail Association and NPS. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

BLM and NPS are co-administrators of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail (Map 50) and currently involved in the development of a comprehensive management plan for the trail. The trail would be managed to protect the resource values for which it was designated (Public Law 107-325). 

• Segments (linear) of the Old 

Spanish National Historic Trail (Map 51) would be identified and classified for historic integrity and condition. These segments would then be designated for appropriate types of travel. 

• Special Recreation Permits 

(SRPs) on the Old Spanish National Historic Trail would be authorized only for heritage tours and reenactments. 

Same as Alternative B except: 

• Landmarks (structures) along the 

Old Spanish National Historic Trail (Map 52) would be identified for historic integrity and interpreted only if the action would not impact the values at the site. 

Same as Alternative C. • Segments (line

Spanish Nation(Map 51) would classified for hiscondition. Thesthen be designaappropriate typ

• SRPs on the O

National Historiauthorized only and reenactme

6 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-73 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats (including but not limited to designated critical habitat) of federally listed Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate plant or animal species to 

the listing of species under the Endangered Species Act. Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats of the BLM State Director's sensitive plant and animal species to ensure that actions requiring authorization or approval by the BLM are co

to the need to list any special status species, either under provisions of ESA or other provisions in the BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 2001c). Develop and implement conservation measures to minimize long-term habitat fragmentation through avoidance and site-specific reclamation to provide habitat quality and quantity 

species. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Threatened and Endangered species conservation measures and lease notices would be used for all surface-disturbing activities to comply with the Endangered Species Act, and 

Q. These species include: California Condor, Mexican Spotted Owl, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-Billed Cuckoo, Bonytail, Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback Chub, Ra

• Appendix A includes stipulations applicable to Oil and Gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities regarding the 10 listed and candidate species (Maps 91, 92, and 93). • Appendix B provides wildland fire protection/management measures for special status species. • Appendix Q provides the finalized conservation measures and BMPs for T&E species resulting from programmatic Section 7 Consultation with USFWS (2007). 

Oil and gas and mineral development BMPs would be used, including minimizing roadbed width and footprint size, co-location of facilities, etc., to minimize habitat fragmentation. 

The BLM would continue to use the lease notices that the BLM and USFWS agreed to (Appendix A). Inventories and monitoring studies would be conducted in order to determine special status plant and animal species locations, potential habitat, population dynamics, and existin

The protection of species and potential and/or occupied habitat for special status species would be considered and implemented prior to any authorization or action by the BLM th

No management action would be permitted on BLM lands that would jeopardize the continued existence of species that are listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing und

The BLM would follow and implement the guidelines and management recommendations presented in species recovery or conservation plans (as updated), or alternative manageThe BLM would support and implement where possible current and future sensitive species Conservation Agreements, including the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth sucker. The BLM would continue to work with USFWS and others to ensure that plans and agreements are updated to reflect the latest scientific data. 

The BLM would work cooperatively with USFWS and UDWR to obtain and/or maintain maps of current occupied and potential habitats for special status species. 

The BLM would work with the UDWR to implement the Utah Wildlife Action Plan (UDWR 2005) to coordinate management decisions that would conserve native species and prevTranslocations of population augmentation of special status species would be allowed to aid in conservation and recovery efforts. Necessary habitat manipulations and monitoring 

The BLM would implement and follow the guidelines in the Colorado River Fishes Recovery and Implementation Program (as updated). Implement the BLM's Guidance for the Management of Sagebrush Plant Communities for Sage-grouse Conservation and the BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation SConsistent with RMP goals and objectives, the following plans or best available scientific information would be utilized and applied, as needed, as part of implementing the BLM's 

Sage-grouse (BLM 2004d), WAFWA Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), and the Gunnison Sage-grouse RangewidThe Gunnison Sage-grouse Conservation Easement (320 acres) would be managed as outlined in the easement to protect and enhance habitat for sage-grouse. The easement is Retain potential/occupied special status species habitat in federal ownership. Acquisition of potential/occupied special status species habitat would be high priority. These acquireprescriptions for special status species. Any nonessential routes developed for a project located in special status species habitat would be closed and rehabilitated when the project is complete. Raptor management would be guided by the use of Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah (Appendix M), utilizing seasonal and spatial buhabitat, while allowing other resource uses. The BLM would implement and follow the Finalized Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices for Bald Eagle and Threatened and Endangered Species of Utah fro

revised) (Appendix Q). Gunnison Prairie dogs

Site-specific analysis would be conducted to determine presence or absence of prairie-dog colonies within potential/occupied habitat (Map 72). Colonies would be protected from 

and gas lease terms (60 days/200 meters rule), Conditions of Approval, and Standard Operating Procedures. Site-specific analysis would mitigate impacts from other BLM-author

Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Unspecified. Crucial Habitat: 145,583 acres 

(BLM lands: 4,884 acres) The following prescriptions would apply to BLM lands and/or BLMpermitted activities associated with the administration of federal 

Crucial Year-round Habitat: 

145,583 acres (BLM lands: 4,884 acres) The following prescriptions would apply to BLM lands and/or BLMpermitted activities associated with 

Crucial Habitat: 70,460 acres (BLM 

Lands: 3,197 acres) The following prescriptions would apply to BLM lands and/or BLMpermitted activities associated with the administration of federal 

Same as Alternativnon-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouas unavailable for as closed to OHV exclusion areas, a
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-74 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

minerals on split-estate lands: Lek habitat (within 0.6 miles of active strutting ground):• Prohibit year-round construction 

of fences. Retrofit visual devices on existing fences to prevent collisions. Where opportunity exists, remove existing fences. 

• Prohibit construction of power 

lines or permanent aboveground structures year-round. 

• CSU for oil and gas leasing 

activities. 

• Unavailable for non–grounddisturbing geophysical work from 

March 20 to May 15. 

• Prohibit construction of roads 

year-round. 

• Prohibit construction of wind 

power turbines year-round. 

• Avoid all permitted activities from 

March 20 to May 15. If impracticable, no activity from sunset the evening before to 3 hours after sunrise the next morning. 

the administration of federal minerals on split-estate lands: Lek habitat (within 0.6 miles of 

active strutting ground):• Retrofit visual devices on existing 

fences to prevent collisions yearround. Where opportunity exists, remove existing fences. Avoid construction of new fences. If new fences have to be built, fit with visual devices. 

• Prohibit construction of power 

lines or other tall structures yearround. 

• NSO for oil and gas leasing 

activities. 

• Unavailable for non–grounddisturbing geophysical work from 

March 11 to May 15. 

• Prohibit construction of roads 

year-round. 

• Avoid construction of wind power 

turbines year-round. 

• With the exception of grazing, 

prohibit all permitted activities from 1 hour before sunrise to 3 hours after sunrise from March 11 to May 15. 

minerals on split-estate lands: Lek habitat (within 0.25 miles of 

active strutting ground):• Avoid construction of fences • Avoid construction of power lines 

or other tall structures. If impractical, bury power lines or retrofit them to prevent perching by raptors. 

• CSU for oil and gas leasing 

activities. 

• Unavailable for non-grounddisturbing geophysical work from 

March 20 to May 15. 

• Prohibit maintenance and 

operation activities for mineral production from 1 hour before sunrise to 3 hours after sunrise from March 20 to May 15. 

• Prohibit construction of roads 

year-round. 

• Avoid construction of wind power 

turbines year-round. 

• Avoid permitted activities from 1 

hour before sunrise to 3 hours after sunrise from March 20 to May 15. 

disposal of mineraunavailable for privcommercial woodlVRM Class I, and withdrawal from m

Unspecified. Year-round habitat (within 6 miles 

of active strutting ground May 16–March 19):• Sagebrush treatments must have 

recovery objectives that meet the habitat objectives listed in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005, as amended). Any variance from these recovery objectives would be subject to site-specific NEPA, including collaboration with stakeholder groups. 

• Prohibit the construction of new 

fences. If impracticable, increase the visibility of the fences (flagging, white-tipped T-posts, etc.) and monitor effectiveness of visual devices and modify or remove feces if necessary to minimize sage-grouse mortality. 

• Leasing would be available with 

standard stipulations for oil and gas development Follow Suggested Management Practices, where applicable, for 

Year-round habitat (within 6 miles 

of active strutting ground June 1–March 14):• Sagebrush treatments must have 

recovery objectives that meet the habitat objectives listed in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005, as amended). Any variance from these recovery objectives would be subject to site-specific NEPA, including collaboration with stakeholder groups. 

• Avoid the construction of new 

fences. If impracticable, increase the visibility of the fences (flagging, white-tipped T-post, etc.) and monitor effectiveness of visual devices and modify or remove feces if necessary to minimize sage-grouse mortality. 

• Leasing would be available with 

standard stipulations for oil and gas development. Follow Suggested Management Practices, where applicable for oil 

Year-round habitat (within 6 miles 

of active strutting ground May 16–March 19):• Sagebrush treatments must have 

recovery objectives that meet the habitat objectives listed in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005, as amended), or, if varied, must be approved by local sagegrouse working group. 

• Construction of new fences must 

be made as visible as possible (flagging, white-tipped T-posts, etc.) to avoid grouse collisions. 

• Leasing would be available with 

standard stipulations for oil and gas development. 

• Manage grazing to maintain 

Rangeland Health. 

• The following grazing allotment 

would not be grazed from March 20 to May 15: Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage-grouse, and Dry Farm. 

Same as Alternativnon-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouas unavailable for as closed to OHV exclusion areas, adisposal of mineraunavailable for privcommercial woodlVRM Class I, and withdrawal from m
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-75 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

oil and gas development listed in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005, as amended). 

• Prohibit the construction of power 

lines, wind power turbines, or other aboveground structures. 

• Limit grazing use levels as 

necessary to maintain and/or improve sage-grouse habitat. 

• The following grazing allotments 

would not be grazed from March 20 to May 15: Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage-grouse, and Dry Farm. 

and gas development listed in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005, as amended). 

• Avoid the construction of power 

lines or other aboveground structures. If impractical, bury power lines or retrofit them to prevent perching by raptors. 

• Prohibit construction of wind 

power turbines. 

• Limit grazing use levels as 

necessary to maintain and/or improve sage-grouse habitat. 

• The following grazing allotments 

would not be grazed from March 20 to May 15: Sage Flat, Upper East Canyon, Sage-grouse, and Dry Farm. 

Habitat for Mexican Spotted Owl and Flannelmouth Sucker (Arch Canyon) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

OHV limited to designate route in canyon. Open to motorized use to USFS boundary (8 miles). 

• Closed to OHV use. • Group size (for nonmechanized, 

nonmotorized) limited to 10 individuals and 2 groups per day. 

• A permit system would be 

implemented. 

• OHV use would be limited to the 

designated route to the end of the State Section (T37S R20E Section 16) year-round (approximately 3.8 miles). The canyon would be closed yearround from west boundary of the state section to the end of the route at the National Forest boundary. 

• Group size limited to 12 vehicles 

and two groups per day. 

• A permit system would be 

implemented. 

• OHV use limited to the 

designated route year-round. 

• Commercial motorized use 

limited to 12 vehicles and up to 2 trips a day. 

• Private OHV group size would be 

unlimited. 

• Area would be 

use. 

• Group size (for 

nonmotorized) 10 individuals aday. 

• A permit system 

implemented. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The BLM would provide opportunities for a range of motorized recreation experiences on public lands while protecting resources and minimizing conflicts among various users. All BLM lands would be designated as open, limited, or closed. Seasonal restrictions can be applied to the limited category. 

Any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle being used for emergency or administrative purposes is exempt from OHV decisions. 

OHV vehicle use would be managed in accordance with the BLM's National OHV strategy. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Through future implementation level planning, designated routes would be categorized as mechanized only (bicycles), single-track motorized (dirt bikes), or two-track motorized (f

categories. Adjustments of these categories would be made based on recreational demand and potential conflict. All nonmotorized travel would be allowed on designated routes uMechanized travel (bicycles) would be limited to designated roads and trails. There would be no exceptions that allow for cross-country travel for game retrieval or antler gathering in areas designated as limited or closed. OHV use for game retrieval would 

7 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-76 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives BLM Back Country Byways and National Recreation Trails may be designated in the future, as deemed appropriate, with site-specific environmental analysis. Appendix N outlines the processes and procedures for making modifications to the travel plan designated route network. The BLM, in preparing its RMP designations and its implementation-level travel management plans, is following policy and regulation authority found at: 43 C.F.R. Part 8340; 43 C

Where the authorized officer determines that OHVs are causing or would cause considerable adverse impacts, the authorized officer shall close or restrict such areas. The public 

specific designated routes if monitoring indicates that a particular type of vehicle is causing disturbance to the soil, wildlife habitat, cultural or vegetative resources, especially by oWhere routes would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use could continue on a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs ("ways" when located 

not impair wilderness suitability, as provided by the IMP (BLM 1995). If Congress designates the area as wilderness, the routes will be closed. In the interim, if use and/or noncomwilderness designation, the BLM would take further action to limit use of the routes, or close them. The continued use of these routes, therefore, is based on user compliance and 

OHV Area Designations 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Open to OHV use: 611,310 acres 

(Map 58) Squaw Canyon and Cross Canyon WSAs are within this acreage but would not be open for OHV use unless and until Congress releases them from WSA status. This would require a plan amendment. 

Open to OHV use: 0 acres (Map 59) 

Open to OHV use: 2,311 acres 

(Map 60) 

Open to OHV use: 2,311 acres (Map 61) 

Open to OHV use

62) 

Limited use with seasonal restrictions: 540,260 acres 

To protect the following: 

• bighorn sheep lambing and 

rutting areas 

• antelope fawning areas • deer winter ranges Limited to existing roads and trails: 570,390 acres

To protect cultural, scenic, and recreational values: 

• Alkali Ridge ACEC • Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC • Most SPNM-class areas Limited to Designated Roads and Trails: 218,780 acres

To protect cultural, scenic, and recreational values: 

• Cedar Mesa ACEC (partial) • Hovenweep ACEC • Pearson Canyon hiking area • Shay Canyon ACEC • SPNM-class areas in SRMAs • Road corridors adjacent to 

SPNM-class areas 

• Developed recreation sites • Floodplains, riparian/aquatic 

Limited to designated routes:

1,359,417 acres Mountain bike use would be limited to the same designated routes as OHV travel. 

Limited to designated routes:

1,362,142 acres (Map 60) Mountain bike use would be limited to the same designated routes as OHV travel. 

Limited to designated routes:

1,780,807 acres (Map 61) Mountain bike use would be limited to the same designated routes as OHV travel. 

Limited to design

812,679 acres (MaMountain bike use to the same designOHV travel. 

8 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-77 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

areas 

Closed to OHV Use: 276,430 

acres To protect the following vegetation study areas: 

• Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC • Lavender Mesa ACEC To protect the following cultural, scenic, and recreational values: • Butler Wash ACEC • Cedar Mesa ACEC (partial) • Dark Canyon ACEC • Indian Creek ACEC • Most ROS-P areas • San Juan River SRMA SPMclass area • RN-class area on Mancos Mesa Note: Acres may not be additive because of overlap. 

Closed to OHV Use: 423,698 

acres To protect the following vegetation study areas: 

• Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC • Lavender Mesa ACEC To protect the following cultural, scenic, and recreational values: • San Juan River SRMA SPMclass area To protect the following cultural values: • Tank Bench SRMA, Outlaw 

Canyon 

• Tank Bench SRMA, South 

Cottonwood Wash 

To protect the wilderness character of the following: • Cross Canyon WSA • Squaw and Papoose WSA • Mule Canyon WSA • Fish Creek WSA • Grand Gulch ISA Complex • Road Canyon WSA • Dark Canyon WSA • Indian Creek WSA • Bridger Jack Mesa WSA • Butler Wash WSA • Mancos Mesa WSA • Cheesebox Canyon WSA • South Needles WSA and the 

Administratively Endorsed Lands that are contiguous to Butler Wash WSA. 

Closed to OHV Use: 418,667 acres 

(Map 60): To protect the following vegetation study areas: • Bridger Jack Mesa WSA • Lavender Mesa ACEC To protect the following cultural, scenic, and recreational values: • A portion of the San Juan River 

SRMA (partial) 

To protect the following cultural values: • Tank Bench SRMA, Outlaw 

Canyon 

• Tank Bench SRMA, South 

Cottonwood Wash 

To protect wilderness character of the WSAs: • Cross Canyon WSA • Squaw and Papoose WSA • Mule Canyon WSA • Fish Creek WSA • Grand Gulch WSA ISA Complex • Road Canyon WSA • Dark Canyon WSA • Indian Creek WSA • Bridger Jack Mesa WSA • Butler Wash WSA • Mancos Mesa WSA • Cheesebox Canyon WSA • South Needles WSA and the 

Administratively Endorsed Lands that are contiguous to Butler Wash WSA. 

Four WSAs would allow for temporary, conditional motorized use of 7 ways to provide access to trailheads: • Fish Creek WSA 2 ways • Road Canyon WSA 1 way • Mancos Mesa WSA 2 ways • Grand Gulch WSA 2 ways • Trailheads would be relocated 

outside of the WSAs and the 

Closed to OHV Use: 0 acres (Map 

61) 

Closed to OHV U

(Map 62)To protect vegetat

• Bridger Jack M• Lavender Mesa 

To protect culturalrecreational values

• San Juan River 

class area 

To protect cultural 

• Tank Bench SR

Canyon 

• Tank Bench SR

Cottonwood Wa

To protect wilderne

• Cross Canyon W• Squaw and Pap• Mule Canyon W• Fish Creek WS• Grand Gulch W• Road Canyon W• Dark Canyon W• Indian Creek W• Bridger Jack M• Butler Wash W• Mancos Mesa W• Cheesebox Ca• South Needles 

Administratively that are contiguWash WSA 

• Non-WSA land

characteristics 33. 

9 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-78 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

ways rehabilitated at a future date. 

Miles of Designated Roads on Public Lands within the Monticello PA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Open B-Class Roads: 890 miles Open D-Class Roads: 2,179 miles Closed D-Class Roads: 0 miles 

Open B-Class Roads: 875 miles Open D-Class Roads: 1,521 miles Closed D-Class Roads: 780 miles 

Open B-Class Roads: 873 miles Open D-Class Roads: 1,947 miles Closed D-Class Roads: 316 miles 

Open B-Class Roads: 873 miles Open D-Class Roads: 2,205 miles Closed D-Class Roads: 45 miles 

Open B-Class RoaOpen D-Class RoaClosed D-Class Ro

Special Stipulation Areas within the Limited to Designated Routes Category 

Arch Canyon (to protect wildlife) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Area open to OHV use. Seasonal stipulations March 1–August 31 for Mexican Spotted Owl. 

• Area would be closed to OHV 

use. 

• Group size (for nonmechanized, 

nonmotorized) limited to 10 individuals and two groups per day. 

• A permit system would be 

implemented. 

• OHV use would be limited to the 

designated route to the end of the State Section (T37S R20E Section 16) year-round (approximately 3.8 miles). The canyon would be closed yearround from west boundary of the state section to the end of the route at the National Forest boundary. 

• Group size limited to 12 vehicles 

and two groups per day. 

• There would be no limits on 

nonmechanized, nonmotorized group size. 

• A permit system would be 

implemented. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated route year-round. 

• Commercial motorized use would 

be limited to 12 people per trip and up to 2 trips per day. 

• Private OHV group size would be 

unlimited. 

• Area would be 

use. 

• Group size (for 

nonmotorized) 10 individuals aday. 

• A permit system 

implemented. 

McLoyd Canyon–Moon House (for Cultural Protection) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

See also Cultural section. The "way" D4798, which is within 

Fish Creek WSA, would be closed to motorized use. 

No motorized travel would be allowed on northern section of road (approximately 500 feet) D4798, which crosses onto BLM land (and lies within Fish Creek WSA) at the northern State Section boundary. 

Travel would be allowed on Road D4798 and would be limited to the designated route (which lies within the Fish Creek WSA). 

The "way" D4798, Fish Creek WSA, wmotorized use. 

Nonmechanized (e.g., Hiking, Equestrian, and Backpacking) 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Nonmechanized travel is not restricted on public lands except where limited or prohibited to protect specific resource values, provide for public safety, or maintain an identified oppProvide opportunities for nonmechanized travel (hiking) on all routes open to mechanized use. Manage routes identified in each alternative to exclude motorized and mechanized 

and mechanized routes. 

10 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information11 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information.12 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information13 This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-79 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives Limit nonmechanized travel on specific lands to designated routes for resource protection purposes. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES Manage the following trails for nonmechanized use: • Open to foot travel: Kane Gulch, Todie Canyon, Bullet Canyon, Shieks Canyon, Government Trail, Collins Canyon, Slickhorn Canyon, Point Lookout Canyon, Grand Gulch (f

Canyon, Lime Creek Canyon, North Mule Canyon, South Mule Canyon, Lower Mule Canyon from Comb Wash, Mule Canyon or Cave Canyon Towers, Arch Canyon, Johns Ca

Salt Creek Mesa Trail, Butler Ruin Interpretative Trail, Sand Island Petroglyph Trail, Shay Canyon Petroglyph Trail, Newspaper Rock Trail, Salvation Knoll Trail, Monarch Cave 

Trail, Moon House Trail, Ball Room Cave Trail. 

• Open for Stock overnight use: Kane Gulch, Government Trail, Collins Canyon, Grand Gulch (from Kane Gulch to the junction of Collins Canyon; no stock below Collins Cany

Lime Creek Canyon, Lower Mule Canyon from Comb Wash, Arch Canyon, Johns Canyon, Salt Creek Mesa Trail. 

• Open for stock day use: Bullet Canyon (from Grand Gulch to Jailhouse Ruin), Fish Canyon (2 miles above the confluence with Owl Canyon), Owl Canyon (to Neville's Arch), 

Creek Mesa Trail, Monarch Cave Trail, Fish Mouth Trail, Cold Springs Trail, Procession Panel Trail, Wolf Man Panel Trail. 

Nonmechanized routes may be added through subsequent planning at the activity plan level on a case by case basis. Indian Creek Climbing Trails would include the following: Bridger Jack Mesa, Super Crack Buttress, Cat Wall, Broken Tooth Wall, Scarface, and Battle of the Bulge. 

VEGETATION 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Manage vegetation resources for desired future conditions, as determined by site-specific BLM objectives and rangeland functionality and health, thereby ensuring ecological dive

structural stages, and landscape/riparian/watershed function, and provide for native plant, fish, and wildlife habitats. Provide sustainable forage for livestock and wildlife with a plant community that incorporates and meets the standards for rangeland health. 

Provide opportunities for plant material gathering (seed collection, plant collection, etc.) of various vegetation types while protecting other resources. Maintain existing vegetative treatment areas as appropriate. Sustain the integrity of the sagebrush steppe community type to provide the amount, continuity, and quality of habitat that is necessary to maintain sustainable populations of sageControl invasive and non-native weed species and prevent the introduction of new invasive species through the implementation of a comprehensive weed program, including coormonitoring; and principles of integrated weed management. Control invasive and non-native weed species and prevent the introduction of new invasive species through the implementation of the BLM National Strategy and Action Plan as o

Management Initiative" and "Partners Against Weeds" (1994). Control insect pest species as necessary to protect vegetation resources in conjunction with Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Areas that meet Utah's Rangeland Health Standards would be open to seed gathering and plant collection, including commercial seed gathering. Seed gathering would be managed according to Utah BLM guidance for Seed Collection Policy and Pricing (as amended). 1.3.1 Guidance for Addressing Sagebrush Habitat Conservation (November, 2004) as described in the BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (WO-IM-2005-

Necessary vegetation information would be gathered and monitoring continued to assess if planning objectives are being met. Invasive and non-native weed species (as identified in Table 3.59, Invasive and Noxious Weeds of San Juan County) would be controlled, and the infestation and spread of new iprinciples in BLM weed management policies and action plans. Poisonous plant species would be controlled as necessary based on site-specific needs. Cooperating agreements with other federal, state, local, and private organizations would be developed to control invasive non-native species, control insect pest species, and imp

Prevention measures (SOPs and mitigation measures) from the 2007 ROD Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Appendix B and mitigation measures in Table 2 of that ROD. Upland areas would be managed to achieve DFC. Unnecessary social footpath trails would be minimized throughout the PA. Pack stock and riding stock users on BLM-administered land would be required to use certified weed-free feed. Restoration/rehabilitation activities would be required to use certified weed-free seed mixes, mulch, fill, etc. The power washing of equipment used for permitted uses may be required to help control noxious weeds. Continue implementation of noxious weed and invasive species control actions as per national guidance and local weed management plans in cooperation with state, federal, affe

affected. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES Implement 30,000 to 50,000 acres of vegetation treatments in Fire Regime Condition Class III areas over a 15-year period. 

The following sagebrush communities would be prioritized for treatment: Harts Draw, Beef Basin, Black Mesa, Alkali, Mustang, Cedar Point, Shay Mesa, and all areas with GunnisTreat greasewood in Comb Wash, Butler Wash, Montezuma, East Canyon, Indian Creek, South and North Cottonwood Wash, and Cross Canyon to improve ground cover, biodiv
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-80 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

Maintain existing land treatments and provide new land treatments; apply RMP stipulations and special conditions through NEPA documentation (232,130 acres). 

Maintain an estimated 1,000 acres/year of existing land treatments and implement new vegetation treatments to restore ecosystem health, functioning condition, etc. in the following vegetation cover types: 

• sagebrush 1,000 acres/year • weed treatments 3,000 

acres/year 

• pinyon-juniper 2,000 acres/year • riparian 500 acres/year • greasewood 100 acres/year 

Maintain an estimated 1,500 acres/year of existing land treatments and implement new vegetation treatments to restore ecosystem health, functioning condition, etc. in the following vegetation cover types: 

• sagebrush 1,500 acres/year • weed treatments 3,000 

acres/year 

• pinyon-juniper 3,000 acres/year • riparian 100 acres/year • greasewood 200 acres/year 

Maintain an estimated 2,000 acres/year of existing land treatments and implement new vegetation treatments to restore ecosystem health, functioning condition, etc. in the following vegetation cover types: 

• sagebrush 2,000 acres/year • weed treatments 3,000 

acres/year 

• pinyon-juniper 4,000 acres/year • riparian 100 acres/year • greasewood 200 acres/year 

Same as Alternativnon-WSA lands wcharacteristics wouas unavailable for closed to OHV usewithdrawal from mexclusion area, undisposal of mineraunavailable for privcommercial woodlunavailable for lanmanaged as VRM treatments would bnon–surface-distu

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Designate VRM classes. Manage activities consistent with VRM management class objectives. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES All permitted activities would have to comply with VRM management class objectives, unless a waiver, exemption, or modification is granted by the Authorized Officer. 

WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I. Allow for recreational viewing platforms and special recreation facilities in all high scenic areas. VRM classifications need to match Minimum Impact Criteria. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVES Visual resources would be managed as the VRM inventory class (see Maps 66–71) unless specified otherwise in the management prescriptions. 

In areas available for oil and gas leasing subject to standard lease terms or available to oil and gas leasing subject to Timing and CSU, visual resources would be managed as VR

management prescriptions. Areas that inventory as VRM Class II but are in areas that are available for oil and gas leasing subject to standard lease terms or available to oil and gas leasing subject to Timing 

specified in the management prescriptions below. Wild segments of a WSR would be managed as VRM Class I. Scenic segments of a WSR would be managed as VRM Class II. Recreation segments of a WSR would be managed as the same VRM class as surrounding land. Visual Impact analysis would use GIS technology. 

(Lists below are not meant to be inclusive. See Maps 66–71) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D Altern

371,575 acres would be managed as VRM Class I (Map 66). • The Monticello FO manages 13 

WSAs (389,440 acres): Mancos Mesa (51,440 acres), Grand Gulch ISA Complex (37,810), Road Canyon (52,420), Fish Creek Canyon (46,440), Mule Canyon (5,990), Cheesebox Canyon (15,410), Dark Canyon ISA Complex (62,040), Butler Wash (22,030), Bridger Jack Mesa (5,290), Indian Creek (6,870), South Needles (160), 

497,668 acres would be managed as VRM Class I (Map 67). WSAs (same as Alternative A). Potential ACECs:• Butler Wash North • Dark Canyon • Lockhart Basin • Valley of the Gods • Indian Creek • San Juan River Sections 3 and 5 WSRs:

425,179 acres would be managed as VRM Class I (Map 68). WSAs (same as Alternative A). Potential ACECs:

• Valley of the Gods • Indian Creek • San Juan River Sections 3 and 5 WSRs:• Dark Canyon WSR • Colorado River Number 3 

390,424 acres would be managed as VRM Class I (Map 69). WSAs (same as Alternative A). 

998,370 acres wouas VRM Class I (MWSAs (same as ANon-WSA lands wcharacteristics: (Total acres 582,3(50), Bridger Jack Butler Wash (1660Canyon (13240), C(13,760), Cross CaDark Canyon (663Creeks (24650), FCanyon (12410), GGrand Gulch (5524
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-81 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

Squaw and Papoose Canyons (6,560), Cross Canyon (1,008). 

• Castle Creek, Horse Pasture, 

and Steer Pasture 

• Moqui Canyon; south end of 

Mancos Mesa 

• Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC 

to the intersection with Natural Bridges 

• Dark Canyon Suitable River 

Segment 

• Colorado Number 3 • San Juan River Suitable Sections 

3 and 5 

• Fable Valley Suitable River 

Segment 

Long Canyons (36Canyon (4700), Ha(9660), Harts PoinLockhart (1760), In(23260), Lime CreMancos Mesa (615(94270), Red Rock Road Canyon (113River (14340), Sha(6710), Sheep CanSquaw and Papoo(3570), Upper Red Valley of the Gods Canyon (9080) 

355,112 acres would be managed as VRM Class II including but not limited to the following (Map 66): • Sweet Alice South/Ruin Canyon • North of Highway 95 in the Comb 

Ridge Area 

• South Cottonwood, east of Black 

Mesa Road 

• Clay Hill's Crossing (west end to 

state land) and the southern polygon (as shown on Map 66) 

• Highway 276 National Bridges 

area east, and southwest of UT 95 and 261 junction 

• Mesa shoulders for Tables of the 

Sun 

250,641 acres would be managed as VRM Class II including but not limited to the following (Map 67): • Castle Creek, Horse Pasture, and 

Steer Pasture 

Potential ACECs:• Bridger Jack Mesa • Lavender Mesa • Shay Canyon • San Juan River Section 1 • Colorado River Segment 2 WSRs:• Colorado Segment 2 • Fable Valley 

132,001 acres would be managed as VRM Class II including but not limited to the following (Map 68): Potential ACECs:

• Lavender Mesa • Shay Canyon • San Juan River (portions) WSRs:• Colorado River Number 2 • Southern boundary of Indian 

Creek east to rims is the northern boundary, and the southern boundary is the USFS northern boundary. On the east, the canyon rims then west to Highway 211. 

• Castle Creek, Horse Pasture, and 

Steer Pasture 

• Old Scenic Highway Corridor 

ACEC (from west to east) to the intersection with Natural Bridges. 

• Comb Ridge south of Highway 

95, except for proposed campgrounds and Butler Wash OHV area 

• Highway 276 to Clay Hills 

Crossing (as shown on Map 68) 

• Mesa tops for Tables of the Sun 

8,838 acres would be managed same as VRM Class II, including but not limited to portions of the San Juan River (Map 69). 

111,478 acres wousame as VRM Clanot limited to CastPasture, and Stee70). Potential ACECs:

• Bridger Jack M• Lavender Mesa • Shay Canyon • San Juan River • Colorado River 

WSRs:

• Colorado Numb• Fable Valley 

416,806 acres would be managed as VRM Class III including but not limited to the following (Map 66): • Southern boundary of Indian 

Creek east to rims is the northern boundary, and the southern boundary is the USFS northern boundary. On the east the canyon rims then west to Highway 211. 

• Arch Canyon 

426,350 acres would be managed as VRM Class III including but not limited to the following (Map 67): Potential ACECs:• Alkali Ridge • Cedar Mesa (outside of WSAs) • Hovenweep • San Juan River Sections 2 and 4 WSRs:• Colorado River Section 1 

531,920 acres would be managed as VRM Class III including but not limited to the following (Map 68): Potential ACECs:

• Hovenweep • San Juan River Sections 2 and 4 • Cedar Mesa (SRMA) portions • Lockhart Basin • Sweet Alice South/Ruin Canyon • Moqui Canyon 

692,741 acres would be managed as VRM Class III including but not limited to the following (Map 69): 

• Castle Creek, Horse Pasture, 

Steer Pasture 

• Sweet Alice South/Ruin Canyon • Moqui Canyon, south end of 

Mancos Mesa 

• North of Highway 95 in the Comb 

Ridge area 

• South Cottonwood, east of Black 

264,369 acres wouas VRM Class III ilimited to the followPotential ACECs:

• Alkali Ridge • Cedar Mesa (o• Hovenweep • San Juan River 

WSRs:

• Colorado River 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-82 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

• Indian Creek • Arch Canyon • San Juan River Sections 1, 2, 

and 4 

• Bridger Jack Mesa from mesa top 

to ATV trails/roads on west, north, and sides, and on the east to the private land boundary. 

• Shay Canyon (119 acres) and 

areas for proposed campgrounds, parking lots, and associated facilities 

• North of Highway 95 in the Comb 

Ridge Area 

• South Cottonwood east of Black 

Mesa Road 

• Clay Hill's Crossing (west end to 

state land), and the southern polygon (as shown on Map 68) southwest of D2621 and D3514 

• Highway 276 National Bridges 

area east, and southwest of UT 95 and 261 junction 

• Portions of Cedar Mesa area • Tables of the Sun-shoulders of 

the mesa 

Mesa Road. 

• Clay Hill's Crossing (west end to 

state land) and the southern polygon (as shown on Map 69). 

• Highway 276 National Bridges 

area east, and southwest of UT 95 and 261 junction. 

• Shoulders of the mesa of Tables 

of the Sun 

• Southern boundary of Indian 

Creek east to rims is the northern boundary, and the southern boundary is the USFS northern boundary. On the east the canyon rims then west to Highway 211. 

• Comb Ridge south of Highway 

95, except for proposed campgrounds and Butler Wash OHV area 

• Old Scenic Highway Corridor 

ACEC (from west to east) to the intersection with Natural Bridges 

• Arch Canyon. 

• Indian Creek. • Arch Canyon. • San Juan River 

and 4. 

637,875 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. 

608,463 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. 

693,995 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV, including but not limited to portions of Cedar Mesa areas as inventoried. Potential ACECs:

• Alkali Ridge 

691,119 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. 

407,459 acres wouas VRM Class IV. 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats to support natural wildlife diversity, reproductive capability, and a healthy, self-sustaining population of wildlife and fish species. 

Recognize crucial and nonfragmented habitats as management priorities. Maintain or improve vegetation condition and/or avoid long-term disturbance in habitat sites for wildlife and fish species. Minimize long-term habitat fragmentation as much as possible through avoidance and site-specific reclamation to provide habitat quality and quantity adequate to fulfill the life histMaintain and enhance aquatic and wildlife resources, and provide for biological diversity of plants and wildlife resources while ensuring healthy ecosystems. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Migratory Birds 

Comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and implement the Executive Order 13186 ("Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds") during all activities to prote

current USFWS "Birds of Conservation Concern" (2002 or as updated), and Partners-in-Flight priority species (as updated). As specific habitat needs and population distribution to In-Flight Avian Conservation Strategy (UDWR, 2000, as updated) priority species are identified, the BLM would use adaptive management strategies to further conserve habitat aDuring nesting season for migratory birds (May 1–July 30), avoid or minimize surface-disturbing activities and vegetative-altering projects and broad-scale use of pesticides in ide

Prioritize the maintenance and/or improvement of lowland riparian, wetlands, and low and high desert scrub communities, which are the four most important and used habitat type

Prevent the spread of invasive and non-native plants, especially cheatgrass, salt cedar, and Russian olive. Strive for a dense understory of native species with a reduction in salt cAs a supplement to comply with Executive Order 13186, the Bird Habitat Conservation Areas identified in the Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah (200projects through cooperative funding initiatives such as the Intermountain West Joint Venture. Land-use decisions that contain migratory birds and their habitats would consider the goals and objectives established in respective bird conservation strategies: bird conservation 

Management of habitat for species conservation will incorporate statewide conservation strategies. Raptors
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-83 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives Raptor management would be guided by the use of Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah (Utah BLM 2006, Appendix M), utilizing seasonand foraging habitat, while allowing other resource uses. Cooperate with utility companies, UDWR, and USFWS to prevent electrocution of raptors. Temporarily close areas (amount of time depends on species) near raptor nests to rock climbers or other activities if activity may result in nest abandonment. 

Bighorn Sheep

Five mesa tops (56,740 acres) within the crucial bighorn sheep habitat have been identified as areas of potential conflict between bighorn and activities that cause surface disturb

improvement projects would be prioritized in these areas. Livestock grazing and associated range improvement projects would not be allowed on the five mesa tops. Any future proposal for a change in kind of livestock from cattle to sheep in crucial desert bighorn sheep habitat would be denied in order to prevent competition for forage and the Adhere to the recommendations in the BLM Bighorn Sheep Rangeland Management Plan (BLM 1993c, as revised); and the Utah BLM Statewide Desert Bighorn Sheep ManagemIntroduction, Transplantation, Augmentation, and Reestablishment

The BLM would continue to cooperate with and provide support to UDWR in reintroducing native fish and wildlife species into historic or suitable ranges, as determined appropriat

Introduction, transplantation, augmentation, and re-establishment of both native and naturalized species would be considered and would include but may not be limited to prongho

and Endangered Colorado River fish species. Animal Damage Control 

Predator management would continue to be coordinated with APHIS and UDWR, and would be conducted utilizing the guidance provided by the existing MOU with APHIS. 

Habitat Improvements and Protection

In areas lacking proper water distribution or natural water sources, allow for installation of precipitation catchments (guzzlers) or the development of springs on rangelands. Adhere to BLM fence standards to allow wildlife movement when fences are being developed or maintained. Wildlife habitat objectives would be considered in all reclamation activity. Priority would be given to meeting Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Managem

Adhere to the recommendations in the BLM Habitat Management Guides for the American Pronghorn Antelope (1980 as revised), wherever practicable. Ground-disturbing and permitted activities carried out in all seasonal wildlife protection areas would be subject to special conditions regulating use during certain seasons. These 

production or hunting during a recognized hunting season established by the UDWR. Recognize 17,300 acres as allotted to wildlife (parts of the slopes of Peter's Canyon and East Canyon). Ground-disturbing actions in crucial habitats would be avoided where practical. Where unavoidable disturbances are required, the BLM would follow BLM Washington Office Guid

Seasonal Wildlife Protection Areas 

In addition to any other special conditions that may be in effect, crucial big game habitats are subject to special conditions regulating use during certain seasons. These seasonal 

production or hunting during a recognized hunting season established by the UDWR. See Appendix A, Stipulations Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface Disturbing Activities, for exceptions, modifications and waivers that can be applied by the Auth

appendix. Off-site Mitigation

The BLM will approach compensatory mitigation on an "as appropriate" basis where it can be performed on site, and on a voluntary basis where it is performed off-site, or, in accoHabitat Boundaries

Minor adjustments to crucial wildlife habitat boundaries periodically made by the UDWR would be accommodated through plan maintenance. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

(see rows below for species)

Alternative B 

(see rows below for species)

Alternative C (Preferred) 

(see rows below for species)

Alternative D 

(see rows below for species)

Altern

(see rows belo

Unspecified. Special conditions for the seasonal 

wildlife protection areas include all land-use authorizations, with the exception of woodland harvest, would be required to conform to seasonal, noise, and disturbance restrictions outlined below. Closed to the following uses during the established season: 

• No oil and gas exploration, 

drilling and production activities or geophysical work. 

• No permitted or commercial OHV 

use. 

• No use of pyrotechnics, shooting, 

Same as Alternative B, except permitted or commercial OHV use may be limited in number of participants and duration depending on the event. 

Same as Alternative B, except all land-use authorizations, with the exception of woodland harvest, would be required to conform to seasonal and noise and disturbance restrictions outlined below. 

Same as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-84 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

etc. during permitted filming because of noise impacts. 

• No use of low-flying aircraft. 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing and Rutting Areas Part of the 329,750-acre bighorn crucial habitat area (Map 78) falls in ROS classes P and SPNM. The following special conditions are in addition to the ROS special conditions, which take precedence. Crucial bighorn sheep habitat would be closed to certain surface uses during the lambing season (April 1–July 15) and the rutting (mating) season (October 15–December 31). During these periods, no oil and gas leasing activities, geophysical work, or OHV use may take place. Mining activities during these periods would require an approved plan of operations. Any future proposal for a change in kind of livestock from cattle to sheep in crucial desert bighorn sheep habitat would be denied in order to prevent competition for forage and the transmission of disease from domestic to wild sheep. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 453,388 acres (Map 79) from April 1 to July 15 for lambing, and from October 15 to December 31 for rutting. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 415,395 acres (Map 80) from April 1 to June 15 for lambing, and on 453,390 acres from October 15 to December 15 for rutting. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 299,009 acres (Map 81) from April 1 to June 15 for lambing, and October 15 to December 15 for rutting. 

Same as Alternativ

Pronghorn Fawning Area The antelope crucial habitat area (Map 78) would not subject to the ROS special conditions. Use within the 12,960-acre crucial antelope habitat would be closed to certain surface uses during the fawning season (May 15–June 15). During this period, no oil and gas leasing activity, geophysical work, or OHV use may take place. Mining activities during this period would require an approved plan of operations. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 29,365 acres (Map 79) from May 1 to June 15. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 29,365 acres (Map 80) from May 1 to June 15. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 13,961 acres (Map 81) from May 1 to June 15. 

Same as Alternativ

Grazing Management in Pronghorn Ranges No current prescription. Spring grazing (April 15–June 15) 

would be eliminated in allotments within antelope habitat and livestock utilization levels would not exceed 50% or current year's growth to encourage forb production and provide adequate cover for newborn fawns. This would include the following grazing allotments: Mail Station, Upper Mail Station, Dry Valley/Deer Neck, Lone Cedar, Tank Draw, and Hart Draw. 

Current livestock-grazing prescriptions would continue and, where opportunities exist, would be adjusted to enhance forb production on pronghorn ranges. This would include the following grazing allotments: Mail Station, Upper Mail Station, Dry Valley/Deer Neck, Lone Cedar, Tank Draw, and Hart Draw. 

Prescriptive livestock grazing would be used to favor forb production on pronghorn ranges. This would include the following grazing allotments: Mail Station, Upper Mail Station, Dry Valley/Deer Neck, Lone Cedar, Tank Draw, and Hart Draw. 

Same as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-85 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives Deer Winter Range Part of the deer crucial winter range areas fall in ROS class SPNM. The following special conditions are in addition to the ROS special conditions, which take precedence. Use within the 197,550-acre crucial deer winter habitat areas (Map 73) would be closed to certain surface uses during periods of crucial winter use (December 15–April 30). During this period, no oil and gas leasing activities, geophysical work, or OHV use may take place. Mining activities during this period would require an approved plan of operations. Certain sagebrush parks within crucial deer winter range areas (9,800 acres) have been identified as providing a concentrated food source for wintering deer. Largescale sagebrush removal could cause a substantial loss of winter forage. The areas fall within various ROS classes; the following special conditions, which take precedence, are in addition to the ROS special conditions: Land treatments would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 785,921 acres (Map 74) from November 1 to May 15. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 266,406 acres (Map 75) from November 15 to April 15. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 182,315 acres (Map 76) from December 1 to April 15. 

Same as Alternativ

Elk Winter Range No identified crucial elk habitat. Adhere to special conditions (above) 

on 191,173 acres (Map 79) from November 1 to May 15. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 97,471 acres (Map 80) from November 15 to April 15. 

Adhere to special conditions (above) on 62,484 acres (Map 81) from December 1 to April 15. 

Same as Alternativ

WOODLANDS (Maps 83–86) 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Manage woodlands for Desired Future Condition (DFC), ensuring ecological diversity, stability, and sustainability (including the desired mix of structural stages and landscape/wat

Provide woodland products on a sustainable basis to meet local needs where such use does not limit the accomplishment of goals for the management of other resources. 

Provide opportunities for pine nut gathering on a sustainable basis while protecting other resources. Encourage, where feasible, the harvest of woodland products in areas of proposed or existing vegetative treatments to lessen the need for additional treatment or land disturbanc

edulis). Use the document, "Recommended Old-Growth Definitions and Description, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region (Sept. 1992)." Identify, maintain, and restore forest and woodland old-growth stands to a pre-fire suppression condition. The Monticello FO would adopt the USFS old growth definitions and iden

Forests in the Intermountain Region (April 1993)" in instances where the area of application in the previous document doesn't apply (for example, pinyon pine). 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES Implement the Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. Follow National BLM Forest Health and Forest Management Standards and Guidelines to assess conditions and guide management decisions for woodland resources. Prioritize treatment in high-value/high-risk areas (WUI, developed recreation facilities including campgrounds, FRCC III). Allow live woodland harvest in areas with pinyon pine and juniper encroachment with focus on the restoration of the sagebrush steppe community. Fuel treatment projects would allow for harvest of woodland products. Permits for private and/or commercial use of woodland products would continue to be issued to the public, consistent with the availability of woodland products and the protection Cottonwood and willow harvest would be allowed for Native American ceremonial uses only by permit. Restrictions on this permitted harvest would be implemented as necessary 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-86 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives improve threatened and endangered species/special status species (TES/SSS) habitat. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ALL DRAFT RMP ACTION ALTERNATIVESHarvest woodland products (per table below) subject to the following exceptions: • Exclude from woodland product use except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires in all WSAs, Arch Canyon, Alkali Ridge NHL, Grand Gulch NHD (mesa top

River SRMA and in the Proposed Plan, the 5 non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics (Map 34) (Dark Canyon, Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome West, Nokai Dome East and lands with wilderness characteristics (Map 33) would not be available for woodland product use. 

• Exclude from all woodland product use, including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires, all developed recreation sites, livestock/wildlife exclosures, cultural sites, Indian 

and Grand Gulch NHD (in canyon). 

• Exclude floodplains, riparian/aquatic areas from woodland product use except for limited on-site collection of driftwood for campfires, and uses for Native American ceremonial • Limitations on off-road travel for wood gathering would be modified as necessary to maintain long-term sustainability or facilitate wood gathering where resource impacts are n

Permits would be limited and/or areas closed, as necessary, to maintain sustainability and protect resources. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Map 83

Alternative B 

Map 84 

Alternative C (Preferred) 

Map 85 

Alternative D 

Map 85 

Altern

Map 

Zones in Field Office considered for private and/or commercial use of woodland products: East Canyon; Harts Draw; Salt Creek Mesa; Dark Canyon Plateau; White Canyon; Ceda83–86). Areas not identified in zones below, or not restricted in Management Common To All, would be available for private use of woodland products limited to designated routes and avaEast Canyon Zone was not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. 

East Canyon (64,559 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood. 

East Canyon (64,559 acres) East Canyon (64,559 acres) 

Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood. 

East Canyon (64,Available to private commercial use of products with permtravel within 150 feroutes to collect w

Peter's Point Seasonal restriction on private and/or commercial use of woodland products in the deer and elk winter range from November 1 to May 15. 

Peter's Point Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Peter's Point Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Peter's Point Same as Alternativ

Big Indian, East Canyon, Peters Canyon Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Big Indian, East Canyon, Peters Canyon Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Big Indian, East Canyon, Peters Canyon Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Big Indian, East CCanyon Same as Alternativ

NE of Monticello, South Canyon (Part of East Canyon Zone) was not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. 

NE of Monticello, South Canyon (Part of East Canyon Zone) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

NE of Monticello, South Canyon (Part of East Canyon Zone) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

NE of Monticello, South Canyon (Part of East Canyon Zone) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

NE of Monticello, (Part of East CanSame as Alternativ

Harts Draw Zone was not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. 

Harts Point, Harts Draw, Shay Mesa, Photograph Gap/Lone Cedar (64,671 acres) Seasonal restriction on private and/or commercial use of woodland products in the deer and elk winter range November 1–May 15, and antelope fawning habitat April 15–June 30. 

Harts Point, Harts Draw, Shay Mesa, Photograph Gap/Lone Cedar (64,671 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood. 

Harts Point, Harts Draw, Shay Mesa, Photograph Gap/Lone Cedar (64,671 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Harts Draw (51,74Same as Alternativ

Salt Creek Mesa Zone was not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. 

Salt Creek Mesa (5,271 acres) Seasonal restriction on private and/or commercial use of woodland 

Salt Creek Mesa (5,271 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland 

Salt Creek Mesa (5,271 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland 

Salt Creek Mesa (Same as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-87 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

products in the deer and elk winter range from November 1 to May 15. 

products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Dark Canyon Plateau Zone was not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. 

Dark Canyon Plateau (23,288 acres) Seasonal restriction on private and/or commercial use of woodland products in the deer and elk winter range from November 1 to May 15. 

Dark Canyon Plateau (23,288 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes and permitted off-road travel in chained areas to collect wood. 

Dark Canyon Plateau (23,288 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Dark Canyon Platacres) Same as Alternativ

White Canyon Zone was not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. 

White Canyon (255,267 acres) White Canyon (255,267 acres) White Canyon (255,267 acres) White Canyon (17

Wooden Shoe, Deer Flat, Horse Flat (extending out toward Jacob’s Chair, Pinyon Point) Seasonal restriction on private and/or commercial use of woodland products in the deer and elk winter range from November 1 to May 15, and Bighorn sheep lambing and rutting areas from October 15–December 31, and April 1–July 15. 

Wooden Shoe, Deer Flat, Horse Flat (extending out toward Jacob’s Chair, Pinyon Point) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes and permitted off-road travel in chained areas to collect wood. 

Wooden Shoe, Deer Flat, Horse Flat (extending out toward Jacob’s Chair, Pinyon Point) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Wooden Shoe, DeFlat (extending oJacob’s Chair, PiSame as Alternativ

Moss Back Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood. 

Moss Back Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood. 

Moss Back Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Moss Back Same as Alternativ

Grand Flats Seasonal restriction on private and/or commercial use of woodland products in the deer and elk winter range November 1–May 15, and in bighorn sheep habitat April 1–July 15. 

Grand Flats Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes to collect wood. 

Grand Flats Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Grand Flats Same as Alternativ

Cedar Mesa Zone was not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. 

Cedar Mesa (outside of WSA) (0 acres) Closed. 

Cedar Mesa (outside of WSA) (65,807 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, limited to designated routes, dependent on cultural Class III surveys. 

Cedar Mesa (outside of WSA) (65,807 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, limited to designated routes, dependent on cultural Class III surveys. In the interim of designating woodland harvest areas and associated cultural surveys, woodland use is open and travel limited to designated/existing routes. 

Cedar Mesa (outsacres) Closed. 

North Comb Ridge Zone was not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. 

North of Highway 95 (North Comb) (5,670 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, limited to designated routes, dependent on cultural Class III surveys. 

North of Highway 95 (North Comb) (5,833 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, limited to designated routes, dependent on cultural Class III surveys. 

North of Highway 95 (North Comb) (5,833 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, limited to designated routes, dependent on cultural Class III surveys. In the interim of designating woodland harvest areas 

North of Highway Comb) (5,666 acrSame as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

2-88 

Table 2.1. Summary Table of the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives 

and associated cultural surveys, woodland use is open and travel limited to designated/existing routes. 

South Cottonwood Zone was not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. 

South Cottonwood (108,719 acres) 

South Cottonwood (117,399 acres) 

South Cottonwood (117,399 acres) South Cottonwoo

acres) 

Texas Flat Seasonal restriction on private and/or commercial use of woodland products in the deer and elk winter range from November 1 to May 15. 

Texas Flat Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes and permitted off-road travel in chained areas to collect wood. 

Texas Flat Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Texas Hat Same as Alternativ

Brushy Basin, Black Mesa, Little Baullies, Upper South Cottonwood Seasonal restriction on private and/or commercial use of woodland products in the deer and elk winter range from November 1 to May 15. 

Brushy Basin, Black Mesa, Little Baullies, Upper South Cottonwood Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel within 150 feet of designated routes and permitted off-road travel in chained areas to collect wood. 

Brushy Basin, Black Mesa, Little Baullies, Upper South Cottonwood Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products with permitted off-road travel to collect wood. 

Brushy Basin, BlBaullies, Upper SCottonwood Same as Alternativ

Montezuma Watershed Zone (249,673 acres) was not addressed in the 1991 San Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended. 

Montezuma Watershed (202,630 acres) Seasonal restriction on private and/or commercial use of woodland products in the deer and elk winter range from November 1 to May 15. Limited to designated routes, dependent on cultural Class III surveys. 

Montezuma Watershed (239,841 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, limited to designated routes, dependent on cultural Class III surveys. Permitted off-road travel would be allowed only in chained areas. 

Montezuma Watershed (239,841 acres) Available to private and/or commercial use of woodland products, limited to designated routes, dependent on cultural Class III surveys. In the interim of designating woodland harvest areas and associated cultural surveys, woodland use is open and travel limited to designated/existing routes. 

Montezuma Wateacres) Same as Alternativ
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2-89 

2.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 provides a comparative summary of the environmental impacts associated with each 

alternative. The BLM evaluated the environmental impacts that would result from the 

implementation of the various management decisions proposed under the five alternatives 

described above. Alternative A (No Action), a continuation of the existing 1991 San Juan RMP, 

is presented for comparison to the action alternatives. 

Impacts are defined as modifications to the existing environment brought about by implementing 

an alternative. Impacts can be beneficial or adverse, result from the action directly or indirectly, 

and can be long-term, short-term, or cumulative in nature. Direct impacts are caused by the 

action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are caused by the action and are 

later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (CEQ 1508.8). 

Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (CEQ 

1508.7). If impacts are not discussed, the analysis has indicated that none would occur or their 

magnitude would be negligible. Impacts from actions to be carried out under more than one 

alternative are discussed under the first applicable alternative. Cumulative impacts are discussed 

in Chapter 4 for all of the resources instead of under each resource section. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2-90 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-91 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

AIR QUALITY 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Fire Management Short-term air quality 

impacts include and increase in PM2.5 particulate and CO2 emissions specific to the burn area and locations downwind. Long-term, direct airquality impacts include a general increase in airborne particulate materials from the burn site as a result of ash dispersion and transport. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

Impacts of mineral extraction management decisions on air quality under Alternative A would maintain existing levels of use without additional constraints and not exceed NAAQS. 

Impacts of mineral extraction management decisions under Alternative B would result in a reduction of approximately 9% in opportunities for oil and gas extraction as compared to Alternative A, with impacts on NAAQS similar to or slightly lower than Alternative A. 

Impacts of mineral extraction management decisions under Alternative C would result in an increase of approximately 1% in opportunities for oil and gas extraction as compared to Alternative A, with impacts on NAAQS similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts of mineral extraction management decisions under Alternative D would result in an increase of approximately 1% in opportunities for oil and gas extraction as compared to Alternative A, with impacts on NAAQS similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts of mineral extraction management decisions under Alternative E would result in a reduction approximately 26% opportunities for oil and gas extraction acompared to Alternative A, with impacts on NAAQS similar to or lower thAlternative A. 

Recreation Minor, short-term, 

adverse air quality impacts from OHVs, automobiles, and other combustion 

Impacts to air quality resulting from Alternative B would be less than Alternative A due to 

Under Alternative C, recreation management decisions would result in minor additional 

Under Alternative D, recreation management decisions would result in minor 

Under Alternative E, recreation management decisions would resin additional 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-92 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

exhaust sources. Projected air quality constituents of concern specific to recreational use would include particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), hydrocarbons and combustion byproducts. Long-term, beneficial impacts from prescriptions that improve road surfaces, limit vegetation disturbances, and reduce OHV and other vehicle use. 

additional constraints on motorized recreation. 

constraints to motorized vehicle use as compared to Alternative A. Adverse impacts to air quality similar to Alternative A. 

additional constraints to motorized vehicle use as compared to Alternative A. Adverse impacts to air quality similar to Alternative A. 

constraints to motorized vehicle usas compared to Alternative A, specifically for areas that contain non-WSareas with wildernescharacteristics. Adverse impacts to quality similar to or slightly smaller than Alternative A. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Cultural Resources Long-term, adverse 

impacts to cultural resources from of the lack of restrictions on surface disturbance, OHV use, and other recreational uses, but with beneficial impacts from protection of high site-density areas on 37,433 acres in Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area. 

Same impacts as Alternative A, except additional beneficial impacts on 98,348 acres of high sitedensity areas from special protection of cultural resources. Long term, beneficial impacts from limiting OHV use to designated routes. 

Same impacts as Alternative B. 

Same impacts as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative except additional beneficial impacts from protection of 582,357 acres of noWSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

Fire Management Potential for negligible 

to minor adverse impacts on cultural resources from 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-93 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

wildland fire on 33,556 acres of high and moderate sitedensity. Negligible impacts on cultural resources from restrictions on fuels reduction treatments within NRHP-eligible sites. 

Health and Safety Minor, adverse, long 

term impacts to historic mine structures from AML site remediation. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Livestock Grazing Improved stability of 

cultural sites in the Comb Wash side canyons from grazing unavailability. Longterm, adverse impacts to cultural resources outside of these areas (90% of areas with high site-density and 94% with moderate site density) where sites may be impacted by livestock trampling or brushing against structures and/or rock art. 

Improved stability of cultural sites from grazing unavailability in selected allotments. Longterm, moderately beneficial impacts from grazing restrictions. Potential long-term adverse impacts outside of these areas where sites may be impacted by livestock trampling. 

Same impacts as Alternative B. 

Same impacts as Alternative A, 

Same as Alternative 

Mineral and Energy Resources 

Potential long-term, adverse impacts within 417 acres of high site density lands and 313 acres of medium site density lands. Adverse impacts from 

Same impacts as Alternative A, except that fewer acres (338 acres) in high and medium (298 acres) site density areas would potentially be disturbed by minerals 

Same impacts as Alternative A, except that slightly fewer acres (381 acres) in high site density areas and 391 acres in medium sitedensity areas could 

Same as Alternative A, except that slightly fewer acres (391 acres total) in high site density areas are projected for disturbance associated with 

Same as Alternative except that fewer acres (327 acres totin high and medium (192 acres total) site density areas are projected for disturbance 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-94 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

geophysical exploration on 886 acres. 

development. Same geophysical impacts as Alternative A. 

be impacted by minerals development. Slightly greater geophysical impacts than Alternative A from impacts to 903 acres.

minerals development. More acres (330 total) in medium site density areas are projected for disturbance under Alternative D. 

associated with minerals developme

Non-WSA lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Same impacts to cultural resources within these areas as discussed under other resources, as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected under this alternative. 

Same impacts to cultural resources as discussed under Alternative B resources, as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected under this alternative.

Same impacts to cultural resources as discussed under Alternative C resources, as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected under this alternative.

Same impacts to cultural resources as discussed under Alternative D resources, as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected under this alternative. 

582,360 acres protected as non-Wlands with wildernescharacteristics, whicdoes not allow surface-disturbing activities or OHV access.

Paleontology Minor to moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impacts from protections afforded to paleontologically sensitive geologic formations. Minor, adverse impacts to sites from fossil collection. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Recreation Impacts are the same 

as described for cultural resource management decisions because of program overlap. 

Impacts are the same as described for cultural resource management decisions because of program overlap. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-95 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Riparian Resources Negligible to minor, 

beneficial impacts to cultural resources from restrictions on surface-disturbing activity within riparian and floodplain areas. 

Same impacts as Alternative A, except additional beneficial impacts from additional restrictions on OHV use and livestock grazing by reducing opportunities for surface disturbances.

Same impacts as Alternative B. 

Same impacts as Alternative A. 

Same impacts as Alternative B. 

Special Designations, ACECs 

Alkali Ridge ACEC Long-term beneficial impacts to cultural resources within the 39,202-acre ACEC from the use of disturbance avoidance buffers around known sites. Long-term, adverse impacts from allowable surfacedisturbing activities in areas outside of known sites. 

Alkali Ridge ACEC Same as Alternative A for the 39,196-acre ACEC, but with greater long-term beneficial impacts and decreased potential for long-term adverse impacts from restrictions on surface disturbances. 

Alkali Ridge ACEC Same as Alternative A for this 39,196-acre ACEC, but with slightly greater longterm beneficial impacts and decreased opportunities for longterm adverse impacts from OHV travel restrictions for woodland harvesting. 

Alkali Ridge ACEC Same as Alternative A, but with less longterm benefits and greater potential for long-term adverse impacts because of fewer restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. 

Alkali Ridge ACEC Same as Alternative 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC Long-term, beneficial impacts from protection under WSA land status.

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC Same as Alternative A. 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC This area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC This area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC Same as Alternative 

Butler Wash North ACEC Same as Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC above. 

Butler Wash North ACEC Same impacts as Alternative A. 

Butler Wash North ACEC This area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Butler Wash North ACEC This area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Butler Wash North ACEC Same as Alternative 

Cedar Mesa ACEC Cedar Mesa ACEC Cedar Mesa ACEC Cedar Mesa ACEC Cedar Mesa ACEC 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-96 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Long-term, beneficial impacts within 295,336-acre area from designated OHV use, specific protection of at-risk cultural resources, and areas managed for scenic quality and non-motorized uses. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from limiting day use and overnight camping to protect cultural resources within 306,742-acre area. 

This area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

This area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

except additional beneficial impacts from decreased surface disturbances of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics.

Dark Canyon ACEC Long-term, beneficial impacts from protection under WSA land status. 

Dark Canyon ACEC Same as Alternative A. 

Dark Canyon ACEC This area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Dark Canyon ACECThis area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Dark Canyon ACEC Same as Alternative 

Hovenweep ACEC Impacts would be same as Cedar Mesa ACEC. 

Hovenweep ACEC Impacts same as Alternative A. 

Hovenweep ACEC Impacts same as Alternative A. 

Hovenweep ACEC ACEC would not be established, with Increased potential for adverse, longterm impacts from minerals development, vegetation treatment projects, and recreational activities, including OHV use. 

Hovenweep ACEC Same as Alternative 

Indian Creek ACEC Long-term beneficial impacts to cultural resources from management decisions that would limit surface disturbances and close the area to OHV use. 

Indian Creek ACEC Impacts same as A 

Indian Creek ACEC Impacts same as B, except that the ACEC would be reduced in area by 54%. 

Indian Creek ACECThe ACEC would not be established, with increased potential for long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources that lie outside of WSAs from lack of specific resource protections. Beneficial impacts 

Indian Creek ACEC Same as Alternative except additional beneficial impacts from decreased surface disturbances of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-97 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

on cultural resources from designated OHV use. 

Lockhart Basin ACEC The area would not be managed as an ACEC. Long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources from VRM II surface disturbance restrictions, prohibitions on woodcutting, and closure of the area to OHV use. 

Lockhart Basin ACEC Impacts to resources and users same as A, but to a greater degree, from designation as a 47,783-acre ACEC and restrictions on surface disturbance under VRM I objectives. 

Lockhart Basin ACEC Not designated as an ACEC. Increased potential for adverse impacts from mineral leasing, livestock grazing, and OHV use on designated routes in VRM III areas. 

Lockhart Basin ACEC Impacts same as Alternative C. 

Lockhart Basin ACEC Same as Alternative except additional beneficial impacts from decreased surface disturbances of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics.

Lavender Mesa ACEC Designated as a 649-acre ACEC, with longterm, beneficial impacts on cultural resources from protection of visual, cultural, and natural resources. 

Lavender Mesa ACEC Impacts same as Alternative A. 

Lavender Mesa ACEC Impacts same as Alternative A. 

Lavender Mesa ACEC The ACEC would not be established, with increased potential for long-term, adverse impacts from unrestricted surface-disturbing activities. 

Lavender Mesa ACEC Same as Alternative except additional beneficial impacts from decreased surface disturbances of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics.

Shay Canyon ACEC Management of the 3,561-acre ACEC for cultural conservation, with long-term, beneficial impacts from protective buffers around cultural resources that are eligible for the NRHP, management under VRM I 

Shay Canyon ACEC Managed as a 119-acre ACEC, with long-term beneficial impacts from surface disturbance prohibitions, closed to camping, and grazing restrictions. Long term, beneficial impacts in areas closed or limited to 

Shay Canyon ACEC Impacts identical to Alternative B. 

Shay Canyon ACEC Long-term, adverse impacts on cultural resources from management under VRM III objectives, open to livestock grazing, and subject to fuels and watershed treatments. 

Shay Canyon ACESame as Alternative except additional beneficial impacts from decreased surface disturbances of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-98 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

conditions, exclusion of private and commercial woodland harvesting, and conditional fire suppression. Potential for long-term, adverse impacts from minerals activities, and livestock grazing. Adverse impacts from open OHV use. 

OHV routes. 

San Juan River ACEC The area would be managed as a 15,100-acre ACEC, with impacts same as the San Juan River SRMA. 

San Juan River ACEC Managed as a 7,590-acre ACEC, with long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources from actions that limit or restrict surface disturbances and provide for closure of areas to protect specific cultural sites. 

San Juan River ACEC Impacts the same as Alternative B. 

San Juan River ACEC No designation of ACEC, with impacts same as Alternative B. Greater surface disturbance would be allowable, with greater potential for long-term, adverse impacts to cultural resources. 

San Juan River ACEC Same as Alternative except additional beneficial impacts from decreased surface disturbances of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics..

Valley of the Gods ACEC Managed as 31,387-acre ACEC under VRM I objectives, with long term, beneficial impacts from limitations on surface disturbances. Potential for long-term adverse impacts from livestock grazing, woodland harvesting, and minerals activities, and OHV 

Valley of the Gods ACEC Managed as a 22,863-acre ACEC, with impacts same as A. Slightly increased beneficial impacts to cultural resources within the smaller ACEC from closure to woodland harvesting. 

Valley of the Gods ACEC Impacts same as Alternative B. 

Valley of the Gods ACEC No designation of an ACEC and management under VRM III would have potential for longterm, adverse impacts to cultural resources through greater allowance of surface-disturbing activities than under any other alternative. 

Valley of the Gods ACEC Same as Alternative except additional beneficial impacts from decreased surface disturbances of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-99 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

use. 

Special Designations, WSRs 

WSR Colorado Segments Negligible impact on cultural resources from prohibitions on surface disturbances. 

WSR Colorado Segments Long-term, beneficial impact on cultural resources from management of Segments 2 and 3 under VRM I and II, and from closure of Segment 3 to OHV use. 

WSR Colorado Segments Impacts same as Alternative B. 

WSR Colorado Segments Increased potential for long-term, adverse impacts to cultural resources from a lack of special restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. 

WSR Colorado Segments Same as Alternative except additional beneficial impacts from decreased surface disturbances of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics in Segments 2 and 3..

WSR San Juan River Segments Long-term, beneficial impacts to cultural resources from management under VRM I restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. 

WSR San Juan River Segments Long-term beneficial impacts on cultural resources from implementation of NSO stipulations and restrictions on mineral disposal and geophysical work. 

WSR San Juan River Segments Long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources from not designating the area as suitable and subsequent increases in surface-disturbing activities. 

WSR San Juan River Segments Same as Alternative C. 

WSR San Juan RivSegments Same as Alternative except additional beneficial impacts from decreased surface disturbances of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics in Segments 3 and 4..

WSR All Other SegmentsLong-term adverse impacts from not evaluating river segments for suitability and not implementing restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. 

WSR All Other SegmentsLong-term beneficial and adverse impacts from management under VRM II and III, and application of Standard or NSO oil and gas leasing stipulations. 

WSR All Other SegmentsLong-term adverse impacts from not designating rivers segments as suitable and implementing related restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. 

WSR All Other SegmentsSame as Alternative C. 

WSR All Other SegmentsSame as Alternative except additional beneficial impacts from decreased surface disturbances of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics in DaCanyon, Fable Valleand Indian Creek. 

Special Designations, WSAs 

387,410 acres would be protected to meet the non-impairment criteria of the IMP, 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-100 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

which limits surfacedisturbing activities and access. 

Special Status Species 

Long-term beneficial impacts from spatial buffers with restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and vegetation treatments.

Impacts as Alternative A, except slightly more beneficial impacts from increased spatial buffers. 

Greater long term, beneficial impacts than Alternatives A and B from increased spatial buffers. 

Impacts same as Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative B. 

Travel Management Long-term, beneficial 

impacts to cultural resources on 142,008 acres of high sitedensity area that is closed to OHV use. Long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources on 423,619 acres open to OHV use in high sitedensity areas. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to cultural resources on 238,879 acres of high site density area that is closed to OHV use, and 325,669 acres of high site-density where OHV use is limited to designated routes. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to cultural resources on 234,890 acres of high site density area that is closed to OHV use and 750,153 acres limited to designated routes. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources from limiting OHV use to designated routes on 985,043 acres in high site-density areas. 

Same as Alternative except that 474,291 acres of high sitedensity lands would beneficially closed to OHV use. 

Vegetation Impacts same as Fire 

Management because treatments and impacts are the same.

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Visual Resources Long-term, beneficial 

impacts on cultural resources from protection of 395,797 acres of high sitedensity and 330,313 acres of medium sitedensity under VRM Class I and Class II designations. Potentially adverse impacts to cultural resources on lands designated as VRM 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources from management of 431,797 acres in high site-density and 315,022 acres of medium site-density under VRM Class I and II, with slightly more benefit than Alternative A. Adverse impact to cultural resources 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources from management of 324,539 acres of high site-density and 242,876 acres of medium site-density under VRM Class I and II. Slightly less beneficial impacts than Alternative A from designation of 1,225,915 acres as 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from management of 237,057 acres of high site-density and 162,201 acres of medium site-density under VRM Class I and II designations. Slightly higher benefit than Alternative A. Long term, adverse impacts from 

Long-term, beneficiaimpacts on cultural resources from management of 565,528 acres of higsite-density and 544,314 acres of medium site-density under VRM Class I and II objectives. Slightly higher benethan Alternatives A and B. Adverse impto cultural resources 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-101 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Class III and IV (1,054,681 acres). 

from designation of 1,034,813 acres as VRM Class III and IV.

VRM Class III and IV. designation of 

1,383,860 acres as VRM Class III and IV. 

from designation of 671,828 acres as VRClass III and IV. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Negligible impacts on cultural resources from seasonal restrictions. 

Same as Alternative A, but with moderate long-term, beneficial impacts from on minor restrictions on OHV use and minerals development. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative 

Woodlands Long-term, direct and 

indirect adverse impacts to cultural resources on 464,446 acres of high sitedensity and 392,559 acres of medium sitedensity from a lack of restrictions on woodland harvesting and related OHV use. 

Slightly less long-term adverse impacts than Alternative A from designating 307,179 acres in high site density areas and 504,391 acres in medium density areas as open to woodland harvesting, with limited restrictions on related OHV travel. Long-term beneficial impacts to cultural resources in areas closed to woodland harvesting, especially in the Cedar Mesa CRSMA. 

Impacts same as Alternative B, from designating 367,319 acres of high sitedensity and 229,492 acres of medium sitedensity as available for woodland harvesting. 

Same as Alternative C. 

Similar to Alternative B, except fewer acre(241,712 total) of higsite density lands an129,498 acres of medium site-density would be open to woodland harvestingwith greater long-terbeneficial impact to cultural resources frless opportunity for surface disturbances

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-102 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Air Quality All prescribed burns 

would be in accordance with applicable air quality regulations and the Smoke Management MOU, which could impact the size and timing of fire management activities. Limitations would not substantially reduce the effectiveness of fire management or increase fire risk. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Cultural Resources Restrictions on 

pinyon-juniper treatments on 26,902 acres to protect cultural resources would adversely increase fuel loading, slightly increasing the risk of wildland fire. Restrictions on woodland harvesting on 26,915 acres to protect would adversely increase fuel loading in pinyonjuniper and confer, unless other treatments were used. 

Adverse impacts on fire management on 46,042 acres from fire management restrictions in pinyonjuniper and prohibitions on treatments in the 37,388-acre Grand Gulch Historic District to protect cultural resources. Restrictions on woodland harvesting on 79,163 acres to protect would adversely increase fuel loading in pinyonjuniper and confer. Adverse restrictions on fuels management would be the greatest under this alternative and Alternative E. 

Same types and acres of potential fire management treatments as Alternative A, but with additional beneficial impacts from additional 26,902 acres available for fire management in pinyon-juniper. Restrictions on woodland harvesting on 45,703 acres to protect would adversely increase fuel loading in pinyonjuniper and confer as compared to Alternative A. 

Similar impacts as Alternative C, as restricted acreages are similar. 

Same impacts as Alternative B as restricted acreages are the same. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-103 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Fire Management 5,000-10,000 acres 

per year of prescribed fire and non-fire treatments would beneficially reduce fuels and lessen wildfire severity in the long term. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Lands and Realty Beneficial, but minor, 

risk reduction of accidental fire starts due to limits on the number of people and vehicles associated with filming, and on the use of pyrotechnics and explosives. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Mineral and Energy Resources 

Adverse, but minor, increase in fire risks from creation of additional WUI areas. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but slightly greater. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but slightly greater.. 

Same as Alternative A. but slightly greater. Alternative D has the greatest amount of land available for surfacedisturbing mineral extraction 

Same as Alternative but less, as AlternatE has the least amount of land available for surfacedisturbing mineral extraction 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Negligible impacts to fire management, as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected (with no prohibitions on fuel load reductions and treatments. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Adversely increased risks of fire from prohibitions on treatments and fuel load reductions on 582,360 acres of noWSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

Recreation Adverse, but minor, 

impacts from risks of human-caused fire in campgrounds and from dispersed 

Same as Alternative A, but with additional adverse impacts from 495,825 acres of SRMAs unavailable 

Same as Alternative A, but with additional adverse impacts from 120,091 acres of SRMAs unavailable 

Same as Alternative A, but with additional adverse impacts from 120,091 acres of SRMAs 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-104 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

camping campfires, and increased number of WUI areas and developed recreation areas, would reduce the number of acres available for wildland fire use and be unavailable for woodland harvest. 

for woodland harvest.SRP requirements for 15+ OHV/vehicles would provide some opportunity for wildfire education as compared to Alternative A. 

for woodland harvest.SRP requirements for 25+ OHV/vehicles would provide some opportunity for wildfire education as compared to Alternative A. 

unavailable for woodland harvest. 

Special Designations Adverse impacts from 

additional fuel loading that would increase the risk of wildland fire from restrictions on vegetation treatments over 386,027 acres in WSAs and 7,099 acres in ACECs; and woodland harvest prohibitions on 114,461 acres of pinyon-juniper and conifer areas in ACECs. 

Adverse impacts from additional fuel loading that would increase the risk of wildland fire from restrictions on vegetation treatments over 386,027 acres in WSAs and 59,079 acres in ACECs; and woodland harvest prohibition in 353,858 acres of pinyonjuniper and conifer areas in ACECs. Adverse restrictions on fuels management would be the greatest under this alternative and Alternative E. 

Reduced risks of fuel loading from fewer vegetation treatments restrictions on treatments (386,027 acres in WSAs and 608 acres in ACECs); woodland harvest prohibitions in 49,998 acres of pinyonjuniper and conifer areas of ACECs. 

Reduced risks of fuel loading from fewest restrictions on fuel treatments (386,027 acres of WSAs and 0 acres in ACECs); woodland harvest prohibitions in 47,285 acres of pinyon-juniper and conifer areas. Adverse restrictions on fuels management would be the least under this alternative. 

Same impacts as Alternative B. 

Travel Adverse, impacts 

from risks of humancaused fire on 611,310 acres open to cross country travel, due to inadvertent fire starts 

Beneficial, impacts by prohibiting all cross country travel, limiting OHV use to existing and designated routes and closing 423,698 acres of 

Beneficial impacts by limiting to cross country travel to 2,331 acres and closing 418,667 acres of trails to OHV use. 

Impacts similar to C, but not as beneficial as no routes would be closed. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, excep970,435 acres of routes would be closed. This alternative wouhave the most 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-105 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

from motorized vehicles. 

trails to OHV use. beneficial impacts o

fire management. 

HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Health and Safety Hazardous material 

heath and safety risks from mineral exploration and development on 69% of the PA open to standard and special mineral leasing stipulations. 

Same as Alternative A, as 70% of PA would open to minerals exploration and development. 

 Same as Alternative A, except 76% of PA open to standard and special leasing would create minimal additional risks to health and safety. 

Same as Alternative C, as approximately 78% of PA would be open to standard and special minerals leasing stipulations, with activities that could cause risks to health and safety. 

Permitted standard and special minerals leasing on 43% of Pwould moderately reduce the potential risks to health and safety from minerals exploration and development activiti

LANDS AND REALTY 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Lands and Realty Not addressed in 

current RMP 

Application of the minimum impact criteria for filming permits would facilitate use of public lands for this purpose while protecting other resources and meeting the resource goals and objectives of the RMP by streamlining the permit application and encouraging the use of previously approved locations that meet the minimal impact criteria. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative 

Lands and Realty Not addressed in 

current RMP. 

Wind and solar energy development would be permissible; best management 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-106 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

practices from the Final Wind Energy Programmatic EIS would be stipulated in ROW grants. Implementation would allow Monticello PA lands to be used for alternative energy and communications uses, but BMPs could add to the cost to site and construct facilities. 

 Lands and Realty 120,800 acres of 

ROW exclusion and 253,790 acres of avoidance areas would restrict ROW placement, limit future access, increase energy supply costs, or delay the availability of communication services. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but greater as there would be 416,612 acres of proposed ROW exclusion areas and 125,105 acres of ROW avoidance areas. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but greater as there would be 395,329 acres of ROW exclusion areas and 39,323 acres of ROW avoidance areas. 

Impacts less than Alternative A, as there would be 86,853 acres of ROW exclusion areas and 14,175 acres of ROW avoidance areas. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but greater as there woube 974,463 acres of ROW exclusion, and 53,915 acres of ROW avoidance. 

Lands and Realty 132,380 acres would 

be recommended for mineral withdrawal, resulting in potentially fewer opportunities for mineral resource development and less production and supply of mineral resources. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but greater, as 251,710 acres are recommended for mineral withdrawal. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but slightly less, as 121,912 acres are recommended for mineral withdrawal. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but less, as 46,131 acres are recommended for mineral withdrawal. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but much greater, as 834,070 acres are recommended for mineral withdrawal. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-107 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Cultural Resources Long term, beneficial 

impacts from Comb Ridge, Tank Bench, Beef Basin, and Grand Gulch National Historic District beneficially open to grazing (except Grand Gulch Canyon and associated tributaries). Minor impacts from acres unavailable to grazing within Grand Gulch Special Emphasis Area. 

Same impacts as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Fire Management Short-term, adverse 

impacts on livestock grazing in treated areas. Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced risk of fire and improved forage productivity. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Health and Safety Negligible impacts on 

livestock grazing in the short-term. Reclamation of mine sites could beneficially expand grazing opportunities in the long-term. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Lands and Realty Land exchanges and 

sales could adversely decrease forage in AUMs available to livestock, but acquisitions could beneficially increase acres and AUMs 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-108 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

available for livestock.Short-term loss of AUMs from construction activities. Long term loss of AUMs and forage acres from facility construction. 

Livestock Grazing Adverse impacts to 

grazing from existing and proposed areas unavailable for livestock grazing. 

Same impacts as Alternative A, except additional areas would be designated as unavailable for livestock grazing. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

Surface-disturbing activities on 699 total acres under this alternative could lead to long term, adverse losses of AUMs and acres available to livestock grazing. 

Same impacts as Alternative A, except surface disturbances would total 636 acres. 

Minor, adverse impacts from surface disturbances totaling 710 acres. 

Long term, adverse impacts from surface disturbances totaling 721 acres. 

Same as Alternative except surface disturbances would total 519 acres. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Negligible impacts to livestock grazing. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Long term, beneficiaimpacts to livestock grazing on 582,357 acres of lands with non-WSA wildernescharacteristics from surface disturbances to vegetation, and nOHV disturbances. 

Recreation Negligible impacts 

from grazing prohibitions within Pearson Canyon and developed recreation sites. Beneficial impacts from allowed grazing in San Juan River SRMA and the 

Same as Alternative A, except adverse impacts from timing restrictions in San Juan River SRMA riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-109 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Cedar Mesa CSRMA. 

Riparian Resources Short term, adverse 

decrease in the acres and AUMs available to livestock from exclusion, seasonal closure, and forage limitations to improve riparian areas. Longterm beneficial impacts from increase in acres and/or AUMs available to livestock after riparian rehabilitation. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Soil and Water Resources 

Short term and long term decreases in acres or AUMs available to livestock from mitigation to improve damaged soils. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Special Designations, ACECs 

Long term, adverse impacts to grazing from unavailable acreages in ACECs. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Special Designations, WSRs 

Minor impacts to livestock grazing from prohibitions or limits on livestock structure construction and fencing. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Special Designations, Wilderness 

Minor impacts to livestock grazing from prohibitions or limits on livestock structure construction and fencing. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-110 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Travel Management Long term, adverse 

impacts from 611,310 acres open to crosscountry OHV use from noise disturbances, and reduction of vegetation/forage productivity. 

Long term, beneficial impacts from reduction of noise impacts and surface disturbances to forage. No acres would be managed as open to OHV use. 

Same as Alternative B, except approximately 2,311 acres would be managed as open to cross-country OHV use. 

Same as Alternative C; 2,311 acres would be managed as open to cross-country OHV use. 

Same as Alternative C; 2,311 acres woulbe managed as opeto cross-country OHuse. 

Vegetation Short-term, adverse 

impacts on livestock grazing in areas that are closed following vegetation treatments (232,130 acres). Long-term, beneficial impacts from improved forage conditions and productivity. 

Same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, treatments on approximately 152,000 acres over 20 years. 

Same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, treatments on approximately 186,000 acres over 20 years. 

Same as Alternative A, from treatments impacts to 226,000 acres over 20 years. 

Same as Alternative 

MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Minerals and Energy Resources, Open to Leasing 

Approximately 1,238,230 acres (69.4% of BLM lands) would be beneficially open under standard and special stipulations. 

Approximately 1,241,910 acres would be open under standard and special stipulations. This decision would result in a more beneficial impact to minerals resources compared to A, as 0.3% more acres would be open to leasing. 

Approximately 1,348,973 acres would be open under standard and special stipulations. This decision would result in a more beneficial impact compared to A, as 8.9% more acres would be open to leasing. 

Approximately 1,383,283 acres would be open under standard and special stipulations. This decision would result in a more beneficial impact compared to A, as 11.7% more acres would be open to leasing. 

Approximately 758,929 acres would be open under standard and speciastipulations. This decision would resuin an adverse impacto minerals resourcecompared to A, as 26.9% fewer acres would be open to leasing. 

Minerals and Energy Resources, Oil and Gas Wells 

An average of 73 RFD-predicted oil and gas wells would be drilled over the next fifteen years. 

An average of 66 RFD-predicted oil and gas wells would be drilled over the next fifteen years, with adverse impact s 

An average of 74 RFD-predicted oil and gas wells would be drilled over the next fifteen years, with beneficial impacts 

An average of 75 RFD-predicted oil and gas wells would be drilled over the next fifteen years, with beneficial 

An average of 54 RFD-predicted oil angas wells would be drilled over the next fifteen years, with adverse impacts 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-111 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

compared to A, as 9.6% fewer wells would be drilled. 

compared to A, as 1.4% more wells would be drilled. 

impact compared to A, as 2.7% more wells would be drilled. 

compared to A, as 26.0% fewer wells would be drilled. 

Minerals and Energy Resources, Geophysical 

Approximately 559 linear miles of source line would be conducted over the next fifteen years. 

Approximately 507 linear miles of source line would be conducted over the next fifteen years, with long term, adverse impact s compared to A, as 10.4% fewer linear miles of source line would be conducted. 

Approximately 573 linear miles of source line would be conducted over the next 15 years, with long term, beneficial impacts compared to A, as 1.9% more linear miles of source line would be conducted. 

Approximately 585 linear miles of source line would be conducted over the next fifteen years, with long term, beneficial impacts compared to A, as 4.3% more linear miles of source line would be conducted.

Approximately 380 linear miles of sourcline would be conducted over the next fifteen years, wlong term, adverse impacts compared tA, as 32.0% fewer linear miles of sourcline would be conducted. 

Minerals and Energy Resources, Locatable 

Approximately 1,675,057 acres (93.8% of BLM lands) would be open to mineral entry. 

Approximately 1,527,656 acres would be open to mineral entry. This decision would result in an adverse impact compared to A, as 8.8% fewer acres would be open. 

Approximately 1,682,865 acres would be open to mineral entry. This decision would result in a beneficial impact compared to A, as 0.5% more acres would be open. 

Approximately 1,739,389 acres would be open to mineral entry. This decision would result in a beneficial impact compared to A, as 3.8% more acres would be open. 

Approximately 1,015,384 acres wobe open to mineral entry. This decision would result in an adverse impact compared to A, as 39.4% fewer acres would be open. 

Minerals and Energy Resources, Salable 

Approximately 1,389,256 acres (77.8% of BLM lands) would be open to mineral material disposal. 

Approximately 1,241,906 acres would be open to mineral material disposal. This decision would result in an adverse impact compared to A, as 10.6% fewer acres would be open. 

Approximately 1,358,968 acres would be open to mineral material disposal. This decision would result in an adverse impact compared to A, as 2.2% fewer acres would be open. 

Approximately 1,383,277 acres would be open to mineral material disposal. This decision would result in an adverse impact compared to A, as 0.4% fewer acres would be open. 

Approximately 758,931 acres would be open to mineral material disposal. Thdecision would resuin an adverse impaccompared to A, as 45.4% fewer acres would be open. 

Lands and Realty, Long-term, adverse Impacts same as Impacts same as Impacts same as Impacts same as 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-112 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Recommendations for withdrawal from mineral entry 

impacts on approximately 132,380 acres (7.4% of planning area) recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Alternative A, except approximately 251,710 acres (14.0% of PA) would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Alternative A, except approximately 121,912 acres (6.8% of PA) would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Alternative A, except approximately 46,131 acres (2.6% of PA) would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Alternative A, excepapproximately 834,0acres (46.9% of PA) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as exclusion areas for ROWs, which would have adverse impacon mineral productioand access for exploration. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts to mineral and energy resources as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are not protected under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A 

Same as Alternative A 

Same as Alternative A 

Adverse impacts fromaking approximate582,357 acres of noWSA lands with wilderness characteristics (or 32.6% of BLM landsunavailable to minerresource developme

Recreation, San Juan River SRMA 

Non-riparian areas in the 10,203-acre SRMA are open subject to Standard and Special Stipulations. 

The entire 10,203-acre SRMA—not just riparian areas—would be subject to NSO. This decision results in an adverse impact compared to A. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative 

Recreation, Cedar Mesa SRMA 

The areas of the 375,734-acre CSRMA that are outside WSAs would be subject to Standard, Special, and NSO stipulations. 

The areas of the 375,734-acre CSRMA outside WSAs would be subject to Standard and Special stipulations, with beneficial, long term impacts, compared to A. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative 

Soil and Water Long term, adverse Same impacts as A, Same as Alternative Same impacts as A, Same impacts as A, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-113 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Resources, Sensitive Soils 

impacts from a minimum of 1,063,019 acres of sensitive soils with medium and high limitations available for development, requiring BMPs and mitigation. 

except a minimum of 1,049,158 acres of sensitive soils with medium and high limitations would be available for development. 

A. except a minimum of 

1,069,495 acres of sensitive soils with medium and high limitations would be available for development. 

except a minimum o659,170 acres of sensitive soils with medium and high limitations would be available for development. 

Soil and Water Resources, Slopes over 20% 

N/A Long-term, adverse 

impacts from 21–40% steep slope and > 40% slopes requiring plans and/or no surface disturbances.

Impacts same as Alternative B, except >40% slopes would not allow surface disturbances unless project re-siting is problematic. 

Long-term, adverse impacts from >40% slopes that would require a plan. 

Same as Alternative 

Special Designations, ACECs 

Long-term, adverse impacts from approximately 119,397 acres (6.7% of planning area) closed or NSO due to ACEC designation. 

Long-term, adverse impacts from approximately 87,567 acres (26.7% fewer acres of planning area than Alternative A) closed or NSO due to ACEC designation.

Long-term, adverse impacts from approximately 76,764 acres (35.7% fewer acres of planning area than Alternative A) closed or NSO due to ACEC designation.

Long-term, beneficial impacts to minerals as no acres would be closed or subject to NSO due to ACEC designation. 

Long-term, adverse impacts from approximately 38,66acres (67.6% fewer acres of planning arthan Alternative A) closed or NSO due tACEC designation. 

Special Designations, WSRs 

N/A Long-term, adverse 

impacts from Closed or NSO leasing on approximately 11,040 acres) due to WSR recommendations. 

Long-term, adverse impacts from Closed or NSO leasing on approximately 3,968 acres due to WSR recommendations. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to minerals from no acres lands Closed or NSO due to WSR recommendations. 

Same as Alternative 

Wildlife,, Days that Limitations Are in Effect 

Adverse impacts from limitations on speed and schedule for minerals activities for approximately 273 days of the year for seasonal restrictions. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except limitations would be in effect for approximately 243 days of the year. 

Same as Alternative C. 

Same as Alternative 

Vegetation, Protection of Relict 

Minor, adverse impacts from 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to minerals 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-114 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

and Near-relict Vegetation 

protection of 662 acres of relict and near-relict vegetation.

from no protection of relict and near-relict vegetation. 

Visual Resources, VRM I Designation 

Long-term, adverse impacts from designation of approximately 371,575 acres (20.9% of planning area) as VRM I, with surface disturbance limits on minerals activities. 

Same as Alternative A, except approximately 497,668 acres (33.9%) would be designated as VRM I.

Same as Alternative A, except approximately 425,179 acres (14.4%) would be designated VRM I. 

Same as Alternative A, except approximately 390,424 acres (5.1%) would be designated as VRM I. 

Same as Alternative except approximate998,370 acres (56.0would be designated as VRM I. 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No actions prescribed specifically for the protection non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

No actions prescribed specifically for the protection non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

No actions prescribed specifically for the protection non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

No actions prescribed specifically for the protection non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

582,360 acres in 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed with emphasis on protection of wilderness characteristics 

Minerals 470,590 acres of nonWSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would remain open to leasing under standard or timing and controlled surface use stipulations. Up to 37 wells could be drilled over the next 15 years disturbing 355 acres. 

485,010 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would remain open to leasing under standard or timing and controlled surface use stipulations. Up to 38 wells could be drilled over the next 15 years disturbing 365 acres. 

548,350 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would remain open to leasing under standard or timing and controlled surface use stipulations. Up to 39 wells could be drilled over the next 15 years disturbing 374 acres. 

582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would remain open to leasing under standard or timing and controlled surface use stipulations. Up to 37 wells could be drilled over the next 15 years disturbing 355 acres. 

All 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to leasingHowever, 4,440 acreare currently exist in 10 of the non-WSA lands with wildernescharacteristics, and would allow for development. Possibility of development in the Monument Upwarp development area. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-115 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Generally, the wilderness characteristics of all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be protect. 

Visual Resources 262,340 acres in all or 

parts of 25 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed by VRM Class I and Class II objectives, limiting surface disturbance and protecting the natural characteristics of the areas. 

219,267 acres in all or parts of 23 nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed by VRM Class I and Class II objectives, limiting surface disturbance and protecting the natural characteristics of the areas. 

125,370 acres in all or parts of 20 nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed by VRM Class I and Class II objectives, limiting surface disturbance and protecting the natural characteristics of the areas. 

6,350 acres in parts of 4 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed by VRM Class I and Class II objectives, limiting surface disturbance and protecting the natural characteristics of the areas. 

582,360 acres in all 29 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed by VRM Class I objectives, limiting surface disturbance and protecting the naturacharacteristics of the areas. 

Travel Management 140,600 acres of nonWSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be “open” to cross country motorized travel, resulting in potential surface disturbance and degradation of the natural characteristics of these areas. 388,390 acres “limited” to 410 miles of designated routes. The presence and noise of vehicle use would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive 

547,290 acres “limited” to 258 miles of designated routes. The presence and noise of vehicle use would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. 35,070 acres “closed” to motorized vehicle use, protecting the natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

552,960 acres “limited” to 348 miles of designated routes. The presence and noise of vehicle use would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. 29,400 acres “closed” to motorized vehicle use, protecting the natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

20 acres in Indian Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be “open” to cross country travel with impacts as described under Alternative A. 582,340 acres “limited” to 410 miles of designated routes. The presence and noise of vehicle use would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. 

582,360 acres “closto motorized vehicle use, protecting the natural characteristiand opportunities fosolitude and primitivrecreation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-116 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

recreation activities. 53,370 acres “closed” to motorized vehicle use, protecting the natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Woodlands Wood cutting 

prohibited on 361,616 acres in all or portions of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics protecting the natural characteristics of the areas by preventing surface disturbance associated with wood cutting. Wood cutting permitted on 220,744 acres, degrading the natural characteristics of the affected nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for both solitude and primitive recreation. 

Wood cutting prohibited on 387,090 acres in all or portions of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics protecting the natural characteristics of the areas by preventing surface disturbance associated with wood cutting. Wood cutting permitted on 195,270 acres, degrading the natural characteristics of the affected nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for both solitude and primitive recreation. 

Wood cutting prohibited on 350,380 acres in all or portions of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics protecting the natural characteristics of the areas by preventing surface disturbance associated with wood cutting. Wood cutting permitted on 231,980 acres, degrading the natural characteristics of the affected nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for both solitude and primitive recreation. 

Wood cutting prohibited on 363,706 acres in all or portions of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics protecting the natural characteristics of the areas by preventing surface disturbance associated with wood cutting. Wood cutting permitted on 218,654 acres, degrading the natural characteristics of the affected non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for both solitude and primitive recreation. 

Wood cutting prohibited on 582,36acres in all 24 nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics protecting the naturacharacteristics of the areas by preventing surface disturbance associated with woo

cutting. Without presence and noise people, vehicles, anchainsaws, opportunities for botsolitude and primitivrecreation would be protected. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-117 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Special Designations Designation of 7 

ACECs and the recommendation of 2 segments for WSR designation would provide protection of the wilderness characteristics of 22 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Designation of 10 ACECs and the recommendation of 3 segments for WSR designation would provide protection of the wilderness characteristics of 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Designation of 5 ACECs and the recommendation of a segment for WSR designation would provide protection of the wilderness characteristics of 8 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

No ACECs would be designated and no WSRs would be recommended, offering no additional protection of the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as Alternative 

PALEONTOLOGY 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Lands and Realty Adverse impacts from 

increased public access and surfacedisturbing activities, and beneficial impacts from land acquisition and stewardship. No specified restrictions on land-use authorizations. 

Impacts same as those described in Alternative A, with more acres excluded from land-use authorizations. 

Impacts same as those described in Alternative A, with more acres excluded from land-use authorizations. 

Impacts same as those described in Alternative A, with more acres excluded from land-use authorizations. 

Impacts same as those described in Alternative A, with more acres excluded from land-use authorizations than any of the alternative

Livestock Grazing Adverse impacts from 

livestock trampling causing damage or destruction of surface fossils. Highest potential for impacts due to least acres unavailable for livestock grazing. Would manage 128,098 acres as 

Adverse impacts and restrictions same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree with an additional 13,062 acres unavailable to livestock grazing.. 

Adverse impacts and restrictions same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree with an additional 8,163 acres unavailable to livestock grazing. 

Adverse impacts and restrictions same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree with an additional 4,010 acres unavailable to livestock grazing. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-118 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

unavailable to grazing. 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

Adverse impacts from damage or destruction of Paleontological resources from surface disturbance, particularly in Class 3, 4/5, and 5 lands. Lands open to minerals development would include 865,559 acres of Class 3, 4/5, and 5 paleontologically sensitive geologic units. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a somewhat greater degree due to 20,111 more acres of Class 3, 4/5, and 5 lands open to minerals development than under Alternative A. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree due to 87,911 more acres of Class 3, 4/5, and 5 lands open to minerals development than under Alternative A. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree due to 120,747 more acres of Class 3, 4/5, and 5 lands open to minerals development than under Alternative A. 

Adverse impacts saas Alternative A, but a lesser degree due 98,299 less acres of Class 3, 4/5, and 5 lands open to minerdevelopment than under Alternative A. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts to paleontological resources, as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Surface disturbance restrictions on 582,3acres to protect nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have greater beneficimpacts on sensitive resources than undeAlternative A. 

Recreation Adverse impacts 

include damage or destruction of important surface fossils from motorized vehicles, illegal collection, and vandalism. Beneficial impacts from regulated recreational use and awareness programs. This 

Impacts same as Alternative A with lower potential for adverse impacts and more potential beneficial impacts due to increased restrictions on recreational activities. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, with lower potential for adverse impacts and more potential beneficial impacts due to increased restrictions on recreational activities.

Impacts same as Alternative A, with lower potential for adverse impacts and more potential beneficial impacts due to a high number of restrictions on recreational activities. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, with thlowest potential for adverse impacts due to increased restrictions on recreational activitieand surface disturbance comparto the other alternatives. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-119 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

alternative would provide the fewest restrictions on recreational activities.

Special Designations Potential adverse 

impacts include increased public access, unlawful collection or vandalism of sensitive resources, increased vehicle access, and surface-disturbing actions. Potential beneficial impacts from restrictions on public access and surface-disturbing activities. Alternative A would have limited restrictions on both commercial and recreational access. Additionally, 171,736 acres of Class 3 units, 141,790 acres of Class 4/5 units, and 93,985 acres of Class 5 units would lie within ACECs 

Potential impacts same as Alternative A, but with greater beneficial impacts from increased restrictions on access to sensitive paleontological resources compared to Alternative A including 68,427 more acres in ACECs as Class 3, 4/5, and 5 units. 

Potential impacts same as Alternative A, but with greater restrictions on surface-disturbing actions, and commercial and recreational access than Alternative A including 343,141 fewer acres in ACECs as Class 3, 4/5, and 5 units. 

Potential impacts same as Alternative A, but with somewhat greater restrictions on surface-disturbing actions, and commercial and recreational access than Alternative A, including zero acres in ACECs as Class 3, 4/5, and 5 units. 

Potential impacts same as Alternative but with the greatest beneficial restrictionon access and surface-disturbing actions of any of the alternatives. 

Travel Management Potentially adverse, 

direct and indirect impacts from surfacedisturbing actions, and increased public access resulting in unlawful collection, vandalism, or destruction of sensitive resources. Alternative A would 

Potential impacts same as Alternative A, but to lesser degree due to greater restrictions on travel and public access compared to Alternative A with 147,268 more acres closed to OHV use. 

Potential impacts same as Alternative A, but to lesser degree due to greater restrictions on travel and public access compared to Alternative A with 142,237 more acres closed to OHV use. 

Potential impacts same as Alternative A, but with zero acres closed to OHV use. 

Potential impacts same as Alternative but to a lesser degredue to the greatest level of restrictions otravel and public access compared to Alternative A with 694,005 more acres closed to OHV use. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-120 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

open the most acreage to travel and public access. 

Woodlands Adverse impacts 

include surface disturbance during harvest and road construction, and increased OHV access and access to sensitive resources. There would be limited restrictions on woodlands harvesting under Alternative A with the potential impacts on 662,223 acres of Class 3, 4/5, and 5 units. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree due to greater seasonal restrictions, limits and closures for woodland harvesting. Potential impacts on 254,712 fewer acres of Class 3, 4/5, and 5 units than Alternative A. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree due to increased seasonal restrictions, limits and closures for woodland harvesting. Potential impacts on 167,389 fewer acres of Class 3, 4/5, and 5 units than Alternative A. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to somewhat lesser degree from seasonal restrictions, limits, and closures to woodland harvesting. Potential impacts on fewer acres than Alternative A, but greater impacts than the other alternatives. 

Adverse impacts saas Alternative A, but lesser degree than aof the alternatives dto limited acreage available for harvesting, and restrictions on surfadisturbance to protewilderness characteristics. 

RECREATION 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Air Quality Long-term, beneficial 

impacts on recreationrelated scenic quality from management decisions that would limit smoke, haze, and other pollutants. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Cultural Resources Long-term, 

substantially adverse impacts to recreation resources in Comb Ridge, Tank Bench, and Beef Basin from lack of restrictions. Long-term, adverse impacts to recreation from access 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to recreation resources in the Comb Ridge, Tank Bench, Beef Basin, and McLoyd CanyonMoon House CSMAs, in Grand Gulch Historic District from decisions to prevent resource degradation, 

Management action impacts for Comb Ridge, Tank Bench, Beef Basin, and McLoyd CanyonMoon House same as Alternative B. 

Short term, beneficial impacts from reduced restrictions from not managing Comb Ridge, Tank Bench, and, Beef Basin as CSMAs, but long term, adverse impacts on resource and users from 

Same as Alternative except more beneficimpacts from surfacdisturbance restrictions in 18,514 (39%) in Comb RidgCSMA from protectioof non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-121 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

restrictions to the McLoyd CanyonMoon House. Managing the Grand Gulch Historic District for primitive recreation would have beneficial impacts on nonmechanized or specialized users, and adverse impacts on other user groups. 

and from management under SRMA plans. Impacts to user groups would be variable (see Recreation section in text for analysis of impacts to user groups). 

conflicts and user degradation. Impacts to McLoyd Canyon-Moon House same as Alternative B. Impacts to Grand Gulch Historic District same as Alternative C. 

Fire Management Short-term, adverse 

impacts on all recreational user groups from loss of recreation opportunities in treated areas. Longterm, beneficial impacts from reduced risk of fire, improved wildlife habitat and vegetation (with greater opportunities for wildlife viewing). 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Health and Safety Short-term health and 

safety risks to recreational users in those areas where hiking, OHV use, and target shooting are in close proximity to hazardous materials and AML sites. Reclamation of AML mine sites would beneficially expand recreational opportunities in the 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-122 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

long-term. 

Lands and Realty Short-term, beneficial 

impacts on nonmechanized, specialized, river floating, and mountain biking users from prohibitions on pyrotechnics and explosives use during filming. Long-term, beneficial impacts from protection of natural resources for recreation during filming. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Livestock Grazing Long-term, beneficial 

impacts on recreation resources and nonmechanized users from areas unavailable for livestock grazing. Negligible impacts on other recreation resource users. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

Impacts on recreation resources would be minor, but adverse because of potential scenic quality degradation from predicted 73 wells and a total of 2,436 acres of disturbance caused by oil and gas, geophysical, salable, locatable minerals activities (0.14% of the FO). 

Same as Alternative A, except that 66 wells predicted with total surface disturbances of 2,281 acres from all minerals activities (0.13% of the FO). 

Same as Alternative A, except that 74 wells predicted with total surface disturbances of 2,4641 acres from all minerals activities (0.14% of the FO). 

Same as Alternative A, except that 75 wells predicted with total surface disturbances of 2,496 acres from all minerals activities (0.14% of the FO). 

Same as Alternative except that 54 wells predicted with total surface disturbances of 2,131 acres from minerals activities (0.13% of the FO). Reduced impacts froan additional 582,36acres protected from minerals-related surface disturbances within areas with noWSA wilderness 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-123 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

characteristics. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Negligible impacts to recreation resources and uses as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics are not protected under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A 

Same as Alternative A 

Same as Alternative A 

Long-term, beneficiaimpacts on recreatioresources and opportunities for nonmechanized, motorized, scenic driving, and mountabiking groups from preservation of 165,831 acres for noWSA wilderness characteristics within the SRMAs, and 491,628 acres within the ERMA. Long-teradverse impacts on competitive, motorizand mountain biking events in these area

Paleontology Paleontological 

management decisions would have negligible impacts on recreation. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Recreation San Juan River 

SRMA Short-term, beneficial impacts from timing stipulations and reserved campsites along river in the 15,100-acre SRMA. Long-term, adverse impacts from lack of resource protection and continued intense river use, and motorized boating. 

San Juan River SRMA Long-term, beneficial impacts on river experience from reduced crowding by reducing commercial use (beneficial impacts on private users, adverse impacts on commercial users), from limited vehicle camping, from additional campsites 

San Juan River SRMA Commercial floating, vehicle camping impacts as under Alternative B. Vehicle camping, impacts as under B. Motorized boating impacts as under A. Adverse impacts from 33% reduction in SRMA, compared to the No Action (9,859-acre SRMA under 

San Juan River SRMA Impacts same as Alternative A for river users. Designated camping impacts as under Alternative B. Adverse impacts from 58% reduction in SRMA size (6,365-acre SRMA under Alternative D). 

San Juan River SRMASame as Alternative except that 4,124 acres of non-WSA lands with wildernescharacteristics lie within the proposed SRMA, which would beneficially increase protection of resourcand benefit nonmechanized river users. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-124 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

on Navajo Reservation (subject to MOU). Limited camping would have adverse impacts on non-river-floating users. An adverse reduction in size of the SRMA by 30% compared to the No Action (10,203-acre SRMA under Alternative B). 

Alternative C). 

Cedar Mesa (Grand Gulch Plateau) SRMA Long-term, beneficial impacts on resources and non-mechanized users in the 385,000-acre Grand Gulch SRMA from designated campsites, pet controls, no campfires, limited group size. 

Cedar Mesa CSRMA (375,739 acres) Same as Alternative A, except managed as 375,739-acre Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA, pets excluded from specified areas, no woodland harvesting or collecting. Long-term, beneficial impacts from permitted camping and day use. 

Cedar Mesa CSRMA (375,739 acres) Same impacts as Alternative B, except pet control would be same as A. Shortterm adverse impacts to stock users, but long-term benefits from resource preservation. 

Cedar Mesa CSRMA (375,739 acres) Management decisions and impacts same as Alternative C, except that pets and stock would be prohibited or limited if causing adverse impacts to recreation resources.

Cedar Mesa C-SRM(375,739 acres) Same as Alternative except 109,700 acre(29%) within the proposed C-SRMA would be protected fpreservation of nonWSA wilderness characteristics, with benefits to nomechanized users aadverse impacts to mechanized users in this area.

Dark Canyon SRMA Managed under the 214,390-acre Canyon Basin SRMA. Longterm, adverse impacts to resources from unlimited group sizes, dogs and vehicles, dispersed camping, campfires, and minimal ranger presence. Long-term, 

Dark Canyon SRMA (30,820 acres) Short- and long-term, beneficial impacts on resources from limits on users per day, designated campsites, limits on campfires (mesa tops), waste management, pet restrictions, and 

Dark Canyon SRMA (30,820 acres) Impacts same as Alternative B, but decreased long-term, beneficial impacts by increased group size and numbers. 

Dark Canyon SRMA (30,820 acres) Impacts same as Alternative A from unrestricted dispersed camping, permitted large and numerous commercial groups, unrestricted use of campfires, no designated 

Dark Canyon SRMA (30,820 acres) Same as Alternative except for additionabeneficial impacts from protection of 2,522 acres (8%) to preserve non-WSA wilderness characteristics.
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-125 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

adverse impacts to users from overcrowding, user conflicts, loss of recreational opportunities. 

prohibitions on firewood collecting. Short-term, adverse impacts on users from group size and number limits, but long-term, beneficial impacts from improved backcountry opportunities. 

campsites, and unrestricted firewood collection. 

Indian Creek SRMA Managed as part of the 214,390-acre Canyon Basins SRMA. Long-term, adverse impacts on resources and resource users from unlimited, unrestricted user group sizes, minimal monitoring of surface disturbances, unrestricted camping and use of campfires, potential degradation of cultural-recreational resources, and unrestricted presence of pets. 

Indian Creek SRMA (89,721 acres) Short- and long-term, beneficial impacts on resources from designated camping, prohibitions on dispersed camping, prohibitions on wood gathering, and adaptive management to preserve resources. Short-term, beneficial impacts on resource users from additional recreational facilities. Long-term, beneficial impacts on users from management decisions that address the increasing popularity and recreational use of the area. 

Indian Creek SRMA (89,721 acres) Same as Alternative B. 

Indian Creek SRMA (89,721 acres) Same as Alternative B. 

Indian Creek SRMA (89,721 acres) Same as Alternative except 47,393 acres SRMA managed for protection of non-Wlands with wildernescharacteristics, with beneficial impacts onon-mechanized usand adverse impacts on OHV and mountabiking users.

White Canyon SRMA Area not managed as an SRMA. Long-term, adverse impacts from unrestricted private 

White Canyon SRMA (2,828 acres) Short-term and longterm, beneficial impacts from fire pan 

White Canyon SRMA (2,828 acres) Same as Alternative B. 

White Canyon SRMA (2,828 acres)Long-term, adverse impacts from lack of permit system to limit 

White Canyon SRM(2,828 acres) Same as Alternative except 2,092 acres would be managed f
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-126 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

and commercial use, open camping and campfires. 

use, permit system, primitive campground development, prohibitions on campfires in-canyon. 

resource use and visitation. Long-term, beneficial impacts from developed campsites, fire pan use. 

protection of non-Wlands with wildernescharacteristics (this management would not change level of beneficial impacts).

ERMA No specified management decisions. Long-term, beneficial impacts to resources and users from adaptive management to protect resources. 

ERMA Long-term, beneficial impacts from adaptive management, limits on dispersed vehicle camping, camping limited to designated sites along Bears Ears Road and Deer Flat Road, and coordination with Glen Canyon Rec Area on campground construction. 

ERMA Same as Alternative B, except allowing dispersed vehicle camping within 150 of roadways would have long-term, adverse impacts on resources from surface disturbances. 

ERMA Same as Alternative C, except that dispersed vehicle camping allowed within 300 feet of roadways. 

ERMA Same as Alternative except 416,526 acremanagement for protection of non-Wlands with wildernescharacteristics in the ERMA would have more beneficial impacts on nonmechanized users amore adverse impacon mechanized user

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) Long-term, beneficial impacts from stipulations in the permit that would ensure that resources were not adversely impacts. 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) Same as Alternative A. 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) Same as Alternative A. 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) Same as Alternative A. 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) Same as Alternative but reduced beneficimpacts from fewer opportunities for commercial, specialized recreatioin non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics.

Riparian Resources No specific 

management decisions would affect recreation, but current adverse impacts would have long-term recreation opportunity-degrading impacts on hiking, trail 

Riparian management decisions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation by excluding livestock in specified riparian areas, closing areas to OHV use, and 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-127 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

use, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and camping. 

closing functioning at risk areas to motorized camping. Short-term, adverse impacts on recreational opportunities until riparian area were restored. 

Soil and Water Resources 

Soils and watershed management decisions are unspecified, but impacts on recreation would be negligible. 

No specific management action impacts on recreation, but erosion control planning and mitigation on steep slopes would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation-related scenic quality. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative 

Special Designations Alkali Ridge ACEC 

(39,202 acres) Beneficial, long-term impacts from resource preservation and/or mitigation of disturbances. 

Alkali Ridge ACEC (39,196 acres) Long-term, beneficial impacts from cultural resource management plan, and prohibitions on surface-disturbing activities that might threaten the area’s cultural resources. 

Alkali Ridge ACEC (39,196 acres) Same as Alternative A, except that a management plan would be prepared and limits placed on surface disturbances, which would have beneficial impacts on recreation. 

Alkali Ridge ACEC Not designated as an ACEC. The impacts would be adverse in the longterm because surface disturbances would not be limited, visual quality would be adversely affected and adverse for sightseeing opportunities. 

Alkali Ridge ACEC (39,196 acres) Same as Alternative 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC (6,260 acres) Long-term, beneficial, impacts on recreation resources and nonmechanized users. 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC (6,225 acres) Same as Alternative A. 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC Impacts to the area would be the same as Alternative A because the area lies within a 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC Same as Alternative C. 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC (6,225 acresSame as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-128 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Long-term, adverse impacts on motorized OHV, mountain biking, specialized, and scenic driving user groups within the ACEC because it lies within a WSA. 

WSA; but the area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Butler Wash North ACEC (17,464 acres)Long-term, beneficial impacts on nonmechanized users from maintenance of wilderness values, but long term adverse impacts on mechanized and specialized users from prohibitions on surface disturbances because the ACEC lies within a WSA. 

Butler Wash North ACEC (17,365 acres)Same as Alternative A. 

Butler Wash North ACEC Impacts to the area would be the same as Alternative A because the area lies within a WSA; but the area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Butler Wash North ACEC Same as Alternative C. 

Butler Wash North ACEC (17,365 acreSame as Alternative 

Cedar Mesa ACEC (295,336 acres) Short-term, adverse impacts from rangeland and wildlife improvement projects, and fire suppression. Long-term, adverse impacts from potential minerals resource exploration and development. Longterm, beneficial impacts from designated OHV use, protection of cultural resources, and areas 

Cedar Mesa ACEC (306,742 acres) Long-term, beneficial impacts from waste management, prohibitions on dispersed camping, and limiting day use and overnight camping to protect cultural resources. Long-term, adverse impacts on recreation users from reduced recreational opportunities. 

Cedar Mesa ACEC Long-term beneficial impacts same as Alternative B from management as a 375,739-acre SRMA, but the area would not be designated as an ACEC. Long-term adverse impacts same as Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, because the area would be open to dispersed camping opportunities. 

Cedar Mesa ACEC Same as Alternative C. 

Cedar Mesa ACEC (306,742 acres) Same impacts as Alternative B, but mbeneficial to nonmechanized recreation, from protection of 60,049 acres of non-WSA lands with wildernescharacteristics within the ACEC. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-129 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

managed for scenic quality and nonmotorized uses. 

Dark Canyon ACEC (61,660 acres) Dark Canyon lies entirely within a WSA, so there would be long-term, beneficial impacts on nonmechanized users from maintenance of wilderness values, but long term adverse impacts on mechanized and specialized users from prohibitions on surface disturbances. 

Dark Canyon ACEC (61,660 acres) Same as Alternative A. 

Dark Canyon ACEC Impacts to the area would be the same as Alternative A because the area lies within a WSA; but the area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Dark Canyon ACECSame as Alternative C. 

Dark Canyon ACEC (61,660 acres) Same as Alternative 

Hovenweep ACEC (1,798 acres) Impacts would be similar to Cedar Mesa ACEC. Beneficial opportunities for mechanized recreation, wildlife viewing, and cultural interpretation. Long term, adverse impacts from minerals development on sightseeing opportunities, cultural, and wildlife viewing. 

Hovenweep ACEC (2,439 acres) Same as Alternative A. 

Hovenweep ACEC (2,439 acres) Same as Alternative B. 

Hovenweep ACEC The ACEC would not be established. Adverse impact to recreation in the short- and long-term from minerals development, watershed and vegetation treatment projects, impacts to cultural resources. Long-term, beneficial impacts for OHV users and nonmotorized trail users. Adverse impacts on users seeking remoteness, solitude, and naturalness. 

Hovenweep ACEC (2,439 acres) Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-130 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Indian Creek ACEC (8,510 acres) Managed to protect visual quality, management decisions would permit minimal surface disturbances and closed to OHV use, with long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources. Variable impacts on recreation users: beneficial impacts on non-mechanized and scenic drivers; adverse impacts on mechanized users from limited recreational opportunities. 

Indian Creek ACEC (8,510 acres) Same impacts as Alternative A. 

Indian Creek ACEC (3,908 acres) Same impacts as Alternative B on recreation resources, but reduced degree of beneficial impacts on resources and users because the ACEC would be reduced in area by 46% in comparison to Alternative A. This alternative would beneficially increase opportunities for OHV use along designated trails and routes in the ACEC. The reduced size of the ACEC would likely create user conflicts between mechanized and non-mechanized users. 

Indian Creek ACECThe ACEC would not be established, with no emphasis on managing the area for scenic quality except those areas that lie within WSAs. Adverse, long-term impacts on recreation resources that lie outside of WSAs from lack of resource protection. Variable impacts on resource users: nonmechanized and scenic drivers would be adversely impacted; mechanized, specialized users would benefit in the short-term. Longterm, adverse impacts on all users from user conflicts, resource degradation, and crowding. 

Indian Creek ACEC (8,510 acres) Same as Alternative but to a greater degree, because, 30of the ACEC (3,887 acres) would be protected to preservlands with non-WSA wilderness characteristics: more adverse impacts to mechanized users from OHV prohibitiomore beneficial impacts to nonmechanized users from increased opportunities for solitude, remoteness

Lockhart Basin ACEC The area would not be managed as an ACEC. Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources from VRM I designation, prohibitions on woodcutting and OHV 

Lockhart Basin ACEC (47,783 acres)Long term, beneficial impacts to resources and to nonmechanized users from maintained high scenic quality as VRM Class I, and adverse impacts o mechanized users 

Lockhart Basin ACEC Not designated as an ACEC, and managed as VRM Class II and VRM Class III. Adverse impacts to recreation resources because the area would be open to mineral leasing, 

Lockhart Basin ACEC Same as Alternative C. 

Lockhart Basin ACEC (47,783 acreSame as Alternative except to a greater beneficial degree fonon-mechanized usand greater adverse impacts to motorized OHV users, from management of 45% of the ACEC (21,298 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-131 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

use in the Indian Creek ACEC (6,870 acres) and WSA portions of the basin. Long-term, adverse impacts on OHV users, but beneficial impacts on scenic drivers, nonmotorized, and nonmechanized users. Long term, adverse impacts to nonmechanized users outside of the ACEC/WSA areas within the basin from reduced opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and quiet. 

from limited opportunities. 

livestock grazing in VRM III areas. Longterm, adverse impacts to all recreation groups from degradation of scenic quality in VRM Class III areas. Shortterm, beneficial impacts to OHV users, but long-term, adverse impacts from resource degradation in VRM III areas. 

acres) for preservatiof lands with non-Wwilderness characteristics.

Lavender Mesa ACEC (649 acres) Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources from protection of visual, cultural, and natural resources. Negligible impacts on mechanized recreation users because the area is inaccessible. Beneficial impacts on non-mechanized and specialized users (climbers) from preservation of an undeveloped recreation area. 

Lavender Mesa ACEC (649 acres) Same as Alternative A. 

Lavender Mesa ACEC (649 acres) Same as Alternative A. 

Lavender Mesa ACEC The ACEC would not be established. Long-term, adverse impacts to recreation resources from unrestricted surfacedisturbing activities. Long-term, adverse impacts on nonmechanized and specialized users from lack of protection-related management decisions that would allow resource degradation. 

Lavender Mesa ACEC (649 acres) Same as Alternative A., except the area would also be managed for protection of its nonWSA wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-132 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC (70,017 acres) Long term, beneficial impacts to scenic drivers and scenic quality preservation along the motor routes within the ACEC. Long term, adverse impacts to OHV and mountain bikers from limited opportunities along the corridor. 

Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC Under this alternative the ACEC would not be designated, with long term, beneficial impacts from reduced restrictions on activities within the corridor. 

Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC Same as Alternative B. 

Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC Same as Alternative B.

Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC Same as Alternative 

Shay Canyon ACEC (3,561 acres) Minor impacts on resources from actions that limit OHV use, protect scenic quality (as VRM Class I), and from protection of cultural resources. Minor impacts on resource users because opportunities would be available for mechanized and nonmechanized users. 

Shay Canyon ACEC (119 acres) The ACEC would be managed as a 119-acre area to conserve cultural resources. Impacts on recreation resource would be beneficial in the longterm because surface disturbances would be prohibited. Impacts on all recreation use would be adverse in the long-term from limitations imposed to protect cultural resources, and from a substantial reduction of ACEC area that would limit and constrain recreational opportunities. 

Shay Canyon ACEC (119 acres) Same as Alternative B. 

Shay Canyon ACEC The ACEC would not be established. Managed under VRM Class III objectives, limited OHV use, livestock grazing, fuels and watershed treatments that would have longterm, adverse impacts on resources. Shortterm, beneficial impacts on mechanized and non-mechanized users from expanded opportunities, but long-term, adverse impacts on users from resource degradation through lack of protection 

Shay Canyon ACE(119 acres) Same as Alternative except that 99 acres (83% of the ACEC) would be managed fprotection of non-Wlands with wildernescharacteristics. Reduced adverse impacts from prohibitions on OHVwhich be better able accommodate allowrecreational activitiein the small area. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-133 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

prescriptions. 

San Juan River ACEC The area would not be designated as an ACEC, but impacts would be the same as the San Juan River SRMA impacts (described above) because the area would continue to be managed as the San Juan River SRMA (15,100 acres). 

San Juan River ACEC (7,590 acres) Long-term, beneficial impacts on resources from decisions that limit or restrict surface disturbances. Longterm, adverse impacts on motorized, mountain biking, nonmechanized users from reduced recreational opportunities. Negligible impacts on river users. 

San Juan River ACEC (7,590 acres) Same as Alternative B. 

San Juan River ACEC The ACEC would not be designated, but impacts would be same as Alternative B because of similar management decisions to protect recreational resources and allow similar range of recreational opportunities. 

San Juan River ACEC (7,590 acresSame as Alternative except 2,155 acres non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (28% the ACEC) would be managed to limit surface disturbances

Valley of the Gods ACEC The 31,387-acre area would not be designated an ACEC, but continued to be managed as a Special Emphasis Area within the Cedar Mesa ACEC. Long term, beneficial impacts through limitations on surface disturbances, and management under VRM I objectives. Long-term, beneficial impacts on non-mechanized, mechanized, and scenic drivers because opportunities would be available. 

Valley of the Gods ACEC (22,863 acres)Impacts would be same as A because of VRM I objectives for the area. 

Valley of the Gods ACEC (22,863 acres)Same as Alternative B. 

Valley of the Gods ACEC No designation as an ACEC. VRM III management objectives would allow long-term, adverse impacts to resources, with longterm, adverse impacts to scenic drivers, nonmotorized, and nonmechanized users from diminished recreational opportunities. 

Valley of the Gods ACEC (22,863 acreSame as Alternative except 20,743 acres ACEC (91% of ACEmanaged for protection of non-Wlands with wildernescharacteristics.

WSR Colorado WSR Colorado WSR Colorado WSR Colorado WSR Colorado 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-134 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Segments Impacts on segment #1 would be beneficial in the long-term from restrictions to preserve ORVs, with beneficial, long-term impacts on all users because opportunities would continue to be available. Impacts on Segment #2 and #3 would be the same as for #1 above. 

Segments Impacts on segment #1 would be beneficial in the longterm from preservation of ORVs. Impacts on specialized, mountain biking, nonmechanized, river users, and motorized users would be beneficial because opportunities would be available for recreation. Potential adverse impacts from resource use conflicts within the narrow river segment. Impacts on Segment #2 would be same as #1 above. Impact to Segment #3 would have longterm, beneficial impacts on resources and non-mechanized users, but long-term, adverse impacts on mountain biking and motorized users from reduced opportunities. 

Segments Recommended as not suitable, the impacts on segment #1 resources and users would be adverse in the long-term from reduced protection from surface disturbances. Impacts to Segment #2 would be same as Alternative B, except that motorized use would create user conflicts and diminish the non-mechanized user experience. Impacts to Segment #3 would be same as Alternative B, except that motorized use would create user conflicts and diminish the non-mechanized river user experience.

Segments All segments would be recommended as not suitable, with long-term, adverse impacts on recreation from lack of resource protection and allowed surface disturbances. 

Segments Same as Alternative 

WSR Indian Creek Segment Not evaluated for eligibility, but impacts on recreation would continue to be beneficial through 

WSR Indian Creek Segment Long-term, beneficial impacts on resources and resource users because ORVs would be protected, while 

WSR Indian Creek Segment Recommended as not suitable. Long-term, adverse impacts on resources from likely degradation of ORVs. 

WSR Indian Creek Segment Recommended as not suitable. Same as Alternative C. 

WSR Indian Creek Segment Same as Alternative except that additionaresource protection along 0.6 miles of rivcorridor to protect 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-135 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

management decisions under the current RMP, with a range of beneficial recreational opportunities for mechanized and nonmechanized users. 

allowing recreation opportunities for motorized, nonmotorized, and mountain bike users. Long term, adverse impacts from potential resource user conflicts. 

Impacts on users would be long-term and adverse from degradation of resources and reduction in recreational opportunities. 

areas with non-WSA lands with wildernescharacteristics. 

WSR Fable Valley Segment Not evaluated for eligibility, but its location within a WSA ensures that impacts on recreation resources and nonmechanized recreation would be beneficial in the long term. Long-term, adverse impacts on mechanized user groups from WSA IMP restrictions on mechanized use and surface disturbances. 

WSR Fable Valley Segment Recommended suitable, with same impacts as Alternative A from location within a WSA. 

WSR Fable Valley Segment Recommend not suitable, but same impacts as Alternative A from location within a WSA. 

WSR Fable Valley Segment Recommend not suitable, but same impacts as Alternative A from location within a WSA. 

WSR Fable Valley Segment Same as Alternative 

WSR Dark Canyon Segment Not evaluated for eligibility, but its location within a WSA ensures that impacts on recreation resources and nonmechanized recreation would be beneficial in the long term. Long-term, adverse impacts on 

WSR Dark Canyon Segment Recommended suitable, with same impacts as Alternative A from location within a WSA. 

WSR Dark Canyon Segment Same as Alternative B. 

WSR Dark Canyon Segment Recommend not suitable, but same impacts as Alternative A from location within a WSA. 

WSR Dark Canyon Segment Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-136 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

mechanized user groups from WSA IMP restrictions on mechanized use and surface disturbances. 

WSR San Juan River Segments Segment #1 not evaluated for eligibility, with impacts same as Colorado River Segment #1. Segment #2 recommended as eligible, with limited OHV use, VRM I objectives, and withdrawn mineral entry would have long-term, beneficial impacts on resources and all users because opportunities would continue to be available for mechanized and nonmechanized users. Segments #3, #4, and #5 would have same impacts as #2. 

WSR San Juan River Segments Segment #1 recommended as suitable, managed as VRM III, NSO for minerals. Impacts to recreation would be negligible to minor because no recreation ORVs were found during eligibility study. Segment #2 recommended as suitable, with longterm, beneficial impacts on recreation resources and users. Increased use would create the potential for user conflicts between mechanized and non-mechanized users. Segment #3 recommended as suitable, with VRM I management, closed to OHV use, and mineral withdrawal that would have longterm, beneficial impacts on resources. Impacts on users would be variable: 

WSR San Juan River Segments All segments recommended as not suitable. Segment #1 Impacts same as Alternative B. Segment #2 adverse, long-term impacts because eligibility study determined that the segment has Wild ORVs. Impacts on users would be adverse in the longterm because of likely resource degradation and diminished recreation opportunities. Segment #3 Impacts same as Segment #2.Segment #4 Impacts same as Segment #2.Segment #5 Impacts same as Segment #2. 

WSR San Juan River Segments All segments recommended as not suitable. Segment #1 Impacts same as Alternative C. Segment #2 Impacts same as Alternative C. Segment #3 Impacts same as Alternative C. Segment #4 Impacts same as Alternative 

C. Segment #5 Impacts same as Alternative C. 

WSR San Juan RivSegments Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-137 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

OHV users would be adversely affected by lack of opportunities, but river floaters and non-mechanized users would benefit. Segment #4 recommended as suitable, and would have impacts same as Segment #2. Segment #5 recommended as suitable, and would have impacts same as Segment #3. 

WSR Arch Canyon Segment Not evaluated for eligibility. Impacts same as Indian Creek segment. 

WSR Arch Canyon Segment Recommended as suitable, with same as Indian Creek. 

WSR Arch Canyon Segment Recommended as not suitable. Same as Indian Creek segment. 

WSR Arch Canyon Segment Recommended as not suitable. Same as Indian Creek segment. 

WSR Arch Canyon Segment Same as Alternative 

WSR White Canyon Determined to be eligible. Beneficial, long-term impacts on recreation and users from resource protection and continued recreational opportunities. 

WSR White Canyon Recommended as not suitable. Negligible impacts on recreation because of proposed SRMA under this alternative to protect recreation resources and opportunities. 

WSR White Canyon Same as Alternative B. 

WSR White CanyonSame as Alternative B. 

WSR White Canyon Same as Alternative 

WSAs Current impacts on recreation and users would not change because past and future status would not change until congressional 

WSAs Same as Alternative A. 

WSAs Same as Alternative A. 

WSAs Same as Alternative A. 

WSAs Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-138 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

release: adverse impacts on mechanized recreation to preserve wilderness values; beneficial impacts on non-mechanized users from continued opportunities. 

Special Status Species 

Negligible impacts on recreation. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Travel Management OHV 

Acres open to crosscountry travel and acres designated as limited to designated routes OHV use would be beneficial to mechanized users, but adverse in the long-term for nonmechanized users and resources from resources degradation and intensifying resource use conflicts. Special Stipulation Areas Long-term, adverse impacts from OHV exclusion and access within McLoyd Canyon-Moon House site. Long-term, beneficial impacts from restricting travel in Arch Canyon by preserving wildlife viewing opportunities; 

OHV Short- and long-term, beneficial impacts to resources from eliminated OHV cross-country travel and restrictions to designated routes, and reduction in user conflicts. Beneficial impacts on nonmechanized, mountain biking, and river floaters from closed or designated routes. Long-term, adverse impacts on motorized OHV groups from elimination of Open OHV areas. Special Stipulation Areas Impacts to McLoyd Canyon-Moon House same as Alternative A, but long-term, beneficial impacts to resource 

OHV Same as Alternative B, except that longterm, adverse impacts would occur within 2,311 acres designated as Open to OHV use. Special Stipulation Areas Impacts to McLoyd Canyon-Moon House same as Alternative B. Impacts to Arch Canyon same as Alternative A. 

OHV Resource impacts same as Alternative B. Long-term, adverse impacts on motorized OHV cross-country use from substantial reduction in area, but increased opportunities for designated route OHV recreation. Special Stipulation Areas Impacts to McLoyd Canyon-Moon House same as Alternative A. Impacts to Arch Canyon resources same as Alternative C. 

OHV All OHV travel within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be prohibited, with long-term, substantially adversimpacts on motorize

OHV, mountain bikinand competitive (specialized) motorized users from reduced opportunitieLong-term, beneficiaimpacts on nonmechanized users from increased areaclosed to motorized users. Special Stipulation Areas Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-139 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

likelihood for adverse impacts from proximity of nonmechanized and mechanized users within the canyon. 

preservation. Longterm, adverse impacts to mechanized recreation from closing Arch Canyon to OHV use by reducing recreational opportunities; beneficial impacts to non-mechanized users.. 

Vegetation Management 

Impacts same as Fire Management because treatments and impacts are the same.

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Visual Resources Long-term, beneficial 

protection-related impacts on recreation resources and related scenic quality preservation, and long-term, beneficial impacts on all resource user groups from designation of 371,575 acres as VRM Class I and 355,112 acres as VRM II (41% of the PA). 

497,668 acres designated under VRM Class I (33% more than Alternative A) and 250,641 acres as VRM II, with impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree. Approximately 42% of the planning area would be managed for high scenic quality. 

425,179 acres designated under VRM Class I (14% more than Alternative A) and 132,001 as VRM II, with longterm, adverse impacts to recreation from 10% less protection of scenic quality than Alternative A. Approximately 31% of the planning area would be managed for high scenic quality. 

390,424 acres designated under VRM Class I (5% more than Alternative A) and 8,838 acres as VRM II, with long-term, adverse impacts to recreation from a 19% reduction in scenic quality protection than Alternative A. High scenic quality would be protected on 22% of the PA. 

998,370 acres designated as VRM (269% more acreagthan Alternative A), including areas designated as VRM Class I to protect noWSA wilderness characteristics, with long-term, beneficiaimpacts on scenic resources. This alternative would protect scenic qualitunder VRM Class I and II management objectives on 62% othe PA. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Seasonal closing of wildlife habitat would have short-term, adverse impacts on motorized OHV recreation to protect 

Short-term, adverse restrictions on all commercial or permitted OHV use within crucial wildlife habitat. 

Same as Alternative B, except that 135 miles of commercial and permitted OHV routes would be affected. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-140 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

crucial habitat. Approximately 512 

miles of OHV routes would be affected. 

Woodlands Long-term, adverse 

noise and visual impacts on nonmechanized, some motorized OHV, specialized, scenic driving, and mountain biking groups from intrusive OHV and chainsaw noise impacts, trash, OHV surface disturbances, and remnants of woodland harvesting. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Fire Management Fuels management 

treatments on approximately 5,000 to 10,000 acres annually would be adverse in the shortterm from increased sedimentation and runoff from prescribed burn surface disturbances. Longterm beneficial impacts from reduction in wildland fire risk and establishment of a more natural fire return interval. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Lands and Realty Beneficial impacts 

from ROW exclusions 

Beneficial impacts from ROW exclusions 

Beneficial impacts from ROW exclusions 

Beneficial impacts from ROW 

Beneficial impacts from ROW exclusion
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-141 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

on 120,800 acres that would limit surface and vegetation disturbances and changes in hydrology.

on 416,612 acres that would limit surface and vegetation disturbances and changes in hydrology.

on 434,652 acres that would limit surface and vegetation disturbances and changes in hydrology.

exclusions on 401,028 acres that would limit surface and vegetation disturbances and changes in hydrology. 

on 1,028,378 acres that would limit surfaand vegetation disturbances and changes in hydrolog

Livestock Grazing The total riparian area 

open to grazing would be 17,600 acres; unavailable acreage would be 2,400 acres. Beneficial impacts from resource protection and enhancement through proper herd management. Proper livestock grazing would benefit riparian systems by ensuring recruitment of riparian plant species. Riparian exclosures would protect and enhance riparian vegetation. Overall, Alternative A has the fewest riparian areas unavailable for livestock grazing compared to all other alternatives. Compliance with Standard 2 would minimize adverse impacts to riparian areas by requiring changes in grazing management wherever monitoring 

17,200 riparian acres would be open to grazing; 2,800 would be unavailable. Seasonal restrictions, closures, and/or forage utilization limits on grazing in riparian areas, especially those Functioning at Risk. The closure of riparian areas to grazing would protect riparian vegetation, as described under A. Alternative B provides the largest number of riparian acres excluded from grazing, which would have more long-term, beneficial impacts on riparian resources in those excluded areas than Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Alternative D would have 18,020 acres open and 2,380 acres unavailable to livestock grazing. There would be no seasonal restrictions, closures, and/or forage utilization limits on grazing riparian areas Functioning At Risk, therefore fewer reductions in adverse impacts would occur, as compared to Alternatives B and C. This alternative would have impacts the same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-142 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

shows degradation of riparian areas when PFC in not achieved. 

Minerals Oil and gas 

development would be managed with NSO mineral leasing stipulations in riparian areas. The Monticello FO would follow BLM guidelines for managing riparian areas (Technical Reference 1737-6, as updated) and Utah Riparian Management Policy. All floodplains and riparian/wetlands would be managed in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 119900, Sections 303 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the ESA. These orders would protect riparian resources and floodplains from surface disturbance and vegetation removal. No new surface-disturbing activities will be allowed within 100 meters of riparian/wetlands unless it can be shown that: a) there are no practical alternatives or, b) all 

Same as Alternative A 

Same as Alternative A 

Same as Alternative A 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-143 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

long term impacts can be fully mitigated or, c) the activity will benefit and enhance the riparian area. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts to riparian resources in these lands from special management to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics because no lands would be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Beneficial impacts to riparian resources from protection of wilderness characteristics on 582,360 acres from closure to minerals, OHV travel, ROW permitting, and through managemenunder VRM Class I objectives. 

Recreation Short term and Longterm, adverse impacts 

to riparian resources from dispersed recreation-related and OHV-caused stream bank vegetation trampling; soil compaction, sedimentation, erosion, and indirect spread of invasive species. Impacts mitigated by BLM through recreation guidelines and stipulations to protect riparian resources. 

Similar to Alternative A, but with less adverse impacts from increased restrictions on recreation in riparian areas, riparian areas closed to OHV use, limits on river use, and other recreation restrictions that would protect riparian resources. 

Recreation actions would provide more protection to riparian resources than Alternatives A and D, but less than Alternatives B and E. 

Similar to Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative except that restrictioon OHV use would bgreater, with fewer potential impacts to riparian areas from OHV use. 

Riparian Resources Long-term, beneficial 

impacts on riparian resources from NSO stipulations, grazing and rangeland health 

Similar to Alternative A, with additional closures for areas at risk of degradation. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-144 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

standards, and floodplain protection. 

Soil and Water Resources 

Indirect, long term, adverse impacts from sedimentation and soil erosion on riparian because of a lack of steep-slope surface disturbances restrictions. 

Long-term, beneficial indirect impacts from surface disturbance restrictions on slopes >40% slopes (approximately 87,456 acres). 

Same as Alternative B, except surfacedisturbing activities would not be permitted on slopes greater than 40% unless determined that it would cause undue or unnecessary degradation to pursue other placement alternatives. 

Same as Alternative B, except the impacts of soils and watershed management decisions would require a plan including an erosion control strategy, survey, and design for development of land with a slope greater than 40%. 

Same as Alternative 

Special Designations Long-term, adverse 

impacts from minerals activities within ACECs through vegetation trampling and removal, habitat fragmentation, and invasive species infestation. Longterm, beneficial impacts from OHV motorized-use protection, and protection within WSAs. 

Long-term, beneficial protection within WSAs, ACECs, and W&SR segments, from OHV limitations, and limits on vegetation treatments. 

Same as Alternative B, but with slightly less protective management within ACECs. 

Impacts the same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative except that riparian areas in 109,206 acof ACECs in non-WSlands with wildernescharacteristics would be managed with additional protective restrictions on woodland harvest, mineral entry, surfacdisturbance, and ROWs. 

Special Status Species 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to riparian areas, from protection of special status species habitat. 

Same as Alternative A, except additional beneficial impacts from limiting OHV use to a designated route near T37S, R20E, Section 16. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative 

Vegetation No impacts on 

riparian resources because no 

Adverse, direct and indirect short term impacts from 

Impacts same as B, except treatment of 400 (80%) fewer 

Same as Alternative C. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-145 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

vegetation treatments are proposed in riparian areas. 

vegetation treatments causing increased runoff and sedimentation due to loss of vegetative cover. Long-term, beneficial impacts from riparian condition improvement after treatments. This would be 500 (100%) more acres of riparian treatment than under Alternative A. 

acres of riparian habitat than under Alternative B. 

Visual Resources Under Alternative A, 

12,200 acres of riparian habitat would be beneficially protected under VRM Class I and II objectives. 

Same as Alternative A, except 1,000 fewer acres (11,200 total acres) of riparian habitat would be protected. 

Same as Alternative A, except 8,600 acres of riparian habitat would be beneficially protected under VRM Class I and II objectives. 

Under Alternative D, 5,300 acres of riparian habitat would be beneficially protected under VRM Class I and II objectives. This alternative would provide the least benefit to riparian resources. 

Same as Alternative except more riparian area would be beneficially protecteunder VRM Class I and II objectives thaany of the other alternatives (13,704 acres of riparian habitat). 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Long-term, direct benefits to riparian resources from maintenance and/or improvement of lowland riparian and wetlands habitats. Some loss of riparian vegetation from elk grazing. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Woodlands Potential adverse 

impacts from vegetation disturbance, reduction 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-146 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

or loss of woody shrub and canopy vegetation in riparian habitat from permitted harvesting of cottonwood and willow for ceremonial purposes. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Cultural Resources Long-term, adverse 

impacts to cultural resource-related tourism revenue from minimal restrictions and protection of cultural resources (37,433 acres). 

A 162% increase (98,348 acres) in protected cultural resources could beneficially increase cultural resourcerelated tourism. Increased quality and quantity of cultural sites would likely have long-term beneficial impacts on the local economy as compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative B, except reduced protection for the Tank Bench areas could have adverse impacts on tourism and connections to the cultural heritage of the area. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except acreage subject to special management considerations increased by 5% (38,995 acres). 

Same as Alternative except that areas designated as NSO would be closed in tComb Ridge. 

Livestock Grazing No changes in 

existing socioeconomic conditions (employment, sales tax revenue, culture). 

Same as Alternative A, except a 0.7% reduction in acres available for grazing and a 0.08% reduction in AUMs. This is not likely to impact social conditions, jobs or income. 

Similar to Alternative B, as AUMs are identical but there is a 6.3% increase in acres available for grazing. 

Same as Alternative A, but with a 0.01% reduction in acres and 0.02% reduction in AUMs 

Same as Alternative 

Minerals Long-term, beneficial 

economic impacts to local communities from employment, 

Same as Alternative A, except total well potential would differ by only 7 wells (73 

Same as Alternative A, except the total well potential would differ by only one well 

Same as Alternative A, except total well potential would differ by only 2 wells (73 

Same as Alternative with the well potentiadiffering by 19 wells (73 wells under 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-147 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

taxes, royalties, bonus payments and annual rent payments from minerals development: Estimated annual revenue from oil and gas development: 5 oil wells-$251,225 and 5 natural gas wells-$312,350. 

wells under Alternative A and 66 wells under B) 

(73 wells under Alternative A and 74 under Alternative C). 

wells under Alternative A and 75 wells under Alternative D). 

Alternative A and 54 wells under AlternatE). Estimated annuarevenue from oil and gas development: 3 wells - $150,735 and natural gas wells - $187,410. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts, as no non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed for wilderness characteristics. 

No impacts, as no non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics. 

No impacts, as no non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics 

No impacts, as no non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics. 

Management prescriptions for 582,357 acres of noWSA lands with wilderness characteristics has some potential for positive impacts on local economy with tpotential for some socioeconomic lossedue to restricted activities in these areas. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

No changes in current socioeconomic trends ($35.5 million in spending and 1,083 jobs in 2003). 

Minor, adverse impacts on socioeconomics from decreased group/trip sizes within SRMAs, resulting in fewer visitors. Long-term, beneficial impacts on non-motorized activities would greater than under Alternative A, but less than under Alternative E. 

Similar impacts to Alternative A, with greater potential for increased visitation and economic contributions to local economy than Alternative B. Reduced potential relative to Alternative A for long-term, adverse social impacts due to user conflicts, crowding, and degradation to 

Similar to Alternative A, except for a slightly greater potential benefit to short-term economic conditions as group, trip, and use limits would be least restrictive under this alternative. Reduced potential relative to Alternative A for long-term, adverse social 

Minor, adverse impacts on socioeconomics from decreased group/trip sizes within SRMAsresulting in fewer visitors. Long-term, beneficial impacts onon-motorized activities would be greatest under this alternative. Minor adverse economic impacts o
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-148 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Reduction in OHV open acreage to zero would have potentially adverse social impacts on those OHV users desiring an unrestricted motorized experience. 

the environment Reduction in OHV open acreage to 2311 acres would have potentially adverse social impacts on those OHV users desiring an unrestricted motorized experience 

impacts due to user conflicts, crowding, and degradation to the environment, but greater potential for such adverse effects than Alternatives B, C or E. Reduction in OHV open acreage to 2311 acres would have potentially adverse social impacts on those OHV users desiring an unrestricted motorized experience. 

businesses and individuals relying odevelopment (especially mineralsof public lands for thlivelihoods. Potentiaeconomic benefits to those individuals anbusinesses catering groups or individuals desiring more primitrecreation experiences. Reduction in OHV open acreage to zerwould have potentiaadverse social impaon those OHV users desiring an unrestricted motorizexperience. 

Special Designations Negligible economic 

impacts from anticipated level of minerals development and OHV access. No W&SR designation beneficial to minerals development but potential adverse impacts to revenues generated from river user groups. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except adverse impacts to mineral development and subsequent economic revenue would be slightly greater with 521,141 acres (7% increase compared to Alternative A) proposed as ACECs. Adverse impacts to mineral development from seasonal prohibitions of SRPs in ACECs. Long-term, adverse impacts from 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, with 76,764 acres of proposed ACECs. Long-term beneficial and adverse impacts same as B for WSRs, but more beneficial for minerals development and less beneficial for recreation users. Opportunities for tourism-based revenue as a result of the designations would be less than 

Beneficial mineralsrelated impacts, as Alternative D would not recommend ACEC or WSR designations. 

ACECs— Impacts same as Alternative with 521,141 acres (7% increase compared to Alternative A) proposed as ACECs and same amount oW&SR designations
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-149 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

designating 92.4 miles as recommended for W&SR status, limiting minerals development. Longterm, beneficial impacts from revenue generated from river user groups. 

Alternative B. 

Visual Resources Adverse impacts to 

socioeconomics would be negligible to minor given the amount of VRM III and IV lands (over 1 million acres) open for mineral development and the small amount of wells projected to be drilled over the life of the plan (76 wells). 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative though fewer acres VRM III and VRM IV

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Air Quality No impacts to soils 

and water resources. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Cultural Resources Adverse impacts to 

soils and water resources from watershed treatments and limited controls on disposal of human waste, pets and livestock, and other soil disturbing activities. Long-term, adverse impacts of cultural 

Same as Alternative A, except 78,012 acres would be protected as designated CSMAs, with fewer adverse impacts to soils and water resources than Alternative A due to greater restrictions on human waste, pets and livestock. 

Adverse impacts to soils and water resources same as Alternative A with same restrictions as Alternative B, except a smaller area would be designated as CSMAs. This alternative would have fewer short- and long-term adverse impacts on soils and 

Adverse impacts on soils and water resources same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree. This alternative would have fewer short- and long-term adverse impacts than Alternative A, but greater impacts than Alternatives B 

Adverse impacts on soils and water resources same as Alternative A with same restrictions as Alternative B, excepthe Comb Ridge and Beef Basin CSMAs would also be closeto oil and gas leasinnew improvements frange/wildlife/watersds and OHV use. Th
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-150 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

decisions on soils and water resources would be partially mitigated due to the closure of the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis area to surface-disturbing activities (37,433 acres). 

water resources than Alternative A, but greater impacts than Alternative B. 

and C. alternative would 

provide greater protection for soils awater resources thaany other alternative

Fire Management Short-term, adverse 

impacts on soils and water resources due to increased sedimentation and run-off in areas where vegetation has been treated, with longterm beneficial impacts due to reduced fuel loading and reduced fire risk. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Health and Safety Short term, beneficial 

impacts on soils and water resources where Abandoned Mine Lands (AMLs) are rehabilitated; long term, beneficial impacts on soils and water resources by reducing the detrimental impacts of AML water drainage. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Lands and Realty No impacts to soils 

and water resources. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Livestock Grazing Long-term, beneficial 

impacts from livestock grazing reductions on 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from seasonal restrictions, 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-151 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

23,200 acres of soils with limitations. 

closures, and/or forage utilization limits on grazing in riparian areas, especially those Functioning at Risk. Alternative B would exclude grazing on 26,200 acres, which would have greater long-term, beneficial impacts than Alternative A. 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

Short-term and longterm, adverse impacts from minerals disturbances from loss of vegetative cover, sedimentation of surface waters and loss of soil productivity. Under Alternative A, the following approximate acreages of sensitive soils would be open for mineral leasing and potential adverse impacts: 77,600 acres of highly wind erodible soils; 15,000 acres of highly water erodible soils; 217,300 acres of reclamation sensitive soils, and a total 1,585 acres estimated surface disturbance from mineral development and exploration. 

Same impacts as Alternative A, except: 74,000 acres of highly wind erodible soils; 15,100 acres of highly water erodible soils; 276,930 acres of reclamation sensitive soils would be open for mineral leasing. A total of 3,300 more wind erodible; 200 less water erodible; and 37,500 less reclamation sensitive soils would be closed compared to Alternative A. Total estimated surface disturbance from mineral development and exploration would be 155 fewer acres than under Alternative A. An additional 851 acres of surface disturbance would occur over 15 years 

Same impacts as Alternative A, except: 83,476 acres of highly wind erodible soils; 16,443 acres of highly water erodible soils; and 311,700 acres of reclamation sensitive soils would be open for mineral leasing. A total of 5,800 less wind erodible, 15,568 more water erodible, and 19,100 less acres of reclamation sensitive soils would be closed compared to Alternative A. Total estimated surface disturbance from mineral development and exploration would be 28 more acres than under Alternative A. An additional 851 acres of surface disturbance would occur over 15 years 

Same impacts as Alternative A, except: 84,700 acres of highly wind erodible soils; 17,000 acres of highly water erodible soils; and 314,800 acres of reclamation sensitive soils would be open for mineral leasing. A total of 21,600 less wind erodible acres, 2,100 less water erodible, and 22,300 less acres of reclamationlimited soils would be closed compared 

to Alternative A. Total estimated surface disturbance from mineral development and exploration would be 60 more acres than under Alternative A. An additional 851 

Same impacts as Alternative A, excep29,732 acres of highwind erodible soils; 7,878 acres of highly water erodible soils; 196,031 acres of reclamation sensitivsoils would be open for mineral leasing. A total of 47,769 more wind erodible, 7,028 more water erodibleand 96,491 more acres of reclamation sensitive acres woube closed compared Alternative A. Total estimated surface disturbance from mineral developmenand exploration woube 476 fewer acres than under AlternativA. An additional 851 acres of surface disturbance would occur over 15 years 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-152 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

due to the development of uranium and vanadium (300 acres), placer gold (10 acres), limestone (50 acres), sand and gravel (360), building stone (113 acres), and clay (18 acres). 

due to the development of uranium and vanadium (300 acres), placer gold (10 acres), limestone (50 acres), sand and gravel (360), building stone (113 acres), and clay (18 acres). 

acres of surface disturbance would occur over 15 years due to the development of uranium and vanadium (300 acres), placer gold (10 acres), limestone (50 acres), sand and gravel (360), building stone (113 acres), and clay (18 acres). 

due to the development of uranium and vanadi(300 acres), placer gold (10 acres), limestone (50 acressand and gravel (36building stone (113 acres), and clay (18 acres). 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No effect on soil and water resources as no actions are prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

A total of 582,360 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed to maintaitheir wilderness characteristics, with long-term beneficial impacts to soils and water resources. 

Paleontology Negligible impacts to 

soils and water resources. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Recreation Potential short- and 

long-term impacts to soils and water resources associated with recreation activities include damage to streambanks and associated vegetation, soil compaction, increased erosion, and sedimentation of surface waters. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except to a lesser degree, from restrictions on recreation-related soil and water resource impacts within SRMAs. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative B, except more adverse, long term impacts from fewer restrictions and limits on recreational use. 

Same as Alternative except that no OHV travel would be allowed within nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics (582,360 acres). 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-153 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Riparian Resources Long-term, beneficial 

protection of soils and water resources from NSO in riparian areas, management to achieve riparian PFC, and no new surfacedisturbing activities allowed within active floodplains or within 100 meters of riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative A, except selected areas would be closed to motorized use and livestock trailing, which would result in minor beneficial reductions in impacts to soils and water resources. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Soil and Water Resources 

There would be no additional impacts under Alternative A. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from prohibitions on steepslope surfacedisturbing activities (slopes >40%), and erosion control designs and plans for slopes between 21 and 40%. These measures would reduce erosion and sedimentation relative to Alternative A. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from restrictions on surface disturbance on slopes >40% unless it were determined that it would cause undue or unnecessary degradation to pursue other placement alternatives. These measures would reduce erosion and sedimentation relative to Alternative A. 

Adverse impacts same as A, but to a lesser degree, from required plans and erosion control strategies for slopes >40%. Under Alternative D, the impacts of soils and watershed management decisions on soils resources would require a plan including an erosion control plan. These measures would reduce erosion and sedimentation relative to Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative except there would badditional restrictionon surface-disturbinactivities in non-WSlands with wildernescharacteristics. Oveimpacts to soils and water resources woube less adverse undAlternative E than under any of the alternatives. 

Special Designations Long-term, adverse 

impacts from mineral leasing, geophysical work, mineral material disposal, mineral entry, woodland harvesting, vegetation treatments, grazing, 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except with fewer adverse impacts within ACECs from greater surface disturbance restrictions. ACEC designation would 

Impacts same as Alternative B, but to a greater degree from an increase in allowable surfacedisturbing activities. ACEC designation would result in the 

Long-term, adverse impacts from allowed surface disturbance impacts to soils and water. No special designations or zero acres of sensitive soils are protected, 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-154 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

and OHV use within ACECs. A total of 113,000 acres of sensitive soils would be within designated ACECs, wherein impacts to soil and water resources would be reduced. 

result in the protection of 7,385 more acres of sensitive soils than under Alternative A. 

protection of 98,000 fewer acres of sensitive soils than under Alternative A. 

which is 113,000 fewer acres than Alternative A. This alternative would have the least protections for sensitive soils of the alternatives. 

Special Status Species 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to soils and water from special status species habitat protection. 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, except to a greater degree, due to more acres of protected habitat for special status species that would protect soils and water resources. 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative B, except to a lesser degree due to fewer acres of protected habitat for special status species. 

There would be negligible beneficial impacts compared to Alternative A, as this alternative would have the fewest acres with surface disturbance restrictions in special status species habitat, with the greatest potential for long-term, adverse impacts on soils and water resources of the alternatives. 

Same as Alternative 

Travel Management Potential short- and 

long-term impacts to soils and water resources associated with travel management decisions include damage to streambanks and associated vegetation, soil compaction, increased erosion, and sedimentation of surface waters. A total of 285,700 acres of 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except a total of 63,900 acres would be open to OHV use on designated routes, which is 221,800 fewer acres of sensitive soils open than under Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative B, except 64,400 acres of sensitive soils would be open to OHV use on designated routes, which is 221,300 fewer acres of sensitive soils open than under Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative B, except 64,500 acres of sensitive soils would be open to OHV use, mostly limited to designated routes, which is 221,200 fewer acres of sensitive soils open than under Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative except no OHV travwould be permitted non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (582,360 acres), whis 296,660 more acrof closed or limited OHV use than Alternative A. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-155 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

sensitive soils would be closed to OHV use or limited to designated routes. 

Vegetation Short-term adverse 

impacts from vegetation treatmentrelated increased erosion and water runoff. Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced soil compaction, erosion, and sedimentation through increase in native vegetation cover, and a reduction of invasive weed species. Existing vegetation treatments would occur on 232,100 acres. 

Fewer short-term adverse impacts and fewer long-term beneficial impacts than Alternative A on soils and water resources than Alternative A from treatments on 7,600 acres/year, with 118,100 fewer acres of vegetation treatment over the LOP than Alternative A. Alternative B would have fewer short-term adverse impacts and long-term beneficial impacts to soils and water resources than Alternative A 

Same as Alternative B, except 9,300 acres would be open to vegetation treatments each year to restore ecosystem health, with 92,600 fewer acres of vegetation treatment over the LOP than Alternative A. Alternative C would have fewer short-term adverse impacts and longterm beneficial impacts to soils and water resources than Alternative A, more than Alternatives B and E. 

More long-term beneficial impacts from vegetation treatments on soils and water resources under Alternative D than under Alternatives B or C due to 11,300 acres/year targeted for vegetation treatment, with 62,600 fewer acres of vegetation treatment over the LOP than Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative except for wildernescharacteristics lands where no new land treatments would be allowed. 

Visual Resources Under Alternative A, 

192,136 acres of sensitive soils would be managed as VRM Class I and II, with the second greatest level of beneficial, longterm protection for soils and water resources due to an increase in surfacedisturbing restrictions under VRM Class I and II objectives. 

Under Alternative B, 186,102 acres of sensitive soils, 6,034 fewer acres than Alternative A, would be managed as VRM Class I and II, with the third greatest long-term, beneficial impacts from surface disturbance restrictions. 

Same impacts as Alternative B, except 146,582 acres of sensitive soils, 45,554 fewer acres than Alternative A, would be managed as VRM Class I and II with beneficial impacts from surface disturbance restrictions. 

Greatest potential for adverse impacts due to 87,832 acres of sensitive soils, 104,304 fewer acres than Alternative A, managed as VRM Class I and II to restrict surface disturbances. 

Under Alternative E, 293,059 acres of sensitive soils, 100,923 more acres than Alternative A, would be managed aVRM Class I and II, with the greatest potential long-term, beneficial impacts from surface disturbance restrictions. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Maintenance and/or Same as Alternative Same as Alternative Same as Alternative Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-156 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Resources improvement of 

wildlife and fisheries habitats would have indirect, beneficial impacts by ensuring the ecological functions of these systems, including soils and water within lowland riparian and wetland areas, and low and high desert scrub communities. 

A. A. A. 

Woodlands Under Alternative A, 

1,309,894 acres would be open to woodland harvest, with the highest risk of adverse, long-term impacts to soils and water resources from vegetation loss and surface disturbances by motorized OHV and foot traffic during harvesting. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, except to a lesser degree due to 579,820 (44%) fewer acres open to woodland harvest than under Alternative A. This alternative would have fewer adverse impacts on soils and water resources than Alternative A, but greater impacts than Alternative E. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, except to a lesser degree due to 467,956 (36%) fewer acres open to woodland harvest than under Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative C. 

Adverse impacts saas Alternative A, except to a lesser degree due to 761,4(58%) fewer acres open to woodland harvest than under Alternative A. This alternative would hathe least adverse impacts on soils and water resources of talternatives. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Special Designations Management of 

513,457 acres as ACECs, but under prescriptions that would generally not be as beneficially protective of ACEC values as Alternatives 

521,141 acres managed as ACECs, with long term protection of relevant and important values. 92.4 miles of river segments would be recommended 

Smallest area (76,764 acres) of the Monticello Planning Area managed as ACECs, except for Alternative D. Alternative C would be more protective of 

Long-term, adverse impacts to relevant and important values resulting from no ACEC management. No river segments would be recommended 

 Impacts the same aAlternative B, excepadditional long-termbeneficial impacts to relevant and importaACEC values from protection of 109,20acres of non-WSA 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-157 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

B and E. River segments determined eligible in the 1991 San Juan RMP would be protected. WSAs would be managed to protect their wilderness values. 

suitable for wild and scenic river designation, protecting freeflowing rivers, outstandingly remarkable river values, and river classification. WSA impact same as Alternative A. 

ACEC values than Alternatives D, but less protective than Alternatives A, B, or E. 18.4 miles of river recommended suitable for wild and scenic river designation, protecting the freeflowing condition of the rivers, outstandingly remarkable river values, and river classification. WSA impacts same as Alternative A. 

suitable for wild and scenic river designation. Thus, no protection of freeflowing condition, outstandingly remarkable river values, or river classification. WSA impacts same as Alternative A. 

lands with wildernescharacteristics. Wild and scenic rivesuitability recommendations aimpacts same as Alternative B. WSA impacts same Alternative A. 

All Other Resources Impacts to specially designated areas from other resource management decisions are discussed under the appli

of impacts. 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Air Quality No impacts to special 

status species. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Cultural Resources Long-term, adverse 

impacts from cultural resource decisions include disturbance of wildlife, trampling of sensitive plants, and introduction of invasive species. These impacts would be partially mitigated by the closure of Grand Gulch NED (37,433 acres) to 

Same as Alternative A, except there would be fewer impacts under Alternative B due to the designation of SRMAs and associated restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. Adverse impacts to special status species from 

Same total acreage and impacts as Alternative B, except more surfacedisturbing activities and visitors would be permitted in these areas than Alternative B, with overall impacts less than under Alternative A. 

No acres would be designated as special management areas, which would have greater shortterm and long-term, adverse impacts than Alternatives B and C, but fewer impacts than Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative B. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-158 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

surface-disturbing activities such as woodland products gathering, mineral leasing, OHV use, and vegetation treatments. 

surface-disturbing activities and other human disturbances under Alternative B would be considerably reduced from Alternative A due to restrictions on surface disturbances and use within the designated CSMAs, SRMA, and the 37,388 acres Grand Gulch National Historic District. 

Fire Management Short-term adverse 

impacts from surface disturbance associated with fuels treatments, including trampling and crushing, habitat alteration, and introduction of invasive species. Long-term beneficial impacts would also occur due to reduced fuel loading, reduced fire risk, and diversified habitat on 5,000-10,000 acres/year. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Health and Safety Potential adverse loss 

of special status bat habitat. Clean-up of hazardous spills and abandoned mines would help mitigate the adverse effects of 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-159 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

water contamination on TES fish species. 

Lands and Realty In areas where 

ROWs would be authorized, there could be long-term direct, adverse impacts on special status species habitat where installation would occur. These impacts would result from vegetation crushing and removal associated with construction and habitat fragmentation. Short-term direct impacts could result from noise disturbances. Longterm indirect adverse impacts could result from the potential introduction of invasive plant species by construction equipment and building personnel. 374,590 acres would be avoided or excluded from ROW development. 

Same as Alternative A, except 541,717 acres would be avoided or excluded from ROW development. 

Same as Alternative A, except 434,652 acres would be avoided or excluded from ROW development. 

Same as Alternative A, except 401,028 acres would be avoided or excluded from ROW development. 

Same as Alternative except 1,028,378 acres would be avoided or excluded from ROW development. 

Livestock Grazing Adverse impacts 

include trampling, reduced forage and cover, reduced habitat quality and biodiversity, and introduction of invasive species. 

Adverse and beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, except 141,160 acres would be unavailable for grazing. 

Adverse and beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, except 136,261 acres would be unavailable for grazing. 

Adverse and beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, except 132,108 acres would be unavailable for grazing. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-160 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative A, 128,098 acres would be unavailable for grazing. 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

Adverse impacts from mineral development and exploration include direct mortality, surface disturbance, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation. Oil and gas leasing would include 161,941 acres of special status species habitat closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing and mineral entry. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, except fewer acres of special status species habitat would be impacted than under Alternative A: Oil and gas leasing would include 207,303 acres of special status species habitat closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing and mineral entry.. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, except more acres of special status species habitat would be impacted than under Alternative A. Oil and gas leasing would include 150,211 acres of special status species habitat closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing and mineral entry. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, except more acres of special status species habitat would be impacted than under Alternative A: Oil and gas leasing would include 146,962 acres of special status species habitat closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing and mineral entry. 

Adverse impacts saas Alternative A, except fewer acres ospecial status speciehabitat would be impacted than undeAlternative A: Oil angas leasing would include 389,521 acrof special status species habitat closor NSO to oil and galeasing and mineral entry.. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts to special status species as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are not protected under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Long-term, beneficiaimpacts to species from restricted surfadisturbances to habwithin 582,357 acres of non-WSA lands wwilderness characteristics. 

Paleontology No impacts to special 

status species. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Recreation Long-term, adverse 

impacts from human presence, noise, and surface disturbance associated with mechanized and dispersed recreation on 361,972 acres of federally listed species habitat within 

Long-term, adverse impacts same as Alternative A, except with increased protection for special status species and 180,032 fewer acres of federally listed species habitat within SRMAs than under 

Long-term, adverse impacts on TES species would be similar to Alternative A. Approximately 5% fewer visitors would be allowed in SRMAs and camping would be limited to designated areas in 

Long-term, adverse impacts same as Alternative A, except this alternative would have the most acres of potential special status species habitat subject to adverse impacts from recreation. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-161 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

SRMAs. Alternative A. In 

addition, approximately 25% fewer visitors would be allowed in SRMAs than under Alternative A. 

more SRMAs than under Alternative A. 

Adverse impacts would be greater than Alternative A, even with 184,576 fewer acres of federally listed species habitat within SRMAs. 

Riparian Resources Short-term adverse 

impacts to special status plant and fish species could occur from vegetation treatments. Longterm beneficial impacts include reduced weeds and restoration of native vegetation. 

In addition to the impacts described under Alternative A, this alternative would provide a reduction in adverse impacts on TES species by closing OHV routes in riparian areas, closing areas to livestock grazing, seasonal restrictions, and setting forage use limits. 

Impacts same as Alternative B with fewer adverse impacts to special status species and habitats than Alternatives A. 

Impacts same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Socioeconomics No impacts to special 

status species. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Soil and Water Resources 

Adverse impacts include habitat loss or degradation from erosion in upland habitats, and sedimentation and contamination of special status fish habitats. Alternative A would have the greatest potential for adverse impacts on special status species habitat due to limited surface disturbance restrictions on steep 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited on slopes >40%, with erosion control measure required on 21 to 40% slopes. Impacts would be less than Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, with greater potential for adverse impacts on slopes >40% than Alternatives B and E. Impacts would be less than Alternatives A and D. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited on slopes >40%, with erosion control measure required on 21 to 40% slopes. Impacts would be less than Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative except for non-WSA lands with wildernescharacteristics would be managed as unavailable for mineleasing, as unavailafor OHV use, as ROexclusion areas, as unavailable for disposal of mineral materials and woodland harvest, awould be managed aVRM Class I, and as proposed for 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-162 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

slopes. withdrawal from 

mineral entry. 

Special Designations Beneficial impacts 

within 492,077 acres designated as ACECs, with longterm adverse impacts on areas available to mineral leasing within ACECs, and impacts associated with permitted woodland harvesting, open OHV use, livestock grazing, and vegetation treatments. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except 521,142 acres of designated ACECs with fewer acres available for oil and gas leasing than Alternative A. Overall fewer impacts than Alternative A due to more acres subject to surface disturbance restrictions. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except 76,764 acres of designated ACECs with fewer acres available for oil and gas leasing than Alternative A. Overall greater impacts than Alternative A due to fewer acres subject to surface disturbance restrictions. 

No acres designated as ACECs and limited restrictions on surface disturbances to special status species habitat. Overall greater impacts than Alternatives A, B, C and E. 

Same as Alternative 

Special Status Species 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on species from restrictions, protective measures, and spatial and seasonal buffers to preserve species habitat. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except Alternative B would provide more acres of protected habitat for special status species. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except Alternative C would provide more acres of protected habitat for special status species than Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except Alternative D would protect the fewest acres of special status species habitat from surface disturbance with greater potential impacts than any of the alternatives. 

Same as Alternative 

Travel Management Adverse impacts 

include surface and noise disturbance, crushing of individual plants and animals, habitat, and introduction of invasive species. Adverse impacts would be reduced by the closure of 276,430 acres to 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except 147,268 acres more closed to OHV use than Alternative A and fewer associated adverse impacts to special status species and their habitat. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except 142,237 acres more closed to OHV use than Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except no acres closed to OHV use and the greatest potential long-term adverse impacts to special status species from travel of any of the Alternatives. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-163 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

OHV use. Beneficial impacts from fewer miles of available OHV trails due to reduced potential for habitat fragmentation. 

Vegetation Short-term adverse 

impacts include trampling and removal of habitat, and collection of sensitive plant species on 15,475 acres open to vegetation treatments per year. Beneficial impacts from habitat improvements and control of invasive and weedy species. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, except 7,875 (51%) fewer acres of vegetation treatments per year, and greater beneficial impacts on species and habitat due to treatment of specific vegetation communities compared to unfocused treatment under Alternative A. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, except to a lesser degree due to 6,175 (40%) fewer acres of vegetation treatments per year. Long-term beneficial impacts would be less than Alternative A due to unfocused treatments occurring on fewer acres. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, expect to a lesser degree due to 4,175 (27%) fewer acres of vegetation treatments per year. Long-term beneficial impacts would be greater than under Alternatives B or C due to more targeted vegetation treatments. 

Same as Alternative except 582,357 acrewould have restrictioon vegetation treatments, with fewshort-term adverse impacts than Alternative A, and more long-term beneficial impacts dto habitat protection for special status species. 

Visual Resources Under Alternative A 

726,687 acres would be subject to VRM Class I or II restrictions, with longterm beneficial impacts to special status species due to restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except 21,622 (3%) more acres subject to VRM Class I or II restrictions, and greater protection from surfacedisturbing activities than Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except 169,507 (23%) less acres subject to VRM Class I or II restrictions and less protection from surface-disturbing activities than Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except 327,426 (45%) less acres subject to VRM Class I or II restrictions, and the least protection from surface-disturbing activities of the alternatives 

Impacts same as Alternative A, excep383,161 (53%) more acres subject to VRM Class I or II restrictiothan Alternative A athe greatest protectifor special status species habitats. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from seasonal restrictions in migratory bird habitat, and maintenance and improvements to riparian, wetland, and desert scrub habitats. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree because 558,041 acres of special status species habitat would have seasonal restrictions for big 

Long-term, beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree because 326,804 acres of special status species habitat would have seasonal restrictions for big 

Long-term, beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree because 341,637 acres of special status species habitat would have seasonal restrictions 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-164 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Long-term, beneficial impacts on 249,651 acres of special status species habitat due to seasonal restrictions for big game. 

game, and more acres would be subject to special wildlife conditions than under Alternative A. 

game, and more acres would be subject to special wildlife conditions than under Alternative A. 

for big game, and more acres would be subject to special wildlife conditions than under Alternative A. 

Woodlands Adverse impacts 

include removal or alteration of habitat, noise, trampling and crushing during harvesting, and surface disturbance. Beneficial impacts from reduced potential for wildfire and enhancement of understory habitats. 1,309,894 acres would be open to woodland harvest and wood gathering and pose the greatest potential disturbance to special status species in woodland habitats. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except to a lesser degree due to 730,075 (56% fewer) acres open to woodland harvest and wood gathering, and fewer potential longterm benefits from wildfire reduction than Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except to a lesser degree due to 841,938 (36% fewer) acres open to woodland harvest and wood gathering, and fewer potential longterm benefits from wildfire reduction than Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative C. 

Same as Alternative with additional protections on 582,3acres of non-WSA lands with wildernescharacteristics, whicwould be closed to woodland harvesting and wood gatheringand provide reduced surface disturbances in special status species habitat. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Air Quality Minor, short-term 

adverse impacts from reroutes or travel delays for dust abatement. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Cultural Resources Long-term, adverse 

impacts from closure of 500 feet of the McLoyd CanyonLong-term, adverse impacts from OHV exclusion from Tank Bench and from the Impacts in Tank Bench same as Alternative B. Long-term, beneficial impacts to travel from access to Tank Bench and McLoyd Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-165 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Moon House spur road. 

McLoyd CanyonMoon House access road closure. 

Impacts on travel in McLoyd CanyonMoon House same as Alternative B. 

Canyon-Moon House. 

Fire Management Short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts from route closures from prescribed burns or other wildland fire suppression. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Lands and Realty Minor, beneficial, 

long-term impacts from granting ROWs for minerals leasing (to extend travel routes along spur roads). 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

Impacts same as Lands and Realty. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts to travel management as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be managed or protected under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Long-term, adverse impacts to travel and access as 582,360 acres and 179 miles D-Class routes woube closed to OHV travel. 

Recreation Long-term, adverse 

impacts from travel access restrictions within the San Juan River SRMA between Comb Wash and Lime Creek. 

Long-term, adverse impacts from travel access restrictions within the San Juan River SRMA between Comb Wash and Lime Creek. Short- term, adverse impacts from seasonal prohibitions on commercial OHV travel within crucial 

Impacts along San Juan River SRMA same as Alternative B. Seasonal commercial prohibitions on travel in crucial wildlife habitat same as Alternative B. 

Impacts along San Juan River SRMA same as Alternative B. Negligible impacts on travel within wildlife habitat. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-166 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

wildlife habitat. 

Riparian Resources Negligible impacts 

from actions that would not specifically restrict travel through riparian areas. 

Short-term, adverse impacts from temporary travel closures until restoration of riparian PFC. Long-term, adverse impacts from closure if travel activities were determined to be causing riparian degradation. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Special Designations Impacts same as 

discussed under Recreation, Travel, and Riparian for OHV and road travel. 

Impacts same as discussed under Recreation, Travel, and Riparian for OHV and road travel. 

Impacts same as discussed under Recreation, Travel, and Riparian for OHV and road travel. 

Impacts same as discussed under Recreation, Travel, and Riparian for OHV and road travel.

Impacts same as discussed under Recreation, Travel, and Riparian for OHand road travel. 

Special Status Species 

Impacts same as discussed under Recreation and Riparian. 

Impacts same as discussed under Recreation and Riparian. 

Impacts same as discussed under Recreation and Riparian. 

Impacts same as discussed under Recreation and Riparian. 

Impacts same as discussed under Recreation and Riparian. 

Travel Management, OHV 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from designated Open OHV (611,310 acres) and Limited to Designated or existing routes travel areas, and access to Arch Canyon. Adverse impacts to OHV use on 276,430 acres in Closed areas. 

Long-term, adverse impacts from no designated Open OHV areas, and Arch Canyon closure to OHV travel, and 423,698 acres Closed to OHV use. 

Similar to Alternative B, except beneficial impacts from 2,311 acres designated Open to OHV use. Adverse impacts to travel from 418,667 acres Closed to OHV use. 

Minor impacts on travel from no OHV Closed areas, and OHV access to Arch Canyon. Beneficial impacts from 2,311 acres designated Open to OHV use. 

Same as Alternative except 582,360 aces within non-WSA landwith wilderness characteristics would be Closed to OHV travel. Adverse impacts to travel froa total of 970,436 acres Closed to OHV travel, and no areas designated as Open OHV travel. 

Travel Management, Non-mechanized 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from no restrictions on nonmechanized travel, 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-167 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

and travel opportunities that exclude motorized and mountain biking travel to reduce user conflicts. 

Travel Management, Roads 

Negligible impacts to travel from no road closures, and unrestricted travel along B- and D-Class roads. 

Long-term, adverse impacts from 15 miles of B- and 780 miles of D-Class road closures to resolve resource use conflicts. 

Long-term, adverse impacts from 17 miles of B- and 316 miles of D-Class road closures to resolve resource use conflicts. 

Long-term, adverse, minor impacts from 17 miles of B- and 45 miles of D-Class road closures to resolve resource use conflicts. 

Same as Alternative except decisions for the 582,360 acres within non-WSA landwith wilderness characteristics would close 179 miles of DClass roads. 

Travel Management, Scenic Byways and Backways 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from management for highquality travel opportunities along these routes. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Vegetation Same impacts as 

discussed under Fire Management because treatments are the same. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Negligible to minor impacts from lack of restrictions on travel except for restrictions on cross-country OHV travel within bighorn sheep crucial habitat. 

Short-term, adverse impacts from seasonal restrictions in wildlife crucial habitat for commercial and permitted travel. No impacts on private travel. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Woodlands Negligible impacts on 

travel from unspecified actions. 

Short-term, adverse impacts on commercial OHV use from route closures to 

Same as Alternative B, to protect cultural and other sensitive resources. 

Same as Alternative B, to protect cultural and other sensitive resources. 

Long-term, adverse impacts from prohibitions on OHV road travel within 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-168 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

protect wildlife species. 

areas with non-WSA wilderness characteristics and from prohibitions on woodland harvesting

VEGETATION 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Air Quality No impacts to 

vegetation resources.

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Cultural Resources Long-term, adverse 

impacts of cultural resource decisions on vegetation would be partially mitigated by closure of the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis area to surface-disturbing activities such as woodland harvesting, mineral leasing, OHV use, and mechanized or mechanical surface disturbance (including vegetation treatments). These restrictions would limit vegetation-harming surface disturbance associated with these activities on 37,387 acres. 

Fewer short- and long-term adverse impacts than under Alternatives A, C or D, due to restrictions on surface-disturbing activities on 62,567 acres of designated CSMAs. This alternative would have fewer adverse impacts on vegetation than Alternatives A, C and D. 

Same beneficial surface disturbance restrictions and impacts as under Alternative B, except some CSMAs would have fewer restrictions on surface-disturbing activities than Alternatives B and E, but greater restrictions than Alternatives A and D. This alternative would have fewer short- and long-term adverse impacts than Alternative A and D, but more than Alternatives B and E. 

Same impacts as Alternative C, except fewer areas would be managed as CSMAs. Overall, this alternative would have fewer shortand long-term adverse impacts than Alternative A, but more than Alternatives B, C and E. 

Same as B, except more short- and longterm beneficial impacts from vegetation resource preservation within Comb Ridge to preserve non-WSA lands with wildernescharacteristics. 

Fire Management Surface-disturbing 

fuels treatments on 5,000 to 10,000 acres/year would have long-term beneficial and shortterm adverse impacts 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-169 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

on vegetation communities in treated areas. Thinning vegetation and treating areas for weeds would benefit vegetation by removing competition from weedy natives and invasive species. Short-term, adverse impacts include trampling and crushing of individual plants during treatment. 

Health and Safety No impacts to 

vegetation resources.

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Lands and Realty Under Alternative A, 

construction of roads, pipelines, wind power generators, solar power generators, and communication towers would result in adverse impacts to vegetation from removal of individual plants and other surface disturbances, which can lead to the introduction of weedy plant species. 132,380 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry, while 120,800 acres and 253,790 acres would be exclusion and avoidance areas, respectively, for 

There would be fewer adverse impacts on vegetation resources under this alternative than Alternative A due to restrictions on ROWs for wind and solar energy development in WSAs, WSR corridors, VRM Class I and II areas, ACECs, raptor and migratory bird habitat, and special status species habitat. Overall, Alternative B would have fewer adverse impacts on vegetation resources than Alternatives A, C or D. 251,710 acres would be withdrawn 

Adverse impacts would be same as under Alternative A due to increased surface disturbance associated with ROWs in ACECs, VRM Class II and III areas, and nonfederally listed sensitive species habitat. Overall, Alternative C would have fewer impacts on vegetation resources than Alternatives A and D, but more than B and E. 121,912 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry, while 395,329 acres and 39,323 acres 

Alternative D would have greater adverse impacts on vegetation resources than Alternative A due to more acres of surface disturbance associated with ROWs than would occur under any of the other alternatives. 46,131 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry, while 386,853 acres and 14,175 acres would be exclusion and avoidance areas, respectively, for ROWs. 

Same impacts as Alternative B, excepROWs would be prohibited in non-WSlands with wildernescharacteristics, whicwould reduce longterm, adverse impacto vegetation more than any of the othealternatives. 834,070 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry, while 974,463 acres and 53,915 acres would exclusion and avoidance areas, respectively, for ROWs. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-170 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

ROWs. from mineral entry, 

while 416,612 acres and 125,105 acres would be exclusion and avoidance areas, respectively, for ROWs. 

would be exclusion and avoidance areas, respectively, for ROWs. 

Livestock Grazing Beneficial impacts 

from 17,300 acres allotted to wildlife on the slopes of Peter’s Canyon and East Canyon, which would help maintain native vegetation in those areas due to the lower grazing impact of lower numbers of wildlife than livestock.

Same impacts as Alternative A, except allotment closures would exclude more acreage from grazing than any of the other alternatives, which would have longterm, beneficial impacts on native vegetation in excluded areas. 

Same as Alternative B, except the Mule Canyon Allotment south of U-95 would be unavailable. This alternative would have similar impacts as Alternative B, and lower impacts than Alternative A. 

Alternative D would have the smallest area excluded from grazing and, therefore greater adverse impacts to vegetation. 

Same as Alternative 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

Approximately 73 wells drilled (701 acres of surface disturbance), 886 acres of short-term impacts from geophysical exploration, and infrastructure construction with direct adverse impacts on vegetation. There would be approximately 851 acres of surface disturbance total for 15 years as a result of uranium, vanadium, placer gold, limestone, sand and gravel, building 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A, except there would be approximately 66 wells and 634 acres of disturbance (10% fewer acres than under Alternative A), and 794 acres of adverse impacts from geophysical exploration (10% fewer acres than under Alternative A). Acres of disturbance for uranium, vanadium, placer gold, limestone, sand and gravel, building stone, and clay activities would be the same as under 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A, except there would be approximately 74 wells and 710 acres of disturbance (1% more than under Alternative A), and 904 acres of adverse impacts from geophysical exploration (2% more than under Alternative A). Acres of disturbance for uranium, vanadium, placer gold, limestone, sand and gravel, building stone, and clay activities would be the same as under Alternative A. 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A, except there would be approximately 75 wells and 720 acres (2% more than under Alternative A), and 924 acres of surface disturbance from geophysical exploration (4% more than under Alternative A). Acres of disturbance for uranium, vanadium, placer gold, limestone, sand and gravel, building stone, and clay activities would be the same as under 

Same as Alternative except for long termbeneficial impacts from mineral leasing prohibitions on 582,357 acres of noWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Alternative E would have the most acres closed or NSO to oil and gas leasing, and the least negative impacts on vegetatioresources of the alternatives. Acres odisturbance for uranium, vanadium, placer gold, limestonsand and gravel, building stone, and 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-171 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

stone, and clay activities. Overall, the second fewest number of acres of native vegetation would be impacted by minerals development under this alternative.

Alternative A. Alternative B would have fewer adverse impacts than Alternative A and greater impacts than Alternative E. 

Overall, this alternative would have greater adverse impacts to vegetation than Alternatives A, B and E, and slightly fewer impacts than Alternative D. 

Alternative A. This alternative would have greater adverse impacts to vegetation than any of the alternatives. 

clay activities would the same as under Alternative A. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts to vegetation, as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics are not protected under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Long-term, beneficiaimpacts from resourpreservation on 582,357 acres. Longterm and short-termadverse impacts froprohibitions on mechanical treatmeof vegetation and harvesting to reduce fire risks and invasivspecies spread. 

Paleontology Short-term adverse 

impacts on vegetation due to trampling. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Recreation Alternative A would 

have the second most acres of native vegetation subject to adverse impacts associated with recreation activities of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Alternative B would have the fewest user/days per year and number of visitors per day of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan, which would reduce trampling of native vegetation and introduction of weedy plant species associated with human presence. This alternative would have greater longterm, beneficial 

Impacts same as Alternative B, but to a less beneficial degree, due to fewer restrictions on surface disturbances to vegetation. 

Same impacts as C, but to a less beneficial degree due to fewer restrictions on surface disturbances to vegetation. 

Same impacts as Alternative B, excepprotection of non-Wlands with wildernescharacteristics would beneficially limit or prohibit surface disturbances to vegetation within SRMAs. This alternative would hathe least impacts on vegetation of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-172 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

impacts and fewer adverse impacts on vegetation than any of the other alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Riparian Resources Vegetation treatments 

would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on vegetation in riparian habitat. Beneficial impacts would include reduction of weed populations and the restoration of diverse native vegetation. Adverse impacts would include crushing and removal of native vegetation during the treatment process. 

If determined to be the cause, OHV routes in selected riparian areas would be closed if riparian areas are found to be Functioning at Risk. In addition, some riparian areas would be unavailable for grazing, while others would be subject to seasonal restrictions and forage utilization limits if found to be Functioning At Risk. These restrictions would reduce adverse impacts to riparian vegetation. This alternative would have fewer impacts on vegetation than Alternatives A and D. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative except surfacedisturbing activities would be limited or prohibited in non-WSlands with wildernescharacteristics. This alternative would hathe greatest beneficimpacts and least adverse impacts on riparian vegetation othe alternatives. 

Socioeconomics No impacts to 

vegetation resources.

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Soil and Water Resources 

Long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation due to limited restrictions on surface disturbances on steep slopes. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation from prohibitions on surface-disturbing activities on slopes >40%, and erosion control designs and plans for surfaceLong-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation due to restrictions on surface disturbance on slopes >40%, unless it were determined that it would cause undue or Impacts same as A, but to a less adverse degree due to required plans and erosion control strategies for slopes >40%, which would help mitigate Same as Alternative 

except surface- disturbing activities would be limited or prohibited in non-WSlands with wildernescharacteristics. This alternative would ha
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-173 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

disturbing activities on slopes between 21 and 40%. This alternative would have fewer adverse impacts on vegetation than Alternatives A, C, and D. 

unnecessary degradation to pursue other placement alternatives. This alternative would have fewer adverse impacts on vegetation than Alternatives A and D, but greater impacts than Alternatives B and E. 

adverse impacts on vegetation located on and down slope from disturbance areas on steep slopes. This alternative would have greater adverse impacts on vegetation than Alternatives B, C, and E, but fewer impacts than Alternative A. 

the least adverse impacts on vegetatioof the alternatives. 

Special Designations Long-term, adverse 

impacts to vegetation within ACECs from surface disturbances related to mineral leasing, geophysical work, mineral material disposal and mineral entry. Other adverse impacts would include woodland harvesting, vegetation treatments, livestock grazing and open OHV use. 

The increased number of acres designated as ACECs and decrease in allowable surfacedisturbing activities under this alternative would result in fewer long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation resources than would occur under Alternatives A, C, and D. 

Alternative C would have limited ACEC designation and more acres subject to surface-disturbing activities than Alternatives A, B, and E, but fewer adverse impacts than Alternative D. 

No ACECs would be designated under Alternative D. This alternative would have the greatest long-term, adverse impacts to vegetation from the increase in permitted surface disturbances of any of the alternatives and the Proposed Plan. 

Same impacts as Alternative B, excepthere would be beneficial, long-term impacts on vegetatiodue to restrictions osurface-disturbing activities in non-WSlands with wildernescharacteristics within designated ACECs. 

Special Status Species 

Alternative A would specify acres of protected habitat for special status species, which would also protect vegetation resources. This alternative would provide the least 

Alternative B would provide the most acres of protected habitat for special status species, which would indirectly provide protection for vegetation in special status species 

Alternative C would provide fewer protected acres of habitat for special status species habitat, and vegetation therein, than Alternatives B and E, but would 

Alternative D would provide fewer protected acres of special status species habitat, and the vegetation therein, than Alternatives B, C, and E, but would 

Same as Alternative except there would bbeneficial, long-term impacts on vegetatiodue to restrictions osurface-disturbing activities in non-WSlands with wildernescharacteristics. This 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-174 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

beneficial protection of the alternatives. 

habitat. This alternative would provide greater beneficial protections and have the lower adverse impacts on vegetation than Alternatives A, C, and D. 

have greater protections in place than Alternatives A and D. 

have greater protections in place than Alternative A. 

alternative would hathe fewest adverse impacts on vegetatioof the alternatives. 

Travel Management This alternative would 

have 276,430 acres closed to OHV use. These closures would eliminate OHV related surface disturbance to native vegetation in closed areas. 

Alternative B would close 423,582 acres to OHV use, which is 135,502 acres (47%) more than Alternative A. This alternative would have the fewer adverse impacts on vegetation associated with travel than Alternatives A, C, and D. 

Alternative C would close 418,549 acres to OHV use, which is 130,469 acres (45%) more than Alternative A. This alternative would have fewer adverse impacts on vegetation associated with travel than Alternatives A and D, but greater impacts than B and E. 

This alternative would have no closures to OHV use, which is 276,430 acres less than under Alternative A. This alternative would have the greatest adverse impacts on vegetation from travel of any of the alternatives. 

Same as Alternative except there would b582,356 additional acres closed to OHV use in non-WSA lanwith wilderness characteristics. This alternative would hathe least adverse impacts on vegetatiodue to 694,006 (251more acres closed tOHV use than Alternative A. 

Vegetation 15,475 acres 

vegetation treatments per year. This alternative would have short-term, adverse impacts on vegetation due to the large acreage open to disturbances associated with widespread, unspecified vegetation 

Under Alternative B, 7,600 acres of vegetation treatments/year represent a 51% reduction in annual treatments compared to A. This alternative would provide the least long-term benefits and fewer adverse impacts to vegetation, due to 

Impacts same as Alternative B, except 9,300 acres would be treated/year. This alternative would provide greater longterm benefits to vegetation than Alternatives A, B, and E, due to a greater number of acres receiving targeted vegetation treatment. 

Under Alternative D, 11,300 acres would be open to vegetation treatments/year with potentially greater long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation resources than would occur under Alternatives A, B, C and E due to a greater number of 

Same as Alternative except no surfacedisturbing land treatments would be permitted in non-WSlands with wildernescharacteristics. This alternative would hathe least short-term adverse impacts, bulimited long-term benefits to vegetatioof the alternatives. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-175 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

treatments. Longterm, beneficial impacts would include reduced competition with exotic species. 

targeted treatments over a smaller area, than Alternatives A, C and D. 

acres receiving targeted vegetation treatment. 

Visual Resources Minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts to vegetation in VRM I and II areas from restrictions on surface disturbance, and long-term, beneficial impacts to vegetation under VRM III and IV objectives. Alternative A would have the smallest area subject to VRM Class I restrictions on surface disturbances and the largest area subject to VRM Class II restrictions of the alternatives. 

Impacts same as A, except this alternative would have a larger area subject to VRM Class I surface disturbance restrictions (with longterm, beneficial impacts on vegetation resources under these VRM classes) than Alternative A. Alternative B would have more area subject to VRM III and less area under VRM II and IV restrictions than Alternative A. 

Impacts same as A, except this alternative would have a larger area subject to VRM Class I and III surface disturbance restrictions, and a smaller area subject to VRM Class II restrictions than Alternative A. Alternative C would have the largest area subject to class IV restrictions of the alternatives. 

Impacts same as A, except this alternative would have a larger area subject to VRM Class I, III and IV restrictions, and a smaller area subject to VRM Class II restrictions than Alternative A. Alternative D would have the largest area subject to VRM Class III restrictions and the second largest areas subject to class IV restrictions of the alternatives. 

Same as Alternative except additional protection of acreagwithin non-WSA landwith wilderness characteristics undeVRM I would have long-term, beneficiaimpacts on vegetatioresources. This alternative would hathe most acres managed as VRM I the alternatives. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Beneficial impacts on vegetation from habitat protection and mitigation of surface disturbances to vegetation: 247,938 acres subject to bighorn sheep special conditions; 13,954 acres of pronghorn habitat; and 180,089 acres of protected deer winter range. 

Beneficial impacts same as A, but to a greater degree due to increased mitigation potential for the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on vegetation resources, including: 83% more acres subject to bighorn sheep special wildlife conditions; 110% more acres of protected pronghorn 

Beneficial impacts same as A, but to a greater degree due to increased mitigation potential for the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on vegetation resources, including: 21% more acres subject to bighorn sheep special wildlife conditions; 110% more acres of protected pronghorn 

Beneficial impacts same as A, but to a greater degree due to increased mitigation potential for the adverse impacts of surfacedisturbing activities on vegetation resources, including: 26% fewer acres subject to bighorn sheep special wildlife conditions; same number of acres of 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-176 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

habitat; 330% more protected deer habitat; and 184,248 more acres of protected elk habitat than Alternative A. 

habitat; 45% more protected deer habitat; and 93,104 more acres of protected elk habitat than Alternative A. 

protected pronghorn habitat; 17% fewer protected deer habitat; and 60,103 more acres of protected elk habitat than Alternative A. 

Woodlands Short-term, adverse 

impacts on 1,147,407 acres of the pinyonjuniper vegetation open to woodland harvesting, include trampling and removal of native trees. Long-term, indirect impacts include the potential introduction of weedy, non-native species during wood harvesting operations. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except impacts would be on 504,666 acres of pinyon-juniper vegetation (56% fewer acres open to harvest than Alternative A). This alternative would have the fewest acres open to the adverse impacts of woodland harvest. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except impacts would be on 597,086 acres of pinyon-juniper vegetation open to woodland product harvest (48% fewer acres open to harvest than under Alternative A). 

Same as Alternative C. 

Same as Alternative except that no woodland product harvest would be allowed in non-WSA lands with wildernescharacteristics. This would result in the fewest acres open to surface-disturbing activities that would have long term, adverse impacts on vegetation resource

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

VRM Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

VRM I (Very low impacts to scenic quality allowed) 

371,575 acres 497,668 acres 425,179 acres 390,424 acres 998,370 acres 

VRM II (Low impacts to scenic quality 

355,112 acres 250,641 acres 132,001 acres 8,838 acres 111,478 acres 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-177 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

allowed) 

VRM I and II, Combined 

726,687 acres 748,309 acres 557,180 acres 399,262 acres 1,109,848 acres 

VRM III and IV, Combined (Moderate to major impacts to scenic quality allowed, short-term and long-term impacts from surfacedisturbing activities in VRM III and VRM IV areas). 

1,054,681 acres 1,034,813 acres 1,225,915 acres 1,383,860 acres 671,828 acres 

Scenic Quality/Viewshed, Lockhart Basin 

VRM Class III designation for Lockhart Basin in portions not managed as a Visual ACEC (8,642 acres managed as VRM I in the Indian Creek ACEC). More potential adverse short-term and longterm impacts on 47,783 acres than for the action alternatives 

No scenic quality degradation because of management under VRM I for 47,783 acres for Lockhart Basin ACEC 

VRM Class II and Class III designation for Lockhart Basin, but not managed as a Visual ACEC, more potential adverse impacts on 47,783 acres than Alternatives B and E, but less than Alternative A. 

VRM Class III designation for Lockhart Basin, Not managed as a Visual ACEC, with more potential adverse impacts on 47,783 acres than for Alternatives B, C and E. 

No scenic quality degradation becausof management undVRM I for 47,783 acres for Lockhart Basin ACEC. 

Scenic Quality/Viewshed, Valley of the Gods 

No scenic quality degradation because of VRM I designation for 31,387 acres for Valley of the Gods ACEC 

No scenic quality degradation because of VRM I designation for 22,863 acres for Valley of the Gods ACEC 

Valley of the Gods designated as VRM I as a Visual ACEC, with no scenic quality degradation for 22,863 acres. 

Designation as VRM III, Valley of the Gods is not managed as a Visual ACEC, with more potential adverse impacts on 22,863 acres than for Alternatives A, B, C, and E. 

No scenic quality degradation becausof VRM I designatiofor 22,863 acres for Valley of the Gods ACEC. 

Scenic Quality/Viewshed, 

No scenic quality degradation because 

No scenic quality degradation because 

Indian Creek is managed as a Visual 

Indian Creek is not managed as a Visual 

No scenic quality degradation becaus
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-178 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Indian Creek of VRM I designation 

for 8,510 acres in the Indian Creek ACEC 

of VRM I designation on 8,510 acres for Indian Creek ACEC 

ACEC, with no scenic quality degradation on 3,908 acres in the ACEC (outside the WSA). 

ACEC, designated as VRM III, with more potential adverse impacts on 8,510 acres than for Alternatives A, B, C and E. 

of VRM I designatiofor 8,510 acres for Indian Creek ACEC 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife from seasonal wildlife protection areas: 329,750 acres of bighorn sheep habitat, 12,960 acres pronghorn habitat, and 197,550 acres mule deer habitat (540,260 acres total). 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree, from proposed 453,388 acres of protection areas for bighorn sheep habitat, 29,365 acres pronghorn habitat, 785,921 acres mule deer habitat, and 191,173 acres elk habitat (total of 1,459,847). 

Impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree from proposed habitat protection areas: 415,395 (lambing) and 453,390 (rutting) acres for bighorn sheep, 29,365 acres for pronghorn, 266,406 acres for mule deer, and 97,471 acres for elk habitat (total of 808,637 acres). 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative A from proposed seasonal wildlife protection areas: 299,009 acres desert bighorn sheep, 13,961 acres for pronghorn, 182,315 acres for mule deer, and 62,484 acres for elk (total of 557,769 acres subject to special wildlife conditions). 

Impacts same as Alternative B. 

Cultural Resources Long-term adverse 

impacts of cultural resource decisions on wildlife resources from restrictions on habitat improvements, watershed improvements, and vegetation treatments. Beneficial impacts on wildlife from restrictions on 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree, due to greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, except woodland gathering and harvesting, and vegetation treatments would be allowed. Alternative C would have fewer adverse impacts on wildlife than Alternative A due to greater restrictions on 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree, and beneficial impacts to a lesser degree than Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative B, but to greater degree due increased restrictionon surface-disturbinactivities. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-179 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

surface-disturbing activities including woodland gathering and harvesting, minerals leasing, and OHV use and restrictions on visitor numbers and activities. 

surface-disturbing activities. 

Fire Management Fuels treatments 

would have shortterm adverse impacts to wildlife species from habitat disturbance and removal, and longterm beneficial impacts due to reduced fuel loading, reduced fire risk, and diversified habitat. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Lands and Realty Lands and realty 

decisions would result in adverse surface disturbance, causing loss of wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation, direct disturbance to wildlife during construction and maintenance, potentially introduce invasive species, and/or wildlife to avoid areas that were previously considered viable habitat. Beneficial impacts would include areas excluded from surface-disturbing 

Impacts same as Alternative A, except that Alternative B would exclude more areas from wind or solar energy exploration and development, thereby having fewer adverse impacts than Alternative A. Under Alternative B 416,612 acres would be ROW exclusion areas, while 125,105 acres would be ROW avoidance areas. 251,710 acres would be withdrawn from 

Impacts same as Alternative B, except that fewer areas would be excluded from wind or solar energy exploration and development. Under Alternative C 395,329 acres would be ROW exclusion areas, while 39,323 acres would be ROW avoidance areas. 121,912 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

Impacts same as Alternative B, except fewer exclusions from wind or solar energy exploration and development. Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife in the shortand long-term than any other alternative.Under Alternative D 386,853 acres would be ROW exclusion areas, while 14,175 acres would be ROW avoidance areas. 46,131 acres would be withdrawn 

Impacts same as Alternative B, excepthat non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would also be excluded froROWs for wind or solar energy exploration and development. Alternative E would more beneficial to wildlife than all othealternatives since it prescribes more exclusions than any other alternative. Under Alternative E 974,463 acres would be ROW exclusion 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-180 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

activities and mitigation measures that accompany surface-disturbing activities. Under Alternative A 120,800 acres would be ROW exclusion areas, while 253,790 acres would be ROW avoidance areas. 132,380 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

mineral entry. from mineral entry. areas, while 53,915 

acres would be ROW avoidance areas. 834,070 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

Livestock Grazing The exclusion of 

livestock from sensitive habitats (such as riparian areas and zones with limited soils) would beneficially impact wildlife species by maintaining more native plant forage and cover. Where livestock grazing is allowed there would be adverse long-term impacts on wildlife due to competition with wildlife for forage, possible trampling of individual animals or nests, and susceptibility to invasion by noxious weeds. Under all alternatives grazing would continue to be excluded from 118,424 acres, and 17,300 acres in 

Alternative B prescribes the largest area unavailable for livestock grazing and therefore would have the greatest beneficial impacts on native vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

Alternative C is the same as Alternative B, except that Mule Canyon would be open to grazing north of U-95. Alternative C would have fewer adverse impacts to wildlife than Alternative A, but greater impacts than Alternatives B and E. 

Alternative D is the same as Alternative B, except fewer acres would be unavailable to grazing, but with greater restrictions on grazing than Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-181 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Peter’s Canyon and East Canyon would be allotted to wildlife. 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

Surface disturbance due to mineral development would degrade and fragment wildlife habitat, and displace wildlife. Leasable mineral development would impact 699 acres of primarily pinyon-juniper and desert shrub habitats, 886 acres of wildlife habitats adversely impacted by geophysical exploration in the short term, and 1,652,743 acres open to locatable minerals activities under standard stipulations. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree. Leasable mineral development would adversely impact 636 acres of primarily pinyon-juniper and desert shrub habitats, 794 acres of wildlife habitats adversely impacted in the short term by geophysical exploration, and 1,521,656 acres open to locatable minerals activities under standard stipulations. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree, fromleasable mineral development that would impact 710 acres of primarily pinyon-juniper and desert shrub habitats, 903 acres of wildlife habitats temporarily impacted by geophysical exploration, and by 1,637,688 acres open to locatable minerals activities under standard stipulations. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree, from leasable mineral development that would impact 721 acres of primarily pinyon-juniper and desert shrub habitats, 924 acres of wildlife habitats temporarily impacted by geophysical exploration, and 1,737,999 acres open to locatable minerals activities under standard stipulations. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, but to lesser degree, from leasable mineral development that would impact 518 acres of primarily pinyon-juniper and desert shrub habitat591 acres of wildlife habitats temporarily impacted by geophysical exploration, and 1,521,656 acres opeto locatable minerals activities under standard stipulations

Recreation Adverse impacts to 

wildlife species and their habitats from recreation, include noise disturbance, vehicle traffic, trampling of native vegetation, and other human-related disturbances. Where designated, SRMAs would reduce adverse impacts to wildlife by restricting recreation or reducing dispersed 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree due to greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in SRMAs. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, due to greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in SRMAs. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree, due to fewer restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. Overall, this alternative would have the most acres of native vegetation and potential wildlife habitat subject to adverse impacts associated with 

Adverse impacts saas Alternative A, but a lesser degree, due to greater restrictionon surface-disturbinactivities. Overall, Alternative E would most beneficial to wildlife because it prescribes the greatrestrictions, of all alternatives and the Proposed Plan, on surface-disturbing activities. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-182 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

recreational activities. recreation activities. 

Riparian Resources Under all alternatives 

riparian areas would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing but open to mineral entry and disposal of mineral materials (though not in active floodplains or within 100 meters of riparian areas). Livestock grazing would be allowed in riparian areas under all alternatives. The long-term adverse impacts of these activities would be mitigated by management in accordance with laws, executive orders, and regulations on floodplains and wetlands. 

Impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, due to prescriptions limiting OHV use, livestock grazing, and motorized camping. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Soil and Water Resources 

Under all alternatives, soils and watershed decisions would comply with Utah’s Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing and Recreation. All floodplains and riparian/wetlands would be managed in accordance with Executive Order 11988. There would 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree since unavoidable surfacedisturbance on slopes between 21 and 40% would require a plan (with an erosion control strategy and approved survey and design). Also, surface-disturbing activities would not be permitted on slopes 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative B and E, but to a greater degree since surface-disturbing activities would not be permitted on slopes greater than 40% unless it determined that it would cause undue or unnecessary degradation to pursue other placement alternatives. 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree since surface-disturbing activities would not be ruled out for slopes of any grade and a plan would only be required for slopes greater than 40%. This alternative would have more adverse impacts on vegetation resources 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-183 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

be no slope restrictions on allowable disturbance under Alternative A. 

greater than 40% (excluding 87,599 acres of land in the Monticello PA). 

Unavoidable surfacedisturbing activities on slopes between 21 and 40% would require a plan (with an erosion control strategy and approved survey and design). 

and therefore wildlife resources than any other alternative. 

Special Designations The designation of 

ACECs and WSR segments would have long-term beneficial impacts on wildlife species and their habitats because ACECs and WSR segments limit or prohibit surfacedisturbing activities, decreasing the potential for damage to native vegetation or avoidance behavior in individual animals. The designation of ACECs and WSR segments would also have long-term adverse impacts on wildlife where protective management prohibits habitat or watershed improvements or vegetation treatments. Under Alternative A, 10 of the 12 proposed 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative A but to a greater degree since all 12 of the proposed ACECs would be designated and managed as ACECs and all 12 river segments reviewed for WSR status would be recommended as suitable. 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative A but to a lesser extent since 7 of the 12 proposed ACECs would be designated and managed as ACECs and 4 of the 12 river segments reviewed for WSR status would be recommended as suitable. 

Under Alternative D none of the ACECs would be designated and managed as ACECs and none of the river segments reviewed for WSR status would be recommended as suitable. Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife than any other alternative and the Proposed Plan since there are fewer restrictions on surface-disturbing activities under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-184 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

ACECs would continue to be managed as ACECs and 6 of 12 river segments reviewed for WSR status would be recommended as suitable. 

Special Status Species 

Under all alternatives no management actions would be permitted on public lands that would jeopardize the continued existence of plant or animal species that are listed, officially proposed, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered and the BLM would commit to current and future conservation agreements, management plans, and recovery plans. These actions would have long-term beneficial impacts on wildlife that share habitat with targeted special status species. 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree since Alternative B would provide more acres of protected habitat for special status species than any other alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree since Alternative C would provide more acres of protected habitat for special status species than Alternative A (but fewer acres than Alternatives B and E).

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree since Alternative D would provide the fewest number of acres of surface disturbance restrictions in special status species habitat, resulting in a greater potential for adverse impacts on wildlife in special status species habitat. 

Same as Alternative 

Travel Management OHV use has shortand long-term 

adverse impacts on wildlife by causing damage to vegetation used as wildlife 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a much lesser degree. Under Alternative B: zero acres would be 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree. Under Alternative C: 2,311 acres would be 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree. Under Alternative D: 2,311 acres would 

Adverse impacts saas Alternative A, but a much lesser degreUnder Alternative E: zero acres would be open to OHV use; 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-185 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

forage and cover, as well as causing noise. Habitat fragmentation and degradation and the spread of noxious weeds also result from OHV use. Under Alternative A: 611,310 acres would be open to OHV use; 540,260 acres would be limited to designated routes with seasonal restrictions; 570,390 would be limited to existing roads and trails; 218,780 acres would be limited to designated roads and trails; and 276,430 acres would be closed to OHV use. 

open to OHV use; 1,359,417 acres would be limited to designated routes; and 423,698 acres would be closed to OHV use. 

open to OHV use; 1,362,142 acres would be limited to designated routes; and 418,667 acres would be closed to OHV use. Designated ‘ways’ would be established in corridors leading to trailheads. 

be open to OHV use; 1,780,807 acres would be limited to designated routes; and 0 acres would be closed to OHV use. 

812,679 acres would be limited to designated routes; a970,436 acres would be closed to OHV us

Vegetation Under Alternative A, 

15,475 acres would be open to vegetation treatments each year. This is substantially greater than under any of the other alternatives. There are more short-term adverse impacts associated with Alternative A because of the large number of acres open to trampling and disturbance associated with widespread, less 

Under Alternative B, 7,600 acres would be open to vegetation treatments each year, which is 51% fewer acres of treatment than under Alternative A. Overall, this alternative is likely to have more beneficial short-term impacts on wildlife and habitat than Alternative A due to fewer, shortterm, adverse impacts associated with habitat disturbance, and the 

Impacts same as Alternative B, but to a greater degree. Under Alternative C, 9,300 acres would be open to vegetation treatments each year, which is 40% fewer acres of treatment than under Alternative A. 

Impacts same as Alternative B, but to a greater degree. Under Alternative D, 11,300 acres would be open to vegetation treatments each year, which is 27% fewer acres of treatment than under Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-186 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

targeted, vegetation treatments, and seed gathering and plant collection activities. 

increased likelihood of successful vegetation treatments due to the concentration of efforts in specified vegetation communities outlined under this alternative.

Visual Resource Management 

VRM Classes I and II are generally more beneficial to wildlife since they result in less surface disturbance than VRM Classes III and IV. However, in some cases VRM Class I or II can have adverse impacts on wildlife by limiting or prohibiting habitat and watershed improvements and vegetation treatments. Under Alternative A: VRM Class I: 371,575 acres (21%) VRM Class II: 355,112 acres (20%) VRM Class III: 416,806 acres (23%) VRM Class IV: 637,875 acres (36%) 

Impacts same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree, due to increased acreage managed as VRM Classes I and II. Under Alternative B: VRM Class I: 497,668 acres (28%) VRM Class II: 250,641 acres (14%) VRM Class III: 426,350 acres (24%) VRM Class IV: 608,463 acres (34%) 

Impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree due to decreased acreage managed as VRM Class II. Under Alternative C: VRM Class I: 425,179 acres (24%) VRM Class II: 132,001 acres (7%) VRM Class III: 531,920 acres (30%) VRM Class IV: 693,995 acres (39%) 

Impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree due to decreased acreage managed as VRM Class II. Under Alternative D: VRM Class I: 390,424 acres (22%)VRM Class II: 8,838 acres (<1%) VRM Class III: 692,741 acres (39%)VRM Class IV: 691,119 acres (39%)

Impacts same as Alternative A, but to greater degree due increased acreage managed as VRM Classes I and II. UnAlternative E: VRM Class I: 998,370 acr(56%) VRM Class II: 111,4acres (6%) VRM ClaIII: 264,369 acres (15%) VRM Class IV407,459 acres (23%

Woodlands Short- and long-term 

adverse on 1,309,894 acres impacts from harvesting from wildlife habitat loss, 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree since fewer acres would be open 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree since fewer acres would be open 

Adverse impacts same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree since fewer acres would be open 

Adverse impacts saas Alternative A, but a lesser degree sincfewer acres would bopen to woodland 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-187 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation, and noise disturbance. Long-term beneficial impacts from reduced fire risk from fuel load reductions and thinning, and opening up the forest floor for understory growth. Long-term beneficial impacts from harvesting on sagebrush steppe communities and wildlife. 

to woodland harvest. Under Alternative B, 730,074 acres would be open to woodland harvest. Also, limitations on off-road travel and wood product use in the deer and elk winter range (Nov. 1–May 15) would help mitigate the shortterm adverse impacts of woodland product collection and harvest on wildlife and habitat. 

to woodland harvest. Under Alternative C, 841,938 acres would be open to woodland harvest. Also, wood collection in certain areas would be restricted to within 150 feet of designated routes and permitted off road travel. 

to woodland harvest.Under Alternative D, 841,938 acres would be open to woodland harvest but wood collection would not be limited to any buffer zone along designated routes or permitted off road travel. 

harvest. 

Note: Management decisions pertaining to air resources, hazardous materials, and paleontology were excluded from analysis because t

negligible effect on wildlife and fisheries resources. 

WOODLANDS 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Cultural Resources Excluding 37,433-

acre Grand Gulch Historic District from harvesting opportunities would have long-term, adverse impacts on woodland resources. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on woodlands from fuels reductions around sites. Long-term, adverse impacts from harvesting restrictions on 99,955 acres in CSMAs and cultural protection areas. 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative B. Long-term, adverse impacts from harvesting exclusions on 61,943 acres in CSMAs and cultural protection areas. 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative B. Long-term, adverse impacts from harvesting exclusions on 59,297 acres in CSMAs and cultural protection areas. 

Same as Alternative 

Fire Management Short-term, adverse 

impacts from fire treatments through resource loss, surface disturbances, soil compaction and 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative including limited treatments in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-188 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

erosion, opportunities for exotic species establishment, and restrictions on harvesting in treated areas. Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced risks of wildland fire and improved fire condition classes, and sustainable yields of woodland products. 

(582,360 acres) to reduce wildland fire risks. 

Minerals and Energy Resources 

Short-term and longterm, adverse, but minor, impacts on woodland productivity from RFD minerals exploration and development affecting less than 0.1% of the area available for minerals development. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts to woodlands as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics are not protected or managed under this alternative.

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Impacts on woodlanwould be adverse in the long term from prohibitions on harvesting on 582,3acres in woodland zones managed for protection of non-Wlands with wildernescharacteristics. Adverse impacts frolimitations on fire suppression and treatments to maintaand improve woodlahealth. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-189 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Recreation Long-term, beneficial 

impacts from unrestricted opportunities for harvesting opportunities in SRMAs and ERMA, except for restrictions on a total of 196,040 acres in ROS P-class areas, 250 acres of developed recreation sites, and along the 1,280-acre Pearson hiking trail. Longterm, adverse impacts from potential reductions in woodland productivity and unsustainable harvesting from relatively few harvesting restrictions in the PA. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from sustainable riparian woodlands resource use along San Juan River. Long-term, adverse impacts from harvesting prohibitions or restrictions on 498,658 acres in SRMAs. 

Beneficial impacts same as Alternative B, but reduced adverse impacts from harvesting prohibitions on 122,919 acres in SRMAs. 

Same as Alternative C. 

Same as Alternative C, but to a more adverse degree, from harvesting prohibitioin SRMAs and in riparian areas (for riparian woodland species) that lie withnon-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Longterm, adverse impacwithin non-WSA landwith wilderness characteristics on 416,526 acres in the ERMA. 

Riparian Resources Long-term, adverse, 

but minor, impacts from harvesting restrictions in riparian areas (except for Native American harvesting for traditional purposes). Long-term, beneficial impacts from maintained productivity and sustainable harvesting of riparian woodlands. 

Same as Alternative A, except long-term, beneficial impacts on riparian woodlands from closing riparian areas to OHV use, protecting riparian woodlands. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative but with a greater degree of adverse impacts, from prohibitions on riparwoodland harvesting within non-WSA landwith wilderness characteristics. 

Soil and Water Negligible impacts on 

woodland resources 

Impacts same as for Alternative A Fire 

Same as Alternative Same as Alternative Long-term, beneficia

impacts from 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-190 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

Resources or harvesting 

opportunities because soil and water decisions would not affect woodland resources. 

Management from vegetation treatments to control tamarisk. Short term, adverse impacts from harvesting restrictions in treated areas. 

B. B. vegetation treatmen

to control tamarisk replacement of and encroachment on riparian woodland stands. Adverse impacts to woodlandfrom limitations on treatment use in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Special Designations, WSAs 

Long-term, adverse, but minor, impacts on harvesting opportunities from closure of 391,599 acres of WSAs (22% of the FO). 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Special Designations, ACECs 

Long-term, adverse, but minor, impacts on harvesting from closure of 139,796 acres within ACECs to woodland harvesting opportunities (8% of the FO). 

Same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree, from harvesting restrictions on 522,035 acres in ACECs (29% of the FO). 

Same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, from harvesting restrictions within 37,382 acres of ACECs (2% of the FO) 

Minor adverse impacts from woodland harvesting exclusion on 2,146 acres in ACECs. 

Same as Alternative except adverse impacts to woodland harvesting from harvesting prohibitiowithin 109,205 acres of proposed ACECs for preservation of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Special Designations, WSRs 

Long-term, adverse, but minor, impacts on harvesting from harvesting exclusions within 7,168 acres along the San Juan River and 1,920 acres along the Colorado River. 

Same as Alternative A, but to a greater degree, from harvesting exclusions on 17,888 acres along eligible and recommended river segments. 

Beneficial, long-term impacts from few harvesting exclusions except on 6,736 acres along eligible and recommended river segments. 

Beneficial, long-term impacts from no harvesting exclusions along all PA river segments (no eligible river segments). 

Same as Alternative 

Travel Management Long-term, adverse Long-term, adverse Same as Alternative Negligible impacts Long-term, adverse 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-191 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

impacts to harvesting opportunities on 276,430 acres designated as closed to OHV use or access. 

impacts to harvesting on 423,698 acres closed to OHV use or access (53% more than Alternative A). 

A, but to a greater degree, from 418,667 acres closed to OHV use or access (51% more acreage than Alternative A). 

on woodland harvesting from no OHV closed areas. 

impacts to woodlandharvesting access from designated closed OHV areas (970,436 acres), and 179 miles of OHV routes in non-WSA lands with wildernescharacteristics would be closed. 

Vegetation Short-term, minor, but 

long-term, indirect, beneficial impacts from vegetation treatments to reduce fuel loads and invasive species on 232,130 acres managed for vegetation treatments. 

Long-term beneficial impacts from potential treatment of 2,500 acres/year of pinyonjuniper and riparian woodlands to reduce fuel loading. 

Same as Alternative B, but 3,100 acres/year of pinyonjuniper and riparian woodlands would be treated. 

Same as Alternative B, but 4,100 acres/year treatments in pinyonjuniper and riparian woodlands. 

Same as Alternative except some adversimpacts from limitations on treatments in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Visual Resources Long-term, adverse, 

but minor, impacts on harvesting from scenic protection on 726,687 acres within VRM Class I and Class II areas (41% of the FO. 

Same as Alternative A, with 748,309 acres protected for scenic quality under VRM Class I and Class II areas (42% of the FO). 

Same as Alternative A, from designation of 557,180 acres under VRM Class I and Class II (31% of the FO). 

Same as Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, from designation of 399,262 acres under VRM Class I and Class II (22% of FO).

Same as Alternative except greater longterm, adverse impacon woodland harvesting from designation of 998,3acres as VRM Class and 111,478 acres aVRM Class II (62% the FO). 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Beneficial impacts on woodland resources from riparian habitat protection and control of invasive species. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Woodlands Beneficial impacts to 

woodland resources from harvesting opportunities on 73% 

Same impacts as Alternative A, except 41% of FO available for harvesting 

Same as Alternative A, except 47% of FO (841,936 acres) would be open to 

Same as Alternative C. 

Impacts the same as non-WSA WildernesCharacteristics impacts above from 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed 

Tab

2-192 

Table 2.2. Summary of Impacts

of the FO (1,309,894 acres). 

(730,075 acres) in woodland zones, with beneficial impacts from controlled OHV use. 

harvesting opportunities. 

prohibitions on woodland harvesting and allowed limited treatments within 582,360 acres managed for non-Wlands with wildernescharacteristics. 608,476 acres (34% the FO) would be beneficially available for woodland harvesting. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

Table 2.2 Summary of Impacts 

2-193 

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM ANALYSIS

This section provides a summary of those alternatives the BLM initially considered but later 

eliminated, and the justifications for their dismissal from further evaluations. 

2.3.1 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Action: The PA would be unavailable for livestock grazing. 

Rationale for Elimination: An alternative that proposes to close the entire PA to grazing would 

not meet the purposes and needs of this RMP/Draft EIS. NEPA requires that agencies study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal 

that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. No issues 

or conflicts have been identified during this land-use planning effort, which requires the 

complete elimination of grazing within the PA for their resolution. Where appropriate, closures 

and adjustments to livestock use have been incorporated into the alternatives on an allotment or 

area basis to address issues identified in the LUP. Since the BLM has considerable discretion, 

through its grazing regulations, to determine and adjust stocking levels, seasons-of-use, and 

grazing management activities, and to allocate forage to uses of the public lands in LUPs, the 

analysis of an alternative to entirely eliminate grazing is not needed. 

An alternative that proposes to close the entire PA to grazing would also be inconsistent with the 

intent of the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), which directs the BLM to provide for livestock use of 

BLM lands, to adequately safeguard grazing privileges, to provide for the orderly use, 

improvement, and development of the range, and to stabilize the livestock industry dependent 

upon the public range. 

The FLPMA requires that public lands be managed on a "multiple use and sustained yield basis" 

(FLPMA Section 302 [a] and Section 102 [7]) and includes livestock grazing as a principal or 

major use of public lands. While multiple use does not require that all lands be used for livestock 

grazing, complete removal of livestock grazing on the entire PA would be arbitrary and would 

not meet the principle of multiple use and sustained yield. 

Livestock grazing is and has been an important use of the public lands in the PA for many years, 

and is a continuing government program. Although the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) guidelines for compliance with NEPA require that agencies analyze Alternative A (the 

No Action Alternative) in all EISs, for the purposes of this NEPA analysis, Alternative A is to 

continue the status quo, which includes livestock grazing (CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions, 

Question 3). For this reason and those stated above, a no-grazing alternative for the entire PA has 

been dismissed from further consideration in this LUP. 

2.3.2 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Action: Travel on roads would be eliminated based upon a model that uses distances from roads 

so as to protect solitude and remoteness. 

Rationale for Elimination: An alternative that proposes to close the roads based on this model in 

the PA would not meet the purposes and needs of this RMP/Draft EIS. No issues or conflicts 

have been identified during this land-use planning effort that requires this particular method for 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

Table 2.2 Summary of Impacts 

2-194 

determining which roads would be designated and which areas would remain open, limited, or 

closed to cross-country travel. Since the BLM has considerable discretion through its regulations, 

the analysis of an alternative to close roads based on this model is not needed. The BLM did 

consider the idea of remoteness and solitude and provided protection for these values in a 

reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative E protects non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics by closing these lands to OHV travel. Additionally, Alternative B closes all 

WSAs to OHV use. Instead, the BLM chose to take a hard look at each route and measure the 

purpose and need for that particular route against resource conflicts. 

This methodology was presented in the travel report and was the basis for the range of 

alternatives for travel management. 

2.3.3 ENLARGE CANYONLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Action: Enlarge Canyonlands National Park to include Lockhart Basin. 

Rationale for Elimination: An alternative that proposes to enlarge Canyonlands National Park to 

include Lockhart Basin has been proposed many times in the media and discussion with 

interested groups. However, no complete serious proposal has ever been brought forward. This 

would not meet the purposes and needs of this RMP/Draft EIS. No issues or conflicts have been 

identified during this land-use planning effort that requires this particular method for determining 

which roads would be designated and which areas would remain open, limited, or closed to cross 

country travel. 

2.3.4 NO LEASING ALTERNATIVE

Action: During scoping and/or the comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS, it was suggested that 

the BLM should address a "No-Leasing Alternative" because the "No-Leasing Alternative" is the 

equivalent of the "No Action Alternative" that must be analyzed in all EISs. 

Rationale for Elimination: The "No-Leasing Alternative" in an RMP revision is actually an 

action alternative because where lands have already been leased, the no-action for NEPA 

purposes continues to allow for (honor) valid existing rights. Proposing a "No-Leasing 

Alternative" would require revisiting existing leases and either buying them back from the 

lessee, or allowing them to expire on their own terms. The first option (buying back), is outside 

the scope of any RMP. This is a political decision that the BLM has no authority to undertake in 

planning. As a result, the BLM does not regularly include a "No-Leasing Alternative.” 

The purpose and need for the LUP is to identify and resolve potential conflicts between 

competing resource uses rather than to eliminate a principle use of the public lands in the 

Monticello FO Area. Leasing of the public lands for oil and gas exploration and production is 

required by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the BLM's current policy is to 

apply the least restrictive management constraints to the principal uses of the public lands 

necessary to achieve resource goals and objectives. A field office-wide "No-Leasing Alternative" 

would be an unnecessarily restrictive alternative for mineral exploration and production on the 

public lands.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA Section 102 [E]) requires that agencies "study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any 

proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

Table 2.2 Summary of Impacts 

2-195 

resources.” No issues or conflicts have been identified during this land-use planning effort, 

which requires the complete elimination of oil and gas leasing within the planning area for their 

resolution. The BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1693), Appendix 

C. item H. requires that LUPs identify areas as open or unavailable for leasing. 

Given the potential range of decisions available in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS, the analyzed 

alternatives include no leasing for certain areas; but a field office-wide "No-Leasing Alternative" 

is not necessary in order to resolve issues and protect other resource values and uses. 

As mentioned above, a "No-Leasing Alternative" should not be confused with the "No Action 

Alternative" for purposes of NEPA compliance. Leasing and No Leasing on the public lands has 

previously been analyzed in several NEPA documents. In 1973, the Department of Interior 

published the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Federal Upland Oil and Gas Leasing 

Program (USDI, 1973). The proposed action was to lease Federal lands for production of oil and 

natural gas resources. Alternatives included the No Action Alternative, which at initiation of the 

program was "No Leasing.” To supplement that EIS, the BLM prepared a series of 

Environmental Assessments (then titled "Environmental Analysis Records or EARs") including 

the 1975 Oil and Gas Program Environmental Analysis Record (EAR), 1975 which addressed oil 

and gas leasing for the public lands in the Monticello FO area. Alternatives again included the 

No Action or "No Leasing" alternative. The outcome was a category system for leasing which 

categorized all public and USFS lands into four groups: 1) open to leasing with standard lease 

stipulations, 2) Special Stipulations to address special concerns, 3) No surface occupancy and 4) 

No Leasing. Since completion of the EAR in 1975 oil and gas leasing in the Monticello FO Area 

has been an ongoing federal program under the established categories. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (Section 1502.14[d] of NEPA) requires the alternatives 

analysis in an EIS to "include the alternative of no action", but explains that there are two distinct 

interpretations of "no action" that must be considered, depending on the nature of the proposal 

being evaluated. "The first situation might involve an action such as updating a land management 

plan where ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations will continue, 

even as new plans are developed. In these cases "no action" is "no change" from current 

management direction or level of management intensity. To construct an alternative that is based 

on no management at all would be a useless academic exercise. Therefore, the "no action" 

alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present course of action until that 

action is changed." (CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 3). Therefore, for the 

Monticello Proposed Plan/Final EIS, the "No-Action Alternative" is to continue the status quo, 

which is to lease under the oil and gas stipulations (formerly categories) established in the San 

Juan RMP. 

2.3.5 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ADJUSTMENTS ALTERNATIVE

Action: During scoping and comment on the Draft EIS it was suggested that the BLM consider 

adjustments to livestock numbers, livestock management practices, and the kind of livestock 

grazed on allotments within the Monticello FO to benefit wildlife and protect and promote land 

health including soils, hydrologic cycles and biotic integrity. 

Rationale for Elimination: BLM policy regarding adjustments to the levels of livestock use 

authorized is to monitor and inventory range conditions under existing stocking levels and make 

adjustments to livestock use as indicated by this data to help assure that Rangeland Health 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

Table 2.2 Summary of Impacts 

2-196 

Standards (RHS) and resource objectives are met. Regulations at 43 CFR 4130.3 require that the 

terms and conditions under which livestock are authorized "ensure conformance with the 

provisions of subpart 4180" (Standards for Rangeland Health) and further that "livestock grazing 

use shall not exceed the livestock carrying capacity of the allotment.” It would be inappropriate 

and unfeasible to estimate and allocate the available forage, design specific management 

practices and determine if changes to the kind of livestock are necessary for each allotment in the 

Monticello FO or in the area as a whole in the RMP/EIS. Such changes would not be supportable 

considering the type and amount of data required and the analysis necessary to make such 

changes. 

According to BLM policy decisions regarding authorized livestock use levels and the terms and 

conditions under which they are managed is an implementation decision (H-1610-1, Appendix C, 

Page 15). The BLM assesses RHS, conducts monitoring and inventories, and evaluates this data 

on a periodic basis, normally on an allotment and/or watershed basis. After NEPA analysis, 

necessary changes to livestock management and implementation of Utah's Guidelines for 

Rangeland Management are implemented through a proposed decision in accordance with 

43CFR 4160. These decisions determine the exact levels of use by livestock in conformance with 

the LUP and to meet resource objectives and maintain or enhancing land health. For these 

reasons this alternative has been dismissed from further consideration in this land use plan 

revision."
1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND NEED 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to develop and periodically revise its Resource Management Plans (RMPs), 

which guide management of BLM-administered public lands. The BLM Field Office (FO) in 

Monticello, Utah, is revising the San Juan RMP, which was last updated in 1991. The new RMP, 

called the Monticello RMP, will provide planning guidance for public lands managed by the 

Monticello FO in San Juan and Grand Counties in southeastern Utah. 

The Monticello planning area (PA) includes approximately 4.5 million acres of private, State of 

Utah, Indian reservation, national forest, national park, and BLM-administered public lands. 

Within the PA, BLM manages approximately 1.8 million surface acres and nearly 2.5 million 

subsurface acres. The Monticello PA lies almost entirely within San Juan County, with a small 

portion in southern Grand County. The Proposed Plan was crafted from the five alternatives 

presented in the Draft RMP/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released to the public 

for a 90-day comment period on November 2, 2007. 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

1.1.1 PURPOSE 

The purpose of the RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework for BLM management of 

public lands within the PA and allocation of resources pursuant to the multiple-use and 

sustained-yield requirements of the FLPMA, which stipulates that the BLM "develop, maintain, 

and when appropriate, revise land-use plans" (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1712 [a]). 

Revising the plan has allowed the BLM to reevaluate, with public involvement, existing 

conditions, resources, and uses and determine how to allocate resources and make management 

decisions that balance uses against resource protection. The planning process identified a 

reasonable range of possible management alternatives in the DEIS. This Proposed RMP/Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes and evaluates the Proposed Plan. The DEIS 

disclosed and assessed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impact of reasonably foreseeable 

future actions resulting from the management decisions in each alternative as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), its implementing regulations, and other applicable 

law. The analysis of the alternatives in the draft is also carried forward into this FEIS. 

The resulting Monticello RMP will establish consolidated guidance, updated objectives, and 

management actions for BLM-administered public lands in the PA. The RMP will be 

comprehensive in nature and will address issues that have been identified through agency, 

interagency, and public scoping, as well as respond to comments on the DEIS. 

1.1.2 NEED

The plan revision is necessary to allow the BLM to review the management of public lands 

comprehensively and inventory their resources and, with public involvement, to make decisions 

for managing those lands and their resources and allocating present and future uses. The revised 

plan will incorporate new information, changes in resources and their uses, and new policies, 

guided by multiple-use and sustained-yield principles in the FLPMA. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

A Special Evaluation Report, completed in 2001 by the BLM, showed that a revision to the 1991 

RMP was necessary to address changes in resource uses such as increased visitation, different 

types of recreation activities, and the growing demand for energy development. The guidance 

and regulations of several resource programs have changed since the 1991 RMP was approved, 

and these changes need to be considered and implemented. 

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MONTICELLO FO PLANNING AREA

Of the approximate 4.5 million acres in the Monticello PA in southeastern Utah, the Monticello 

FO administers 1,785,127 surface acres of public lands (see Map 1) and nearly 2.5 million 

subsurface acres. The Monticello PA lies primarily within San Juan County, although a small 

portion extends into Grand County to the north. 

The Monticello PA includes within its boundaries a number of national parks, national 

monuments, and lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Canyonlands National 

Park lies along the northwestern portion of the PA boundary; Natural Bridges National 

Monument lies in its southwestern part; and a large unit of the Manti–La Sal National Forest lies 

in the center. Land ownership within the PA consists primarily of large blocks of BLMadministered public land interspersed with smaller, privately owned tracts and land owned by the 

State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). The McCracken 

Split Estate is jointly administered by the BLM and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and all 

of the land south of the San Juan River is Navajo Nation Reservation. Table 1.1 shows land 

ownership and corresponding acreages within the Monticello PA. 

Table 1.1. Land Ownership within the Monticello PA 

Ownership Acres 

BLM 1,785,127 

Navajo Nation Reservation 1,270,060 

Ute Reservation * 8,416 

National Park Service (NPS) 528,565 

Private 353,516 

SITLA 202,318 

USFS 319,933 

Total 4,467,935 

*This acreage does not include Ute allotments or interspersed tribal lands in the South Cottonwood or Allen Canyon area. These 

acreages are included in the private land total. 

Source: BLM 2004a. 

The Monticello PA is known for its topographic diversity, extraordinarily striking landforms, and 

scenic attractions. It contains a wide variety of cultural and paleontological resources with 

numbers and concentrations of sites exceeding those found elsewhere in the region. The 

topography is defined largely by high mountains, steep escarpments and ridges, and incised 

canyons, which are primarily a product of eroded sandstones and exposed igneous intrusions, 

such as the Abajo and La Sal Mountains. Elevations vary from approximately 3,700 feet above 

sea level near Lake Powell to over 11,000 feet in the Abajo Mountains. Much of the Monticello 

PA provides habitat for desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain elk, and mule deer. 

Numerous raptor species, including bald eagles and peregrine falcons, also live in the area. Fish 

1-2 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

species that inhabit the rivers and waterways include humpback chub, Colorado squawfish, and 

razorback sucker. 

Historical and traditional land uses within the Monticello PA, such as livestock grazing, hardrock mining, and energy and mineral development, continue to be widely practiced. Energy and 

mineral resources include oil, natural gas, uranium, vanadium, and building stone. However, 

recreational activities, such as backpacking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and sightseeing, are 

becoming increasingly popular within the PA. Recreational resources provide opportunities for 

public enjoyment as well as revenue for businesses in and adjacent to the Monticello PA. 

1.3 PLANNING PROCESS

The FLPMA requires the BLM to use land-use plans (LUPs) as tools by which "present and 

future use is projected." The FLPMA's implementing regulations for planning, (43 CFR Part 

1600), state that LUPs are a preliminary step in the overall process of managing public lands, 

"designed to guide and control future managements actions and the development of subsequent, 

more detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses." Public participation and input are 

important components of land-use planning. The Monticello FO initiated the process by 

publishing a notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on June 4, 2003. 

The RMP planning process can be broken down into the following nine steps: 

Step 1 Scoping and identifying issues, concerns, and opportunities 

Step 2 Development of planning criteria/legislative constraints 

Step 3 Collection of inventory data and information 

Step 4 Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) 

Step 5 Formulation of alternatives 

Step 6 Estimation of effects of alternatives 

Step 7 Selection of preferred management plan. This step includes preparation and 

public distribution of the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Step 8 Selection of the RMP; this step involves preparation and public distribution 

of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Step 9 Monitoring and evaluation 

The major documents produced during the RMP preparation process include the following: 

• Preplanning Analysis 

• Scoping Report 

• Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) 

• Draft RMP/EIS, which included the Preferred Alternative 

• Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

• Record of Decision (ROD) and approved RMP 

1-3 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

1.3.1 SCOPING AND IDENTIFYING ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PLAN 

Public scoping is a process designed to meet the public-involvement requirements of the FLPMA 

and NEPA. Public input helps focus management analysis and actions. During scoping, concerns 

are raised, and important issues are prioritized for analysis. Information gathered is carefully 

considered and used to develop land-use allocations or alternative management plans to protect 

natural, historical, or cultural resource values and provide recreational and commercial 

opportunities. This process includes working closely with cooperating agencies (state and local 

governments and other federal agencies) and soliciting input from interested organizations and 

individuals on issues, concerns, needs, and resource uses, development, and protection. 

The scoping period for the Monticello RMP began on June 4, 2003, with publication of the NOI 

in the Federal Register and ended on January 31, 2004. Scoping included scheduled public 

meetings in six communities (Green River, Moab, Monticello, Blanding, and Salt Lake City, 

Utah; and Grand Junction, Colorado). In addition to the meetings, comments were solicited from 

the public via a website, mail, and staff, who traveled to popular recreation locations within the 

PA. For the Monticello planning process, comments from the public were categorized in one of 

three ways: 

• Issues to be addressed in the Monticello RMP; 

• Issues to be addressed through policy or administrative action (and therefore not addressed 

in the RMP); and 

• Issues beyond the scope of the RMP. 

During scoping, all stakeholders were given the opportunity to voice concerns, identify issues, 

and nominate Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Additionally, discussions with 

BLM resource specialists identified management concerns. All the information obtained was 

used to define the relevant issues to be addressed in a broad range of alternative management 

scenarios. The environmental impacts of these alternatives were analyzed and addressed in the 

DEIS and are carried forward into this document along with the Proposed Plan. 

The RMP revision process provides the BLM, its cooperators, and the public the opportunity to 

resolve resource-management conflicts or concerns and respond to opportunities that fulfill the 

BLM's multiple-use, resource-management mission. Such issues may be identified as local, state, 

or national, or they may reflect conditions specific to the Monticello PA. Here are the planning 

issues that are addressed in the Monticello RMP. 

1.3.1.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The planning area is known for its extraordinarily high density of cultural resources, particularly 

Anasazi sites, many of which are yet to be recorded. Changes in legislation governing the 

cultural resource management on federal lands or associated with federal projects have been 

implemented since the publication of the 1991 RMP. Other laws and regulations regarding tribalgovernment sovereignty and orientation between governments did not exist during development 

of the 1991 RMP. Cultural resources provide a direct link between Native Americans and their 

past, and they request protection for these resources. 

1-4 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

The RMP provides an opportunity to enhance cultural-resource management within the PA and 

address tribal concerns and values in compliance with new requirements. Issues include the 

following: 

• Conflicts between OHV use and other forms of recreation with the need for protection of 

cultural resources as required by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, Section 

106); 

• Need for an OHV travel plan limiting use to designated trails to prevent impact to cultural 

resources; 

• Impact on cultural resources created by increasing demand for access to public lands; 

• Need for additional access to public lands by Native Americans for their traditional uses 

and practices; 

• Resolution of the increasing conflict between other land uses (such as recreation activities, 

livestock grazing, woodcutting, and energy exploration and development) and protection 

and preservation of cultural resources; 

• Protection of sensitive cultural resources; 

• National Historic Trails management (Old Spanish National Historic Trail and Hole in the 

Rock Trail) in compliance with enabling legislation to protect the historic resource; and 

• Revise existing management actions on Butler Wash, Cedar Mesa, and Hovenweep 

ACECs, and limit recreation use that has adverse effects on cultural resources. 

1.3.1.2 MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES

There are a number of concerns regarding the level of oil, natural gas, and hard-rock mining 

activities within the planning area: 

• Resolving the impact of surface disturbances from mineral exploration and development 

on other resources and uses (particularly cultural and visual resources;, wildlife, and 

recreation) while remaining in compliance with federal energy policies 

• Improving mitigation standards for reclamation and restoration following mineral 

development; 

• Making oil and natural gas development compatible with dispersed and remote 

recreational opportunities; 

• Identifying areas which require mineral withdrawal to resolve conflicts between resource 

development and special protection for cultural and water resources, wildlife habitat, 

unique geologic formations, or high scenic values; 

• Making development of alternative energy resources compatible with other resource 

decisions; 

• Determining social and economic impacts of mineral development on the governments 

and citizens of the counties within the Monticello PA; 

• Determining social and economic impacts of mineral development on a PA that contains 

extraordinary scenic and visual resources; 

• Determining impacts of mineral development (nighttime lighting) on the quality of the 

scenic and wilderness experience; 

1-5 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• Managing and developing oil and natural gas resources on the McCracken Split Estate; 

consider mitigation which will foster energy production while protecting other resource 

values and uses; 

• Managing and developing oil and natural gas resources in Lockhart Basin to limit impact 

on the outstanding scenic values of the area, as viewed from both within the basin and 

adjacent public lands and national parks. 

1.3.1.3 NON-WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA) LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics is being considered in this landuse planning process for those lands that the BLM has determined have wilderness 

characteristics. Pursuant to the FLPMA and the Land-use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a), the 

BLM may not establish new WSAs, but may consider managing non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics through land-use planning, and has the option to manage such lands in a way that 

would maintain, protect, or preserve some or all of those characteristics. This may include 

protecting certain lands in their natural condition and providing outstanding opportunities for 

solitude and primitive and unconfined types of recreation. 

1.3.1.4 RECREATION

Recreation use in the Monticello PA has continued to grow in popularity since the approval of 

the 1991 RMP. The wide range of recreational opportunities available and the spectacular 

scenery, both within the PA and in the nearby national parks and monuments, draws many 

visitors to the area. With the number of visitors continuing to grow, recreation activity is 

expanding deeper into the backcountry, and resource and user conflicts are becoming more 

common, intense, and difficult to manage. Recreation resource issues to be addressed in the 

planning process include: 

• Managing OHV use by developing a travel plan with maps showing motorized (singletrack vehicles, ATVs, jeeps, etc.) and nonmotorized (equestrian, hiking, biking) travel trail 

systems to identify recreation opportunities, prevent conflicts among recreation users, and 

minimize adverse impacts to sensitive resources (cultural resources, wildlife and their 

habitat, etc.); 

• Developing specific management plans for high-use areas, including Dark Canyon, Cedar 

Mesa, Hole in the Rock, the San Juan River, and the Colorado River, that manage use, 

provide opportunities, and minimize conflicts with other resource values and uses; 

• Developing management plans for the Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

and manage actions within the Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) that 

provide the desired activities, settings, experiences, and benefits (benefits-based 

management) consistent with the objectives of recreation management; 

• Resolving recreation-related human health and safety problems, including hazardous road 

conditions, disposal of human waste, and protection of water quality; 

• Managing visitors to adjacent national parks and monuments who use public lands in the 

Monticello PA (visitor management is needed to maintain desired environments and 

facilities, resolve conflicts among users and minimize impacts to other resources); 

1-6 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• Alleviating impacts of other resource uses on recreation opportunities, including 

motorized and nonmotorized travel, livestock grazing, mineral development, and fire 

management; 

• Instituting a private permit system to promote the optimum recreation experience and 

resolve issues caused by growing recreation use; 

• Resolving conflicts between private and commercial river users and establish use limits to 

enhance recreation experiences and protect other resource values; and 

• Minimizing impacts of increasing backcountry recreation use on other resource values and 

reduce tension among recreation users. 

1.3.1.5 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

The existing RMP does not reflect the current level of use and the demands on certain resources, 

including ACECs, Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), and WSAs within the Monticello PA. The 

regulations and BLM's policy require that consideration be given to designation and protection of 

ACECs during land-use planning. Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs federal 

agencies involved in planning the water use and development of water and related land resources 

to consider their potential for national wild, scenic and recreational river areas. The Monticello 

FO will review all current special designations, as well as other lands within the PA that meet 

special-designation criteria, and determine the appropriate management for them. 

The WSAs in the PA were created under FLPMA Section 603 and continue to be managed in 

accordance with the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness 

Review (IMP) to protect their values. This planning process, however, will establish OHV 

categories (closed or limited) and VRM class objectives within WSAs. No new WSAs will be 

established, and no existing ones will be altered. The only planning designations made for WSAs 

will be to determine OHV categories and VRM class objectives. 

Concerns about designation and management of special areas encompass issues that pertain to all 

other resources, depending on the location. Issues and concerns in these areas include pressures 

from increased visitation and resource development on cultural resources, biodiversity, and 

habitat and access questions. If special designation is required to protect sensitive resources, the 

plan considers how these restrictions impact development of minerals and other surfacedisturbing activities?

1.3.1.6 TRAVEL

Since the existing RMP was approved, travel within the Monticello PA has increased. Travel 

access and use levels are creating conflicts with natural and cultural resources and among 

different forms of travel (motorized, nonmotorized, non-mechanized, and OHVs). The BLM's 

guidance for OHV use and travel has changed, and policy requires that comprehensive travelmanagement planning address all travel modes and conditions, as well as the travel needs of all 

resource programs administered by the Monticello FO. Travel-related issues include: 

• Creating a travel plan with maps showing motorized and nonmotorized use; 

• Defining OHV categories compatible with other resource decisions; 

1-7 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• Resolving OHV use conflicts and identifying recreation opportunities, preventing conflicts 

among recreation users, and minimizing adverse impacts to sensitive resources (cultural 

and riparian resources, wildlife and their habitat, etc.); 

• Resolve conflicts among groups, such as nonmotorized and motorized users, river runners 

and OHV users, and commercial and private users, and regulating OHV use and camping; 

and 

• Incorporating the BLM OHV national strategy and Utah OHV strategy into planning 

efforts. 

1.3.1.7 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) CLASS DESIGNATIONS

Visual resource management (VRM) class designations are a planning concern, especially 

considering the diversity of landscapes in the Monticello PA. The 1991 RMP does not address 

cumulative impacts of recreational activities, livestock grazing, and oil and gas exploration and 

development on visual resources. Also the 1991 RMP does not reflect increases in recreation 

visitation or changes in visitor use patterns, which ultimately intensify encroachment into scenic 

areas. Issues related to VRM include the following: 

• Reviewing and establishing VRM class designations that reflect changes in recreation 

visitation and other resource uses; 

• Studying the impact of increasing OHV use on landscapes and visual resources throughout 

the PA and limit OHV use to roads and trails; and

• Investigating the impact of mineral development (nighttime lighting) on landscapes in 

remote areas. 

1.3.1.8 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

The current RMP does not reflect modifications in crucial habitat boundaries, habitat 

fragmentation, or raptor protection guidelines. The various goals, objectives, and management 

plans for wildlife and their habitat in the 1991 plan need to reflect these changes. This planning 

process will establish desired future conditions and address wildlife and fisheries concerns, 

including the following: 

• Addressing impacts of other resource uses (e.g., livestock grazing, recreation activities, 

OHV use) on wildlife and their habitat; 

• Protecting riparian habitat; 

• Investigating the impact of increased recreation use, primarily camping and OHVs, on 

riparian areas; 

• Increasing quality habitat for fish; 

• Determining the impact of other resource uses on wildlife habitat fragmentation; 

• Protecting sage-grouse habitat along with other resource uses of public lands and explore 

the possibility of buffer zones around leks; 

• Establishing seasonal restrictions on mineral extraction and visitor use to protect species 

during sensitive periods; 

• Assessing the impact of fire management on wildlife habitat and populations; 

1-8 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• Discovering the causes for the decline in bighorn sheep and pronghorn populations and 

new habitat areas; 

• Protecting new habitat areas, particularly for Lockhart Basin bighorn sheep; 

• Investigating the impact of drought on the declining quality of existing wildlife habitat; 

and 

• Assessing the impact of increasing antler-collection activities (presence and noise of 

people and vehicles, cross-country OHV travel, and related surface and vegetation 

disturbance) on wildlife populations and their habitat. 

1.3.1.9 OTHER ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES

In addition to the issues already identified for resolution in this planning process, Appendix C of 

the BLM's Land-use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a) requires that a variety of other decisions 

be made. The following is a brief description of these issues, concerns, and opportunities. For a 

more detailed discussion, please refer to the scoping report (BLM 2004b). 

Air quality within the Monticello PA may be impacted by increases in vehicle emissions, as well 

as smoke from prescribed and naturally caused wildland fires and other surface-disturbing 

activities. 

The planning process provides the opportunity to incorporate the Utah LUP amendment for fire 

and fuels management into the RMP. 

The RMP will identify lands for retention, disposal, and acquisition. The plan will designate 

utility corridors and communication sites, as well as lands to avoid and restrict rights-of-way 

(ROWs). 

The RMP will address areas available and unavailable for livestock grazing. 

The RMP will establish watershed objectives for the PA and address issues such as sensitive 

soils; biological soil crusts; soil erosion, salinity, and sedimentation; priority watersheds; 

floodplains; water quality; and pollution. 

The RMP will identify and update special-status species habitat within the PA and establish 

objectives to manage that habitat for species which include the Mexican Spotted Owl, 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and Gunnison Sage-grouse. 

Also included is the protection of aquatic and riparian habitat for these and other listed and 

candidate species. 

Some resource uses (e.g., grazing, mineral development, OHV use, and recreation) can impact 

the natural function and condition of watersheds. A healthy cover of perennial vegetation 

stabilizes the soil, increases infiltration, prevents runoff, provides clean water to adjacent 

streams, and minimizes noxious-weed invasion. The RMP will establish objectives to protect, 

maintain, and restore upland and riparian vegetation. 

The RMP will address a number of woodland issues, including forest health, fuel loading, 

human-caused wildland fire risks and hazards, desired woodland composition and function, and 

forest needs/harvesting. 

1-9 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

1.3.1.9.1 ISSUES ADDRESSED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE OR POLICY ACTION

Policy or administrative actions include those implemented by the BLM because they are 

standard operating procedures; because federal law, rule, or regulation requires them; or because 

they are BLM policy. Administrative actions do not require a planning decision to be 

implemented. 

The following issues raised during scoping are addressed by administrative actions: 

• Compliance with existing laws and policies (e.g., FLPMA, NEPA, Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), American Antiquities Act, Clean Air Act, National Historic Preservation Act);

• Education, enforcement/prosecution, vandalism, and volunteer coordination; 

• Consistency with existing federal, state, and local plans; 

• Cultural resource management, which includes up-to-date inventories, nondisclosure of 

sensitive sites, proposal of cultural sites for the National Register of Historic Places, and 

Native American consultation; 

• Management of existing WSAs, which will continue under the IMP (BLM 1995) except 

for planning decisions, related to VRM class and OHV categories, which will be made in 

this RMP. Only Congress can release a WSA from consideration. Should all or part of a 

WSA be released from consideration, proposals in the released area would be examined 

on a case-by-case basis for consistency with the goals and objectives of the RMP 

decisions. Actions inconsistent with RMP goals and objectives would be deferred until 

completion of requisite plan amendments. Because a plan amendment would be required, 

there is no separate analysis in this LUP to address resource impacts if any WSAs are 

released. 

• Completion of the inventory of riparian and wetland areas and the use of monitoring and 

mitigation to help protect these resources; 

• Recreation-management public outreach and education, including a comprehensive sign 

system and maps; 

• Administration of existing mineral leases, permits, and other authorized uses; 

• Wildlife and biodiversity monitoring; 

• Air quality monitoring; 

• Mitigation measures for approved, site-specific projects; 

• Noxious weeds control; 

• Establishment of forage use levels, on a site-specific basis, to maintain rangeland health; 

• Allocation of forage between livestock and wildlife and the application of specific 

management practices on allotments within the PA; 

• Eligibility standards for specially designated areas; 

• Coordination with local, state, and federal agencies; and 

• Cooperation with user groups. 

1-10 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

1.3.1.9.2 ISSUES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS BECAUSE THEY ARE BEYOND THE 

SCOPE OF THE PLAN

Issues beyond the scope of the RMP planning process include all those that do not relate to RMP 

decisions. They include decisions that are not under the jurisdiction of the Monticello FO or that 

the BLM cannot resolve as part of the planning process. Issues identified in this category include 

the following: 

• The State of Utah and San Juan and Grand counties may hold valid existing ROWs in the 

planning area pursuant to Revised Statute (RS) 2477, Act of July 28, 1866, Chapter 262, 

8, 14 Stat. 252, 253, codified at 43 USC 932. On October 21, 1976, Congress repealed 

R.S. 2477 through passage of FLPMA. This RMP does not adjudicate, analyze, or 

otherwise determine the validity of claimed ROWs. However, nothing in the RMP 

extinguishes any valid ROW, or alters in any way the legal rights the state and counties 

have to assert and protect RS 2477 rights or to challenge in federal court or other 

appropriate venue any use restrictions imposed by the RMP that they believe are 

inconsistent with their rights. 

• No new WSAs will be established, and no existing ones will be altered. 

• Elimination of grazing, mineral development, and OHV use on all public lands; 

• Regulation of activities and uses beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM; 

• Revision of existing laws, policies, and regulations; 

• Availability of funding and personnel to manage programs, including law enforcement; 

and 

• Consideration of alternative energy sources as substitutes for mineral development. 

1.3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are the constraints that guide and direct the RMP planning process, determine 

the way the planning team approaches alternative development, and help in selecting the 

Preferred Alternative. These criteria are based on appropriate laws, regulations, and policy, as 

well as public participation and coordination with cooperating agencies, other federal agencies, 

state and local governments, and Indian tribes. The planning criteria ensure that the RMP is 

consistent with the identified issues and concerns and that unnecessary data collection and 

analyses are avoided. 

The planning criteria developed during the preplanning analysis for the Monticello RMP include 

the following: 

• The RMP would recognize valid existing rights, including water rights. 

• Decisions made in the RMP would apply only to public lands and resources managed by 

the BLM. 

• The BLM would make all possible attempts to ensure that its management prescriptions 

and actions are as consistent as possible with other planning jurisdictions (both federal and 

nonfederal), subject to applicable law and policy. 

• Management plans would focus on the relative values of resources. 

1-11 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• The BLM would use the most current scientific information, research, technologies, and 

results of inventorying, monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate local and 

regional management strategies to enhance or restore impaired ecosystems. 

• Management of WSAs would continue under the IMP (BLM 1995). Should Congress 

release all or part of a WSA from consideration, resource management would be 

consistent with the revised RMP, subject to other constraints on the relevant lands. Should 

the need arise, the BLM may consider amending the plan consistent with applicable law. 

• Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management 

(adopted in 1997), and Guidelines for Recreation Management (adopted in 2001) would 

continue to be implemented. The standards and guidelines would apply to all alternatives 

analyzed in this EIS. 

• Decisions regarding OHV use would be consistent with the BLM's National OHV 

Strategy. 

• VRM class designations would be analyzed and modified to reflect present conditions and 

future needs. Areas where specific land uses need to be modified or restricted to resolve 

conflicts would be identified. 

• Sensitive watersheds would be identified, and watershed conditions would be determined. 

Emphasis would be placed on watersheds identified as high priority in conjunction with 

other cooperators such as the Utah State Division of Water Quality and the Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 

• Baseline reasonable foreseeable development scenarios would be prepared based on 

historical, existing, and projected levels for selected resource programs. 

• Planning would include preserving, conserving, and enhancing of important historical, 

cultural, paleontological, and natural components of public-land resources. Native 

American tribal coordination would be maintained to identify sites, areas, and objects 

important to their cultural and religious heritage. 

• Endangered-species recovery goals would be addressed and would including plans to 

reintroduce endangered and other species. In accordance with the Interagency 

Memorandum of Agreement on the ESA regarding Section 7 consultation, the BLM 

would jointly prepare a programmatic consultation agreement with the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

• The socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives would be analyzed. 

• Vegetation management objectives or desired future conditions would be developed for all 

parts of the PA. 

1.3.3 COLLECTION OF INVENTORY DATA AND INFORMATION

Monticello FO resource specialists have collected inventory data and resource information to 

provide the basis for preparing the RMP. When available, new information will be used in 

analyzing the EIS alternatives and making planning decisions. 

Geographic information systems (GIS) have been and will be used throughout the EIS analysis to 

store, display, and analyze resource information and data, including acreage calculations, site 

locations, maps, and areas of potential conflicts over resource use. After completion and 

approval of the RMP, this GIS information will continue to be used for resource management 

1-12 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

and activity and project planning, and additional updated resource data will continue to be 

collected and entered into the GIS. 

Other documents prepared to help guide the development of this RMP include the following: 

• The Mineral Potential Report (BLM 2005b) 

• The Scoping Report (BLM 2004b) 

• Analysis of the Management Situation (BLM 2005c) 

• Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas (BLM 2005d) 

• ACEC Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACECs (BLM 2005e) 

• Wild and Scenic River Report (BLM 2004c) 

• Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Evaluations (BLM 2007a) 

1.3.4 ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION (AMS) 

The AMS describes the existing status and management of resources and facilities within the 

Monticello PA. It provides an analysis of the management programs administered by the 

Monticello FO, assesses the capability of resources to meet current demands, and assesses the 

adequacy of current management practices. Where no management concerns or conflicts are 

identified, current management practices are carried forward into the Proposed RMP. Any 

identified problems or concerns involving resource allocations, land use, or management 

practices are resolved through this EIS process. Copies of the AMS for the current planning 

process are available for public review at the Monticello FO and the BLM Utah state office in 

Salt Lake City. 

1.3.5 PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (DRMP) AND DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) 

The draft stage of the RMP comprises alternative formulation, analysis, impacts disclosure, and 

selection of a Preferred Alternative. 

The No-Action Alternative described in the DEIS is management under the current RMP, plus 

subsequent planning documents and amendments. As required by CEQ regulations, alternative 

actions are formulated to represent a reasonable range of management options that emphasize 

certain uses or resource values over others under the multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate of 

the FLPMA to achieve certain goals or objectives (see Section 1.3.1., Scoping and Identifying 

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities). The NEPA requires the BLM to analyze and disclose the 

effects of the various alternatives. Based on that analysis, the BLM identified and recommended 

Alternative C as the Preferred Alternative. This is documented in the Draft RMP/EIS, which was 

distributed to the public for review and comment from November 2, 2007, to February 14, 2008. 

1.3.6 SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PRMP)/FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS) 

Following review and analysis of public and internal comments and further coordination with the 

Cooperating Agencies on the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM has made adjustments as warranted and 

has crafted a Proposed RMP. In developing the Proposed RMP and FEIS, an alternative in its 

entirety or a combination of components of the various alternatives presented may be brought 

forward. Regulations (43 CFR §§1610.3-2(e) and 1610.5-2, respectively), provide, prior to the 

1-13 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

approval of the Proposed RMP, a 60-day period for the governor of Utah to make a "consistency 

review" and a 30-day period for "any person who participated in the planning process and has an 

interest which is or may be adversely affected by the approval" of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

to protest to the BLM director. These two periods will run concurrently upon release of the 

PRMP/FEIS. 

1.3.7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Monitoring is the repeated measurement of activities and conditions over time. Evaluation is a 

process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if management goals and 

objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Monitoring data gathered over 

time are examined and used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting 

stated objectives, and if not, why. Conclusions are used to make recommendations on whether to 

continue current management or determine changes needed in management practices to meet 

objectives. 

Two types of monitoring tied to the planning process include implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring. Land-use plan monitoring is the process of (1) tracking the implementation of landuse planning decisions and (2) collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate 

the effectiveness of land-use planning decisions. The two types of monitoring are described 

below. 

• Implementation Monitoring: Implementation monitoring is the most basic type of 

monitoring and simply determines whether planned activities have been implemented in 

the manner prescribed by the plan. Some agencies call this compliance monitoring. This 

monitoring documents BLM's progress toward full implementation of the LUP decision. 

There are no specific thresholds or indicators required for this type of monitoring. 

• Effectiveness Monitoring: Effectiveness monitoring is aimed at determining if the 

implementation of activities has achieved the desired goals and objectives. Effectiveness 

monitoring asks the question: Was the specified activity successful in achieving the 

objective? This requires knowledge of the objectives established in the RMP as well as 

indicators that can be measured. Indicators are established by technical specialists in order 

to address specific questions and thus avoid collection of unnecessary data. Success is 

measured against the benchmark of achieving desired future conditions established by the 

plan. 

Regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-9) require that the proposed plan establish intervals and standards, 

as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluation of the plan, based on the sensitivity of the resource 

decisions involved. Progress in meeting the plan objectives and adherence to the management 

framework established by the plan is reviewed periodically. The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA state that agencies may provide for monitoring 

to assure that their decisions are carried out and should do so in important cases (40 CFR 

1505.2[c]). To meet these requirements, the BLM will review the plan on a regular schedule in 

order to provide consistent tracking of accomplishments and provide information that can be 

used to develop annual budget requests to continue implementation. 

Land-use plan evaluations will be used by BLM to determine if the decisions in the RMP, 

supported by the accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid. Evaluation of the RMP will 

generally be conducted every five years per BLM policy, unless unexpected actions, new 

1-14 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

information, or significant changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation triggers an evaluation. 

Land-use plan evaluations determine whether decisions are being implemented, whether 

mitigation measures are satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of 

other entities, whether there are new data of significance to the plan, and whether decisions 

should be changed through amendment or revision. Evaluations will follow the protocols 

established by the BLM Land-use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 in effect at the time the 

evaluation is initiated. Specific monitoring and evaluation needs are identified by resource/uses 

throughout Chapter 2. 

1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER POLICIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS

This planning process must recognize the many ongoing programs, plans, and policies that are 

being implemented in the Monticello PA by other land managers and government agencies. The 

BLM will seek to be consistent or complementary with other management actions whenever 

possible. Plans and policies that need to be considered during the Monticello planning effort are 

outlined below. 

1.4.1 STATE OF UTAH PLANS 

• SITLA cooperative agreement and other plans 

• Canyonlands Natural History Association cooperative agreement 

• Regional plans of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) 

• State of Utah plans relating to wildlife habitat and watershed management 

• Utah's State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 

• Utah's Smoke Management Plan 

• Utah's State Implementation Plan 

• Utah's Nonpoint Source Management Plan 

• Utah's Sensitive Species List 

• Utah's List of Impaired Waters (303 d) 

• Utah's Water Resources Planning for the Future 

• Utah's Water Plan: Southeast Colorado River Basin 

• Utah's Rules for Edge of the Cedars State Park Museum and Gooseneck State Park 

• Utah's Big Horn Sheep Statewide Management Plan 

• San Juan Elk Management Plan 

• Statewide Management Plan for Elk 

1.4.2 COUNTY LAND-USE PLANS

• San Juan County, Utah: San Juan County Master Plan (2008) 

• Grand County, Utah: Grand County General Plan Update (2004) 

1.4.3 OTHER FEDERAL PLANS

• Canyonlands National Park Natural Resource Management Plan (1994) 

• Canyonlands National Park General Management Plan (1974) 

• Canyonlands National Park Backcountry Management Plan (1984, 1995) 

1-15 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• Manti–La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986) 

• Strategic Plans for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Rainbow Bridge National 

Monument (2005, 2007) 

• Hovenweep National Monument Plan (draft) 

• Glen Canyon NRA Grazing Management Plan (1999) 

• Glen Canyon NRA Minerals Management Plan (1980) 

• Cooperative Management Strategies: Hovenweep National Monument, Colorado–Utah 

(1987) 

• Canyon of the Ancients Monument-Resource Management Plan (draft) 

• San Juan–San Miguel Resource Management Plan (1986) 

• Moab Resource Management Plan (draft) 

• Richfield Resource Management Plan (draft) 

• Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan (2000) 

1.4.4 ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT (EPCA) 

In May 2001, the Comprehensive National Energy Policy was issued, which directed the 

secretary of the interior to "...examine land status and lease stipulation impediments to federal 

oil and gas leasing, and review and modify those where opportunities exist (consistent with the 

law, good environmental practice and balanced use of other resources)" (NEPDG 2001). 

Under this directive, the assistant secretary of the Interior for Lands and Minerals Management 

delivered to Congress an inventory of U.S. oil and gas resources in five western basins, as well 

as the extent and nature of any restrictions or impediments to their development. This report was 

prepared at the request of Congress under the provisions of the 2000 Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) (BLM 2003a). 

In April 2003, the BLM specified four EPCA integration principles, as follows: 

• Environmental protection and energy production are both desirable and necessary 

objectives of sound land management and are not to be considered mutually exclusive 

priorities. 

• The BLM must ensure appropriate accessibility to energy resources necessary for the 

nation's security while recognizing that special and unique non-energy resources can be 

preserved. 

• Sound planning will weigh relative resource values, consistent with the FLPMA. 

• All resource impacts, including those associated with energy development and 

transmission will be mitigated to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation (BLM 2003a). 

1.4.5 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR 

AND U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE: IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 225 OF THE ENERGY 

POLICY ACT OF 2005 REGARDING GEOTHERMAL LEASING AND PERMITTING 

The purpose of this MOU is to facilitate interagency coordination and establish policies and 

procedures to implement Section 225 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58 

(hereinafter, the Act). Section 225 requires the coordination of geothermal leasing and permitting 

1-16 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

on public lands and National Forest Service (NFS) lands between the secretaries of the interior 

and agriculture. 

1.4.6 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE 

The purpose of this MOU is to establish joint BLM and USFS policies and procedures for 

managing oil and gas leasing and operational activities pursuant to oil and gas leases on NFS 

lands, consistent with applicable law and policy. The MOU was signed in 2006 for the purpose 

of efficient, effective compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. The MOU 

establishes the roles of the USFS and the BLM in processing applications for permits to drill and 

review of subsequent operations. 

1.4.7 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The purpose of this MOU is to establish joint BLM and National Park Service policies and 

procedures for administer livestock grazing leases, subject to the values and purposes of Glen 

Canyon NRA lands. 

1.4.8 OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS LEASING PROGRAMMATIC EIS (PEIS) 

The Monticello FO contains areas of tar sands. This resource has been, and currently is, available 

for lease under the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 and in accordance with the 

decisions in the existing BLM LUPs/amendments. 

These major tar-sand resources lie only in Utah within 11 designated special tar-sands areas 

(STSAs) managed by the BLM Vernal, Price, Richfield, and Monticello FOs. One of these 

STSAs lies within the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument, where leasing is 

prohibited. The Monticello FO manages one of the remaining 10 STSAs. 

When the Monticello RMP revision was initiated in 2002, there was no reasonable foreseeable 

development expectation for tar sands. The mineral report identified this resource but did not 

expect any leasing or development due to prevailing and anticipated economic factors. 

After the start of this RMP revision, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 

369 of the Energy Policy Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to "complete a programmatic 

environmental impact statement for a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands 

resources on public lands, with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands within 

each of the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming." On December 13, 2005, the BLM 

published a NOI in the Federal Register initiating a Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) to support a commercial oil-shale and tar-sands leasing program on federal 

lands in these three states. 

In light of this statutory requirement, all decisions related to tar-sands leasing in this RMP are 

being deferred to the ongoing PEIS on oil-shale and tar-sands leasing. In the event that the ROD 

on the final PEIS on oil shale and tar sands is issued before one for the Monticello Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS, the decisions in the oil-shale and tar-sands ROD will be incorporated into the 

Monticello RMP. 

1-17 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

Combined hydrocarbon and tar-sand leasing in the STSAs will also be deferred to the PEIS. 

Additional opportunities for public involvement and comment will occur when the draft of the 

PEIS becomes available. Site-specific requirements will be addressed in future NEPA analysis 

for particular project applications after the PEIS is completed. This RMP will, however, develop 

allocation decisions for conventional oil and gas leasing in the STSAs. 

1.4.9 THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 AND THE WESTERN ENERGY CORRIDOR 

An interagency West-wide energy corridor PEIS is currently being developed to implement 

Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Energy Right-of-way Corridors on federal land). 

The final West-wide energy corridor PEIS will amend RMPs in the western U.S., providing 

decisions to address numerous energy corridor issues, including the utilization of existing 

corridors (with enhancements and upgrades) and the identification of new ones, supply and 

demand considerations, and compatibility with other corridor and project-planning efforts. It is 

likely that the identification of corridors in the West-wide energy corridor PEIS will affect the 

Monticello PA. Consequently, the decisions in the ROD on the final West-wide energy corridor 

PEIS will be incorporated into the Monticello RMP. 

1.4.10 ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS

• The Recovery Implementation Plan for the Endangered Fish Species in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin (USFWS 1987) 

• Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984, 1990a, 2002a) 

• Humpback Chub Recovery Plan (USFWS 1979, 1990a, 2002b) 

• Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Plan (USFWS 1978, 1990, 1991, 2002c) 

• Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) 

• Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999, 2002d) 

• Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (USFWS 2002e) 

1.4.11 EXISTING EISS

• Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional Final EIS (1984) 

• Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness EIS (1990) 

• Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM-administered Lands in the 

Western United States (BLM 2005f) 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen 

Western States and associated Records of Decision (1991). 

• Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Record of Decision 

(2007). 

• Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Report (2007). 

1.4.12 OTHER BLM PLANS

• Red Canyon/White Canyon Habitat Management Plan (1990) 

• Beef Basin Habitat Management Plan (1992) 

1-18 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• Hatch Point Habitat Management Plan (1976) 

• Fire Management Plan Amendment (2005) 

• San Juan County Landfill Plan Amendment (1995) 

• Montezuma Creek River Basin Study (1992) 

• Grand Gulch Plateau Cultural and Recreation Area Management Plan (1993) 

• Indian Creek Corridor Plan (2005) 

• East Canyon Allotment Management Plan (1993) 

• Tank Draw Allotment Management Plan (1993) 

• Gunnison Sage-grouse Range-wide Conservation Plan (2005) 

1.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PLAN

This section provides a brief description of the Proposed Plan, which presents opportunities to 

use and develop resources within the planning area while ensuring resource protection. The 

Proposed Plan would provide for continued access to and development of resources with 

stipulations and mitigation to protect natural and cultural resources. 

As identified in Table 2.1, key resource decisions on public lands include but are not limited to 

the following: 

• Air Quality: Work cooperatively with state, federal, and tribal entities in developing air 

quality assessment protocols to address cumulative impacts and regional air quality issues. 

• Cultural Resources: Authorizations for land and resource use would comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), consistent with and subject to the 

objectives established in the RMP for the proactive use of cultural properties in the public 

interest. Consultations with Native American tribes would occur to identify, protect, and 

maintain access for areas of traditional and religious use that include but are not limited to 

burials, rock art, traditional use areas, religiously active areas, and sacred sites. 

• Fire Management: Adopts the comprehensive Utah LUP amendment for fire and fuels 

management of September 2005, which addresses activities associated with ESR, 

prevention/mitigation, fuels treatment, wildfire use, suppression, and priorities. 

• Health and Safety: Ensures that human health and safety concerns on the public lands are 

appropriately mitigated if it is determined hazardous materials waste (including 

abandoned mines) are present. 

• Lands and Realty: Defines exclusion and avoidance areas for ROWs and outlines 

processes for filming, Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP), trespass resolution, access, 

easements, land tenure adjustments, transportation, and utility corridors and withdrawals. 

• Livestock Grazing: Manages grazing according to Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management. Maintains lands currently unavailable for livestock 

grazing (due to vegetation, recreation, wildlife, or other concerns) and existing land 

treatments. Also addressed is utilization, unavailable areas, preference relinquishment, 

season of use and forage. Makes 1,621,515 acres available to grazing and 134,277 acres 

unavailable to grazing. 

• Minerals: Provides for a variety of mineral exploration and development activities. 

1-19 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• Mineral Entry: Maintains 1,734,458 acres as available to mineral entry and recommends 

50,665 acres for withdrawal from mineral entry 

• Mineral Disposal: Makes 624,734 acres available with standard terms and conditions 

and 724.234 acres available with special conditions. 

• Oil and Gas Leasing: Open with standard terms and conditions 495,431 acres; open with 

moderate terms and conditions (controlled surface use and timing limitations) 732,476 

acres; open with no surface occupancy 50,942 acres; and closed to leasing 491,553 acres. 

• Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Manages 88,871 acres for 

wilderness characteristics in Dark Canyon (11,540 acres), Mancos Mesa (30,068 acres), 

Nokai Dome West (14,988 acres), Nokai Dome East (18,618 acres), and Grand Gulch 

(13,657 acres). 

• Paleontology: In areas where surface disturbance, either initiated by BLM or by other 

land users, may threaten substantial or noteworthy fossils, BLM would follow its policy 

per Paleontology Resources Management Manual and Handbook 8370-1 (BLM 1998a) to 

assess any threat and mitigate damage. 

• Recreation: Outlines guidelines, general decisions, existing/future facilities, launch limits, 

commercial/private allocations, visitor services, campsites, campfires, wood collection, 

non-boating use, grazing, watershed, pet/stock animals and general policies regarding 

SRPs (commercial and competitive). Approximately 562,824 acres are included within 7 

SRMAs: San Juan River (9,859 acres); Dark Canyon (30,820 acres); White Canyon (2,828 

acres); Tank Bench (2,646 acres); Beef Basin (20,302 acres); Indian Creek (89,271 acres); 

and Cedar Mesa (407,098 acres), which includes management zones for Grand Gulch 

NHL (37,388 acres), Comb Ridge (38,012 acres), and McLoyd Canyon–Moon House 

(1,607 acres). 

• Riparian: Develops strategies and restrictions necessary to meet or maintain Proper 

Functioning Condition (PFC). Develops seasonal restrictions, closures, and/or forage 

utilization limits on grazing in riparian areas considered "functioning at risk." Temporarily 

closes riparian areas considered functioning at risk to dispersed motorized camping until 

PFC is restored. 

• Soil and Water: Emphasizes management of watershed health and sensitive soils by 

addressing surface-disturbing activities and slope limits. 

• Special Designations: Designates, modifies, and manages areas as ACECs where special 

management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important 

historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, other natural systems or 

processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. Approximately 73,492 acres 

are included within seven ACECs: 1) Alkali Ridge (Cultural) 39,196 acres; 2) Hovenweep 

(Cultural) 2,439 acres; 3) Indian Creek (Scenic) 3,905; 4) Lavender Mesa (Relic 

Vegetation) 649 acres; 5) San Juan River (Scenic, Cultural, Wildlife, & Natural Systems) 

4,321 acres; 6) Shay Canyon (Cultural) 119 acres; and 7) Valley of the Gods (Scenic) 

22,863 acres. 

• Special Designations: Identifies eligible WSR segments that would be managed 

according BLM Manual 8351, Wild and Scenic Rivers–Policy and Program Direction for 

Identification, Evaluation, and Management. Approximately 35.7 miles are included 

within four eligible WSR segments: Colorado River Segment 2 (5.5 miles/880 acres); 

1-20 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

Colorado River Segment 3 (6.5 miles/1,040 acres); Dark Canyon (6.4 miles/2,048 acres); 

and San Juan River Segment 5 (17.3 miles/2,768 acres). 

• Special Designations: Manages 13 WSAs (391,599 acres): Mancos Mesa (51,440 acres), 

Grand Gulch ISA Complex (105,520 acres), Road Canyon (52,420 acres), Fish Creek 

Canyon (46,440 acres), Mule Canyon (5,990 acres), Cheesebox Canyon (15,410 acres), 

Dark Canyon ISA Complex (68,030 acres), Butler Wash (24,190 acres), Bridger Jack 

Mesa (5,290 acres), Indian Creek (6,870 acres), South Needles (160 acres), Squaw and 

Papoose Canyons (6,676 acres), and Cross Canyon (1,008 acres).. 

• Special Status Species: Avoidance and minimization measures would be used for all 

surface-disturbing activities to comply with the ESA, the BLM state director's sensitive 

plant and animal species, and the BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management. 

• Travel Management: Designates 1,388,191 acres as "limited to designated routes," and 

393,895 acres as “closed.” Special seasonal stipulations are applied to Arch Canyon and 

the last portion of the route past the state section to McLoyd Canyon–Moon House would 

be closed. 

• Vegetation: Manages seed gathering, identifies vegetation treatments, and controls 

invasive and non-native weed species. 

• Visual Resource Management: Activities would comply with VRM management class 

objectives, unless a waiver, exemption, or modification is granted. Designates PA as Class 

I (422,989 acres), Class II (228,041 acres), Class III (507,583) acres, and Class IV 

(623,002 acres). 

• Wildlife and Fisheries: Discusses protocols for introduction, transplantation, 

augmentation, reestablishment, animal damage control, habitat improvement/protection, 

seasonal areas, off-site mitigation and habitat boundaries. 

• Woodlands: Identifies zones for private/commercial use of woodland products, prioritizes 

treatments in high value/risk areas and continues permits. 

1.6 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM DRAFT RMP/EIS TO THE PROPOSED PLAN 

RMP/FINAL EIS

The Draft RMP/EIS was released to the public on November 2, 2007, which initiated a 90-day 

comment period. Comments were received from the public, cooperators, and other interested 

parties. See Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, for details of the public comment process. 

As a result of public comment and internal review of the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM has 

formulated the Proposed Plan in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed Plan/RMP consists 

of a combination of all the alternatives. Changes regarding the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives focused on adjustments in order to address public concerns while continuing to meet 

the BLM's legal and regulatory mandates. Changes are a result of the following: 

• Adjustments to decisions; 

• clarifications and cross-tracking to better explain the management proposed in the Draft 

RMP/EIS; 

• updates to information; 

• updates to maps; and 

1-21 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• minor corrections, including typographical errors. 

A few of the decision changes in the Proposed Plan are outside of the range of alternatives, but 

are not significant changes that require substantive new analysis. Discussion of these changes is 

provided below. 

1.6.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO DECISIONS BETWEEN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

(DRAFT EIS) AND THE PROPOSED PLAN (FINAL EIS)

• The decisions in the alternatives brought forward have not changed from the Draft RMP, 

except for minor clarifications and cross-tracking. 

• Αir Quality: New information concerning coordination efforts, responsibilities, and State 

of Utah requirements concerning air quality emissions has been added to the Common to 

All section. 

• Cultural Resources: All Cultural Special Management Areas (CSMA) have been 

renamed as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) or Recreation Management 

Zones (RMA) within SRMAs and moved to the Recreation section of Chapter 2. Name 

changes include the following: 

 Comb Ridge CSMA = Comb Ridge RMZ within the Cedar Mesa SRMA 

 Tank Bench CSMA = Tank Bench SRMA 

 Beef Basin CSMA = Beef Basin SRMA 

 McLoyd Canyon–Moon House CSMA = McLoyd Canyon–Moon House RMZ 

within the Cedar Mesa SRMA 

 Grand Gulch National Historic District CSMA = Grand Gulch National Historic 

District RMZ within the Cedar Mesa SRMA. 

No decisions have changed; they have just been moved over to the Recreation section under the 

SRMAs. 

• Historic Trails: This whole section has been moved under the Special Designations 

section. 

• Lands and Realty: The Common to All portion has been reworded to clarify differences 

between FLPMA Section 203 and 206 land disposals. The ROW Avoidance and 

Exclusion areas have been listed out in the Proposed Plan for clarity. Acreage has been 

adjusted from Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) because five areas outside of WSAs 

with wilderness characteristics have been added to the Avoidance areas. In addition, the 

Comb Ridge RMZ, Valley of the Gods ACEC, Indian Creek ACEC, and the Dark Canyon 

wild and scenic river segment were not carried into the Proposed Plan as mineral 

withdrawal recommendations. 

• Livestock Grazing: Language on voluntary relinquishment has been clarified to mirror 

existing BLM policy. Acreage calculated as unavailable to grazing has been increased by a 

few thousand acres due to GIS calculations. No decisions have changed. 

• Mineral Resources: Acreages for lands that are available for leasing under standard lease 

terms, minor constraints (CSU and TL), major constraints (NSO), and unavailable for 

leasing have been modified due to a myriad of decisions brought forward into the 

Proposed Plan from within the range of alternatives. Most notable are the five areas 

1-22 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

carried forward to protect their wilderness characteristics (88,871 acres); four of the five 

areas would be unavailable to leasing, and one would be NSO. 

• Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Five areas have been brought 

forward from Alternative E into the Proposed Plan to protect, preserve and maintain their 

wilderness characteristics (88,871 acres). There were no non-WSA lands identified for 

management of those values in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) in the Draft 

RMP/EIS. Various management prescriptions have been selected in the Proposed Plan to 

protect the wilderness characteristics. 

• Recreation: New prescriptions for Recreation under the Common to All portion of this 

resource have been added and cross-tracked from the Cultural Section because they are 

pertinent to the recreation user. 

 The Cedar Mesa Cultural Special Recreation Management Area has been renamed 

the Cedar Mesa Special Recreation Management Area consistent with existing 

policy and handbook guidance. Three Recreation Management Zones (RMZs) 

have been identified within the Cedar Mesa SRMA. These RMZs were identified 

as Cultural Special Management Areas (CSMAs) in the Cultural Resources 

section of the Draft RMP alternatives. In the Proposed Plan, they are now the 

Comb Ridge RMZ, McLoyd Canyon–Moon House RMZ, and the Grand Gulch 

National Historic District RMZ within the Cedar Mesa SRMA. The Cedar Mesa 

SRMA gained acreage as a result of adding the Comb Ridge RMZ. All 

management prescriptions have been carried over from the Cultural Resources 

section, and no new prescriptions were included. 

 The Tank Bench SRMA and Beef Basin SRMA have been added to the 

Recreation Section. These areas and their prescriptions were transferred over from 

the Cultural Resources section where they were identified as Cultural Special 

Management Areas in the Draft RMP. This is basically a formatting change, and 

no new decisions have been added based on these changes. 

 In the Dark Canyon SRMA, the limit on group size numbers has been increased 

from 15 in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) to 18 in the Proposed Plan. 

Although this is outside the range of alternatives, it is a minimal change of three 

persons and would have negligible, if any, impact on the analysis or other 

decisions in this plan. This change was in response to public comment on industry 

standards for group size. 

 Within the decision space for the Extensive Recreation Management Area, the 

Proposed Plan clarified that off-road camping within 150 feet of designated routes 

would not be allowed in WSAs, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

(88,871 acres), wild and scenic river corridors, ACECs, and threatened and 

endangered species habitat. In addition, the limitations on commercial 

recreational events were cross-tracked and carried into this section from the 

Cultural Resources section. 

• Soil and Water Resources: A new guidance statement was added concerning the 

application of best management practices and mitigation when working in sensitive soil 

areas in order to be in conformance with current policy. 

• Special Designations: ACECs 

1-23 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

 Alkali Ridge ACEC: Clarified coordination responsibilities with the SHPO, 

provided more guidance for cultural mitigation, changed the VRM classification 

from VRM IV (Alternative C) to VRM III (Proposed Plan), changed oil and gas 

leasing category to minor constraints (CSU). Changing the leasing category 

appears to be outside of the range of alternatives, however, the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative A), was incorrectly displayed as open with standard lease 

terms. The existing San Juan Resource RMP maps all show the Alkali Ridge area 

to be under a CSU stipulation. This does not affect the analysis to any extent, 

however, because existing laws, rules, and regulations would require surfacedisturbing activities to be mitigated in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, 

and the CSU stipulation basically reiterates the importance of protecting the 

cultural resources in the area. The CSU stipulation does not preclude leasing or 

other surface-disturbing activities in this area. In addition, it was clarified in the 

Proposed Plan that off-road travel for wood collection would not be allowed in 

this culturally sensitive area until future level III cultural inventories are 

completed. In the National Historic District of this ACEC, clarification was added 

for the term “casual use” for geophysical activities. In addition, it was clarified 

that campfires would not be allowed in this area. 

 Hovenweep ACEC: Clarified coordination responsibilities with the SHPO, 

provided more guidance for cultural mitigation, changed the VRM classification 

in the 880 acre visual emphasis zone from VRM III (Alternative C) to VRM II 

(Proposed Plan). Although this is outside of the range of alternatives, the affect of 

this change is minimal because this area is and continues to be under a No Surface 

Occupancy (NSO) leasing stipulation, where surface-disturbing activities are 

limited. 

 In the prescriptions for Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC, Lavender Mesa ACEC, Indian 

Creek ACEC, Shay Canyon ACEC, and Valley of the Gods ACEC, management 

decisions have been carried forward and cross-tracked from other portions of the 

RMP for clarification. The Indian Creek ACEC has changed from an OHVlimited area to closed to OHV use in the Proposed Plan. 

 The San Juan River ACEC has been decreased in size because Segment 5 of the 

San Juan River has been excluded from the ACEC management and added as a 

wild and scenic river segment under its own management prescriptions in the 

Proposed Plan. A decision has been added to the ACEC section on livestock 

grazing that was cross-tracked with the San Juan River SRMA. 

• Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

 The San Juan River wild and scenic river segment 5 (17.3 miles) has been brought 

forward as a wild-suitable river segment in the Proposed Plan. It would no longer 

be part of the San Juan River ACEC. 

 Clarification was added in the Common to All section to reiterate that the White 

Canyon river segment no longer meets the eligibility criteria for wild and scenic 

river consideration and was not carried forward into the Draft or Proposed Plan. 

• Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas 

 Clarification of the two decisions needed for WSAs during this planning process 

were clearly displayed for both VRM and OHVs. 

1-24 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• Special Status Species: Moved much of the specific information on threatened and 

endangered species into Appendix A, B, and Q. Provided a policy statement concerning 

the Gunnison prairie-dog and added a map displaying its habitat in the Map section. 

Changed the year-round habitat seasonal restrictions for the Gunnison Sage-grouse from 6 

miles to 4 miles in accordance with the regional Gunnison Sage-grouse plan. 

 In the Mexican Spotted Owl habitat in Arch Canyon, changed the OHV open 

route distance from 3.8 miles in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) to 8 

miles (to the Forest Service boundary) in the Proposed Plan (with seasonal 

restrictions for organized and commercial groups). 

• Travel Management: The Indian Creek and Butler Wash areas that were open to crosscountry use (2,311 acres) in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would be limited to 

designated roads and trails in the Proposed Plan. 

 The Arch Canyon route, which was limited to 3.8 miles for OHV use in the 

Preferred Alternative (Alternative C), is changed to allow for OHV use for 8 

miles (to the Forest Service boundary) in the Proposed Plan (with seasonal 

restrictions for organized and commercial groups). 

 Numerous changes in acreages have been made to all three categories (open, 

closed, and limited) due to the changes made throughout Chapter 2 between the 

Draft Preferred Alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

 The seven ways in the WSAs that would be limited to designated roads and trails 

in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) have been removed from this section 

in the Proposed Plan. This is because the Proposed Plan would close all ways in 

Mancos Mesa, and some remaining routes (four or fewer) in the three WSAs in 

Cedar Mesa would have temporary, conditional use to limited to trail heads until 

such time as they can be relocated outside of the WSAs. They would not be 

“designated” under the Travel Plan. 

• Visual Resource Management: Minor changes to the VRM acreage appear between the 

Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) and the Proposed Plan, but these are GIS glitches, 

and all VRM Class I areas remain the same. Changes between VRM Class II and III are 

attributed to a myriad of changes between the Draft and the Proposed Plan. Only changing 

the 880 acres in the Hovenweep visual sensitive zone from a VRM III to a VRM II is 

outside the range of alternatives, and as noted above is not a significant change because 

the areas was already under an NSO for oil and gas leasing, and also has other restrictive 

management commensurate with a VRM Class II objective. 

• Wildlife and Fisheries Resources: Crucial big game habitat boundaries increased in size 

between the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) in the Draft and the Proposed Plan. In 

August 2005, the UDWR changed its wildlife habitat classification system. Prior to 2005, 

the UDWR classification system distinguished between "critical" habitat (an area that 

provides for biological and/or behavioral requisites necessary to sustain the existence 

and/or perpetuation of a wildlife population) and "high value" habitat (an area that 

provides for intensive use by the species). The UDWR has been criticized for using the 

term "critical," as the same term refers to habitat federally designated by the USFWS as 

required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

 In previous BLM planning efforts, mitigation decisions (usually timing 

stipulations) for impacts to the UDWR's "critical" habitats have been integrated 

1-25 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

into the planning process. The BLM rarely incorporated management decisions in 

its RMPs for "high value" habitats. The UDWR changed its classification system 

to include "critical" habitat with "high value" habitat, in part to accommodate the 

limitations of having classifications that were of no practical value to land 

managers. The new term "crucial" habitat is defined by the UDWR as "habitat on 

which the local population of a wildlife species depends for survival because there 

are no alternative ranges or habitats available. Crucial habitat is essential to the 

life-history requirements of a wildlife species. Degradation or loss of crucial 

habitat will lead to significant declines in the wildlife population in question." 

 Crucial habitat boundaries appear larger on the wildlife maps in this Proposed 

Plan because they are a combination of the UDWR's old "critical" habitat and 

"high value" habitat, with some minor modifications. Timing stipulations for each 

of the species now apply to the whole crucial habitat area. It is important to note, 

however, that the application of waivers, exceptions, and modifications, as 

outlined in Appendix A, will be taken into consideration and used where/when 

applicable for all surface-disturbing activities in these areas. The range of 

alternatives in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS considered both of the UDWR's old 

classifications of critical and high-value habitat. Minor boundary modifications 

have been made by the UDWR prior to incorporating them into crucial habitat 

boundaries. Because this information was taken into consideration and analyzed 

in the draft, these minor changes are not considered significant in terms of 

resource uses and/or analysis in this Proposed Plan, and therefore a supplement to 

this EIS is not necessary for this purpose. 

 References to Appendix A have been added to emphasize the waiver, exception, 

and modification language that applies to the timing stipulation for these species. 

• Woodlands: Clarification was added that the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would not be open to woodcutting. In both the North Comb Ridge 

Woodcutting Zone and the Montezuma Watershed Woodcutting Zone, clarification was 

added that off-road travel would not be allowed for woodcutting until future Class III 

surveys for cultural resources have been completed. Vehicles must stay on designated 

routes only 

1.6.2 CLARIFICATIONS

In addition to the modifications to the Proposed Plan, information has been updated and 

language clarified in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS in response to questions and comments 

received on the Draft RMP/EIS. Major clarifications are: 

• Identified implementation-level decisions by placing them in italics and asterisking with a 

footnote. 

• Health and Safety: Added prescriptions for human health and safety and hazardous 

materials with associated narratives. 

• Minerals: Added statement on Best Management Practices (BMPs) under Oil and Gas 

Leasing. 

• Riparian: Clarified Management Common to All regarding new surface-disturbing 

activities to be consistent with BLM riparian policy. 

1-26 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

• Recreation under SRMAs: Provided additional rationale for the goals and objectives for 

each SRMA. Clarified that Dark Canyon SRMA would be managed under IMP since it is 

entirely within the Dark Canyon WSA. 

• Special Status Species: Removed management prescriptions for individual species under 

Management Common to All (MCA) because these are listed in Appendix A, B, and Q. 

• Vegetation: Clarified goals for vegetation management. 

• Lands and Realty: Clarified "reasonable access" to SITLA lands and that BLM will 

prioritize SITLA land exchange proposals. 

• Cross-tracked decisions from different resource sections of Chapter 2 and brought them 

forth into appropriate sections for better understanding of the area’s management. 

• Made numerous minor changes to language and presentation of the information for better 

internal and public understanding of the decisions. 

• Reorganized and reformatted Appendix A to add clarity to the stipulations for surface 

disturbance. 

• Augmented Appendix H to include the threats to relevance and importance criteria for the 

potential ACECs. 

1.6.3 UPDATES TO DATA

• The Executive Summary and Chapter 1 have been updated to reflect the Proposed Plan. 

• Chapter 2 includes the Proposed Plan as well as all of the Draft Alternatives from the 

Draft EIS.

• Ιnformation was added to Chapters 3 and 4 on global climate change. 

• Added air quality data from Canyonlands National Park to Chapter 3. 

• Included baseline information on SITLA lands to describe how they interrelate with public 

lands. 

• The Utah State University social survey results were added as an Appendix R. 

• Socioeconomic data were updated from the year 2000 to the year 2007. Added updated 

data on socioeconomics, including severance taxes and property taxes. Added wage 

distribution for recreation jobs in the socio-economic sections of Chapters 3 and 4. 

• The Bald Eagle was removed from Threatened and Endangered Species headings 

• Updated conservation measures from the USFWS were added to the Appendices A, B and 

Q 

• A new Appendix T was added to include a letter from State of Utah outlining special 

requirements for reducing potential impacts on air quality. 

• Chapter 4 has been updated to reflect the new analysis for the Proposed Plan 

• Chapter 5 has been updated to include county and state consistency tables as well as other 

pertinent plans. It also includes a description of the process used for assessing public 

comments, comments provided by Cooperating Agencies and BLM responses, as well as 

other public comments that required changes to the Proposed Plan. Reference is made to a 

compact disc (CD) that provides all substantive public comments and BLM response to 

those comments. The CD provides two databases: one sorted by commenter name and the 

other sorted by resource concern. 

1-27 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

1.6.4 MAP CHANGES

Most of the maps have had some corrections made to them. Many were in the legend to better 

clarify the information that was being put forth. Other changes have been made due to internal 

review and cross-checking and finding discrepancies between the written decisions in Chapter 2 

and how those decisions were displayed on the maps through a GIS effort. Added all new maps 

to portray the allocation decision for the Proposed Plan, Two new map themes not included in 

the DRMP and added to the Proposed Plan include: 1) ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas for 

the Proposed Plan and 2) Gunnison prairie-dog Habitat. 

In addition to the above changes, adjustments were made to correct typographical or grammatical 

errors, add references, and clarify wording. Changes of this nature are not listed above. 

1.6.5 RATIONALE FOR CHANGES AND FINDING OF INSIGNIFICANCE 

The BLM has made numerous changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. These changes are described above and detailed in Appendix S. The BLM has prepared this 

appendix to document whether changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS resulted in a significant change in circumstances or conditions, or whether the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS contains different information from that which was presented to the 

public in the Draft RMP/EIS. Finally, the BLM wanted to confirm that the majority of changes 

made to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS fall within the range of alternatives presented and analyzed 

in the Draft RMP/EIS. As noted in Section 1.1.2.1, four decisions in the Proposed Plan fall 

outside the range of alternatives but are not significant changes for the reasons provided above. 

These changes include increasing group size numbers from 15 to 18 in the Dark Canyon SRMA, 

making the Alkali Ridge ACEC open to leasing under minor constraints versus standard lease 

terms to further protect the significant cultural resources of the ACEC, changing the VRM 

classification in the 880 acre Hovenweep visual sensitive zone from a Class III objective to a 

Class II objective, and increasing the crucial habitat boundary acreage to be in concert with the 

UDWR. None of these changes meet the test of significance. 

The regulation controlling whether or not a supplement is required is found at 40 CFR 1502.9(c), 

which provides that agencies: 

• Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if (1) 

the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns, or (2) there are significant new circumstances or information 

relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impact; 

• May also prepare supplements when the agency determines that the purposes of the Act 

will be furthered by doing so; 

• Shall adopt procedures for introducing a supplement into its formal administrative record, 

if such a record exists; and 

• Shall prepare, circulate, and file a supplement to a statement in the same fashion 

(exclusive of scoping) as a draft and final statement unless alternative procedures are 

approved by the Council. 

All changes to the Monticello Draft RMP/Draft EIS were made in response to public comment 

and/or internal review. The majority of the changes were editorial and/or format changes made to 

add clarity to the document. In some cases, alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS 

1-28 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

were modified in the PRMP to reflect technical corrections and data updates. In other cases, such 

as in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, incorporation of updated information was necessary to 

refine the analysis in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and All 

Alternatives, that was incomplete or needed augmentation. 

None of the changes described above and further detailed in Appendix S meet the regulatory 

definition for significance in 40 CFR 1508.27(a) and (b). These regulations require an agency 

preparing a NEPA document to review the changes for significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Plan or its impacts, 

using context and intensity as the trigger for significance. The BLM has reviewed each 

substantive change through this regulatory standard and has determined that none of the changes, 

individually or collectively, require a supplement to this Final EIS. 

1.7 NEXT STEPS: COMPLETE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) AND APPROVED 

PLAN

The publication of the ROD and approved RMP completes the RMP planning process. 

Substantial changes to the proposed plan, due to the governor's review or a protest resolution, 

will be published and subject to public review prior to final approval. The ROD will include 

appeal provisions for any implementation decisions in the approved RMP. Monitoring and 

evaluation are an ongoing step in the planning process. 

1-29 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

1-30 
5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

During the planning and decision-making process for this Monticello Proposed Resource 

Management Plan (PRMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) made formal and informal efforts to consult and coordinate with other 

federal agencies and state and local governments, Native American tribes, and the interested 

public, in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), and all applicable Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Department of Interior regulations, policies, and procedures. 

NEPA, FLPMA, and applicable regulations and policy require that all federal agencies involve 

the interested general public in their decision-making, consider reasonable alternatives to the 

Preferred Alternative/Proposed Plan, and prepare environmental documents that disclose the 

potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative/Proposed Plan and the reasonable alternatives. 

Public involvement, consultation, and coordination have been at the heart of the planning process 

leading to the Monticello PRMP/FEIS to ensure that (1) the most appropriate data have been 

gathered and employed for the analyses and (2) agency and public sentiment and values are 

considered and incorporated into decision making. This was accomplished through Federal 

Register notices, formal public and informal meetings, individual contacts, news releases, 

planning bulletins, the planning website, and public comments and responses there to on the 

Draft RMP/EIS. 

The BLM initiated the planning process on June 4, 2003 by publishing in the Federal Register a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to conduct land-use planning for the Monticello Field Office (Monticello 

FO). The NOI invited the participation of the affected and interested agencies, organizations, and 

members of the general public in determining the scope of and the significant issues to be 

addressed in the planning alternatives and analyzed in the EIS. Scoping remained open until 

January 31, 2004. As part of the resource inventory, members of the interdisciplinary (ID) team 

formally and informally contacted various relevant agencies to request data to supplement the 

BLM's existing resource database. 

On November 2, 2007, the BLM published in the Federal Register a Notice of Availability 

(NOA) of the Draft RMP/EIS to announce and solicit public comments on the alternatives and 

impacts and effects of those alternatives on the human environment. The BLM distributed to 

relevant agencies and the interested public the Draft RMP/EIS for review and comment. The 

comment period ended February 8, 2008. The comments and the BLM's responses there to are 

addressed in this Proposed RMP/Final EIS (PRMP/FEIS or Proposed Plan). Likewise, the BLM 

will publish an NOA to announce the Proposed Plan and Final EIS. 

The following sections of this chapter describe the public involvement, consultation, and 

coordination process, including key consultation and coordination activities undertaken to 

prepare a comprehensive PRMP/FEIS for the Monticello FO. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-2 

5.2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH TRIBES, STATE AND LOCAL 

GOVERNMENTS, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES

In the development of this PRMP/FEIS, the BLM is required to consult and coordinate with 

other federal agencies, state and local government agencies and officials, both elected and 

appointed, and federally recognized Native American tribes. More specifically, federal law, 

including FLPMA, NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 United 

States Code [U.S.C.] 470 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 661 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] Sec 1531 et seq.), and other applicable laws, regulations, policies, and executive orders, 

direct BLM to coordinate and consult with Native Americans, the State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) during the planning/NEPA decision-making process. This section documents the 

specific consultation and coordination efforts undertaken by the BLM throughout the entire 

process of developing the PRMP/FEIS. 

Coordination with other agencies and consistency, to the extent possible, with other plans were 

accomplished through frequent communications, meetings, and cooperative efforts among the 

BLM planning and ID team and involved federal, state, and local agencies and organizations. 

The cooperating agencies that were formally involved assisted the BLM throughout the planning 

process in the development of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Cooperating agencies that have participated in the development of the Monticello land-use 

planning process consist of: State of Utah and San Juan County. In addition to the cooperating 

agencies, the Monticello FO held meetings with and sought the input of other agencies that have 

land management jurisdiction within or adjacent to the planning area. Agencies include the U.S 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS), and adjoining BLM field offices, including Durango, Montrose, and Moab, and the 

BLM Utah state office. 

5.2.1 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION

Protective measures for culturally sensitive Native American resources are established through 

consultation and coordination with the appropriate Native American tribes or entities. Pursuant 

to NEPA, NHPA, FLPMA, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), Executive 

Order 13007, and BLM Manuals 8160, Native American Coordination and Consultation, and H8160-1, General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation, the BLM has engaged 

in consultation with Native American representatives throughout the planning process. The 

applicable laws and guidance require that the consultation record demonstrates, "that the 

responsible manager has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain and consider 

appropriate Native American input in decision making" (H8160-1, 2003:4). Recommended 

procedures for initiating the consultation process include project notification, preferably by 

certified mail, follow-up contact (i.e., telephone calls), and meetings when appropriate (H8160-1, 

2003:15). Native American consultation is an ongoing process that will continue after the 

PRMP/FEIS is completed. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-3 

Native American organizations were invited to participate at all levels of the planning process for 

the RMP. The BLM state director notified tribes of the BLM's intent to prepare the RMP and the 

Monticello and Moab Field Offices jointly invited tribes to consult regarding the entire range of 

cultural and natural resource issues. 

As part of the RMP/EIS scoping process, by letter dated August 1, 2003, then Utah State 

Director Sally Wisely initiated consultation for land-use planning with 35 tribal organizations 

(Table 5.1). In the letter, the BLM requested information regarding any concerns the 

organizations might have within the planning areas, specifically requested input concerning the 

identification and protection of culturally significant areas and resources located on lands 

managed by the Moab and Monticello field offices, and offered the opportunity for meetings. 

Between November 2003 and May 2004, all 35 tribal organizations were contacted by SWCA 

ethnographer Molly Molenaar, under contract with and on behalf of the BLM, to 1) ensure that 

the appropriate tribal contact had received the consultation letter and 2) determine the need for 

additional or future consultation for the study areas identified in the consultation letter. Meetings 

were arranged when requested. 

In consulting with tribes or tribal entities under the NHPA, the BLM emphasized the importance 

of identifying historic properties having cultural significance to tribes [commonly referred to as 

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs)]. The BLM held meetings with 12 tribal organizations 

between December 2003 and May 2004, but no TCPs were identified (Table 5.2). However, 

potential TCPs were identified during a records review and discussed in the AMS prepared in 

2004. An ethnographic overview was prepared concurrently with the EIS that also discusses 

potential TCPs associated with local tribes. The BLM was represented at most of these meetings 

by the Field Office manager and archaeologist from both the Moab and Monticello field offices 

along with the representative from SWCA. During these meetings, tribal organizations were 

invited to be a cooperating agency in the development of the land-use plan; however, none of the 

tribal organizations the BLM came into contact with requested to be a cooperating agency. 

Several tribal organizations requested that an additional meeting be held after the Draft RMP/EIS 

alternatives were prepared. The Monticello FO mailed a draft copy of the range of alternatives to 

12 tribal organizations in December 2005. In 2006 and 2007, the Monticello FO manager and 

archaeologist, assisted by the SWCA ethnographer, participated in a second round of meetings 

with five tribes (Table 5.3). At these meetings, the Draft RMP/EIS alternatives were discussed 

with special emphasis on cultural resource issues. A copy of the Monticello Draft RMP/EIS was 

mailed to the tribal organizations listed in Table 5.2. Consultation with interested tribes is 

ongoing. In April 2003, the BLM extended an invitation to meet with tribal organizations 

regarding the PRMP/FEIS. 

Table 5.1. Tribal Organizations Contacted by the BLM, Utah State Director 

Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe 

Navajo Utah Commission Navajo Nation, Aneth Chapter 

Navajo Nation, Dennehotso Chapter Navajo Nation, Mexican Water Chapter 

Navajo Nation, Navajo Mountain Chapter Navajo Nation, Oljato Chapter 

Navajo Nation, Red Mesa Chapter Navajo Nation, Teec Nos Pos Chapter 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-4 

Table 5.1. Tribal Organizations Contacted by the BLM, Utah State Director 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe White Mesa Ute Council 

Southern Ute Tribe Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 

Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

San Juan Southern Paiute Council Kaibab Paiute Tribe 

Pueblo of Cochiti Pueblo of Acoma 

Pueblo of Jemez Pueblo of Isleta 

Pueblo of Nambe Pueblo of Laguna 

Pueblo of Pojoaque Pueblo of Picuris 

Pueblo of Santa Ana Pueblo of Sandia 

Pueblo of Santo Domingo Pueblo of Santa Clara 

Pueblo of Tesuque Pueblo of Taos 

Pueblo of Zuni Pueblo of Zia 

Table 5.2. Meetings with Tribal Organizations as Part of Scoping for the RMP 

Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe 

Navajo Utah Commission Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 

Navajo Nation, Dennehotso Chapter Pueblo of Santa Clara 

Pueblo of Zia Pueblo of Zuni 

Pueblo of Laguna Southern Ute Tribe 

Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Table 5.3. Meetings with Tribal Organizations to Discuss Draft Alternatives 

Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Southern Ute Tribe 

5.2.2 COOPERATING AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

The Monticello FO extended cooperating agency status to state and local agencies with regard to 

the Monticello land-use planning effort. The State of Utah and San Juan County signed MOUs to 

establish cooperating agency status in January 2003 and April 2003, respectively. 

NEPA requires that the BLM work closely with cooperating and other responsible trustee state 

agencies in preparing an EIS. The cooperating agencies participated in meetings to assist the 

Monticello FO with socioeconomics, WSR suitability, ACEC relevance and determination, 

travel plans, and the development of alternatives (Chapter 2) for the RMP. These meetings 

occurred between March 2003 and March 2006. A draft of the alternatives was sent to the 

cooperating agencies in November 2007 for review and comment before the release of the Draft 

RMP/EIS. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-5 

The BLM has continued to involve the cooperating agencies in addressing comments raised 

during the public comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS and in developing the Proposed Plan 

from the Draft EIS alternatives. 

5.2.3 STATE AGENCY COORDINATION

According to NEPA requirements, the lead agency (the BLM) must formally consult with 

responsible and trustee agencies in determining whether to prepare an EIS. The primary tool for 

this coordination is the preparation of the draft alternatives (Chapter 2) for review by state 

agencies, and subsequently the preparation of the Draft RMP/EIS. A draft was sent to the State 

of Utah Department of Natural Resources in November 2007 and distributed to the following 

agencies: The Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR); Utah State Parks and Recreation; Utah Geological Survey; the SHPO, and the School 

and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). The State of Utah, SHPO Officer has also 

been involved in developing the Proposed Plan for Alkali Ridge and Hovenweep ACECs. 

The Mineral Potential Report and the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario for oil and 

gas regarding the Monticello planning area were prepared in cooperation with the Utah 

Geological Survey. 

5.2.4 COUNTY COORDINATION

Grand County declined to participate as a Cooperating Agency because of the small amount of 

county acreage within the Monticello Planning Area. However, some Grand County Council 

members attended various planning meetings during the development of the RMP. Numerous 

discussions and meetings were held with representatives from San Juan County. Overall, San 

Juan County actively participated in the development of the Proposed Plan. Table 5.4 

specifically brings forward the county plans and corresponding county positions or goals related 

to the management of the public lands. 

5.2.5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

In developing the Proposed RMP/FEIS, the BLM coordinated with numerous other federal 

agencies. There are legal requirements for consultation with some federal agencies. The 

consultation and coordination efforts are described below. 

5.2.5.1 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The actions proposed in this document require consultation with the USFWS. These actions have 

met any consultation/coordination requirements that may exist pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act. 

The BLM and the USFWS are continuing close coordination for Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

compliance of all aspects of the Monticello RMP/EIS. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-6 

The USFWS and the UDWR have been consulted regarding the effects of the Draft RMP/EIS on 

species listed pursuant to the ESA. Endangered species protections include compliance with 

existing ESA requirements. 

In July 2004, the BLM requested assistance from the USFWS in identifying threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and candidate plant and animal species that may be located in the 

Monticello planning area. A letter was sent by the BLM state office to the Service initiating 

informal consultation for the Monticello planning efforts. The Service responded in lists of 

species that may be present in or may be affected by projects in the subject project area. Tables 

3.53 to 3.55 present a comprehensive list of sensitive species that may be present in the project 

area and indicates whether they could be affected by the proposed and alternative actions. The 

results of this consultation have been incorporated into this RMP/EIS. 

This PRMP constitutes a Biological Assessment (BA), which has been provided to the USFWS 

for review and comment. The BLM determined that the implementation of the PRMP/FEIS is 

"not likely to adversely affect" /or/ "may affect" the 10 species on which this consultation 

occurred. The USFWS may concur with the BLM's determination via memorandum, or prepare a 

biological opinion, which advises the BLM on the actions that must be taken to protect federally 

listed special status species. 

5.2.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The BLM provided the EPA with a copy of the Draft RMP/EIS and the EPA has submitted 

comments on this document. The EPA rated the document as Environmental ConcernsInsufficient Information, "EC-2." The EPA expressed concern that the actual and potential 

environmental impacts associated with visual and travel/recreation management issues the BLM 

faces will not be adequately mitigated under the Preferred Alternative, and that a number of 

actions need to be included in the FEIS. The EPA also had concern for a lack of information 

associated with the BLM's analysis of air quality impacts. Additional analysis and information 

addressing these concerns have been included in Chapter's 2 and 4 of the PRMP/FEIS based on 

EPA comments. 

5.2.5.3 OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT/COORDINATION

In addition to the cooperating agencies, the Monticello FO has held meetings with and sought the 

input of other agencies that have land management jurisdiction within or adjacent to the planning 

area. Agencies include the NPS, the USFS, and adjoining BLM field offices, including Durango, 

Montrose, and Moab, and the BLM Utah state office also provided input. 

5.3 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS

The BLM's planning regulations require that resource management plans be consistent with 

officially approved or adopted resource-related plans of other federal agencies, state and local 

governments, and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and resource management plans are also 

consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of federal law and regulations applicable to 

public lands. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-7 

The 43 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1712(c) (9) states that the Secretary of the Interior (through 

the land-use plans of the federal agencies under it) shall "coordinate the land-use inventory, 

planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land-use planning and 

management programs of other federal departments and agencies and of the States and local 

governments within which the lands are located." It further states that "the Secretary shall assure 

that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the 

development of land-use plans for public lands [and] assist in resolving, to the extent practical, 

inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans..." This language does not 

require the BLM to adhere to or adopt the plans of other agencies or jurisdictional entities, rather 

to give consideration to these plans and make an effort to resolve inconsistencies to the extent 

practical. 

The BLM is aware that there are specific county and state plan decisions relevant to aspects of 

public land management which are discrete from, and independent of, federal law. However, the 

BLM is bound by federal law. The FLPMA requires that the development of an RMP for public 

lands must be coordinated and consistent with county plans, to the maximum extent possible by 

law, and inconsistencies between federal and non-federal government plans be resolve to the 

extent practical (FLPMA, Title II, Section 202 [c][9]). As a consequence, an inconsistency that 

cannot be resolved or reconciled will exist where state and local plans conflict with federal law. 

Thus, while county and federal planning processes, under FLPMA, are required to be as 

integrated and consistent as practical, the federal agency planning process is not bound by or 

subject to county plans, planning processes, or planning stipulations. The BLM will identify 

these conflicts in the FEIS/PRMP, so state and local governments have a complete understanding 

of the impacts of the PRMP on state and local management options. A consistency review of the 

PRMP with the state and county master plans is included in Table 5.4. In addition, the relevant 

goals, objectives or policies of a county are often equivalent to an activity or implementation 

level decision and not a land-use plan decision. The very specific county goals would be 

addressed in any subsequent BLM activity or implementation level decision. 

Table 5.4 outlines the planning consistency of the Proposed Plan with the approved management 

plans, land-use plans, and controls of other agencies with jurisdiction in or adjacent to the 

planning area. The authorized officer will continue to collaborate with federal agencies, state and 

local governments, and Native American tribes on implementation of the RMP and on pursuing 

consistency with other plans and will move toward integration of such plans to the extent that 

they are consistent with federal laws, regulations, and policy directives. Additional discussion is 

contained in Chapter 1. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-8 

Table 5.4 Plan Consistency Review 

Master Plan Consistent Partially 

Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Discussion 

San Juan County Master Plan (2008) 

Public Access 9

 

San Juan County has strong 

opinions regarding public access 

and its impact on economic stability 

in the county. The county claims all 

roads and trails over public land 

constructed prior to Oct. 21, 1976. 

Supports working with the BLM to 

develop off-road trails for ATV use 

and bikes. 

Recreation and 

Tourism 

9

 

Support for increased recreational 

activity on public lands, however, 

agency needs to acknowledge and 

aggressively address the impact that 

recreation has on the county's 

essential services (i.e., law 

enforcement, emergency services, 

water and waste management, and 

search and rescue). 

Wilderness 9

 

County does not support 

designation of large wilderness 

areas but will accept areas that 

meet the criteria of wilderness in the 

1964 Wilderness Act. The county 

plan (Appendix E) includes the 

county's preferred alternative for 

wilderness designation. 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

9

 

Statement that any special land-use 

classifications or designations 

should include analysis of adverse 

economic impact on local economy 

and stability of communities and 

commitment to adequate mitigation. 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species 

9

 

Statement that any special land-use 

classifications or designations 

should include analysis of adverse 

economic impact on local economy 

and stability of communities and 

commitment to adequate mitigation. 

Areas of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern 

9

 

Statement that any special land-use 

classifications or designations 

should include analysis of adverse 

economic impact on local economy 

and stability of communities and 

commitment to adequate mitigation. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-9 

Table 5.4 Plan Consistency Review 

Master Plan Consistent Partially 

Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Discussion 

Socioeconomics 9

 

States that social and economic 

environment (of the communities 

most impacted by public land-use 

decisions) needs to be included in 

environmental review. 

Wildlife 9

 

States that forage allocations 

between livestock and wildlife 

should be balanced and based upon 

fair and equitable assumptions. 

San Juan County is not in favor of 

and will generally oppose 

introduction of exotics or species not 

native to the area. 

Land Tenure 

Adjustments 

9

 Acquisition 

of State 

inholdings 

within the 

McLoyd 

Moonhouse 

SRMA and 

Valley of 

the Gods 

ACEC 

States that public land acreage 

currently owned and managed by 

federal and State agencies is 

sufficient for the public interest. 

Supports a "no net loss of private" 

and no expansion of National parks 

position relative to federal-state 

property exchanges and transfers. 

(No net loss refers to both acreage 

and value.) Also, no net increase of 

public lands within San Juan County.

Water Resources 9

 

Supports protection of limited water 

resources by promoting efficient use 

and management. 

Grand County General Plan Update 2003 

Strong Economy 9

 

Supports multiple use of public lands 

including continued recreation uses 

and oil and gas exploration and 

development. 

Watersheds 9

 

County will work to protect 

watersheds from activities and uses 

that are injurious to them and adopt 

policies that enhance and restore 

them. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-10 

Table 5.4 Plan Consistency Review 

Master Plan Consistent Partially 

Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Discussion 

Land Tenure 

Adjustments 

9

 

Supports BLM/SITLA exchanges 

that result in protection of 

watersheds, protection of lands 

important for recreational or other 

economic values, protection from 

development with a net increase in 

county cost for infrastructure and 

public services, or consolidation of 

land ownership patterns to reduce 

fragmentation. These provisions are 

consistent with the exchange criteria 

in the plan. 

Supports general retention of federal 

lands in Grand County. Increases in 

federal lands should not be at the 

expense of county revenues and 

should offer clear benefit to county 

residents. This is consistent with 

BLM policy to gain county support in 

land tenure adjustments. 

Travel 

Management 

9

 

Recognizes that allowing open, 

cross-country travel by mechanized 

vehicles is no longer an appropriate 

management practice. Supports 

more restrictive travel designations 

limiting mechanized travel to 

designated roads and trails and a 

"no new tracks" policy. 

ACECs 9

 

Encourages identification and 

conservation of areas with unaltered 

plant communities and soils through 

ACEC designations. 

Wilderness 9

 

Supports recommendation for 

wilderness adopted by the Grand 

County Council in 1995. Will follow 

State of Utah's recommendation 

concerning wilderness designation 

where consistent with the interests 

of the people of Grand County 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

9

 

Will participate and promote 

cooperation in planning and 

administration of WSR designations. 

Reintroduction of 

Animal Species 

9

 

Grand County would participate in 

evaluation of feasibility and 

advisability of reintroductions. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-11 

Table 5.4 Plan Consistency Review 

Master Plan Consistent Partially 

Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Discussion 

San Juan County Amendment to Master Plan (8/2002) 

All-Terrain Vehicle 

Plan 

9

 

Establishes an all-terrain 

transportation plan, on developed 

trails within the county, as an 

opportunity for increased 

recreational use and economic 

benefit to the county. 

Table 5.5 summarizes the planning consistency of the Proposed Plan with the State of Utah's 

Code 63j-4-401. 

Table 5.5 Consistency with State of Utah Code 63j-4-401 

Resource State of Utah Code 63j-4-401 Proposed Plan 

ACECs It is the policy of the State of Utah to 

withhold support for ACEC designation 

unless or until relevant and important 

values or significant natural hazards are 

clearly identified and the area requires 

special management protections not 

afforded by normal multiple-use 

management. ACECs should be no 

larger than necessary and management 

should be no more restrictive than 

necessary to prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important values 

or protect human safety. To the extent 

allowed by federal law, management 

prescriptions should comport with the 

plans and policies of the state and of the 

county where the proposed designation 

is located. These prescriptions should 

not result in management equivalent to 

that afforded congressionally designated 

wilderness areas. 

The potential ACECs brought forward for 

designation into the Proposed Plan have 

gone through a rigorous and stringent 

process in accordance with FLPMA, the 

planning regulations at 43 CFR 1600, 

Land Use Planning Handbook (H- 1601-

1), and in accordance with BLM Manual 

1613 and ACEC Policy and Procedures 

Guidelines (45 FR 57318). Appendix S 

outlines the process the ID team 

underwent to determine whether a 

nominated ACEC had relevance and/or 

importance values. The size of the 

proposed ACECs is limited only to the 

area(s) of geography where the 

relevance and importance values are 

manageable to protect and prevent 

irreparable damage. In the Proposed 

Plan, the potential ACECs generally do 

not have redundant special designations 

and/or other existing protections applied. 

The potential ACECs carried forward 

into the Proposed Plan necessitate an 

ACEC designation because special 

management protection is necessary 

(outside of normal multiple-use 

management) to specifically protect the 

relevance and importance values within 

the areas identified. The special 

management prescriptions that have 

been proposed are narrowly tailored to 

protect the identified relevant and 

important values; none of which are 

recognized as wilderness resources. For 

these reasons, the potential ACEC 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-12 

Table 5.5 Consistency with State of Utah Code 63j-4-401 

Resource State of Utah Code 63j-4-401 Proposed Plan 

decisions carried forward into the 

Proposed Plan are considered by the 

BLM to be consistent with Utah Code 

63j-4-401. 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

It is the policy of the State of Utah that 

federal land managers should refrain 

from applying a non-impairment 

management standard to river segments 

inventoried as "eligible" for inclusions in 

the national WSRs and all eligible 

segments should promptly be evaluated 

for suitability. The State of Utah will work 

with federal land managers to identify 

suitable segments and work towards a 

recommendation to congress for 

designation where careful analysis: (1) 

identifies and evaluates regionally 

significant segments, (2) addresses the 

impact designation will have on physical, 

biological, and economic resources, (3) 

demonstrates that suitable segments 

have water present and flowing at all 

times, and (4) not interfere with water 

resources development. 

Interim management of suitable 

segments should not interfere with 

development of valid existing water 

rights, including development of waters 

apportioned to the State under all 

interstate compacts or agreements, 

including the Bear River Compact and 

the Upper Colorado River Compact. To 

the extent allowable by federal law and 

where not in conflict with state law or 

policy, interim management of suitable 

segments and congressional 

recommendations for designation should 

be consistent with plans and policies of 

the county or counties where the river 

segment is located. 

The State of Utah has worked as a 

Cooperating Agency throughout this 

planning process and has been 

intimately involved with the BLM's WSR 

planning process. The state has assisted 

Field Office specialists to help determine 

eligibility findings for each of the river 

segments, and has provided social and 

economic expertise and advice as the 

BLM determined which eligible 

segments to carry forward as suitable 

into the Proposed Plan. The BLM has 

committed to working cooperatively 

among federal, State, and local 

governments and communities during 

the post-planning WSR study phase 

when statewide recommendations for 

inclusion of river segments into the 

National WSRs System would go 

forward to Congress. Prior to this postplanning phase, the BLM would work 

with affected partners to help identify instream flows necessary to protect the 

outstandingly remarkable values for 

which the subject river segments were 

found suitable via this planning process. 

Thus, because there are no effects of 

this planning decision on valid existing 

rights, and because suitability findings in 

this planning process do not create new 

water rights for the BLM, the land-use 

planning WSR suitability determinations 

are found by the BLM to be consistent 

with the Utah Code 63j-4-401. 

Grazing It is the policy of the State of Utah that 

the citizens of the state are best served 

by applying multiple-use and sustainedyield principles in public land-use 

planning and management. Public lands 

should continue to produce food and 

fiber, and the rural character and 

landscape should be preserved through 

a healthy and active agricultural and 

grazing industry. Land management 

plans should maximize forage availability 

Grazing decisions carried forward into 

the Proposed Plan are considered by the 

BLM to be consistent with Utah Code 

63j-4-401. Proposed Plan decisions on 

public lands would continue to promote a 

healthy active grazing industry. Forage 

allocations for livestock and wildlife are 

fully allocated on public lands. 

Numerous RMP decisions under other 

identified resources allow for the 

restoration and maintenance of 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-13 

Table 5.5 Consistency with State of Utah Code 63j-4-401 

Resource State of Utah Code 63j-4-401 Proposed Plan 

for domestic livestock and wildlife use. 

The state favors active management to 

restore and maintain rangeland health, 

increase forage, and improve watershed 

for the mutual benefit of local 

communities, domestic livestock, and 

wildlife. 

Adjustments in AUM levels may occur as 

required by range and watershed 

conditions, based on scientific, on-theground analysis. Grazing AUMs should 

be placed in suspension where range 

conditions will not sustain the current 

level of AUMs or where necessary to 

protect range and watershed health. Any 

suspended AUMs should be returned to 

active use when range conditions 

improve. The state generally opposes 

forced relinquishment or forced 

retirement of grazing AUMs but will 

continue to recognize voluntary 

relinquishments and retirements agreed 

to prior to RMP revisions. 

rangeland and watershed health. For 

example, the Proposed Plan provides 

the umbrella to allow implementationlevel actions for hazardous fuel 

reductions, fire rehabilitation, vegetation 

treatments, riparian improvements, 

range and wildlife habitat improvements, 

UPCD projects—including Healthy 

Lands Initiative projects, seed collection, 

etc. Minor, if any, adjustments to current 

permitted livestock AUMs are made in 

the Proposed Plan. Prior voluntary 

relinquishments and/or retirements have 

been recognized. 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

It is the policy of the State of Utah to 

oppose management of public lands as 

wilderness except where congress 

designates lands as wilderness. Under 

State policy and FLPMA's multiple-use 

mandate, BLM ascribed management 

prescriptions for non-WSA lands 

inventoried as possessing wilderness 

characteristics should take into account 

the long-term needs of future 

generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not 

limited to, recreation, range, timber, 

minerals, watershed, wildlife, and fish. 

Designation as VRM Class I, closure to 

oil and gas leasing, withdrawal from 

mineral entry, and closure to motorized 

and mechanized use affords protections 

comparable to those associated with 

formal wilderness designation and 

should be avoided for non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. NonWSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics should be managed in a 

manner consistent with the multiple-use, 

sustained yield standard that applies to 

BLM lands other than congressionally 

designated wilderness or WSAs. 

The Proposed Plan identifies certain 

"non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics" in order to protect, 

preserve, and maintain their wilderness 

characteristics. The BLM recognizes that 

it cannot, through the planning process, 

designate these lands as WSAs nor is it 

possible to manage them in accordance 

with IMP. For example, there is no 

provision to meet the "non-impairment 

criteria" mandated in IMP for WSA 

management. However, in following 

Section 201 of FLPMA, the BLM has 

maintained its wilderness inventory and 

has determined that lands previously 

found not to possess wilderness 

characteristics during the FLPMA 

Section 603 inventory process in the late 

1970s and early 1980s, now have been 

determined to possess them. The focus 

of management in the areas carried 

forward in the Proposed Plan is to 

primarily provide for an experience of 

solitude and primitive recreation. This is 

enhanced by maintaining the 

naturalness of the geographic areas. 

However, management prescriptions do 

not mirror those for WSAs or designated 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-14 

Table 5.5 Consistency with State of Utah Code 63j-4-401 

Resource State of Utah Code 63j-4-401 Proposed Plan 

wilderness since these two management 

objectives are sufficiently dissimilar that 

imposing similar prescriptions would not 

allow the BLM to meet the planning 

objectives outlined in the Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS. WSAs and designated 

wilderness are rights-of-way exclusion 

areas, closed to fluid mineral leasing by 

law, and do not allow for surfacedisturbing activities. In comparison, 

lands with wilderness characteristics 

have no set management by either law, 

rule, regulation, or policy. The Proposed 

Plan would allow for surface-disturbing 

activities where and when they are 

compatible with enhancing management 

objectives identified in the Proposed 

Plan. 

In order to ensure that the BLM's 

planning decisions regarding the 

management of wilderness 

characteristics are consistent with Utah 

law, potential adjustments may be made 

in the Record of Decision to 

nomenclature. This editorial change 

would not affect management or goals 

and objectives. 

RS-2477 

Assertions 

The State of Utah will defend its interest, 

and that of its political subdivisions, in 

rights-of-way accepted under the selfeffectuating grant process set forth in 

Revised Statute 2477 (repealed by the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976) and SUWA v. BLM, 425 

F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2005). The State of 

Utah expects and requests the BLM to 

fully consider all information concerning 

individual rights-of-way submitted to 

BLM. Further, the State of Utah expects 

and requests BLM's consideration of this 

information as part of the preparation 

and implementation of Resource 

Management or Management 

Framework Plans, and preparation or 

implementation of Transportation Plans 

as part of the ongoing inventory of 

resources on the public lands. 

The Proposed Plan makes no 

commitments with respect to any valid 

existing rights, particularly those 

concerning RS-2477. Chapter 1 of this 

land-use plan states that resolution of 

this issue is outside the purview and 

scope of public lands planning efforts 

and must be adjudicated by a court of 

law or other legal means. Therefore, 

nothing in this plan extinguishes any 

valid rights-of-way or alters, in any way, 

the legal rights of the State of Utah to 

assert RS-2477 rights or to challenge 

any use restrictions imposed by the 

RMP that they believe are inconsistent 

with their rights. 

The Monticello FO RMP is consistent with the following agency plans: Manti-LaSal National 

Forest Management Plan, Monument Valley Navajo Indian Reservation, Glen Canyon National 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-15 

Recreation Area Management Plan, Canyonlands National Park General Management Plan, 

Hovenweep National Monument Plan (draft), Natural Bridges National Monument Management 

Plan, Edge of the Cedars State Park Plan, and Gooseneck State Park Plan. Comments were not 

received to indicate inconsistency of these plans with the Draft RMP. 

5.4 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION

Public outreach and participation in the land-use planning process began with the publication of 

the Notice of Intent (NOI) to plan in the Federal Register and will be ongoing up until the Record 

of Decision for the Monticello RMP. Public outreach and participation has included public 

meetings, development of a mailing list, planning bulletins, newspaper articles, a RMP website, 

and workshops. It has also included informal meetings with individuals, groups, and 

organizations. 

5.4.1 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PLAN AND SCOPING 

This planning process began on June 4, 2003 with the publication in the Federal Register of a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to plan. The NOI announced the BLM's intent to conduct land-use 

planning for the public lands administered by the Monticello FO by preparing an RMP and 

associated EIS. The NOI began what is known as the scoping process and invited the general 

public as well as other federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes to identify 

potential issues and submit concerns regarding the intended planning effort. In addition to the 

NOI, the BLM provided the public with planning bulletins, and newspaper articles. Through all 

this outreach, the public was notified of public meetings and the BLM requested information 

regarding planning criteria, resources, nominations for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, 

nominations for WSRs, and proposals for route designations. Public service announcements on 

the radio were also used to inform the public about open house public meetings. The BLM 

distributed planning bulletins to all interested agencies, organizations, and individuals along with 

any other entity that requested to be included on the mailing list. 

The scoping period began June 4, 2003, and ended January 31, 2004. The BLM relied on various 

public outreach methods for the scoping process, including six open houses in different 

communities (see Table 5.5), a mobile "comment cruiser" which visited 12 locations, a website 

with provision for emailing comments, and an invitation for the public to provide written 

comments via letters. In its Scoping Report, completed in July 2004, the Monticello FO provided 

an analysis of the information received. The Scoping Report is available at the Monticello FO, or 

online at the Monticello RMP website. The BLM received 6,138 comment letters with 19,437 

comments identified in these letters and emails. Comments from the six open houses totaled 

1,250, and the "comment cruiser" gathered 200 comments, resulting in a grand total of 20,887 

comments. It should be noted that the Scoping Report covers both the Moab and Monticello field 

offices. The information received during the scoping period was utilized to establish the scope of 

the RMP/EIS. 

Table 5.6. Open House Locations and Attendance 

Location Date Attendance 

Green River, UT October 14, 2003 15 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

 

5-16 

Table 5.6. Open House Locations and Attendance 

Location Date Attendance 

Grand Junction, CO October 15, 2003 14 

Moab, UT October 16, 2003 53 

Monticello, UT October 21, 2003 54 

Blanding, UT October 22, 2003 87 

Salt Lake City, UT November 13, 2003 96 

Total 319 

 

5.4.2. MAILING LIST

As directed by 43 CFR 1610.2(d), the BLM has established and maintained a list of "individuals 

and groups known to be interested in or affected by a resource management plan." This list was 

initially developed from the Monticello FO mailing list and supplemented/updated throughout 

the planning process. Scoping meeting participants were given the option to be added to the 

mailing list. In addition, individuals were able to add themselves to the project mailing list by 

registering on the project website, as well as through requests to be placed on the mailing list by 

contacting the BLM. 

The mailing list was used during the distribution of planning bulletins and postcards throughout 

the planning process. Postcards were mailed to the entire list, announcing the availability of the 

Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. There are currently over 850 individuals, 

organizations, and agencies included on the mailing list.

5.4.3 PLANNING BULLETINS

Planning bulletins were developed to keep the public informed about the Monticello land-use 

planning process. They were provided to the public included on the mailing list for the 

Monticello RMP. The planning bulletins were also posted on the website for the Monticello 

RMP. 

• The first planning bulletin (6/30/03) announced the intention of the BLM Monticello 

FO to prepare a Resource Management Plan. It also included preliminary planning 

issues, a request for nominations of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

and WSRs, an announcement of public scoping meeting, and information on how to 

participate in the land-use plan process. 

• The second planning bulletin (11/1/03) provided information regarding the preliminary 

review of river segments found eligible for consideration as WSRs. The public was 

invited to provide comments on the findings. 

• The third planning bulletin (11/17/03) requested route data from the public to be 

considered in the alternatives for route designation in the Travel Plan. 

• The fourth planning bulletin (5/7/04) provided the preliminary planning criteria for 

public comment and review. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

 

5-17 

• The fifth planning bulletin (7/9/04) provided the results of the public scoping process 

and included the issues to be addressed in the plan. 

• The sixth planning bulletin (2/21/06) provided the results of the ACEC review process. 

5.4.4 WEBSITE

Information regarding the Monticello land-use plan was made available to the public on the 

Monticello RMP website. This website is currently found at http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/ 

monticello/planning.html. The website serves as a virtual repository for documents related to 

development of the Monticello RMP including news releases and bulletins, background 

documents, schedule, the land-use planning process, preliminary issues, maps, photos, and the 

draft and final RMP/EIS. The documents are available in Adobe Portable Document Format 

(PDF) to ensure that they are available to the widest range of users. During the scoping period, 

the website allowed members of the public to add themselves to the project mailing list or to 

submit comments/concerns to be considered in the scoping process. In addition, during the 

public comment period on the Draft RMP/EIS, the website served as one of the ways in which 

the public could submit comments. 

5.4.5 SOCIOECONOMIC WORKSHOPS

With the purpose of engaging in a collaborative decision-making process, the BLM held a 

workshop with the local government leaders, industry experts, and stakeholders from San Juan 

County that focused on the socioeconomic conditions of the region. This specialized group was 

assembled with the help of county officials for the purpose of promoting an open discussion 

about regional social and economic patterns. This meeting held on May 6, 2003, in Monticello, 

provided an opportunity for the BLM to understand existing conditions and to lay the framework 

for the analysis of socioeconomic impacts. 

5.4.6 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT RMP/EIS 

On November 2, 2007, the BLM and EPA published a Notice of Availability in (NOA) the 

Federal Register that marked the beginning of the formal 90-day public comment period. The 

Draft RMP/EIS states that the BLM is revising its current land-use plan and proposes several 

alternative ways of managing public lands within the Monticello planning area. The Draft 

RMP/EIS was designed to provide a comprehensive look at the impacts to natural and cultural 

resources from various planning alternatives. The formal 90-day public comment period ended 

on February 8, 2008. The BLM provided hard copies of the Draft RMP/EIS directly to 

cooperating agencies, other federal, state, and local agencies, tribal representatives, the Utah 

BLM Resource Advisory Committee members, public libraries, and elected officials. Also, hard 

copies and CDs were made available to the public upon request, and the Draft RMP/EIS was 

placed on the Monticello RMP website and in its public room at the BLM Utah state office. 

Additionally, the BLM widely distributed newspaper and radio press releases regarding the 

availability of the Draft RMP/EIS. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

 

5-18 

5.4.7 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL RMP/EIS 

The BLM and EPA will publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register which will mark 

the beginning of the protest period and concurrent Governor's Consistency Review period. 

5.4.8 PUBLIC MEETINGS

Five open houses were held during the 90-day comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS. The open 

house locations, dates, and attendance are provided in Table 5.6. The locations, dates, and times 

of the open houses were announced to approximately 858 people included on the mailing list via 

a postcard. Press releases in local and regional newspapers and radio spots supplemented the 

mailing. In addition, the locations, dates, and times of the open houses were posted on the 

Monticello RMP website. 

Table 5.7 Open House Locations, Dates, and Attendance 

Location Date Attendance 

Monticello, Utah January 8, 2008 20 

Moab, Utah January 9, 2008 30 

Salt Lake City, Utah January 10, 2008 19 

Blanding, Utah January 16, 2008 36 

Montezuma Creek, Utah January 17, 2008 16 

Total 121 

The open houses were geared to provide information to the public on the content of the Draft 

RMP/EIS as well as to provide guidance on commenting on the document and answer questions. 

Each open house included a PowerPoint presentation that provided an overview of the planning 

process and a comparison of major elements contained in the alternatives. Attendees were then 

encouraged to visit with BLM representatives and managers regarding questions or concerns 

about the Draft RMP/EIS. The public was provided with the opportunity to submit written 

comments at the open houses. 

5.5 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE MONTICELLO DRAFT RMP/EIS 

5.5.1 PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

According to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the BLM is required to identify and 

formally respond to all substantive public comments received during the comment period for the 

Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM developed a systematic process for responding to comments to ensure 

all substantive comments were tracked and the content seriously considered. A description of this 

process follows. 

First, the BLM developed a coding structure to help sort comments into logical groups by 

topics and issues. Codes were derived from resources covered in the Draft EIS or by common 

issues. Submissions (letters, emails, faxes, etc) were given a unique identifier for tracking 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

 

5-19 

purposes and then each submission was carefully reviewed to capture all comments, more 

description of this process is set forth below. All comments received can be tracked to the 

original submission. 

Second, the BLM created a Comment Database. For each comment in a unique submission, the 

BLM captured the name and address of the Commenter, assigned a code to the comment, and 

captured the text of all comments. 

The coding and comment database processes aimed at assisting the ID team in determining if the 

substantive issues raised by the public warranted modification of one or more of the alternatives 

or further analysis of issues and impacts. With the information provided through the public 

review process, the BLM reconsidered the draft alternatives, made changes as appropriate, and 

developed the PRMP/FEIS. Factual or grammatical errors, which led to a change in text are not 

summarized but were incorporated into the PRMP/FIES. 

Finally, the BLM used the comment database to prepare a narrative summary of the substantive 

comments. Opinions, feelings, and preferences for one element or one alternative over another, 

and comments of a personal and/or philosophical nature were all read, analyzed, and considered, 

but not included in the summary because such comments are not substantive in nature. 

5.5.2 COMMENT ANALYSIS

During the 90-day public comment period for the Monticello Draft RMP/EIS, the Monticello FO 

received written comments by mail (205), fax, email (18,869), website, and submitted directly at 

the public meetings or to the Monticello FO. All faxed comments were duplicated via email. 

This amounted to over 19,000 comment submissions. Many of the submissions were nonsubstantive form letters (letters containing identical or nearly identical text submitted by a 

number of individuals) in which there were six different types. Outside the form letters, there 

were 1,624 unique submissions, of which 131 submissions contained substantive comments. 

These submissions amounted to about 980 comments. Additional submissions were received 

after the close of the comment period on February 8, 2008. However, none of the late 

submissions raised substantially new issues or concerns not already addressed by comments 

received before the deadline. 

Where warranted, the BLM responded to substantive comments by making revisions to the 

PRMP/FEIS (text changes). If no change was warranted, the BLM responded to the substantive 

comment in writing. The BLM responded to all substantive comments and, in many cases, also 

responded to non-substantive comments in order to clarify a point or position. 

The comments received from cooperating agencies and the BLM responses are provided in 

Tables 5.9a and 5.9b. Tables 5.10a through 5.10aa provide the comments and responses by 

resource category that resulted in a change to the PRMP/FEIS. All comments and the BLM 

responses are provided in the compact disc (CD) attached to the PRMP/FEIS. 

The BLM considered every comment in the analysis process, whether it came repeatedly from 

many people with the same message(s) or from a single person raising a technical or personal 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

 

5-20 

point. In analyzing comments, the BLM emphasized the content of the comment rather than the 

number of times a comment was received. 

Respondents invested considerable time and effort to submit comments on the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Comments covered a wide spectrum of thoughts, opinions, ideas, and concerns. The commonly 

addressed themes include: travel, recreation, special designations (ACECs, WSRs), wilderness 

values, Special Status Species, and minerals/energy development. 

While each comment was diligently considered, the comment analysis involved determining 

whether a comment was substantive or non-substantive in nature. 

According to NEPA, the BLM is required to identify and formally respond to all substantive 

public comments. On the basis of the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations, a 

substantive comment does one or more of the following: 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information and/or analysis in the 

EIS. 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the information and/or analysis in 

the EIS. 

• Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the Draft EIS that meet the 

purpose and need of the proposed action and addresses significant issues. 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the merits of an alternative or alternatives. 

• Causes changes in or revisions to the proposed action. 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the planning process itself. 

The NEPA handbook identifies the following types of comments: 

• Comments on the Adequacy of the Analysis: Comments that express a professional 

disagreement with the conclusions of the analysis or assert that the analysis is inadequate 

are substantive in nature but may or may not lead to changes in the PRMP/FEIS. 

Interpretations of analyses should be based on professional expertise. Where there is 

disagreement within a professional discipline, a careful review of the various 

interpretations is warranted. In some cases, public comments may necessitate a 

reevaluation of analytical conclusions. If, after reevaluation, the BLM does not think that 

a change is warranted, the response should provide the rationale for that conclusion. 

• Comments Which Identify New Impacts, Alternatives, or Mitigation Measures:

Public comments on a Draft EIS that identify impacts, alternatives, or mitigation 

measures that were not addressed in the draft are substantive. This type of comment 

requires the BLM to determine if it warrants further consideration. If it does, the BLM 

must determine whether the new impacts, new alternatives, or new mitigation measures 

should be analyzed in either the FEIS; a supplement to the Draft EIS; or a completely 

revised and recirculated Draft EIS. 

• Significance Determinations: Comments that directly or indirectly question, with a 

reasonable basis, determinations regarding the significance or severity of impacts are 

substantive. A reevaluation of these determinations may be warranted and may lead to 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

 

5-21 

changes in the FEIS. If, after reevaluation, the BLM does not think that a change is 

warranted, the response should provide the rational for that conclusion. 

• Non-Substantive Comments simply state a position in favor of, or against, an 

alternative or a management action proposed in an alternative; merely agree or disagree 

with BLM policy; provide information not directly related to issues or impact analyses, 

or otherwise express an unsupported personal preference or opinion. For additional 

clarification, types of non-substantive comments are as follows: 

• Expressions of Personal Preferences or Opinion: Comments that express personal 

preferences or opinions on the proposals are non-substantive and thus do not require 

further agency action. This includes comments in favor of or against the proposed action 

or alternatives, comments that only agree or disagree with BLM policy, or comments 

that raise, debate, or question a point of fact or policy. However, such comments are 

summarized whenever possible and brought to the attention of the BLM. 

The BLM has reviewed and considered all comments. Non-substantive comments, including 

personal preferences and opinions, may be considered by the decision maker as he or she 

chooses the final agency's proposed action, but they generally will not affect the analysis. 

The results of the comment analysis were important to the development of the PRMP/FEIS. 

From the nearly 19,000 comment submissions that BLM received on the Draft RMP/EIS, it 

extracted approximately 980 individual substantive comments. The BLM has presented these 

comments and the BLM responses in the CD attached to the PRMP/FEIS. A list of the 

businesses, government agencies, and organizations that submitted substantive comments are 

provided below in Table 5.8. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-22 

Table 5.8. List of Organizations and Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individual(s) 

B CrownQuest Clark, Craig B EOG Resources Dille, Eric B PacifiCorp Richards, Jeff G Blanding City-Webb Webb, Chris G 

Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

G HOPI Kuwanwisiwma, Leigh G 

National Park Service Intermountain Region 

Runkel, Roxanne 

G San Juan County Adams, Bruce G State of Utah Harja, John G The Navajo Nation Joe, Tony G U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Romin, Laura G Ute Mountain Ute Tribe House, Ernest I Prescott College Fleischner, Tom O BCS Project Rock Art Sucec, David O Blue Ribbon Coalition Hawthorne, Brian O Bluff Landowners Coalition Schalk, Lynell 

Table 5.8. List of Organizations and 

Submitted Substantive Comm

Commenter 

Type Organization 

O Broads Healthy Lands PeO Canyon Country Heritage Association BeO Canyon Land Defenders NeO Capital Trail Vehicle Association SaO Coalition to Preserve Rock Art GuO 

Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance 

Sp

O ECOS Consulting O 

Glen Canyon Group, Utah Chapter, Sierra Club 

Bin

O Glen Canyon Institute IngO Grand Canyon Trust KaO Howard County Bird Club ScO 

IPAMS (Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States) 

Sg
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-23 

Table 5.8. List of Organizations and Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individual(s) 

O 

Maryland Ornithological Society, Inc 

Harvey, Maureen 

O National Outdoor Leadership School Cukjati, Gary O 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Nimkin, David 

O 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

Hays, Ti 

O Nature Conservancy Moab Project Office Bellagamba, Sue O Public Lands Advocacy Moseley, Claire O Public Lands Equal Access Alliance Bartholomew, Dale O Red Rock 4- Wheelers Bandle, Bob O Ride with Respect Parriott, Dale O Rising Sun 4x4 Club Morgan, William O 

San Juan Public Entry and Access Rights 

Johansen, Dr. Brent 

O 

Sierra Club Uncaompahgre Group 

Rechel, Eric 

O Sierra Club Utah Chapter Hoskisson, Wayne 

Table 5.8. List of Organizations and 

Submitted Substantive Comm

Commenter 

Type Organization 

O Spear TuO SUWA BraO The Nature Conservancy BeO 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) 

We

O 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

We

O Trails Preservation Alliance RigO U4WDA WiO Utah 4 Wheel Drive Association ArmO Utah Archaeological Research Institute MaO 

Utah Professional Archaeology Association 

Sk

O Utah Rivers Council Da

O Utah Rock Art Association Sc

O Utah State Office of Education DoO Western Watershed Project, Inc Ca

Kle

Notes: B=Business, G=Government, I=Individual, an
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-24 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

 

5-25 

5.5.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

During the public comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS, comments were received from 

government agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals. The greatest number of 

comments concerned travel management, wildlife, Special Status Species, air quality, cultural 

resources, and recreation, in this order. Commenters focused on their own definitions of 

"multiple use" and "balance among resource uses and natural resource values." Comments 

ranged from those urging the BLM to impose maximum restrictions on resource uses to those 

expressing dissatisfaction with the restrictions imposed in the Preferred Alternative of the Draft 

RMP/EIS. 

Travel management comments included a desire for either restricting travel in the Monticello PA 

or increasing the acreage available for travel within the Monticello PA. There were also many 

requests for clarification of what types of motorized travel would be permitted or restricted in 

areas, such as OHVs, mountain bikes, etc. 

Wildlife comments ranged from stating that the habitat protection for animals was not enough 

and more needed to be designated to the proposed acreage was too large and would be too 

restricting on other resource development. Special status species comments had similar themed 

comments on sage-grouse buffers. Commenters also requested more information and explanation 

of analysis of the reasoning behind BLM's decisions for special status species habitat 

designations. 

Air quality comments primarily focused on two main issues. First, commenters questioned the 

adequacy and analysis of the data used in the Draft RMP/EIS. Second, commenters desired 

clarification on what agency has the authority to manage air quality for the Monticello PA. 

Many commenters addressed the impact analyses on various resources. Those commenters who 

alleged deficiencies in the impact analysis often were comparing the preferred alternative not to 

the No Action alternative (as required by the Council on Environmental Quality), but rather to 

the Commenter's version of an ideal environment. 

The interest of the public in the management of BLM lands in the Monticello planning area was 

manifested in the number and complexity of the submissions received. 

5.5.4 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

The following tables present a subset of the comments received by the Monticello BLM during 

the comment period. The first set of tables (Tables 5.9a and 5.9b) provides all the comments 

submitted by the three Cooperating Agencies –the State of Utah and San Juan County. These 

tables are organized by the commenter name, commenter ID number, comment number, the 

resource category being addressed, the comment text, the BLM's response, and whether the 

comment resulted in a change in the document. The second set of tables (Tables 5.10a through 

5.10aa) provide the comments that resulted in a change to the document. These tables include 

similar information to that provided in the first set of tables except they are grouped by resource 

category. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

 

5-26 

All comments received during the public comment period are available on a CD accompanying 

this document. This CD contains two tables in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Both 

tables have the following columns: Commenter Name, Commenter ID Number, Comment 

Number, Resource Category, Comment Text, Response to Comment, and if it required a change 

in the document. The first table is sorted and grouped by Commenter Type and the second table 

is sorted and grouped by resource. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-27 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

004 1 TRR The State requests that the listing on page 1–15 of the DEIS be 

amended to include the plans and policies indicated by Utah Code Section 63-38d-401, et seq., and that BLM carefully consider consistency with this state's law. 

Page 1-15 lists pertinent state and couidentified no specific plans or policies omitted.  The BLM is aware that there are specplan decisions relevant to aspects of pthat are discrete from, and independeHowever, the BLM is bound by Federarequires that the development of an Rbe coordinated and consistent with Comaximum extent possible by law, and Federal and non-Federal government extent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. 2consequence, where State and local pFederal law there will be an inconsisteresolved or reconciled. Thus, while County and Federal plannFLPMA, are required to be as integratpractical, the Federal agency planning or subject to County plans, planning pstipulations. The BLM will identify thesFEIS/PRMP, so that the State and loccomplete understanding of the impactand local management options. The Brequired Governor's consistency revie

004 2 SOC The BLM, Monticello Field Office should consider the 

information presented in the Economic and Business Research Study (Phase I) for oil and gas exploration and production in the Uintah Basin in terms of economic benefits of the oil and gas industry. 

The BLM acknowledges the oil and gathe Uintah Basin. However, the appliclimited. The Monticello Field Office preForeseeable Development (RFD) scedevelopment over the next 15 years. Tpredicted in the RFD was utilized to gimpacts in the Draft RMP/EIS. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-28 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

004 3 PRP The BLM should commit to utilizing the State's expedited 

energy permitting process. 

Federal laws, rules, regulations, and pprocedures for processing all Federal 

004 4 SCO The state requests that BLM commit to either work toward the 

energy efficiency goals as outlined in the Governor's May 30, 2006 Executive Order or coordinate alternative energy efficiency increases with the Governor's Energy Advisor. 

Any policy changes or coordination beBLM to improve energy efficiency wouare outside the scope of the land use 

004 5 OTH The Draft RMP/EIS does not include a discussion on the nature 

or type of threat of "irreparable damage" or the regional significance of relevant and important values in its review. BLM misinterprets irreparable damage when reviewing and analyzing ACECs in the Draft RMP/EIS. The ACEC tool was intended by Congress to be limited to only those instances where irreparable damage would be caused without designation. Most surface disturbing actions can eventually be repaired. 

The potential ACECs brought forward Proposed Plan have gone through a rprocess in accordance with FLPMA, that 43 CFR 1600, Land-use Planning Hand in accordance with BLM Manual 1and Procedures Guidelines (45 FR 57outlines the process the interdisciplinadetermine whether a nominated ACEC importance values. The size of the proonly to the area(s) of geography wherimportance values are manageable to irreparable damage to these resourceThe potential ACECs carried forward necessitate an ACEC designation becmanagement protection is necessary multiple-use management) to specificand importance values within the areamanagement prescriptions that have bnarrowly tailored to protect the identifiimportant values. For these reasons, tdecisions carried forward into the Propconsidered by BLM to be consistent wA rationale for designating or not desiPreferred Alternative of the DRMP/EIS of the PRMP. Relevant text has been the PRMP/FEIS, which lists the threatACEC. These threats could result in ir
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-29 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

area proposed for ACEC designation. The ACEC evaluation appendix was madded to Chapter 2 discussing threats important ACEC values; however, whcurrently exist does not preclude a poconsidered in the action alternatives. Awhere the BLM has determined to havvalues, are identified as potential ACEin the action alternatives. Threats to revalues are likely to vary by alternativerevised from the draft document to bethreats and impacts associated with eOn August 27, 1980, the BLM promulgguidelines (45 Federal Register 57318"protects" – "To defend or guard againimportant environmental resources of ACEC. This includes damage that can and that which is irreparable. With regprotect means to prevent the loss of liloss or damage to property." Thus, BLpotential for both reparable and irrepaprotecting important historic, cultural, and wildlife resources; or other naturadesignation. This interpretation is conslegislative history and implementing pSection 2 of the guidelines clarifies thaplaces within the public lands. It statesestablishing in law such basic protectithat apply to all the public lands, Cong'management of national resource laninclude giving special attention to the the purpose of ensuring that the most 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-30 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

important and fragile lands will be giveprotection' (Senate Report 94-583, on ACEC process is to be used to providmanagement is required to protect thoresources that are most important, i.emake certain specific areas special plor man with characteristics that set theACEC process is to be used to protecfrom natural hazards." 

004 6 ACE The BLM must explain the need for "special" management for 

the ACEC and explain how this management is not duplicative of other normal BLM management or protections afforded by other state or federal laws. 

The special management for an ACEC of management protections applied to protect its relevant and important valuapply those protections that are within 

004 7 GRA The state discourages permanent closure of grazing allotments 

and encourages the reinstatement of suspended AUMs when rangeland conditions permit. 

The BLM does not propose the permaallotments or portions thereof. Howevareas may not be available for grazing These areas considered as not availaalternative. Subsequent revisions of thconsider opening these areas to livestReinstatement of suspended AUMs aavailable active AUMs will be considespecific grazing permit renewal procesforage productivity, grazing capacitiesrelation to sustainable grazing practicethe Standards for Rangeland Health (The vast majority (93%) of the Monticavailable for livestock grazing. For thoallotments and areas shown on pages the DRMP/DEIS the BLM is proposing BLM land are the highest and best usFLPMA and BLM's Land Use Planning BLM to close specific areas to livestocemphasis on these areas for other puas wildlife use, watershed protection, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-31 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

indicated by the variable uses of the Bthe proposed action, it is BLM's intent"multiple use" of the public lands withi

004 8 GRA The state encourages flexible livestock grazing time (duration) 

and timing (season of use). 

As stated in the Draft EIS / RMP, grazon an allotment basis according to the Grazing Management to meet the StaHealth (see Appendix D), including duseason of use. An allotment's associaGrazing Permit outlines the season of numbers. A yearly Grazing Application relation to annual forage production thStandards for Rangeland Health and bauthorized officer. 

004 9 GRA The Final RMP should contain and rely on a robust monitoring 

program and BLM should work with the state, grazing permittees, and conservation organizations to actively monitor and record grazing use data, wildlife populations, and range conditions. 

BLM will follow its policy which includeprogram with full coordination/consultapermittees, affected state agencies anorganizations. 

004 10 SSS The BLM should only employ the term "critical habitat" when 

referring to the legal habitat designations for endangered and threatened species under the ESA. 

The term critical has been reserved to Endangered (T &E) species. Correctiomade in the PRMP/FEIS. For non-T&on the UDWR crucial habitat designat

004 11 WL The state requests that the BLM use the "crucial habitat" 

designations mapped by the DWR solely as descriptive wildlife habitat designations, not as automatic exclusion zones for other multiple uses. 

BLM has changed the document to usdesignations of UDWR. Use of these not automatically exclude other uses. exceptions, modifications and waivers applicable for all surface disturbing ac

004 12 WL The state requests that habitat designations not be altered from 

alternative to alternative. 

As required by NEPA, the BLM considalternatives. For non-special status spvaried by the size of the habitat and thThe management of habitat is consistobjectives of each alternative. In the Draft RMP/EIS, Alt B has a timi
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-32 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

referred to as "winter habitat." This haboth crucial and high value winter habalthough not separated in the draft, hadescribed in the PRMP/FEIS. 

004 13 AQ The state suggests initiating a coordinated approach to 

assessing and protecting air quality in Utah by working with federal, state, tribal and local agencies to identify and address air quality concerns. 

BLM recognizes the great value of wostakeholders, and looks forward to woUtah as well as federal, tribal and loca

004 14 AQ The state encourages BLM to request oil and gas operators 

apply best available control technology (BACT). 

The application of BACT for oil and gabeen added to the mitigation section i

004 15 AQ The state encourages BLM to adopt emission standards for 

compressor engines consistent with the Draft Four Corners Air Quality Task Force Report and impose those standards as lease conditions and conditions of approval for all new APDs. 

The BLM does not have the responsibstandards. That responsibility lies with Utah. The BLM can only approve actioNational Ambient Air Quality StandardState. Site specific mitigation or condiapplied at the APD or implementation land use planning and leasing. 

004 16 AQ Future air quality analysis should include modeling with the 

following factors: 1) oil and gas proponents should assume that leasing and exploration will result in full field development, 2) air quality analyses should be cumulative and include not only planned development but existing omission sources, 3) air quality analyses should be based on anticipated worst-case meteorological conditions for each dispersion scenario, 4) air quality analyses should address compliance/attainment with all applicable air quality-related requirements and standards, and 5) air quality analysis should specifically address impacts to sensitive visual resources and other air quality-related values. 

1. The BLM would model the propose2. The potential impacts would include impacts from the project, as well as cuRFD, as required by NEPA 3. The BLM would use reasonable-buassumptions rather than worst-case aby CEQ regulations 4. The BLM would compare potential NAAQS, and PSD increments, as app5. The BLM would compare potential visibility and atmospheric deposition leappropriate. 

004 17 WSR The State believes that the BLM should disclose the reasons 

and rationale for determinations of eligibility and suitability for 

The Preliminary Eligibility DeterminatiRivers (BLM, 2003) details the steps u
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-33 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

proposed additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System, and to fully meet the requirements of state and federal law in doing so. 

eligibility review process including the outstandingly remarkable values as wConsiderations by eligible river segmewith all applicable Federal laws, regulthe Wild and Scenic Rivers Study ProAppendix H, beginning on page H-91 information on tentative classification scenic segments and suitability consid

004 18 WSR The State is concerned that Wild and Scenic River designations 

may limit water development by communities for future growth, limit industrial and agricultural growth, and reduce funding for the Colorado River Salinity Control program. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act impliewater right; however, it must be the mfor purposed of the Act, it must be adjprocesses, and it would be junior to examount of Federal right will vary from on the river's flows, the un-appropriateand the values for which the river is beno effect whatsoever on water rights orelated to suitability findings made in a barring Congressional action. Even if designate rivers in the National Wild aSystem, any such designation would hexisting, valid water rights. Section 13 Scenic Rivers Act states that jurisdictidetermined by established principles ohas jurisdiction over water. Although tRivers Act implies a federal reserved wdesignated rivers, it doesn't require or and instead establishes that only the mpurpose of the Act can be acquired. Bhas jurisdiction over water, BLM would adjudicate the right as would any othethrough state processes. Thus, for Corivers, BLM may assert a federal reseappurtenant and inappropriate water wthe date of designation (junior to all ex
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-34 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

the minimum amount necessary to fulof the reservation. In practice, howeverights have not always been claimed iensuring sufficient flows are adequate outstandingly remarkable values. During the suitability phase of the Wild process, San Juan County as well as SITLA, were asked to supply informatreasonably foreseeable potential uses waters, which would be enhanced, forthe area were included in the national the values which could be foreclosed is not protected as part of the national Preliminary Eligibility Determination of BLM, 2003). The preliminary eligibility summarizes suitability input by the pucommunities. Suitability decisions werresults of this input. In 1994, Public Law 98-569 amended Basin Salinity Control Act and directed develop a comprehensive program for contributions from lands administered report on this program to the CongresCouncil. BLM's Colorado River Basin is designed to provide the best managof the basic resource base. Successewill translate to improved vegetation cprecipitation, and stronger plant root sstable runoff regime and reduced soil benefiting water quality of the streams Basin including the San Juan River. In and Scenic Rivers Act, Congress stateobjectives of the Act is to protect the wdesignated rivers. Congress further sp
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-35 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

administering agencies cooperate with water pollution control agencies to elimpollution (Section 2). Comparing the twWild and Scenic Rivers Act and the CSalinity Control Act are not only companother, but share the same objective quality. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Aof the Interior or any government agengrant, license, or otherwise constructioresources project that would have a dfor which such river designation was estates that it cannot preclude licensing developments below or above a wild, river area or on any stream tributary thinvade the area or unreasonably diminrecreational, and fish and wildlife valuthe date of designation of a river as a National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systeintended to comply with the Colorado Act are those that would generally beninstead of affecting or unreasonably dincluding water quality. 

004 19 WSR The state is concerned about suitability findings for those 

streams where there are significant water diversions upstream. 

According the "Wild and Scenic River Utah Process and Criteria for InterageCongress has allowed for the existencmodification of a riverway, the presenmajor dams above or below a segmen(including those that may regulate the segment). The existence of minor damand rip-rap within the segment shall na reach ineligible. 

004 20 WSR The State is concerned that the Draft RMP/EIS does not state 

the authority for protection of river segments while studies conducted under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are underway. 

Section 5 (d) of the Wild and Scenic RFederal land management agencies mriver considerations during land use p
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-36 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

review are involved. Eligibility is an invriver values. Suitability involves considand resource conflicts. As per BLM Manual 8351-Wild and Scprogram .32 C, all eligible rivers are cothe planning effort as to their suitability designation into the National Wild and With any suitability determination madflowing, outstandingly remarkable valuclassification of rivers would continue Congress makes a decision on designThe Preliminary Eligibility DeterminatiRivers (BLM, 2003) describes the authScenic Rivers Study Process. 

004 21 WC The State asks BLM to provide a detailed explanation of the 

rationale and authority for management of lands solely because of wilderness characteristics, and why such management does not circumvent the provisions of the statutorily required wilderness review process. 

The BLM's authority for managing lanwilderness characteristics comes direLand Policy and Management Act (FL(U.S.C. § 1712). This section of the Bgives the Secretary of the Interior authlands for multiple use and sustained ysection constrains the secretary's authas necessary to "achieve integrated cbiological, economic, and other scienc202(c)(2) (43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(2)). Fuclear that the term "multiple use" meaappropriate for every acre of public lancan "make the most judicious use of lathese resources or related services ovto provide sufficient latitude for periodFLPMA, Section 1039(c) (43 U.S.C. § intended the Secretary of the Interior tas a mechanism for allocating resourcwilderness character management, amresources in a way that provides use f
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-37 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

generations. The Norton-Leavitt Agreement recognAgreement shall be construed to diminauthority under FLPMA to manage a tbeen dedicated to a specific use. IM 2003-275-Change 1 which is a direNorton-Leavitt Agreement states, "the information on wilderness characteristinformation on other uses and values plans." The IM goes on to say "considcharacteristics in the land use planninseveral outcomes including, but not limthe protection of some or all of the wilas a priority over other multiple uses" not be designated as a WSA). The IM resource information contained in the inventories was collected to support a process. Public wilderness proposals proposal. In either case the BLM is ausuch information in preparation of a laor revision." In September 2006, Judge Benson, wNorton-Leavitt Agreement, stated that strip the BLM of its powers to protect lhave wilderness characteristics in a msimilar to the manner in which such laprotected as WSAs. 

004 22 WC The BLM should give strong consideration to recommendations 

submitted by local government and not manage lands to protect wilderness character where such management would, in the opinion of local governments, be contrary to the interests of local residents. 

Secs. 103, 201, and 202 of the FederaManagement Act (FLPMA) direct the Bthe national interest as well as the locaccordance with FLPMA and BLM rulepolicies, the BLM must provide managand resource uses on public lands. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-38 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

Strong consideration was given to locJuan County is a cooperating agency planning process including in the devewhere non-WSA areas with wildernesconsidered. 

004 23 WC BLM should consider the existence of inholdings and valid 

existing rights (VER) where development of inholdings or VER may compromise management and protection of areas with wilderness characteristics. 

Valid existing rights are considered Adthe BLM and do not require a specific implement. As noted in Chapter 1 undas outlined in the BLM's Land Use Pla1601.06G), all decisions made in land subsequent implementation decision aexisting rights. The BLM will work with agreement of holders of valid existing proposed actions or activities to reducactions or activities on resource valuemodifications may be necessary to maalternatives being considered during ldevelopment and implementation, and appropriate stipulations, relocations, rproposed actions. 

004 24 WC The state strongly suggests BLM give serious consideration to 

San Juan County's new field information concerning areas asserted by BLM to have wilderness characteristics. 

As part of BLM's wilderness charactermaintenance, BLM performed a combsite reviews. This included specific fieInterdisciplinary team review of data sCounty and BLM GIS data, and high-rphotographs. The BLM's findings are 2003 wilderness reinventory documen2007 wilderness characteristics review confident of the high-standard approapublic lands and stands by its findingsfindings, which involved wilderness chmaintenance. 

004 25 SOC BLM's decisions on how to manage its lands directly affect Non-BLM lands could be indirectly imp
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-39 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

Utah's ability to manage state trust lands to provide revenue for public schools and other beneficiary institutions. The state believes the Draft RMP fails to adequately address two issues, 1) the impact of BLM management decisions on state trust lands, and 2) the need for a substantially more robust program for land tenure adjustments between the BLM and the State of Utah. 

decisions both positively and negativeChapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS has beeFor specifics regarding the impacts on please refer to response to comment The BLM does provide for reasonable lands under all alternatives. A sentencChapter 2, Lands and Realty, ManageAction Alternatives, that states that reland would be provided including acroavoidance and exclusion areas for rigby the Cotter decision (Utah v. Andrusthe travel management plan recognizeprovide access to SITLA lands per the 

004 26 TRV The RMP should specifically state that: 1) SITLA will be 

permitted continued access to trust lands where motorized access is currently available; 2) SITLA may undertake reasonable maintenance activities of existing access across BLM lands; and 3) existing access routes to state trust lands will not be closed without approval by SITLA and the state. 

The travel plan provides restrictions to recreational purposes, but does not reauthorized by the BLM. State inholdincurrently have access, depending upovehicle routes lead to them. Under diffscenarios, existing routes may be propolicy, as required by the Cotter decisAndrus, 10/1/79), is that "the state muthe state school trust lands so that thodeveloped in a manner that will providschool..." This decision confined the isituations directly involving economic the school trust. The recreation restricState from reasonable access to its lapurposes through separate permit autby the Cotter decision. Routes to state been identified for recreation purposeconflicts or actual route conditions. 

004 27 TRV The state urges the BLM to consider San Juan County's 

transportation map and to make BLM's transportation plan consistent with the county desires to keep roads and routes 

The BLM under its multiple use mandneeds of a wide variety of recreationisalternative formulation. The BLM anal
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-40 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

open. according to its purpose and need we

resource conflicts. This process is detthe DRMP/EIS. As described in Appenplan formulation involved numerous minterdisciplinary team (including vegetcultural resource specialists). Potentiaidentified, their extent evaluated, and purpose and need for the particular rorange of alternatives reasonably coveroads to be closed and left open undeDEIS/RMP provides five alternatives temphasis of protection and preservatibalance between commodity productionatural resources, and emphasis of coextraction. These alternatives provide management actions to address the isscoping. 

004 28 AA The DEIS does not address consistency between neighboring 

jurisdictions' management objectives. 

It was the intent in the development of consistent with management objectiveBLM Planning Area where appropriatenot necessarily applied to other neighsome cases, the opportunity to develoapparent during scoping, comment peinteragency coordination meetings. Se(Consistency With Other Plans), addreissue. 

004 29 PRP The state encourages the BLM to contact all neighboring state, 

federal, and tribal agencies and collaboratively identify all other significant reasonably foreseeable activities to be considered as part of the analysis. 

The Reasonably Foreseeable Developfor Oil and Gas is the best example of foreseeable development for oil and ganalyzed for other land ownerships (nlands) within the Planning Area. Reasactivities for other resources on non-Bwere not identified unless they were band comment periods. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-41 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

004 30 MOG The RFD for fluid minerals does not clearly state whether its 

projections are limited to exploration, or include possible subsequent development based on likely discoveries. 

The RFD includes projections for deveactivity. Page 1, 3rd paragraph, states 59% of the wells drilled would be prodreasonable to assume that the numbeabandoned...will equal approximately wells going into production." Page 2, p...is a long-term projection of oil and gdevelopment, production, and reclamanarrative on Pages 13 and 14 of the Rassociated disturbances which were facreage of surface disturbance per weareas needed for associated productioproduction facilities, oil storage tanks, pipelines and roads. 

004 31 MOG The state encourages BLM to prepare a detailed transportation 

system use analysis as part of the RFD, similar to the UDOT's "Analysis of Freight Traffic Associated with Oil and Gas Development in the Uinta Basin." 

The BLM acknowledges that a transpoanalysis can be a useful tool in assessgas development. However, the benefanalysis is much greater for areas sucwhich have a high level of current and activity. In comparison, the projected aMonticello Field Office are relatively loOffice prepared a Reasonably Forese(RFD) scenario for oil and gas develoyears. The development predicted in tgenerate the economic impacts in the detailed on pg. 4-340 through 4-344. 

004 32 WR The State Engineer recommends that the BLM consider the 

impact its actions may have on water rights in general and nonBLM water rights in particular. 

On page 1-12 of the DRMP/DEIS undBLM states 1) the planning process wexistence of valid existing rights, and to all applicable laws (including state ahas been edited to ensure that water rvalid existing rights. 

004 33 WC The BLM inconsistently applied road data between the 1999 The Wilderness Study Area Interim-M
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-42 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

inventory and the 2007 WC review. or "WSA handbook") applied to invent

2004. In 2004 BLM settled ongoing litiUtah (known now as the Utah v. NortoAgreement). The IMP emphasized the roads and "ways." A road was considewilderness characteristics and needed inventory unit. A "way" however, was itself a sufficient impact on naturalnesof an inventory unit. Inventories conducted post-2004 applis based on IM 275-2003, Change 1 wnaturalness and does not distinguish rBLM has evaluated wilderness characthe basis of impacts to naturalness whroads and ways. 

004 34 WC The BLM should not consider undeveloped leases and potential 

for future development when it determines whether areas possess wilderness characteristics. The possibility of future development is irrelevant. It is only appropriate to consider this information when deciding whether to protect areas found to possess wilderness characteristics. 

As part of its wilderness characteristicmaintenance, the BLM used a combinID Team review, og-wells GIS data, RDevelopment (RFD) data, range allotmof BLM and San Juan County (SJ CO2006 high resolution aerial photographassist in determining what impacts wetime of the 2007 Wilderness Charactedetermine naturalness. RFDs were nopotential future scenarios for Oil and G(potential Oil and Gas Development Sdetermining what units would be manacharacteristics in the FEIS. This procelook at all resources during wilderness inventory maintenance. The BLM find2007 WCR process and are available administrative record in the Monticello BLM stands by its findings of its wildeinventories and WCR process. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-43 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

004 35 WC The BLM needs to consider the new information on roads 

(2007) to reevaluate the findings of the 1999/2003 wilderness inventory. 

The 2003 Revision Document for the made adjustments to Wilderness Invecounty road data, none of which differinventory. BLM stands by its 1999/200

004 36 WC The BLM should clarify whether Grand Gulch WC area, units A 

and B, possess outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation as required. If BLM relies on the existence of outstanding opportunities within the contiguous WSA to satisfy this requirement then BLM should clarify how these requisite values can be satisfied at another location. 

The wilderness character review procguidelines in determining whether or nwilderness character. Appendix O brieused in this process. These areas are Wilderness or Wilderness Study Arearelevant to the wilderness character reare available at the Monticello Field Oweb site and in the administrative reco

004 37 WC The BLM should clarify whether the National Forest system 

roadless area adjacent to the Hammond Canyon WC area has been administratively endorsed for wilderness. If no, then BLM should explain the apparent departure from the 5,000 acre minimum size standard. 

The National Forest Service area in qdetermined by that agency to possess characteristics (itself a BLM term), and irrelevant. Although the unit does not acre size requirement, and it is not copossess Wilderness Characteristics, it side by Ute Tribal Lands and on the wRoadless Lands, which significantly lim4, 702 acres identified in Hammond Cpublic lands administered by the BLM any USFS Roadless Lands and was fwilderness characteristics. 

004 38 WC The review form for the Upper Red Canyon WC area notes 

"much of the mining activity in the area is still visible in the form of audits or waste dumps." Also, opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation are not described as being outstanding in character. Please clarify 1) the standard applied to determine the existence of naturalness and, 2) whether Upper Red Canyon WC area possesses the requisite outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

As part of BLM's wilderness charactermaintenance, BLM performed a combsite reviews. This included specific fieInterdisciplinary team review of data sCounty and BLM GIS data, and high-rphotographs. The BLM's findings are 2003 wilderness reinventory documen2007 wilderness characteristics review confident of the high-standard approa
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-44 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

public lands and stands by its findingsfindings, which involved wilderness chmaintenance. The ID team during the 2007 Wildernethe surface disturbances noted in the naturally rehabilitated. Mining activity visible is not considered to be a substnaturalness of the area. With minimal human disturbances, opportunities for throughout the area. 

004 39 WC The opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type 

of recreation in the White Canyon WC area are not described as being outstanding in character. Please clarify whether opportunities must be outstanding in nature and whether the White Canyon WC area possesses these requisite values. 

The 2007 wilderness character review the White Canyon area and found 3 owilderness characteristics. The files recharacter review from 2007 are availarecord and will provide specific informthose areas reviewed. 

004 40 WC The review forms for the Bridger Jack Mesa, Indian Creek (A, B,

C), White Canyon #8 and White Canyon #9 WC's indicate that outstanding opportunities for solitude are not present within the units themselves, but exist within contiguous WSAs, national parks, or wilderness inventory areas. Please clarify how the existence of requisite values can be satisfied by adjacent lands.

The ID team during the 2007 Wilderne"Because of their size, opportunities forecreation is limited, but exist when cocontiguous WIA and the AE lands with

004 41 AQ The air quality analysis assumed all new compressors would 

operate at a NOx emission rate of 0.7 g/hp-hr (pg. 4-17). How will the BLM ensure this projection for newly permitted compressors? 

This figure (0.7 g/hp-hr) was used as aand is based on the best available conquality impacts would be analyzed for and gas development on a case by caNEPA process. Air quality emission reimposed at that time. 

004 42 AQ It appears that the air quality related analysis assumes all 

compressors used in natural gas development will be gas-fired. Please clarify how BLM will require utilization of compressor technology consistent with this assumption. 

BLM assumed the use of gas-fired coof the air resources analyses for the Rprobably not prescribe a particular mitas gas-fired compressor. Rather, BLM requiring the project proponent to dem
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-45 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

direct impacts would be less than leveBLM. 

004 43 AQ The section entitled Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Air Quality 

under Alternative A discusses emissions from multiple sources and notes that emissions from each source are well below applicable NAAQS. BLM relies on this statement as basis for each alternative, noting that impacts would be the same or similar to Alternative A. It is unclear how BLM equates additional emissions to anticipated ambient conditions. 

Please see revised air resources sectwould consider using a quantitative appotential concentrations for a project-swith a proposed project. 

004 44 VRM Chapter 3 discusses visibility in Class I areas. No comparable 

analysis is contained in chapter 4. The state recommends BLM include a careful analysis of impacts to visibility. 

In Chapter 4, impacts to each resourcprimary resource. For instance, Table Resources under Alternative A includeresource impacts to cultural resources alternatives for all resources. 

004 45 GRA Please clarify at pp. 2-17 and 4-75 why allotments would be 

unavailable for livestock grazing for the next 15 years. Please clarify if using the term "unavailable" reflects a decision to temporarily suspend, or permanently retire grazing. 

Areas are to be made unavailable for conflicts with other resources or uses recreation, vegetation, cultural, etc), afeasible grazing practices (lack of watetc.), and permittee requests. Unavailareas not being authorized for livestocnext 15 years. 

004 46 GRA There is an apparent discrepancy in the number of acres 

unavailable for livestock grazing under all alternatives as indicated on pages 2-16 and 4-254 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft). Please resolve. 

Acreages for particular areas may vardifferences in shapefiles for GIS calcuacreage figure is 128,098 acres to remgrazing. Additional acres unavailable fthis figure in each alternative. Acreage made in the FEIS. 

004 47 GRA Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would make an 

additional 20,361 acres unavailable for livestock grazing. Please clarify why the No Action Alternative involves a change in current management. 

The No Action Alternative implements decision pending final determination in closed grazing in several Comb Wash Canyon south of U-95, Arch, Fish, Owdecision closed 16,599 acres (pg. 2-9These acres are included in acres clos
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-46 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

Alternative, thus no change in current 70). The statement of additional acres 254 is incorrect as these acres are alrAction Alternative acres. These errors the FEIS. 

004 48 LAR ES.4 (of the DEIS)– Planning Issues – Issue 8 (page ES-3 of 

DEIS), and; Section 1.3.1. – Scoping and Identifying Issues, Concern and Opportunities (Page 1-4). The discussions in these sections should contain detailed reference to the issue of inheld state lands within special areas such as WSAs, ACECs, and lands managed for wilderness characteristics. Priority should be given to resolving this issue. 

It is not necessary to have this specifidescription of the issue. Please refer t004-52. 

004 49 MOG Section 1.3.2 – Development of Planning Criteria (page 1-11). 

The BLM states that the RMP will "apply only to public lands and, resources managed by the BLM." The BLM should reconsider whether it can impose its standard on split estate lands where it does not own the surface. 

Information regarding leasing and devlands is found at the following Washinwww.blm.gov/bmp/Split_Estate.htm. Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-20procedures and conditions for approvioperations on split-estate lands. In paconsider an Application for Permit to Dadministratively or technically completlessee or its operator certifies that an surface owner exists, or until the lessecomplies with Onshore Oil and Gas Owith Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 mineral lessee or its operator to enter negotiations with the private surface oagreement for the protection of surfacreclamation of the disturbed areas, or to compensate the surface owner for ldamages to tangible improvements, if BLM will invite the surface owner to painspection and will take into considera
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-47 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

surface owner when reviewing the ApDrill. The BLM will offer the surface owsurface protection BLM provides on F(Instruction Memorandum No. 89-201Table 2.1, Page 2-18 (last paragraph) concerning management of split estatField Office. On split estate lands, leaconsist only of those necessary to comdiscretionary federal laws, such as the Act. Discretionary measures to mitigatresources, such as visual and wildlife, a lease stipulation but would be develenvironmental analysis and would be approval (COA) in consultation with thconsistent with lease rights. 

004 50 SOC Section 1.4.4 – Energy Policy and Conservation Act. None of 

the alternatives adequately analyze the impacts from formally or effectively eliminating mineral development in lands subject to Special Designations, in terms of loss of revenue to the United States, State of Utah, local governments and Utah's school trust under EPCA. 

Please refer to response to comments 56. 

004 51 TRV Table 2-1 – Summary Table of Alternatives – Lands and Realty. 

It should be noted under all alternatives that, pursuant to Utah v. Andrus, BLM is obligated to grant reasonable access to the State of Utah and its grantees to school trust lands. In furtherance of this obligation, no existing roads providing access to trust lands should be closed without the consent of SITLA. 

The BLM does provide for reasonable lands under all alternatives. A sentencChapter 2, Lands and Realty, ManageAction Alternatives, that states that reland would be provided including acroavoidance and exclusion areas for rigby the Cotter decision (Utah v. Andrusthe travel management plan recognizeprovide access to SITLA lands per the 

004 52 LAR Section 3.6.2.1 – Land Tenure Adjustments and Section 

3.6.2.1.2 – Exchanges. These paragraphs should specifically 

Current BLM Utah State Policy is to gUtah exchanges and such exchanges 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-48 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

reference the need for Federal acquisition of State school trust lands that are captured by Federal reservations and withdrawals such as wilderness study areas will be a priority, in accordance with applicable BLM policy guidance. In addition State selection should be mentioned as an equally preferred method of land disposition as land exchanges. 

use planning decision. The federal Land Policy and ManagemSection 203 requires the BLM to use tprocess to identify lands for disposal tlands for Section 203 sale requires the criteria set out specifically in the statutFLPMA allows the BLM to identify lanavailable for exchange (both disposal generally. The DRMP/EIS has identifieavailable for exchange, including idenare currently available for acquisition. contain a schedule or prioritize these understands that State in-lieu and othpriority for the State and for the BLM. 

004 53 SOC Section 4.3 – Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 

Plan and All Alternatives. The state comments that BLM decisions to withdraw mineral lands from leasing in WSAs, areas with wilderness characteristics, ACECs, and other areas directly affects the economic viability of state trust lands inholdings in those areas, particularly for oil and gas. 

Please refer to response to comment 

004 54 SOC Section 4.1.2 – Assumptions and Methodology for Mineral 

Development. The RFD must address the fact that BLM withdrawals and special designations directly affect development of oil and gas on SITLA lands. The BLM should assume that, in addition to the loss of oil and gas wells on BLM lands, there will be an additional loss of wells on SITLA lands in proportion to the amount of SITLA land within the proposed special designation under each alternative. 

The RFD is a technical report that maof oil and gas exploration, developmereclamation activity. It is neither a plan"No Action Alternative" in the NEPA dbaseline projection of future activity asproductive areas (including SITLA lanunder standard lease terms and condexceptions are those areas designatelaw, regulation or executive order. The BLM acknowledges that closure oto oil and gas leasing may have a poteon SITLA's mineral revenue. The closnondiscretionary, and is beyond the s
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-49 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

Non-BLM lands could be indirectly impdecisions both positively and negativeChapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS has beereflect the impacts in Alternative E on discretionary closures of public lands. gas wells foregone on SITLA lands, afrom SITLA wells foregone have been the analysis in Chapter 4. 

004 55 LAR Section 4.3.5 – Lands and Realty. The first paragraph of 

Section 4.3.5.1 (Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives) incorrectly states that acres within WSAs, the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis area, NSO areas, and areas closed to oil and gas leasing will be excluded to new ROWs. In addition, BLM should note that since such ROWs and accompanying development could degrade wilderness characteristics in WSAs, acquisition of inheld state trust lands by land exchange will be a priority of BLM. 

Narrative has been added to the text othat the BLM has an obligation to graninheld State lands in WSAs subject to Interim Management Policy. Current BLM Utah State Policy is to gUtah exchanges and such exchanges use planning decision. Please refer to 004-52. 

004 56 SOC Section 3.13-Socioeconomics (pgs 3-96). BLM decisions to 

withdraw mineral lands from leasing (WSAs, etc.) directly affect the economic viability of state trust lands inholdings. This should be acknowledged appropriately in the discussion of socioeconomic impacts. 

The decision to manage lands as WSAthe Federal Land Policy and Managemto be managed as WSAs in the State the 1980's. Any state trust land inholdmanagement is beyond the scope of tThose state land inholdings that are ea result of the current planning effort hanalyzed in the Socioeconomic sectioalso refer to response to comment 004

004 57 TRV Section 3.17.3 – Issues. Certain existing routes that provide the 

only physical access to trust lands sections would not be "Designated Routes," and motorized access on such routes would be terminated. The Draft RMP fails to address the impact of these closures on the economic value of the affected trust lands. 

The BLM does provide for reasonable lands under all alternatives. A sentencChapter 2, Lands and Realty, ManageAction Alternatives, that states that reland would be provided including acroavoidance and exclusion areas for rigby the Cotter decision (Utah v. Andrus
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-50 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

the travel management plan recognizeprovide access to SITLA lands per the 

004 58 LAR Appendix C Lands and Realty: C.1 Tracts Identified for 

Disposal. The disposal land list is inadequate to meet the need for BLM to acquire all state trust lands in existing WSAs as well as proposed special designations. The state identified specific lands in these areas to be added to the disposal list. 

Current BLM Utah State Policy is to gUtah exchanges and such exchanges use planning decision. Please refer to 004-52, 004-55, 

004 59 CUL The state suggests that the BLM develop a specific ongoing 

program to identify and target identification efforts under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

These type of actions are administratiland use planning decisions to accom

004 60 CUL The state recommends the BLM undertake a final check to 

ensure that other potential areas of high cultural resource densities or values are examined for potential conflicts. The MFO should use techniques such as GIS, existing site databases. 

On pg. 4-28, a model of cultural resoudescribed that was used to predict potresources. This model identified high, densities and this information was useimpacts. For site specific actions the BLM condsurvey as appropriate. 

004 61 CUL The state suggests enhancing and strengthening the density 

analyses utilized in the Draft RMP/EIS. These techniques could be significantly enhanced and strengthened in implementation of the Final Plan for high cultural resource value areas which include Arch Canyon, Recapture Wash, and Montezuma Canyon. 

The BLM will continue to enhance the techniques for high cultural value areaplan. As prescribed in Table 2.1, ManagemAction Alternatives, the BLM will contispecial protection of cultural resourcecultural resource management plans fThese type of actions are administratiland use planning decisions to accom

004 62 CUL Please clarify why Arch Canyon, Recapture Wash, and 

Montezuma Canyon have not been proposed for specific management consideration. The state recommends that these areas be considered for CSMA designation. 

BLM considers these areas to possesvalues and will address issues in thesspecial management plans as describCommon to All Action Alternatives. Plcomments 004-59 and 004-61. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-51 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

004 63 CUL The RMP proposes avoidance areas around National Registereligible cultural resources and specific 100-foot buffers (page 4-

284 and 4-385). The state recommends that rather than stipulations of a standard avoidance distance that the RMP stipulate that avoidance areas will be established that will be sufficient to protect the resources from direct and indirect impacts. 

The intent of BLM is not to require a saround National Register-eligible sites avoidance distance sufficient to protecThe final RMP/EIS will refer to the 100Alternative A since that is the current prescription. BLM will add narrative to clarify that a specific avoidance distan

004 64 CUL It is unclear from the RMP what protective measures are 

proposed under the various alternatives for Hovenweep National Monument, Square Tower (and potentially Cajon) Unit(s). Please clarify how potential visual impacts to the setting, feeling, and association of these units, particularly from solid and/or fluid minerals leasing and/or development, will be managed. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the Hoveexpanded 620+ acres from Alternative acres. The management prescriptions and C would be the same as Alternatiaddition would be managed as the "GSpecial Emphasis Zones"). Table 2.1 clarify the specific prescriptions that aexpansion. The 880 acre visual protecMonument has been carried forward iNSO lease category. The total acreage shown on pg. 239 uC for the Hovenweep ACEC should be correct the error. 

004 65 CUL With exception of the Alkali Ridge NHL, the Alkali Ridge area is 

listed under all alternatives as open for oil and gas development with either standard conditions or timing/controlled surface use conditions. The area appears to go from VRM Class III to VRM Class IV under all alternatives. The change in VRM Class appears to have the potential to result in adverse effects which will need to be analyzed during consultation on the RMP under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

BLM understands its requirement to cthe RMP and will comply. VRM class wfor Alkali Ridge ACEC in the PRMP. 

004 66 CUL The Stipulation in Appendix A (Page A-5) for the Alkali Ridge 

area reiterates that an avoidance area will be established, but does not note whether this area will include consideration of indirect and cumulative as well as direct impacts to cultural resources. 

BLM has reconsidered the stipulations ACEC and has rewritten them to includirect and indirect impacts to cultural r
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-52 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

004 67 CUL The RMP rightly notes that the decisions have potential to 

cause adverse effects to cultural resources. These potential adverse effects may need to be addressed via mitigation during consultation of the RMP under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Please refer to response to comment 

004 68 CUL Table 2.1 (Page 2-8). The state encourages BLM to clarify the 

purposes and types of land treatments that could be authorized in the Comb Ridge CSMA, specifically whether land treatments modify the NSO stipulation as well as what VRM class would apply to this area. 

The Comb Ridge CSMA will be carrieProposed RMP as a recreation managCedar Mesa Special Recreation ManaMost of the management prescriptions Ridge CSMA will apply to the Comb Rmanagement zone. Future activities wmanagement zone would be required management prescriptions, including management objectives. Appendix A in the proposed RMP lists NSO and VRM II, that apply to surface within specific areas of the Monticello stipulations do not apply to non-surfacdefined in the appendix. It is conceivadisturbing activities could be allowed irecreation management zone. That demade through site specific analysis of 

004 69 CUL Table 2.1 (Page 2-9). The area identified as "Butler Wash East 

of Comb Ridge" is not mapped like the other CSMAs. Please clarify whether this CSMA is mapped as part of the Comb Ridge CSMA and how large the Butler Wash East of Comb Ridge CSMA would be. 

The area identified as the "Butler Wasis part of the Comb Ridge SRMA. Thaof Comb Ridge was distinguished from because it required separate prescriptmanagement needs. The Comb Ridge SRMA will be carrieproposed RMP as a recreation managCedar Mesa Special Recreation ManaPlease refer to response to comment 

004 70 CUL The BLM notes in the RMP/DEIS on pages 4-284 and 4-385, 

that preservation-related management decisions would avoid 

Buffers around cultural sites are not sstated as "sufficient to allow for compl
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-53 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

cultural resource impacts by incorporating a buffer around sensitive areas. Please clarify what resources BLM intends to protect with buffers. 

cultural resource" to prevent direct anThe avoidance distance would be speaction. Please refer to response to co

004 71 SOC The royalty payments for oil reported on page 3-113 exceed the 

sale value by more than one million dollars. Please verify and explain this anomaly. 

BLM agrees that the production and ropage 3-113 is confusing as presentedbeen clarified and any erroneous figurin the proposed RMP. 

004 72 REC It is unclear in Chapter 3 whether ROS classifications are 

carried forward as part of the action alternatives and whether ROS classifications will change by alternative. 

The Recreational Opportunity Spectrucarried forward in any of the action althas been added to Section 3.11.2.1 cManagement decisions will be based such as SRMAs, ACECs, National HisWSAs, ISAs, ERMAs, Wild and Scenirecommendations, Non-WSA lands wcharacteristics, etc. 

004 73 REC Please clarify whether the BLM intends to require permits and 

payment of fees in order to travel across SRMAs where the intended destination is on state land. Also, BLM should clarify how it intends to manage non-recreational use of SRMAs and non-BLM inholdings within SRMAs. 

Travel through SRMAs to state land aof SRMAs would be managed as admwould not be charged. 

004 74 MOG The Draft RMP/DEIS for both the Kanab and Richfield field 

offices assess cumulative timing limitations and their impact on oil and gas exploration and development for each alternative by classifying BLM administered lands into one of seven categories (i.e., Standard lease terms, controlled surface use, cumulative timing limits less than three months in duration, cumulative timing limits between three and six months in duration, cumulative timing limits between six and nine months in duration, areas subject to NSO stipulations, and areas unavailable for leasing). The state strongly encourages BLM to complete a similar analysis as part of the Monticello RMP/EIS and for all other RMPs within the State of Utah. 

In accordance with IM 2003-233, leasused by the Monticello Field Office are Uniform Format for Oil and Gas Lease by the Rocky Mountain Regional CoorMarch 1989. 

004 75 OTH Given the scale of available mapping, it is often difficult to BLM has considered the interaction be
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-54 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

reconcile interactions between management prescriptions. The state encourages BLM to carefully review and consider interactions between management stipulations as it formulates the Final RMP and eliminate incompatible requirements and improve mapping detail. 

prescriptions and has attempted to macompatible. 

004 76 VRM To protect the viewshed in the area surrounding Goosenecks 

State Park, the state recommends changing the VRM Class from VRM Class III to VRM Class II, changing the oil and gas leasing to NSO and closing the area to mineral material disposal. 

The BLM, in developing the PRMP/FEmanagement actions from within the rpresented in the DRMP/DEIS and crethat is effective in addressing the currplanning area based on FLPMA's mulBLM feels that the range of alternativeoptions. For any proposals for leasing, all surroconsidered and analyzed in a site speBLM feels this would adequately proteareas as those resources would be ta

004 77 TRR The state suggests the designation of training trails to control 

off-trail riding and indiscriminate OHV use around some dispersed camp areas and trailheads. 

As stated in the Draft RMP/EIS (pg. 2modified through subsequent implemecase by case basis. No specific trails o"training trails" were submitted during the RMP is completed and on a site scould consider training trails near dispareas designated in the limited or opeBLM will consider the commenter's re

004 78 LAR The RMP should recognize the opportunity to purchase rightsof-way across properties owned by SITLA to avoid having 

designated OHV routes closed in the future by the sale of these lands. 

As noted in MCA Alternatives (Easemeasements would be acquired from wState of Utah to gain access to public facilities on non-public lands, and acqaccomplish resource objectives. 

004 79 TRV It is unclear in Map 51(of the DEIS) whether or not routes 

shown in brown within the closed areas are open or closed. The state recommends that all of these routes remain open and the 

The routes within the "Closed" areas aremain open to vehicle use. These roucounty roads or access routes to trail 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-55 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

map and its legend be modified. The map has been modified to clarify 

004 80 TRR The section of the Piute Pass OHV trail that passes by the 

"Chocolate Drop" is closed in the plan. This section should be left open to maintain the integrity of the signed and mapped trail. Also a right-of-way across the SITLA property should be acquired to ensure continued public access. 

This portion of the route is not designaresource conflict within the route. BLM route adjustments based on access nopportunities, and resource constraintbe analyzed at the site-specific activity 

004 81 TRR The OHV users in the Monticello/Blanding area have worked to 

identify and preserve many loop trails on Public lands such as Bridger Jack, Jacob's Chair, Piute Pass and a large loop trail called Canyon Rim Riders Trail. The Utah State Parks would like to see these trails left open and opportunities preserved to complete missing sections. 

Based upon the requirements of NEPAsystematic interdisciplinary approach physical, biological, economic, and somanagement actions for the range of Plan accompanying the DRMP/EIS. Tfuture route adjustments based on accopportunities, and resource constraintbe analyzed at the site-specific activity 

004 82 TRR Under Management Common to All Action Alternatives (page 2-

54), closures and restrictions are the options listed for dealing with adverse impacts caused by OHVs. The state believes mitigation should be the first option considered and applied where appropriate. 

The Federal regulations at 8341.2(a) sofficer shall immediately close the areof vehicle causing the adverse affect." further analysis to determine a final co

004 83 TRV Table ES 1 – OHV Categories by Alternative. The BLM should 

ensure that access to remote irrigation facilities like diversions, gates, and canals are preserved. 

These type of actions are administratiland use planning decisions to accomdesignations do not apply to administr

004 84 WSR Table 3.50 – Individual Eligible Wild and Scenic River(s) 

Segments. In determining suitability, the rights of irrigators to divert flow from these rivers and streams need to be fully protected and considered. 

Barring congressional action, there is or instream flows related to suitability use plan decision. Even if Congress winto the National Wild and Scenic Rivedesignation would have no effect on eSection 13(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rjurisdiction over waters is determined of law. In Utah, the State has jurisdictithe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act impliewater right for designated rivers, it doeany amount, and as noted above, con
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-56 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

jurisdiction over water rights. The BLM adjudicate the water right, in the same entity, by application through state procongressionally designated rivers, BLreserved water right for appurtenant awith a priority date as of the date of deexisting rights), but only in the minimufulfill the primary purpose of the reservThe Draft RMP/EIS states that the BLrights as part of a suitability determinaof Decision for the RMP. Please refer to response to comments 19, and 004-20. 

004 85 WR Potential dam locations are shown on Map 46 (of the DEIS). 

The state assumes that the potential to construct dams in these areas has been preserved in the RMP but it is hard to tell from the maps and text whether or not this is the case. BLM should clarify by adding language to appropriate sections. 

Potential dam locations were included related to potential eligibility for wild adesignation. It was later determined thsites did not affect the eligibility classifinformation has been removed from thproposal for dam construction would bby-case basis regardless of whether sin the RMP. 

004 86 VRM The state objects if the Draft RMP does not make information 

supporting the VRM inventory class determinations available for review. The state also objects if the rationale for each VRM management class is not presented, nor is the impact on resources fully disclosed in the analysis of impacts. 

The BLM will consider the commenterinclude information supporting the VRdeterminations and the rationale for eclass. BLM feels that the impacts of visual mresources was fully disclosed for each 

004 87 VRM The state has concerns that the BLM's identification of VRM 

inventory classes has led to a self-effectuating class protection scheme, rather than a source of information to be considered within the proposed resource use allocation schemes within each of the Draft's alternatives. 

VRM inventory was completed in the l1980s. These inventory classes were Management classes were subject to an interdisciplinary team of BLM resoubest expertise and seeking the best coresources to carry out BLM's mandate 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-57 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

sustained yield while protecting resouvisual resources. BLM disagrees with statement regarding a self-effectuating scheme and stands by its decisions a

004 88 WL The state requests that the BLM not alter habitat designations 

from alternative to alternative. The proper description of crucial winter habitats should occur regardless of alternative. The alternatives should then describe different levels of impact to these habitats. 

Please refer to response to comments 

004 89 WL The Monticello RMP should be consistent with the newly 

developed Utah Wildlife Action Plan (UWAP). As a cooperator in developing this plan, the BLM should acknowledge it as the guideline for sensitive species management in the State of Utah. 

On page 2-51 (of the DEIS), it states twith the UDWR to implement the Utah Conservation Strategy to coordinate mthat would conserve native species anadditional listings." This reference has been changed from Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Action Plan. 

004 90 SSS UDWR intends to investigate the status of the Spotted ground 

squirrel, Stephens' woodrat and the Silky pocket mouse and would welcome mention of cooperation from the BLM in the RMP. 

These species are included in the UtaPlease refer to response to comment 

004 91 SSS Devils Canyon appears to be a unique habitat for the Acorn 

woodpecker and deserves special consideration. 

Although there is not specific mention the Acorn woodpecker, this area and considered on a site-specific basis. Plto comment 004-89. 

004 92 WL Alternative C. The state encourages the BLM not to permit the 

use of toxicants to control prairie dogs except within 100 m of irrigated fields and pastures. 

The use of toxicants to control prairie considered on a site-specific basis anconsulted at such a time. 

004 93 WL Alternative C. To protect western Yellow-billed Cuckoos and 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher's habitat, the BLM should make a commitment in the RMP to locate designated campsites between Montezuma Creek and Bluff so that riparian wildfires 

Fire pans are currently required along follow all fire ordinances. The BLM is San Juan River Plan in the future and would be considered during this site s
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-58 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

are less likely to be started by campfires. 

004 94 VEG The UDWR believes that desirable non-native plants should 

never be categorically excluded from use on western rangelands and encourages BLM not to exclude use of nonnative plants in the Monticello RMP. 

On pg. 3-159 it states "for revegetatioperpetuation of native species is a prioinstances when non-intrusive, non-natecologically or economically feasible." Draft EIS / RMP allows use of non-natdeemed appropriate on a site specific 

004 95 WL The BLM needs to address how to avoid, reduce, and mitigate 

impacts from uranium mining on wildlife and their habitat in the RMP because voluntary mitigation efforts will be inadequate. 

The BLM does not rely exclusively on address impacts from uranium miningSection 302 of FLPMA requires the BLunnecessary or undue degradation of Regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 3809 and standards to ensure that operatormeet this responsibility for operations laws. All operations must meet the pe43 CFR 3809.420 including, measures and wildlife habitat and measures to pto threatened or endangered species, Site specific environmental analysis is mining operations and appropriate mitattached as conditions of approval. Colaws, operations and post-mining land the RMP management prescriptions (t

004 96 WL The BLM should refer to the USFWS document Interim 

Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines and consult with UDWR and USFWS about future wind energy development. 

Future wind energy projects would be specific basis and consultation with Ube done at that time. As stated in table "Authorization of wind energy developbest management practices and proviWind Energy Programmatic EIS, once final." 

004 97 WL The state recommends that the BLM develop a long-term plan 

for mineral extraction and wildlife mitigation within the area 

According to Washington Office Instru2005-069, the BLM may identify off-sitopportunities to address impacts of th
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-59 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

covered by this RMP. not to carry them forward for detailed 

volunteered by the applicant. 

004 98 WL The state recommends that the RMP require adequate 

mitigation (including off-site mitigation where appropriate) in all mineral leases that result in long-term impacts to crucial wildlife habitats. 

The state cites no specific failures in tconcerning onsite mitigation of impacthabitats. BLM's policy for the use of compensaauthorizations issued in the oil and gain IM No. 2005-069. That policy states approach compensatory mitigation "on where it is performed offsite." In its NEmay identify other offsite mitigation opimpacts of the project proposal but shforward for detailed analysis unless voapplicant. Omission of discussion in the land use consideration of offsite mitigation at thphase. 

004 99 WL The state requests that this RMP consider impacts to hunting 

and fishing from energy development. 

Hunting and fishing is considered a realthough it is not specifically mentioneand fishing from energy development 4.3.10.3.8 Impacts of Mineral Decision

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

007 1 PRP The County asks BLM to consider its statutory responsibility 

under FLPMA toward consistency of its land use plans with State and local plans. 

The BLM is aware that there are specplan decisions relevant to aspects of pthat are discrete from, and independeHowever, the BLM is bound by Federa
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-60 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

requires that the development of an Rbe coordinated and consistent with Comaximum extent possible by law, and Federal and non-Federal government extent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. 2consequence, where State and local pFederal law there will be an inconsisteresolved or reconciled. Thus, while County and Federal plannFLPMA, are required to be as integratpractical, the Federal agency planning or subject to County plans, planning pstipulations. The BLM will identify thesFEIS/PRMP, so that the State and loccomplete understanding of the impactand local management options. The Brequired Governor's consistency revie

007 2 AA The BLM's interpretation of the Multiple Use mandate where all 

uses occur someplace but not together is flawed. Landscapes can be managed so that a broad spectrum of resource uses can create social, economic and ecological wealth simultaneously. Multiple use management results in benefits to various resources. For example, grazing can be a tool to benefit wildlife and their habitats. 

In developing land use plans, the BLM to observe the principles of multiple usFLPMA defines multiple use as "the mlands and their various resource valueutilized in the combination that will besfuture needs of the American people...for less than all of the resources, a coand diverse resource uses that takes term needs of future generations for renonrenewable resources....with consirelative values of the resources and ncombination of uses that will give the or the greatest unit output." 

007 3 PRP More emphasis should be placed on monitoring the plan 

decisions both to measure the results of the plan and to insure 

The Federal regulations at 43 CFR 16use plans establish intervals and stan
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-61 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

that actions are taken to incorporate any changes needed. Watershed function, livestock use, recreation, OHV use and wildlife populations are uses that should be monitored more closely. The plan should have greater flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. 

based on the sensitivity of the resourcThe Record of Decision (ROD) for the monitoring plan the specifics of which subsequent to the signing of the ROD

007 4 PRP San Juan County asks for more cooperation and collaboration 

with local, state, and federal agencies (as well as interest groups) in actions and decisions within the Field Office. Misunderstandings could then be worked out in advance -- in the field rather than the courtroom. Within the framework of this RMP, the BLM should provide more opportunities to facilitate cooperative relationships and foster better collaboration efforts. 

The State of Utah and San Juan Counagencies involved in the preparation oinvolved the cooperating agencies in ause planning process including particiinterdisciplinary team meetings. Cooperation and collaboration will conprojects after the RMP is completed aa plan decision to accomplish. 

007 5 WR San Juan County feels more emphasis should be placed on 

sustaining and developing healthy watersheds. The functionality of watersheds underlies all resources values. The best way to improve the functionality of watersheds is by Increasing the ground cover. Well managed grazing is one of the best, most economical, large scale tools for increasing ground cover. 

The BLM actively supports efforts to imBLM is a partner in the Healthy Lands RMP, under all action alternatives, sp30,000 to 50,000 acres over a 15 yeaecosystem health and functioning conDEIS). The RMP, under all alternativegrazing would be managed according Livestock Grazing Management to meRangeland Health. Implementation of improve watershed health and functio

007 6 GRA San Juan County supports livestock grazing in a prescriptive 

manner to accelerate progress toward improved rangeland health and reduction of catastrophic fire. The BLM should reassess timing and season of use for grazing. 

The BLM Land Use Planning Handbothe BLM to identify lands available or grazing. This is the only planning deciDecisions concerning timing and seasan allotment basis using the Standardand Guidelines for Grazing Managem

007 7 GRA San Juan County feels that social/economic analysis for 

livestock grazing is inadequate, as many allotments have been reduced or closed. The county urges BLM to look at grazing on a watershed basis vs. an allotment basis so that livestock 

Only one entire allotment is to be closthe Dodge Canyon allotment (1598 BLhas been in voluntary non-use for manbe no change in the grazing situation 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-62 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

operations would have opportunities to be more profitable but also to benefit wildlife and other resources. 

the allotment to grazing in the PRMP. excluded from grazing are parts of alloallotments. In all cases, these areas hlivestock for many years so there wouthe permittee or the on-ground situatiolivestock. BLM agrees that using a watershed pand may allow more flexibility in manafor a wider range of benefits. This type used at the activity planning level regastated in the RMP. However individuahave to be considered as the building approach because of the tie of grazing allotments. 

007 8 TRV Table 2.1 at page 2-56 indicates the amount of "Open B-Class 

Roads" and Open D-Class Road" varies across alternatives. Please clarify the authority under which BLM would designate county roads, and what happens to a class B, C, or D road if BLM chooses not to designate it. 

It is beyond the scope of this documendeterminations on R.S.2477 claims. In decision – SUWA v. BLM – Septembenoted that ultimately deciding who holinterest in real property, including R.Sjudicial, not an executive, function." 42one of the DEIS states at 1.3.3 ISSUESCOPE OF THE PLAN Settlement of way) claims. The State of Utah and Sahold valid existing rights-of-way in the Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477, Act of Ju8, 14 Stat. 252, 253, codified at 43 U.S1976, Congress repealed R.S. 2477 bThis RMP does not adjudicate, analyzdetermine the validity of claimed rightsnothing in the RMP extinguishes any valters in any way the legal rights the shave to assert and protect R.S. 2477 federal court or other appropriate venuRoutes are coincident merely meaning 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-63 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

that they appeared on both the Countyas those identified by BLM. 

007 9 TRV Any closure of a state or county road within BLM administered 

lands will require assent of all parties with an interest in the road. BLM should carefully coordinate travel management with local governments and take care to avoid impinging upon the state's legal interests in public roads. 

San Juan County was a cooperator in Travel plan. Each route was discusseplanner along with BLM resource specroute closures would be done without agreement with San Juan County officin the past. 

007 10 TRV Access is of major concern to San Juan County. The County 

has been working with the BLM to get a road maintenance agreement which conforms to the 10th Circuit ruling. 

BLM is as eager as the County to devMaintenance Agreement (RMA) betwesatisfies the 10th Circuit Court 2005 ruCounty and BLM. However, a RMA would be developed the signing of the RMP and not addresdecided in the RMP DEIS. 

007 11 SCO The State of Utah has a reversionary interest in any roads that 

may have been granted to the state and local government pursuant to R.S. 2477. Abandonment of the right-of-way by both entities is necessary for a complete resolution for any particular road. 

It is beyond the scope of this documendeterminations on R.S.2477 claims. In decision – SUWA v. BLM – Septembenoted that ultimately deciding who holinterest in real property, including R.Sjudicial, not an executive, function." 42one of the DEIS states at 1.3.3 ISSUESCOPE OF THE PLAN Settlement of way) claims. The State of Utah and Sahold valid existing rights-of-way in the Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477, Act of Ju8, 14 Stat. 252, 253, codified at 43 U.S1976, Congress repealed R.S. 2477 bThis RMP does not adjudicate, analyzdetermine the validity of claimed rightsnothing in the RMP extinguishes any valters in any way the legal rights the shave to assert and protect R.S. 2477 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-64 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

federal court or other appropriate venu

007 12 TRR San Juan County supports Alt C for travel management. The 

county wants the BLM to highlight specific prescriptions to promote responsible use, such as areas that would be highlighted for OHV use, maps, signing, kiosks etc. In addition, BLM assumes that all impacts are the result of OHVs and does not mention impacts to other resources, such as wildlife, from hikers, mountain bikers, and other recreationists. 

In the FEIS, the travel plan selected is with some corrections to the map. Zerto cross country travel by OHVs as opAlternative C. Approximately 8 miles idesignated for motorized travel up to topposed to 3.8 miles in Alternative C. The creation of OHV use designation signs and kiosks, etc. would be accomimplementation phase of the travel pladetail on page N-32, section N.15. Environmental consequences of alternrecreationalist" and wildlife can be fou

007 13 WL The BLM erroneously uses the term critical habitat for wildlife 

habitat that does not apply to endangered species act. The term crucial habitat is used too loosely; UDWR uses crucial habitat as descriptive designations. They are not intended to mislabel resource concerns and result in a limitation of compatible uses. San Juan County disputes the acreage identified for crucial elk and deer winter range in San Juan County and submits information from Dr. Charles Kay in that regard. 

The critical habitat term has been chafinal RMP/EIS. The UDWR is the jurisdictional agency management within the State. The BLof this agency for delineating wildlife hpopulation numbers, and recommend

007 14 WL The BLM cites Sawyer et al. (2006) as the basis for its 

discussion of deer and elk habitat fragmentation, including maps 61 thru 65 and 69 thru 72. The county contacted the lead author of the study for his response to the study's applicability in San Juan County. Based on the author's written comments the county questions BLMs use of the referenced study. The county suggests that fragmentation maps for deer and elk along with the references thereto be removed and not included in the final RMP/EIS. The misuse of this scientific study raises questions about other 

The fragmentation analysis is not an aspecific impacts from site specific projanalyze the degree of habitat fragmenalternative. GIS models were based oavailable information. These models adifferences between alternatives on a The BLM acknowledges that the study entirely as stated in Section 4.3.19.3.2habitat fragmentation on various animquantify. Even with site-specific, peer-
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-65 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

studies, particularly the Desert Sheep Habitat Fragmentation Analysis based on Singer et al. (2001) as presented in Table 4.216 on page 4-600. The county cautions BLM about using scientific studies inappropriately. 

research on the impacts to particular whabitat fragmentation, many variables severity of the impacts to nearby wildlpredict." 

007 15 WC Managing Non-WSA Lands for so-called wilderness 

characteristics violates FLPMA, Utah Code 63-38d-401(6)(b), the San Juan County master plan, the Norton-Leavitt Agreement and other agreements. The county asks the BLM to provide a detailed explanation of the rationale and authority for management of lands solely because of WC, and why such management does not circumvent the provisions of the statutorily required wilderness review process. 

The BLM's authority for managing lanwilderness characteristics comes direLand Policy and Management Act (FL(U.S.C. § 1712). This section of the Bgives the Secretary of the Interior authlands for multiple use and sustained ysection constrains the Secretary's autas necessary to "achieve integrated cbiological, economic, and other scienc202(c)(2) (43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(2)). Fuclear that the term "multiple use" meaappropriate for every acre of public lancan "make the most judicious use of lathese resources or related services ovprovide sufficient latitude for periodic aFLPMA, Section 1039(c) (43 U.S.C. § intended the Secretary of the Interior tas a mechanism for allocating resourcwilderness character management, amresources in a way that provides use fgenerations. The Norton-Leavitt Agreement recognAgreement shall be construed to diminauthority under FLPMA to manage a tbeen dedicated to a specific use. IM 2003-275-Change 1 which is a direNorton-Leavitt Agreement states, "the information on wilderness characteristinformation on other uses and values plans." The IM goes on to say "consid
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-66 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

characteristics in the land use planninseveral outcomes including, but not limthe protection of some or all of the wilas a priority over other multiple uses" not be designated as a WSA). The IM resource information contained in the inventories was collected to support a process. Public wilderness proposals proposal. In either case the BLM is ausuch information in preparation of a laor revision." In September 2006, Judge Benson, wNorton-Leavitt Agreement, stated that strip the BLM of its powers to protect lhave wilderness characteristics in a msimilar to the manner in which such laprotected as WSAs. 

007 16 WC The BLM inconsistently applied road data between the 1999 

inventory and the 2007 WC review. 

The Wilderness Study Area Interim-Mor "WSA handbook") applied to invent2004. In 2004 BLM settled ongoing litiUtah (known now as the Utah v. NortoAgreement). The IMP emphasized the roads and "ways." A road was considewilderness characteristics and needed inventory unit. A "way" however, was itself a sufficient impact on naturalnesof an inventory unit. Inventories conducted post-2004 applis based on IM 275-2003, Change 1 wnaturalness and does not distinguish rBLM has evaluated wilderness characthe basis of impacts to naturalness whroads and ways. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-67 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

007 17 WC The BLM should not consider undeveloped leases and potential 

for future development when it determines whether areas possess wilderness characteristics. The possibility of future development is irrelevant. It is only appropriate to consider this information when deciding whether to protect areas which have been found to possess wilderness characteristics. 

As part of its wilderness characteristicmaintenance, the BLM used a combinID Team review, og-wells GIS data, RDevelopment (RFD) data, range allotmof BLM and San Juan County (SJ CO2006 high resolution aerial photographassist in determining what impacts wetime of the 2007 Wilderness Charactedetermine naturalness. RFDs were nopotential future scenarios for Oil and G(potential Oil and Gas Development Sdetermining what units would be manacharacteristics in the FEIS. This procelook at all resources during wilderness inventory maintenance. The BLM find2007 WCR process and are available administrative record in the Monticello BLM stands by its findings of its wildeinventories and WCR process. 

007 18 WC The BLM needs to consider the new information on roads 

(2007) to reevaluate the findings of the 1999/2003 wilderness inventory and discuss any changes to BLM's 1999/2003 determination of WC that result from more recent route information and intrusion information. 

The 2003 Revision Document for the made adjustments to Wilderness Invecounty road data, none of which differinventory. BLM stands by its 1999/200As part of BLM's wilderness charactermaintenance, BLM performed a combsite reviews. This included specific fieInterdisciplinary team review of data sCounty and BLM GIS data, and high-rphotographs. The BLM's findings are 2003 wilderness reinventory documen2007 wilderness characteristics review confident of the high-standard approapublic lands and stands by its findingsfindings, which involved wilderness ch
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-68 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

maintenance. 

007 19 PRP San Juan County is opposed to "layering" of restrictive land use 

designations such as ACECs or SRMAs over WSAs or Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

"Layering" is planning. Under FLPMA'BLM manages many different resourcpublic lands. Through land use planniobjectives for each of those values anactions to accomplish those objectivesconcept, BLM doesn't necessarily mause on every acre, but routinely manavalues and uses on the same areas oprocess of applying many individual pand actions to the same area of public as "layering." BLM strives to ensure thobjectives of each program (representuses) are consistent and compatible fInconsistent goals and objectives can conflicts, failure to achieve the desired plan, and litigation. Whether or not a pmanagement is restrictive depends updesire to see that public lands are mamanner. All uses and values cannot bacre. That is why land use plans are dpublic and interdisciplinary process. Tprocess helps ensure that all resource considered together to determine whais responsive to the issues identified fouse plan. Layering of program decisioBLM, but is required by the FLPMA anplanning and program specific regulatFLPMA directs BLM to manage public and sustained yield (Section 102(a)(7)agency, the BLM is required to implemand policies for many different and oftand to resolve conflicts and prescribe land use plans. BLM's Land Use Plan
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-69 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

that specific decisions be made for ea(See, Appendix C, Planning Handboodecisions must be included in each of analyzed during development of the laalternative is formulated, each program with other program decisions and incoidentified and modified so that ultimateuses and management prescriptions rSRMAs are not restrictive of resource utilized to control recreation use. Sevedesignations such as WSAs, ACECs asegments, but the management propodiffering purposes and is not incompa

007 20 ACE The Draft RMP/EIS does not include a discussion on the nature 

or type of threat of "irreparable damage" or the regional significance of relevant and important values in its review. BLM misinterprets irreparable damage when reviewing and analyzing ACECs in the Draft RMP/EIS. The ACEC tool was intended by Congress to be limited to only those instances where irreparable damage would be caused without designation. Most surface disturbing actions can eventually be repaired. The BLM must explain the need for "special" management for the ACEC and explain how this management is not duplicative of other normal BLM management or protections afforded by other state or federal laws. 

The ACEC evaluation appendix (Appeand a section added discussing threatimportant ACEC values; however, whcurrently exist does not preclude a poconsidered in the action alternatives. Awhere the BLM has determined to havvalues, are identified as potential ACEthe action alternatives. Threats to relevalues are likely to vary by alternativeOn August 27, 1980, the BLM promulgguidelines (45 Federal Register 57318"protects" – "To defend or guard againimportant environmental resources of ACEC. This includes damage that can and that which is irreparable. With regprotect means to prevent the loss of liloss or damage to property." Thus, BLpotential for both reparable and irrepaprotecting important historic, cultural, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-70 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

and wildlife resources; or other naturadesignation. This interpretation is conslegislative history and implementing pSection 2 of the guidelines clarifies thaplaces within the public lands. It statesestablishing in law such basic protectithat apply to all the public lands, Cong'management of national resource laninclude giving special attention to the the purpose of ensuring that the most important and fragile lands will be giveprotection' (Senate Report 94-583, on ACEC process is to be used to providmanagement is required to protect thoresources that are most important, i.emake certain specific areas special plaor man with characteristics that set theACEC process is to be used to protecfrom natural hazards." 

007 21 VRM The County objects if the Draft RMP does not make information 

supporting the VRM inventory class determinations available for review. The County also objects if the rational for each VRM management class is not presented, nor is the impact on resources fully disclosed in the analysis of impacts. 

The VRM inventory was completed in 1980s. These inventory classes were Management classes were subject to an interdisciplinary team of BLM resoubest expertise and seeking the best coresources to carry out BLM's mandate sustained yield while protecting resouvisual resources. BLM disagrees with statement regarding a self-effectuating scheme and stands by its decisions a

007 22 VRM The County has concerns that the BLM's identification of VRM 

inventory classes has led to a self-effectuating class protection scheme, rather than a source of information to be considered 

Please refer to response to comment 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-71 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

within the proposed resource use allocation schemes within each of the Draft's alternatives. 

007 23 AA In the analysis of the impacts for the Draft RMP/EIS, almost all 

the impacts are attributable to OHV use, oil and gas use, and, to some extent, grazing. The underlying theme is that these 3 things are the cause of all negative impacts and if they are eliminated or controlled then everything else is taken care of. The BLM should consider cheat grass and juniper encroachment, invasive weed problems, and catastrophic fires. The BLM should utilize livestock to control invasive plants. 

In the Draft RMP/EIS, surface disturbiconsidered potential negative impacts resources. On page A-1, surface distudefined. Surface disturbing activities inother things, oil and gas development use. Neither grazing nor vehicle travedefined as surface disturbing activitiesThe BLM has addressed cheat grass, invasive weeds and catastrophic firesOn pg. 2-50 in decisions common to aBLM specifies controlling and reducinweed species. Vegetation treatments area are identified on pg. 2-14. The PUtah Fire Plan, which seeks to prevenOn an allotment basis, Standards for Guidelines for Grazing Management ccontrol invasive species on any given 

007 24 SOC San Juan County commends the BLM for the effort that has 

been expended to better understand and portray socioeconomic impacts in this DRMP. This has been a weakness in previous plans. San Juan County encourages BLM to use studies done by Utah's universities to enhance this information such as the social survey undertaken by USU and the economic studies done by the U of U. Every NEPA action in the RMP should include a discussion on socioeconomic conditions and fully disclose all impacts. 

The BLM has reviewed the Utah State rural counties conducted by the State received preliminary data for San Juacompletion of the Draft RMPM/EIS. Thfindings in chapter 3 of the PRMP/FEIaddition, an appendix has been added which summarizes the results of this sThe recent research undertaken by thBureau of Economic and Business Reactivities in San Juan County is not yeunexpected death of the primary reseeffort. The BLM has extensively utilize
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-72 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining iof the contributions of various industriOn a broad land use planning level, thsocioeconomic impacts from various rdiscussed in Chapter 4 of the DRMP/Eseparate out the socioeconomic impaspecific resource decisions specified i

007 25 LAR There is no mention of Ute Indian lands in Table 1.1 on pg. 1-2. That error has been corrected in the P007 26 WC San Juan County is opposed to any non- WSA wilderness 

designations described in 1.3.1.3, Non-Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) Lands with Wilderness Characteristics on pg. 1-6. 

The commenter's preference is noted

007 27 CUL Pg. 2-8 and 2-9 - The management prescriptions for the Comb 

Ridge CSMA are more restrictive for Alternative C than Alternative B with regard to group size. The County questions how limits on group size and restrictions on collection of firewood for campfires can be enforced. 

The restrictions on group size have bePRMP and collection of firewood for cin the PRMP. Therefore, enforcement 

007 28 CUL Pg. 2-11 - The County requests BLM's rationale for the limits of 

people per day, numbers in rooms and numbers in corridors proposed for McLoyd Canyon-Moon House CSMA. How will compliance be accomplished? 

The limits for people per day, numberin corridors in the McLoyd Canyon-Mobased on the results of a condition asconducted for the Moon House Compassessment was conducted by the NaArchaeological Site Conservation ProNational Park. The limits are designed threats caused by uncontrolled visitatidamage to existing intact plaster walls structural elements such as walls and weakened by visitation and other natuCompliance will be accomplished throsite stewardship program for the site, the site that will be provided at the KaStation, and through patrols by BLM renforcement. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-73 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

007 29 CUL Pg. 2-12 - The Hole-in-the-Rock trail is one of regional and 

national importance and yet is basically ignored in the DRMP. The BLM should consider assistance from other individuals, organizations, and government entities that have an interest in interpreting and protecting the trail. 

The BLM does consider assistance froorganizations, and government entitieinterest in the Hole in the Rock Trail. IHistoric Trails, under Management CoAlternatives, it states that the Hole in tmanaged for Heritage Tourism in consState Historic Preservation Office and as well as interested stakeholder grou

007 30 FIR Pg. 2-13 (note: page numbers have changed since the last 

draft) The Prescott National Forest has used goats in critical WUI areas to successfully reduce fuels. Is the BLM planning to use goats/sheep as a fuel treatment? If so, where and how? 

The Finding of No Significant Impact athe Utah Land Use Plan Amendment fManagement (UT-USO-04-01) signed identifies maximum treatment acres atreatment activities for the Monticello Use Plan Amendment, the associated Opinion, and the Resource Protection minimize or avoid resource impacts froactions are incorporated into this RMPincorporated new fire management podirectives for BLM-administered lands detailed information regarding fire maobjectives was provided in a programmPlan (FMP). The FMP covers field offiindividual fire district such as the Moaoversees fire management for the MoLUP Amendment for Fire and Fuels st11) that the [EA] is limited to planningsite-specific analysis of resources succultural is conducted for individual fire and implementation actions. Public cothe LUP Amendment as well as for the FMP. The EA process also involved cpublic, the BLM and other governmenThe LUP Amendment states (Chapter acreages identified for fire manageme
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-74 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

Amendment and as carried through in guidelines useful for the development Management Plans (FMP), and are noquotas, targets or exact limitations." TMonticello Field Office does include deFire Management Units (FMUs) for thcommunities within the field office, anmanagement goals for each of those Fprogrammatic EA for the FMP (UT-06042) analyzed the overall direct, indireimpacts of fire management goals and vegetation treatment methods, potenttreatments, and the number of acres pin a vegetative community or communand analyzed at a project-level basis idocument. 

007 31 AA The Health and Safety section seems rather weak. Is 

abandoned mine lands the only health and safety concern in the Monticello Field Office? 

The goal for the Health and Safety sewould mange hazardous risks on pubhealth and safety of public land users natural and environmental resources, hazardous and related risks, costs anphysical hazards in compliance with aregulations and policies. Statements wsection to include all physical hazardsand hazardous wastes for mitigation acommon to all alternatives. 

007 32 GRA Under Livestock Grazing, Management Common to All 

Alternatives, the statement "Modify and implement existing Allotment Management Plans...that require such action" is unclear. Please clarify intent and need. 

The intent is to use an AMP where apto implement grazing management acfacilitate maintaining or achieving StanHealth. Not all allotments would need this goal. Those listed are existing AMwhere new AMPs would be most effec

007 33 GRA Please furnish rationale and authority to allocate 17,300 acres This is an allocation recommended by 

Board in the 1960s or early 1970s wh
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-75 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

to wildlife (parts of Peter's Canyon and East Canyon). previous Management Framework Pla

has been in effect since that time. The steep slopes and benchlands along thcanyons were better suited to wildlife livestock. The authority is in the TayloRegulations and Land Use Planning R

007 34 GRA San Juan County policy is against the relinquishment or 

retirement of grazing rights in favor of conservation, wildlife and other uses. Please clarify BLM's goals in encouraging relinquishment and what mechanism would be used to retire grazing rights. 

BLM does not encourage relinquishmpreference. BLM policy recognizes the permittee to voluntarily relinquish his gstated on Pg. 2-17 of the DEIS, once preference is still available for applicagrazing by livestock unless BLM deterbetter used for other purposes. If the ldiscontinuation of grazing would be mthe RMP. Even so, discontinuance wobut would be subject to reconsideratiorevision or amendment of the RMP. 

007 35 REC Pg. 2-21(note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The county is concerned that the BLM establishes SRMAs to charge fees without providing facilities. 

BLM policy directly ties the charging ofacilities provided. Recreational site fethe scope of this document. 

007 36 REC Pg. 2-22 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The BLM should insure that providing facilities and services for other agencies doesn't take away from management needs that occur on BLM lands. In particular, the NPS Needles District should provide camping facilities for its visitors within the NP since there is ample room for facilities and because the NPS has a larger budget. 

The BLM priority is to provide facilities public land users. 

007 37 CUL Pg. 2-25 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The one goal listed for the Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA is "Integrate management between the BLM and NPS to provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting natural and cultural resource values." The County feels there is little shared recreational opportunities 

Although opportunities may be limitedintegrate management between the Boutstanding recreational opportunities while protecting natural and cultural repossible. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-76 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

across the BLM/NPS common boundary because of topography and other factors. Also, there is nothing to address this goal in Appendix E Recreation, or Chapter 4. 

007 38 PRP Pg. 2-25 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The maps for Cedar Mesa Cultural SRMA and ACEC for Valley of the Gods overlap. Please clarify the management of this area to avoid the layering of protection. 

In the FEIS, this overlap does not exis

007 39 AA The BLM should resolve inconsistencies in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

For instance, on page 4-266, reference is made to "Section 3.10.4.2." However the County could find no Section 3.10.4.2. Likewise on page 4-267, reference is made to recreational trends in Section 3.10.4 but that section discusses paleontological resources. 

These inconsistencies have been corr

007 40 REC Pg. 2-29 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The first bullet concerning camping under management common to all alternatives seems to be in conflict with Alternatives A, C, and D. Please clarify. 

The second part of the first bullet undeCommon to All Action Alternatives stathe riparian corridor within this area wdesignated campsites only" is incorrecmanagement prescriptions vary with echange has been made in the documeThe camping management prescriptiois: Dispersed camping would be allowed Corridor, except within the established zones: Bridger Jack Mesa, Indian CrePasture. Camping within these zones sites. 

007 41 REC Pg. 2-29 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The county encourages BLM to address the safety issue in Indian Creek caused by rock climbers who park and obstruct traffic within the narrow highway corridor. 

Chapter 2, page 2-29 states managemCorridor would be in conformance with in the Indian Creek Corridor Plan. Bulunder the guidelines states "parking adeveloped." 

007 42 WL Pg. 2-29 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). In In areas, such as Indian Creek and Br
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-77 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

some instances such as Bridger Jack Mesa, timing and other restrictions apply to OHVs to protect wildlife/raptors but the same restrictions do not apply to rock climbers. The county requests BLM to clarify this apparent inconsistency. 

there are rock climbers; BLM conductand have closed portions of the climbiraptors. On Page 2-60 in Table 2.1 it states to areas (amount of time depends on spto rock climber or other activities if actabandonment." 

007 43 WL Pg. 2-31 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

San Juan County feels that restrictions imposed in wildlife areas are excessive and not supported by best science. In particular, road use should be allowed unless impacts can be shown. 

All surface restrictions imposed in wildexceptions, modifications, and waiver for flexibility and use of current situatiomaking a site-specific decision (see A

007 44 WR Pg. 2-33 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

San Juan County feels that more emphasis on watersheds is needed in the RMP. 

Please refer to response to comment 

007 45 PRP Pg. 2-34 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

San Juan County is opposed to any layering of ACEC's over WSAs. 

Please refer to response to comment 

007 46 ACE Pg. 2-34 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

San Juan County feels that, with exception of the National Historic Landmark (2,146 acres), the Alkali Ridge ACEC does not meet the requirements necessary to qualify as an ACEC and that the area can be protected within the framework of current laws and regulations. The County urges BLM to not manage this area as an ACEC but choose Alternative D in the final RMP. 

Please refer to response to comment 

007 47 PRP Pg. 2-37 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

San Juan County cannot support the designation of the Butler Wash North ACEC due to its layering over a WSA. However, the County would support Alternative C if the WSA was not included as part of the ACEC. 

In the FEIS, the Butler Wash North ardesignated as an ACEC but would be IMP. 

007 48 ACE Pg. 2-37 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The statement "Portions of the Cedar Mesa ACEC lie within 8 

A correction has been made in the doWSAs and 1 ISA lie within the Cedar M
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-78 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

WSAs" under Management Common to All Alternatives should be clarified because according to all of the maps there are only 4 WSAs. San Juan County recommends that BLM avoid layering of protective designations. 

"Layering" is planning. Under FLPMA'BLM manages many different resourcpublic lands. Through land use planniobjectives for each of those values anactions to accomplish those objectivesconcept, BLM doesn't necessarily mause on every acre, but routinely manavalues and uses on the same areas oprocess of applying many individual pand actions to the same area of public as "layering." BLM strives to ensure thobjectives of each program (representuses) are consistent and compatible fInconsistent goals and objectives can conflicts, failure to achieve the desired plan, and litigation. Whether or not a pmanagement is restrictive depends updesire to see that public lands are mamanner. All uses and values cannot bacre. That is why land use plans are dpublic and interdisciplinary process. Tprocess helps ensure that all resource considered together to determine whais responsive to the issues identified fouse plan. Layering of program decisioBLM, but is required by the FLPMA anplanning and program specific regulatFLPMA directs BLM to manage public and sustained yield (Section 102(a)(7)agency, the BLM is required to implemand policies for many different and oftand to resolve conflicts and prescribe land use plans. BLM's Land Use Plan
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-79 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

that specific decisions be made for ea(Planning Handbook "H-1601-1"). Speincluded in each of the alternatives andevelopment of the land use plan. As formulated, each program decision is program decisions and inconsistent deand modified so that ultimately a compmanagement prescriptions result. 

007 49 PRP Pg. 2-37 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

San Juan County cannot support any of the alternatives for the Cedar Mesa area because of the layering of ACEC and CSRMA over WSA. The County would support Alternative C if the ACEC and C-SRMA are removed from the WSA and management is in accordance with the IMP in those areas. 

In the FEIS, the ACEC and the C-SRMforward. The area will be managed as contain WSAs. See also refer to response to commen

007 50 ACE Pg. 2-37 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

Management prescriptions for the Cedar Mesa ACEC under Alternative C are unclear. For instance the County cannot determine rather activities such as geophysical work, disposal of mineral materials, or mineral entry are available. 

The text of the PRMP has been changmanagement prescriptions. 

007 51 TRV Pg. 2-40 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The OHV open area is not included under Alternative C for the Indian Creek ACEC. This seems to be an oversight since it is addressed in other portions of the plan. The County supports Alternative C for this area provided the OHV open area is included. 

The Indian Creek open to OHV area is the Indian Creek ACEC. The ACEC wmaintain visual resources and it has bsince its establishment and is to remaC. The ACEC was never included in thIndian Creek area that is open to OHV alternatives. 

007 52 WSR Pg. 2-45 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

San Juan County feels that a W&SR designation in Dark Canyon is unnecessary because current management for the WSA already protects the ORVs. W&SR status for this segment would be confusing and would present unnecessary management problems and associated costs. 

The Wild and Scenic River suitability pprocess differ. The outstandingly remaalong Dark Canyon differ from the wildwithin the WSA. It is very common for Areas to be designated as Wild and SCongress. 

007 53 WL Pg. 2-54 and 2-56 (note: page numbers have changed since Comment noted. The proposed travel 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-80 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

last draft). San Juan County is opposed to any alternative in the Monticello RMP/EIS which closes any portion of the Arch Canyon road. Reasons for the County's opposition include: 1) the Flannelmouth Sucker is not found above the State Section (T. 37 S., R. 10 E., Section 16). Therefore there is no justification to close the Arch Canyon road to protect this species above the State Section; 2) The stream is in proper functioning condition and BLM surveys have found no evidence that the Flannelmouth Sucker is being impacted by the road or its use; 3) The two primary reasons for listing the MSO, as described by the USFWS in its final rule dated August 31, 2004, are not major threats in the portion of Arch Canyon located on BLM lands; 4) In its final rule, the USFWS also described important habitat conditions for the MSO, all of which are much more prevalent on the Forest Service lands than on the BLM lands; 5) The portion of Arch Canyon on BLM land is near the fringe of the habitat for the MSO as mapped by the USFWS and would appear not to be as important for the survival of the owl; 6) The BLM is proposing to allow hikers unrestricted access in Arch Canyon. The county requests an explanation of BLM's rationale for allowing hikers to hike and camp both on the road and throughout the canyon and cliffs while proposing to close the road to OHV use. 

Even if the flannelmouth sucker is not section, it does not preclude managemwatershed above the fish since activitupstream will directly impact fish that The endangered species act does not of species simply because the proposas one of the primary reason for the nlisted. Arch Canyon is included in the DesignMexican Spotted Owls and habitat evadetermined that Arch Canyon is suitabOwls. As stated in table 2.1 on Page 2-54, thpermit system to restrict the number oand C. 

007 54 VEG Pg. 2-57 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The first goal under vegetation should include livestock as well. 

The document has been revised to increlation to livestock management. 

007 55 WL Pg. 2-60 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

San Juan County cannot support any of the management alternatives for wildlife because of it's concerns on crucial habitat acreage. The County would welcome an opportunity to discuss this with BLM and see if adjustments can be made. 

Please refer to response to comment 

007 56 WD Pg. 2-62 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

Opportunities for woodland harvest under Alternatives A, B, C 

The RMP has been revised that allowareas not identified as a harvesting zo
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-81 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

and D are 73%, 41%, 47% and 31%, respectively. San Juan County is concerned about the drastic reductions in lands available for woodland harvest and the impact on citizens who depend on these woodland products, especially on Cedar Mesa and other areas where Native Americans have traditionally gathered wood. The county suggests that the BLM give this use more consideration in the final RMP. 

available localities. Areas of historic wessentially continue to be available. Aharvest are typically limited to areas dsites with no access to woodland prodAreas, and riparian communities. The Cedar Mesa and the Montezuma WatAlternatives C and D, has been revisecontinuation of existing woodland harvmanagement plan is implemented thaClass III surveys in woodland harvesti

007 57 REC Section 3.11.2.1 – It is unclear whether the BLM is carrying 

ROS into the new RMP. ROS is described in the current plan and on Map 35 but there is no other analysis across alternatives. However, it appears that the primitive designation is used in effect to create "defacto wilderness" and VRM I areas smaller than 5,000 acres. BLM needs to clarify use of ROS in the Draft RMP. 

The Recreational Opportunity Spectrucarried forward in any of the action althas been added to Section 3.11.2.1 cManagement decisions will be based such as SRMAs, ACECs, National HisWSAs, ISAs, ERMAs, Wild and Scenirecommendations, Non-WSA lands wcharacteristics, etc. 

007 58 WL Section 3.20.2.1 – It is generally agreed that in southeast Utah 

the limiting factor for mule deer is summer range, not winter range as stated by BLM. The county suggests that BLM correct this in the Final RMP. 

The sentence, "Winter range is often cfactor for mule deer" has been removefollowing clarification: "In the summer populations could be limited during yerainfall, water availability, and summefawning success. In the winter monthsquality of habitat or deep snow results of deer on winter ranges, increasing threduction in population, and fawning s

007 59 WL Section 3.20.2.1. The county points out that BLM's statement 

that "Within the Monticello PA, there has been a loss/die-off of sagebrush habitat due to drought and insect infestations" is only partially correct. The county references Charles E. Kay's studies in Beef Basin which show that sagebrush loss/die off is due primarily to deer overgrazing. Overgrazing by deer can also stress sagebrush and make it more susceptible to drought and 

The sentence has been modified to: "Wthere has been a loss/die-off of sagebdrought, insect infestations, and overg
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-82 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

insects. 

007 60 WL Table 3.61 – The county requests BLM's justification for tripling 

the deer population given the condition of the crucial habitat in Beef Basin and Harts Draw. 

Please refer to response to comment 

007 61 WL Section 3.20.2.4 – The county agrees with BLM's description of 

Desert bighorn sheep habitat. However, based on that description, the county questions how BLM can reconcile the large acres of thick pinyon-juniper areas included as crucial Bighorn Sheep habitat (Map 54 and 78 thru 82 of the DEIS). 

Please refer to response to comment 

007 62 WL Tables 4.235, 4.236, 4.237 and 4.238 show huge acreage of 

pinyon-juniper that will be protected for special wildlife conditions for deer, elk, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep. The BLM should reconcile why special conditions exist in this area given that the encroachment of pinyon-juniper has resulted in the loss of crucial habitat for these species. 

Please refer to response to comment 

007 63 AA Pg. 4-561 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The BLM refers to Section 4.3.19.2.6 but that section does not exist in the document. 

The PRMP has been changed to corresections referenced should be SectionCultural Resource Decisions on Wildli4.3.19.3.12, Impacts of Recreation DeFisheries. 

007 64 AA Pg. 4-593 (note: page numbers have changed since last draft). 

The BLM refers to Section 4.3.19.2.15, Impacts of Habitat Fragmentation. That section is found at 4.3.19.3.21. 

The text of the PRMP has been correc

007 65 WC Managing non-WSA Lands for wilderness characteristics under 

Alternative E would: 1) Violate Federal Law, BLM Policy, and the State of Utah/Department of Interior Settlement Agreement of 2003; 2) Clash with State and Local Policies and Plans for managing those lands and thus violate the consistency requirement of FLPMA Section 202 ( c )(9); and 3) Arbitrarily and capriciously ignore the documentation and information submitted by San Juan County which show that the subject lands lack true wilderness character. 

The BLM's authority for managing lanwilderness characteristics comes direLand Policy and Management Act (FL(U.S.C. § 1712). This section of the Bgives the Secretary of the Interior authlands for multiple use and sustained ysection constrains the Secretary's autas necessary to "achieve integrated cbiological, economic, and other scienc
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-83 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

202(c)(2) (43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(2)). Fuclear that the term "multiple use" meaappropriate for every acre of public lancan "make the most judicious use of lathese resources or related services ovprovide sufficient latitude for periodic aFLPMA, Section 1039(c) (43 U.S.C. § intended the Secretary of the Interior tas a mechanism for allocating resourcwilderness character management, amresources in a way that provides use fgenerations. The Norton-Leavitt Agreement recognAgreement shall be construed to diminauthority under FLPMA to manage a tbeen dedicated to a specific use. IM 2003-275-Change 1 which is a direNorton-Leavitt Agreement states, "the information on wilderness characteristinformation on other uses and values plans." The IM goes on to say "considcharacteristics in the land use planninseveral outcomes including, but not limthe protection of some or all of the wilas a priority over other multiple uses" not be designated as a WSA). The IM resource information contained in the inventories was collected to support a process. Public wilderness proposals proposal. In either case the BLM is ausuch information in preparation of a laor revision." In September 2006, Judge Benson, wNorton-Leavitt Agreement, stated that 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-84 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

strip the BLM of its powers to protect lhave wilderness characteristics in a msimilar to the manner in which such laprotected as WSAs. The proposed FEIS will state that the acres for wilderness characteristics. TDark Canyon (11,540 acres), Mancos Nokai Dome West (14,988 acres), Noacres) and Grand Gulch (13,657 acresprescriptions include: All existing improvements could be malevel. VRM II for surface disturbing activitiesNo Surface Occupancy for Dark Canyfor Mancos Mesa, Nokai Dome West, Grand Gulch. OHV travel limited to designated roadAvoidance areas for rights-of-way. Fire suppression on non-WSA lands wcharacteristics would be through light The BLM feels this represents a balanmanaging wilderness characteristics amandated multiple use. 

007 66 AQ Air quality baseline should be established based on average 

case scenarios as opposed to worse case scenarios. Air quality monitoring stations should be installed using best available control technology. San Juan County should be involved in any air quality analysis for quality assurance purposes. 

BLM analyses are designed to estimaconservative potential impacts, in accoregulations. BLM recognizes the great stakeholders and looks forward to worCounty. 

007 67 WSR San Juan County opposes any statement in the DRMP/EIS 

which purports to continue to manage eligible river segments, or presumptively suitable segments, as if those segments may 

Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic RFederal land management agencies mriver considerations during land use p
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-85 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

some day be included in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Congress conferred no such interim management authority on the BLM. The County recommends that any such statements be substituted with appropriate language indicating that management will be in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield until such time as Congress may designate for inclusion in the National WSR system. 

review are involved. Eligibility is an invriver values. Suitability involves considand resource conflicts. As per BLM Manual 8351-Wild and ScProgram, Section .32C, all eligible riveEIS for the planning effort as to their scongressional designation into the NaRivers System. With any suitability deROD for the FEIS/PRMP, the free-flowremarkable values, and tentative classcontinue to be protected until Congresdesignation. 

007 68 WSR Any statements in the DRMP/EIS which purports to prohibit 

impoundments, diversions, channelizations and rip-rapping on any river segment in San Juan County are particularly offensive to Utah State water law and water rights. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act impliewater right; however, it must be the mfor purposes of the Act, it must be adjprocesses, and it would be junior to examount of Federal right will vary from on the river's flows, the un-appropriateand the values for which the river is beno effect whatsoever on water rights orelated to suitability findings made in a barring Congressional action. Even if designate rivers in the National Wild aSystem, any such designation would hexisting, valid water rights. Section 13 Scenic Rivers Act states that jurisdictidetermined by established principles ohas jurisdiction over water. Although tRivers Act implies a federal reserved wdesignated rivers, it doesn't require or and instead establishes that only the mpurpose of the Act can be acquired. Bhas jurisdiction over water, BLM would adjudicate the right as would any othe
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-86 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

through state processes. Thus, for Corivers, BLM may assert a federal reseappurtenant and unappropriated wateof the date of designation (junior to all in the minimum amount necessary to of the reservation. In practice, howeverights have not always been claimed iensuring sufficient flows are adequate outstandingly remarkable values. During the suitability phase of the Wild process, San Juan County as well as SITLA, were asked to supply informatreasonably foreseeable potential uses waters, which would be enhanced, forthe area were included in the national values which could be foreclosed or dnot protected as part of the national sysummarizes suitability input by the pucommunities. Suitability decisions werresults of this input. 

007 69 WSR San Juan County's position is that no river segments on BLM 

lands in the Monticello Field Office planning area should be recommended as suitable for Congressional classification and designation in the W&SR system. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRestablished legislation to protect and privers throughout the United States in condition. Section 5(d)(1) of the WSRA agencies to consider the potential for recreational river areas in all planning development of water and related land of alternatives for Wild and Scenic Rivproposed in the DRMP. The Wild and Process and a list of authorities and gAppendix H, beginning on page H-67. 

007 70 GRA San Juan County is concerned with any language in the 

DRMP/EIS that would accept whatever wildlife herd number objective the UDWR may give to BLM, if accepting that herd 

BLM works cooperatively with UDWR wildlife herd objective levels which are wildlife boards (on which BLM has a re
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-87 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

number means BLM has to place more active use livestock AUMs in suspension. The County feels that BLM has an obligation to tell the UDWR to reduce it's herd size objectives in order to allow the restoration of all suspended use AUMs back to active use AUMs for livestock, as guaranteed by the Taylor Grazing Act. 

open public process. As provided for in FLPMA, the Secretathe land use planning process, to modincluding livestock grazing. While it is enhance rangeland health while providsources of minerals, food, timber and requirement in the Taylor Grazing Act applicable law for the BLM "to allow thsuspended use AUMs back to active uto the detriment of other uses of the pFLPMA, BLM is to manage for "multipthe present and future needs of the Ampermanently impairing the productivity 

007 71 GRA Utah Code Section 63-38d-401 prohibits permanent closure of 

grazing allotments and conversion of livestock AUMs to wildlife or other uses. The County is concerned that any decision to diminish grazing AUMs for any reason other than rangeland conditions is contrary to state law and is inconsistent with San Juan County public land policy and plans. When considering non-use, transfers of AUMs, suspensions of use or reductions of livestock AUMs, relinquishments or retirements, BLM decisions should be scientifically based on range conditions or rangeland health standards. Suspensions or reductions in AUMs should be temporary and should be restored to livestock use when rangeland conditions improve and not converted to wildlife or other use. 

BLM is not permanently closing grazindetermining that certain areas will be grazing for the next 15 years. These dreconsidered at any time and changed or during revision of the RMP. The BLM is aware that there are specplan decisions relevant to aspects of pthat are discrete from, and independeHowever, the BLM is bound by Federathat the development of an RMP for pcoordinated and consistent with Counextent possible by law, and that inconFederal and non-Federal government extent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. 2County and Federal planning processrequired to be as integrated and consFederal agency planning process is noCounty plans, planning processes, or The BLM will identify these conflicts in the State and local governments have understanding of the impacts of the P
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-88 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Resource 

Category Comment Text Response to Com

management options. A consistency rthe State and County Master Plans is 

007 72 GRA Transfer of AUMs to wildlife violates the Taylor Grazing Act and 

FLPMA and would require amending Presidential Executive Orders 6910 and 6964 which withdrew public lands as chiefly valuable for grazing. 

The Monticello RMP determines the apublic lands as provided for in FLPMASection 202(a) that land use planning the public lands "regardless of whethehave been classified, withdrawn, set adesignated for one or more uses." FLPSection 202(e) the authority to issue mwhich implement newly developed or BLM is not proposing to change the Gunder the Taylor Grazing Act and no cExecutive Orders 6910 and 6964 is nehas the discretion under FLPMA to usprocess to close areas to grazing, chadevote the land to another public purpthe relevant land use plan. Under FLPfor "multiple uses" which best meets tneeds of the American people without the productivity of the land. The combproposed in the Draft RMP/EIS are vathe planning area taking into considerfuture needs of the public. This is consand the TGA. The RMP does not propfrom livestock to wildlife but reflects Bfor multiple uses of the public lands anlimit livestock grazing to emphasize ot
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-89 

Table 5.10.a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AA – Adequacy and Analysis 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

State of Utah 4 28 The DEIS does not address consistency between neighboring 

jurisdictions' management objectives. 

It was the intent in the developmconsistent with management obBLM Planning Area where appnot necessarily applied to other some cases, the opportunity to apparent during scoping, comminteragency coordination meeti(Consistency With Other Plansissue. 

San Juan County 7 31 Pg. 2-14 (note: page numbers have changed since the last 

draft). The Health and Safety section seems rather weak. Is abandoned mine lands the only health and safety concern in the Monticello Field Office? 

The goal for the Health and Sawould mange hazardous risks ohealth and safety of public land natural and environmental resohazardous and related risks, cophysical hazards in compliance regulations and policies. Statemsection to include all physical hand hazardous wastes for mitigcommon to all alternatives. 

San Juan County 7 39 The BLM should resolve inconsistencies in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

For instance on page 4-266, reference is made to "Section 3.10.4.2." However the county could find no Section 3.10.4.2. Likewise on page 4-267, reference is made to recreational trends in Section 3.10.4 but that section discusses paleontological resources. 

These inconsistencies have be

San Juan County 7 63 The BLM refers to Section 4.3.19.2.6 but that section does not 

exist in the document. 

The PRMP has been changed sections referenced should be Cultural Resource Decisions on 4.3.19.3.10, Impacts of RecreaFisheries. 

San Juan County 7 64 The BLM refers to Section 4.3.19.2.15, Impacts of Habitat 

Fragmentation on Wildlife. That section is found at 4.3.19.3.19 

The text of the PRMP has been 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-90 

Table 5.10.a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AA – Adequacy and Analysis 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

on page 4-742. 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

26 89 The DRMP failed to analyze the impacts of climate change to 

the resources of the MFO, especially on the Colorado Plateau. 

A growing body of scientific evithat global climate change will up of greenhouse gases in the uncertainties remain, particularmagnitude and regional impactmajority of scientific evidence sincreases in greenhouse gas echange. This information was aThe EPA has not developed restandards regarding global climprotocols and standards are avpotential effects to global warmprepared for site-specific projecwas added to the PRMP/FEIS. 

29 2 On page 4.624, Volume 2, there is a reference to the 

cumulative impacts on livestock and grazing from the "adjacent Ashley National Forest." I am not aware of any such national forest adjacent to the Monticello PA. 

This error has been corrected i

29 5 "The trade and service sector employees (sic) a large amount of 

people..." This should read "employs," not "employees." (Reference: pg. 3-107, Vol. 1, under "Shift in Regional Economic Activity," second paragraph). 

This misspelling has been corre

29 13 The list of ID team members (Reference pg. H-70, Vol. 3) did 

not include a law enforcement representative, yet the DRMP addresses "protection" and "enforcement" including drawing conclusions about what levels of protection given areas and/or resources need. There are no charts showing levels of law enforcement incidents, either by area or resource. This data would have been particularly valuable in determining the need for extra protection for cultural areas, route designation, ACEC nominations, and various other resource impacts, etc. 

Monticello's law enforcement oTeam meetings and provided ecultural resources, recreation uother matters. The list of prepaFEIS to correct this omission. A incidents is out of scope for this part of the knowledge base of t
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-91 

Table 5.10.a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AA – Adequacy and Analysis 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

IPAMS(Independent Petroleum Assc of Mountain State 

55 4 Maps 23 -27, which identify areas to be leased with NSO 

stipulations, do not clearly delineate the NSO areas. For example, there are approximately 40,000 acres in Alkali Ridge, and 2,146 acres are designated as NSO. However, it is impossible to tell if the acreage is scattered throughout the Alkali Ridge area, or within a contained portion of it. Operators are unable to analyze the impacts of the DRMP without that information, and therefore, unable to comment on how that NSO stipulation affects their operations. 

Maps have been corrected in thdescribes which special design

CrownQuest 62 94 Appendix A sets forth stipulations applicable to oil and gas 

leases in Table A.1. Many of the stipulations set forth in Appendix A, however, are not identified as restrictions on leases in Chapter 2, Table 2.1. The BLM must resolve discrepancies between the stipulations identified in Appendix 2.1 and those identified in Table 2.1. To the extent the BLM attempts to impose stipulations that are not identified in Appendix 2.1, it must analyze the impacts of these stipulations on other resource values in Chapter 4. 

Any discrepancies between Apbeen resolved in the PRMP/FE

Pamela Baker 102 1 On page 2-30 at the top under Alternative C is there a "not" 

missing? Otherwise the message is contradictory. Same on page 2-40 under Alternative C at the bottom of the page. 

The sentence on page 2-30 at been changed for clarification. camping would be allowed in thwithin the following designated established: Bridger Jack MesaPasture. Camping within these sites." Page 2-40 of the DEIS was incnot apply to the ACEC but to th

Pamela Baker 102 2 On page 2-23 and 2-24 there are blank boxes under Alternative 

E. Should these all be "Same as Alternative B"? 

These errors have been correcshould read "Same as Alternati

Adonia Ripple 148 1 Global climate change is one of the most serious challenges 

facing the world, yet the DRMP completely ignores climate change. The FRMP needs to thoroughly analyze the impacts of climate change on the planning area and the potential impacts 

 A growing body of scientific evthat global climate change will up of greenhouse gases in the uncertainties remain, particular
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-92 

Table 5.10.a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AA – Adequacy and Analysis 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

of proposed activities on climate change. magnitude and regional impact

majority of scientific evidence sincreases in greenhouse gas echange. This information was aPRMP/FEIS. The EPA has not developed restandards regarding global climprotocols and standards are avpotential effects to global warmprepared for site-specific projecwas added to Chapter 4 of the 

Patrick Flynn 151 1 Global climate change is one of the most serious challenges 

facing the world yet the DRMP completely ignores climate change. The FRMP needs to thoroughly analyze the impacts of climate change on the planning area and the potential impacts of proposed activities on climate change. 

Please refer to response to com

Warren Kesselring 

155 1 Global climate change is one of the most serious challenges 

facing the world, yet the DRMP completely ignores climate change. The FRMP needs to thoroughly analyze the impact of climate change on the planning area and the potential impact of proposed activities on climate change. 

Please refer to response to com

Mike Mellick 156 1 Global climate change is one of the most serious challenges 

facing the world, yet the DRMP completely ignores climate change. The FRMP needs to thoroughly analyze the impacts of climate change on the planning area and the potential impacts of proposed activities on climate change. 

Please refer to response to com

Casey Yorkunas 158 1 Global climate change is one of the most serious challenges 

facing the world, yet the DRMP completely ignores climate change. The FRMP needs to thoroughly analyze the impacts of climate change on the planning area and the potential impacts of proposed activities on climate change. 

Please refer to response to com
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-93 

Table 5.10.a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AA – Adequacy and Analysis 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Glen Canyon Institute 

222 1 The Secretary of the Interior, who oversees the BLM, considers 

global climate change so important that he has created a special Interior Department Climate Change Task Force to consider this pervasive issue. This action shows that even the Bush administration - which has actively weakened many environmental laws - cannot ignore the potential impacts of climate change. There is growing scientific evidence that climate change will have major impacts on the hydrology and ecosystems of the Monticello planning area and the entire West. For example, a February 2007 National Research Council report concludes that climate change is altering the hydrology of the Colorado River Basin. This has been reiterated most recently in an article in Science magazine that identifies that considerable change will occur to the climate and hydrologic processes that impact the Colorado Plateau. Moreover, many activities proposed by the BLM, such as oil, gas, and mineral extraction, ORV use, and livestock grazing, emit greenhouse gases that promote climate change. Despite this, other than one oblique reference to fire (p. 4-11), the Monticello DRMP completely ignores climate change. This calls into question the entire basis of this plan, which is meant to provide management guidance for the next 20 years. Changes Needed in the Final Resource Management Plan 1. Significantly revise the DRMP to address climate change across all resource and management categories and on all levels. 2. Include a full analysis of the potential impacts of climate change on the natural resources of the planning area, including soils, precipitation and water flows, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and aquatic communities. 3. Include a full analysis of the potential impacts on climate change of emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from current and potential consumptive activities such as oil and gas, 

A growing body of scientific evithat global climate change will up of greenhouse gases in the uncertainties remain, particularmagnitude and regional impactmajority of scientific evidence sincreases in greenhouse gas echange. This information was aPRMP/FEIS. The EPA has not developed restandards regarding global climprotocols and standards are avpotential effects to global warmprepared for site-specific projecwas added to Chapter 4 of the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-94 

Table 5.10.a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AA – Adequacy and Analysis 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

coal, oil shale and tar sands, and mineral extraction; ORV use; and livestock grazing. 4. Evaluate changes in the hydrology of the Colorado River Basin resulting from global climate change, as identified in the National Research Council report. 

Table 5.10.b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: ACE – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1 7 EPA supports increasing the size of Hovenweep ACEC but is 

concerned that this would result in changing the existing oil and gas leasing stipulation from NSO and TL/CSU to open with standard stipulations. This change in stipulations would likely negate the intended protection provided under the ACEC designation. 

The 880 acre visual protective plan. Cajon Pond would remain ACEC would be classified as Cstipulations for oil and gas leasUnder Alternatives B and C, the expanded 620+ acres from Alteacres. The management prescand C would be the same as Aaddition would be managed as Special Emphasis Zones"). Tabto clarify the specific prescriptioexpansion. The total acreage shown on pgC for the Hovenweep ACEC shcorrect the error. The existing BLM/NPS (1987) CStrategies will be added to the agreement defines VRM and N

San Juan County 7 20 The Draft RMP/EIS does not include a discussion on the nature 

or type of threat of "irreparable damage" or the regional 

The ACEC evaluation appendix and a section added discussing 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-95 

Table 5.10.b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: ACE – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

significance of relevant and important values in its review. BLM misinterprets irreparable damage when reviewing and analyzing ACECs in the Draft RMP/EIS. The ACEC tool was intended by Congress to be limited to only those instances where irreparable damage would be caused without designation. Most surface-disturbing actions can eventually be repaired. The BLM must explain the need for "special" management for the ACEC and explain how this management is not duplicative of other normal BLM management or protections afforded by other state or federal laws. 

important ACEC values; howevcurrently exist does not precludconsidered in the action alternawhere the BLM has determined values, are identified as potentthe action alternatives. Threats values are likely to vary by alteOn August 27, 1980, the BLM pguidelines (45 Federal Registe"protects" – "To defend or guarimportant environmental resourACEC. This includes damage tand that which is irreparable. Wprotect means to prevent the loloss or damage to property." Thpotential for both reparable and protecting important historic, cuand wildlife resources; or other designation. This interpretation legislative history and implemeSection 2 of the guidelines clarplaces within the public lands. Iestablishing in law such basic pthat apply to all the public lands'management of national resouinclude giving special attention the purpose of ensuring that the important and fragile lands will protection' (Senate Report 94-5ACEC process is to be used to management is required to proresources that are most importamake certain specific areas speor man with characteristics that 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-96 

Table 5.10.b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: ACE – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

ACEC process is to be used to from natural hazards." 

San Juan County 7 48 Pg. 2-37 - The statement "Portions of the Cedar Mesa ACEC lie 

within 8 WSAs" under Management Common to All Alternatives should be clarified because according to all of the maps there are only 4 WSAs. San Juan County recommends that BLM avoid layering of protective designations. 

A correction has been made in WSAs and 1 ISA lie within the C"Layering" is planning. Under FBLM manages many different rpublic lands. Through land use objectives for each of those valactions to accomplish those obconcept, BLM doesn't necessause on every acre, but routinely values and uses on the same aprocess of applying many indivand actions to the same area oas "layering." BLM strives to enobjectives of each program (repuses) are consistent and compInconsistent goals and objectivconflicts, failure to achieve the plan, and litigation. Whether or management is restrictive depedesire to see that public lands amanner. All uses and values caacre. That is why land use planpublic and interdisciplinary procprocess helps ensure that all reconsidered together to determiis responsive to the issues idenuse plan. Layering of program dBLM, but is required by the FLPplanning and program specific FLPMA directs BLM to manage 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-97 

Table 5.10.b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: ACE – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

and sustained yield (Section 10agency, the BLM is required to and policies for many different and to resolve conflicts and preland use plans. BLM's Land Usthat specific decisions be made (Planning Handbook "H-1601-1included in each of the alternatdevelopment of the land use plformulated, each program decisprogram decisions and inconsisand modified so that ultimately management prescriptions resu

San Juan County 7 50 Pg. 2-37 - Management prescriptions for the Cedar Mesa ACEC 

under Alternative C are unclear. For instance the County cannot determine rather activities such as geophysical work, disposal of mineral materials, or mineral entry are available. 

The text of the PRMP has been management prescriptions. 

29 10 On pg. 3-127, Vol. 1, the total number of existing ACEC acres 

under the 1991 RMP is listed at 513,452. On pg. ES-6, Vol. 1, and again on pg. 2-4, Vol. 1, the total number of existing ACEC acreage is 488,616, a difference of 24,836 acres. Is there overlap in ACECs or is the agency unaware of exactly how much is already designated as ACECs? 

This inconsistency has been cocorrect acreage figure. 

Lynell Schalk 29 32 Valley of the Gods ACEC: There is no mention of OHV and 

non-motorized/mechanical use prescriptions under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Under the proposed plan the Vdesignated as a Scenic ACEC. this area as limited to designateuse and mechanized use would roads and trails. Foot travel is a

Bluff Landowners Coalition 

48 6 Valley of the Gods ACEC: 

Why is this existing ACEC being reduced by nearly 10,000 acres (Alternative B and C)? It is a world class scenic area and should be provided additional protection, not less so (Reference: pg. 2-45, Vol. 1). There is also no mention of OHV 

Valley of the Gods was a speciCedar Mesa ACEC and was neunder Alternative A. The Valley was made to be coincident with avoid unnecessary overlap. Ad
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-98 

Table 5.10.b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: ACE – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

and non-motorized/mechanized use prescriptions under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Are mountain bikers and other nonmotorized wheeled vehicles allowed indiscriminate crosscountry travel here? 

the 1991 RMP were made withinaccurate. OHV use is to be on designated B, C, D and E. This has been cUnder the proposed plan the Vdesignated as a Scenic ACEC. this area as limited to designateuse and mechanized use would roads and trails. Foot travel is aSee Map 63 for the travel plan The WSA area not part of the Awill be managed within the manIMP. This area would not be opuse. 

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AQ – Air Quality 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1 1 Several references in Section 4.4.1 refer to projected air 

pollutant concentrations as being well below National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The commenter found projected concentrations in Table 3-8 of the Draft Analysis of Management Situation (AMS) but not in the Draft RMP/EIS. The DRMP/EIS does not describe in detail the methods used to calculate the projected concentrations. EPA recommends that BLM disclose this information in the Final RMP/EIS. 

The methods used to calculate pollutants are included in the Ppotential impacts by a qualitativBLM estimated potential emissthe planning area. The State of permitted sources. 

Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1 2 The air quality analysis omits potential impacts to ozone, 

visibility and deposition. The planning area encompasses and is near class I National Park Service airsheds. Ozone is of 

Analyses of impacts on ozone, included in Chapter 4 of the PRdescriptions of current ozone c
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-99 

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AQ – Air Quality 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

particular concern because of the potential emissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen from sources in the area including oil and gas development. 

atmospheric deposition in Chap3.2.5. 

Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1 3 The RMP makes general estimates of air quality impacts due to 

various activities but does not describe nor calculate the projected concentrations for any of the alternatives. EPA recommends that BLM disclose projected NAAQS and visibility pollutant concentrations in the FEIS. EPA recommends that the FEIS contain wording from the Rawlins BLM DRMP/EIS, which used a comparative, emissions-based approach: "As projectspecific developments are proposed, quantitative air quality analysis would be conducted for project-specific assessments performed pursuant to NEPA." 

The BLM's draft air resources gdispersion modeling is inappropemission data, especially sourcwould consider dispersion modassociated with a proposed proQuality for the added text. 

Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1 12 Figure 3.3 of the DRMP/EIS presents visibility trend data 

through 1997. Data through 2005 are now available and should be used in the FEIS. 

Data has been added to ChaptCanyonlands National Park fro

Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1 16 Section 4.3.1.2.1.1 includes sources of emissions from various 

oil and gas activities but it is unclear how drill rig emission sources were included or treated in the emission inventory. The FEIS should reference the more current emission estimates from the UT DAQ's most recent Annual Report (2005). It is also not clear how these existing emission sources are interpreted. BLM should disclose this information in the FEIS. 

This section (methodology and rewritten using AP-42 methodo

Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1 17 The AMS Table 3-4 and Figure 3-3 should be updated with 

more current data. 

Section has been updated with 

National Park Service Intermountain Region 

3 3 The EIS refers to projected future emissions from oil and gas 

sources; these estimates are omitted from the EIS but should be included. 

Estimated emissions from BLM Planning Area have been adde

State of Utah 4 14 The state encourages BLM to request oil and gas operators 

apply best available control technology (BACT). 

The application of BACT for oil added to the mitigation section 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-100 

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AQ – Air Quality 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

State of Utah 4 43 The section entitled Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Air Quality 

under Alternative A discusses emissions from multiple sources and notes that emissions from each source are well below applicable NAAQS. BLM relies on this statement as basis for each alternative, noting that impacts would be the same or similar to Alternative A. It is unclear how BLM equates additional emissions to anticipated ambient conditions. 

Please see revised air resourcewould consider using a quantitapotential concentrations for a pwith a proposed project. 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

6 9 Tribal members' health could be compromised by air pollution 

related to uranium and oil and gas development. The White Mesa community is surrounded by BLM lands identified as having moderate potential for uranium development as well as oil and gas development potential. The FEIS needs to more carefully consider the potential impacts to air quality and human health from mineral development. 

The analysis related to air qualPRMP/FEIS. 

National Parks Conservation Association 

44 1 The RMP ignores data from the Canyonlands National Park 

IMPROVE particle monitor. Table 3.2 sites only the ozone data from this monitor but ignores PM2.5, PM 10, sulfate, nitrate, organics, and elemental carbon. The BLM needs to re-evaluate its findings utilizing existing air quality data and make meaningful analysis of current and future conditions. 

These data have been added tRMP/FEIS. 

National Parks Conservation Association 

44 5 The cumulative impacts analysis on air quality fails to 

adequately address the threats from increased energy development in the area. The Four Corners region is seeing an explosion in oil and gas developments along with proposed coal fired power plants. There are also three new proposed coal fired power plants across the border in Nevada. Additionally, the surrounding BLM regions of Kanab, Moab and Richfield are releasing new resource management plans. Implementation of the Monticello RMP would have impacts that would add to these other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects that have not been analyzed. BLM needs to adequately address these impacts and consider reissuing the draft for public review. 

BLM has added oil and gas devthat contribute to cumulative im4.3.24.1. 

EOG Resources 60 42 On page 4-10, the BLM assumes that "regulatory [Prevention of This sentence has been revised 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-101 

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AQ – Air Quality 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Significant Deterioration] increment consumption analyses are the responsibility of the state air quality agency (under Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] supervision) and would be conducted where appropriate during the permit process" (emphasis added). Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 4-10. The BLM should revise this sentence to clarify that Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) analyses would occur during the process for air emission permits to be obtained from the UDEQ, and not during the process for APDs that are obtained from the BLM/ As the BLM correctly observes on page 4-10, the UDEQ, and not the BLM, has the sole authority to conduct PSD analyses. 

permits for air emissions would 

EOG Resources 60 43 See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pgs. 4-14, 4-17,4-16. As the BLM is 

aware, the EPA revised the 24 hour NAAQS standard for PM to lower it from 65 ug/m. 71 Fed. Reg. 61144 (Oct. 17, 2006). The new 24 hour PM became effective on December 18, 2006 but states will not actually be required to meet the new 24 hour NAAQS for PM until April 2015, with possible extensions until April 2020. The BLM correctly references the revised standard elsewhere in the Monticello DRMP/EIS. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 3-6, Table 3.2. The BLM should correct the references in Chapter 4 to reflect the new standard to demonstrate that the management prescriptions proposed in the Monticello MP/EIS will not jeopardize compliance with the more conservative standard. 

The PRMP/FEIS has been corrquality to reflect the new NAAQ

CrownQuest 62 78 When analyzing potential impacts to air quality, the BLM states 

that the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM emissions is 65 ug/m. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pgs. 4-14, 4-17, 4-16. As the BLM is aware, the EPA revised the 24-hour NAAQS standard for PM to lower it from 65 ug/m to 35 ug/m. 71 Fed. Reg. 61144 (Oct. 17, 2006). The new 24-hour PM became effective on December 18, 2006 but states will not actually be required to meet the new 24-hour NAAQS for PM until April 2015, with possible extensions until 

Please refer to response to com
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-102 

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AQ – Air Quality 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

April 2020. The BLM correctly references the revised standard elsewhere in the Monticello DRPM/EIS. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 3-6, Table 3.2. The BLM should correct the references in Chapter 4 to reflect the new standard to demonstrate that the management prescriptions proposed in the Monticello RMP/EIS will not jeopardize compliance with the more conservative standard. Additionally, the BLM should maintain consistency throughout the document. 

Megan Williams 76 5 The MPA encompasses an area of frequent drought. These 

conditions can be expected to contribute to particulate matter exposure and visibility impacts in the area. In addition, the area is seeing ozone concentrations that threaten to exceed the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the BLM to present alternatives for the MPA that allow significant growth in the emissions that contribute to these existing air quality concerns is extremely shortsighted when one considers the impacts of these air pollutants to human health and the environment. These issues must be dealt with in this resource management plan by ensuring overall air quality compliance throughout the affected areas. 

BLM does not have control oveemissions. PM emissions relatewill be recalculated using AP-4to existing emissions in Grand BLM will follow the air quality reDepartment Air Quality, State o

Megan Williams 76 9 The BLM has not analyzed whether the plan will prevent 

significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality, as required by they Clean Air Act. The BLM must complete an analysis to determine how much of the incremental amount of air pollution allowed in clean air areas (i.e., PSD increment) has already been consumed in the affected area and how much additional increment consumption will occur due to the proposed development. Without this analysis, the BLM is not ensuring that the air quality in the MPA will not deteriorate more than allowed under the CAA. 

The new air quality analysis wilrelated to the plan using AP-42 will be compared to existing emconcentrations will not be calcuwill not be used. 

Megan Williams 76 11 The NO emissions from compression are based on the 

assumption that all gas compressors are equipped with the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) with an emission rate of 0.7 grams of NO per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr). DEIS/RMP at 

A discussion of Utah's BACT rethe appropriate section. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-103 

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AQ – Air Quality 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

4-9. There should be a discussion of Utah's BACT requirements and whether BACT would apply to all compressor engines under current state rules. Because BACT determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, there is no guarantee that similar BACT emission limits will necessarily be required for every compressor engine. Therefore, the BLM needs to provide justification that the emission limits assumed for compressor engines will be similar to, and not less stringent, than those assumed for the BLM's Monticello DEIS/RMP inventory. 

Megan Williams 76 13 It is unclear from the SEIS/RMP to what extent the BLM 

quantified VOC emissions from oil and gas development. On page 4-14 and 4-15 of the DEIS/RMP the BLM discusses NO and CO emissions from flaring but there are few details of these estimates. The BLM must analyze VOC emissions from flaring and from other potential sources (e.g., from dehydration, well completion, leaking well heads and pipes, etc.). The BLM must analyze all sources of VOC emissions from oil and gas development. 

AP-42 methodology has been uassociated with oil and gas devquality analysis. 

Megan Williams 76 14 The Monticello DEIS/RMP Does Not Include a Comprehensive 

Regional Inventory for Use in Determining Cumulative Air Quality Impacts In addition to a comprehensive inventory of oil and gas activities and other BLM-administered activities in the MPA, the BLM must inventory all pollutants from all other air pollution sources in the planning area as well as all sources expected to impact the same areas impacted by emissions from the planning area. The inventory presented in Table 3.4 of the DEIS/RMP for three sources in San Juan County does not constitute an adequate inventory of sources. The inventory of sources should include state-permitted sources in Utah and surrounding states, Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining and Colorado State Oil and Gas Commission permitted oil and gas wells, the oil shale research, development and demonstration sites in Utah and Colorado as well as all reasonably foreseeable development 

A summary of existing emissionCounty has been updated using the estimates for 2002 currently emissions are in tons/year as rThese data can be found at: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/PInventory/2005_State/05_State
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-104 

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AQ – Air Quality 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

(RFD) sources (e.g., other NEPA projects, proposed power plants, proposed mining operations, future commercial tar sands development, etc.). 

Megan Williams 76 15 Coal-fired power plants can often have significant impacts on a 

Class I area even when located 200-300 km or more away from that area. Specifically, the following power plants were recently permitted or are proposed in the region: The 1,500 MW Desert Rock power plant in northwest New Mexico (no permit issued yet) The 270 MW Sevier Power Company coal-fired plant in Sigurd, Utah in the Richfield PA (recently permitted) The 950 MW Unit 2 Intermountain Power Project in the central part of Utah near Delta (permit issued) The 600 MW Unit 4 at the Hunter Power Plant (PacifiCorp) in central Utah (no permit issued yet) The 110 MW Unit 2 at the Bonanza Power Plant in Uintah County in northeast Utah (permit issued August 30, 2007) All of these power plants have the potential to impact the same Class I areas that are impacted by the Monticello planning area and, therefore, must be included in the BLM's regional inventory. In addition, the BLM must include in the regional inventory any other new or modified sources, other than power plants, proposed in the region. 

Discussion of coal-fired power added to the discussion of cum

Megan Williams 76 20 The BLM must also disclose the cumulative hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) impacts to the exposed population. The BLM's assessment must be a cumulative one, not just an analysis of the incremental risk associated with the oil and gas projects, which would be imposed on top of existing health risks in the area. It should, at a minimum, include an analysis of the health impacts of the following HAPs associated with oil and gas development; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, nhexane, 1, 3-butadiene, formaldehyde and secondary 

AP-42 has been used to estimacompare to current HAPs emisHAPs have been added to the impacts. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-105 

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: AQ – Air Quality 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

formaldehyde as well as diesel exhaust. 

Susan Dexter 77 2 To properly assess various alternatives and their impacts, it 

would be necessary to analyze green house gas emissions associated with each activity (mineral extraction, burning, ORV use, grazing, etc) Furthermore, the analysis would need to include, not just the levels of green house gas increases resulting from the immediate activity, but those of all the activities or processes supporting the activity, including the use of motorized vehicles to transport ORVs to the sites of recreational use; the use of motorized vehicles in grazing activities; the generation of electric power for mining and oil and gas extraction, and so on. These long term cumulative effects are not addressed, whatsoever. 

Information on global climate cPRMP/FEIS. The degree of specommenter would be purely sp

Table 5.10.d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: CUL – Cultural Resources 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1 18 AMS Section 3.3.1 should be corrected to state that while the 

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation is under authority of EPA Region 8, the Navajo Reservation is under the authority of EPA Region 9. 

EPA Region 9 has been listed aReservation. 

State of Utah 4 63 The RMP proposes avoidance areas around National Registereligible cultural resources and specific 100-foot buffers (page 4-

284 and 4-385). The state recommends that rather than stipulations of a standard avoidance distance that the RMP stipulate that avoidance areas will be established that will be sufficient to protect the resources from direct and indirect impacts. 

The intent of BLM is not to requaround National Register-eligibavoidance distance sufficient to The final RMP/EIS will refer to Alternative A since that is the cprescription. BLM will add narraclarify that a specific avoidance 

State of Utah 4 64 It is unclear from the RMP (Pages 2-39, 40 and Table 4.18) 

what protective measures are proposed under the various 

Under Alternatives B and C, the expanded 620+ acres from Alte
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-106 

Table 5.10.d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: CUL – Cultural Resources 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

alternatives for Hovenweep National Monument, Square Tower (and potentially Cajon) Unit(s). Please clarify how potential visual impacts to the setting, feeling, and association of these units, particularly from solid and/or fluid minerals leasing and/or development, will be managed. 

acres. The management prescand C would be the same as Aaddition would be managed as Special Emphasis Zones"). Tabrevised to clarify the specific pr620+ acre expansion. The 880 around the Monument has beeunder an NSO lease category. The total acreage shown on pgC for the Hovenweep ACEC shcorrect the error. 

State of Utah 4 65 With exception of the Alkali Ridge NHL, the Alkali Ridge area is 

listed under all alternatives as open for oil and gas development with either standard conditions or timing/controlled surface use conditions. The area appears to go from VRM Class III to VRM Class IV under all alternatives. The change in VRM Class appears to have the potential to result in adverse effects which will need to be analyzed during consultation on the RMP under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

BLM understands its requiremethe RMP and will comply. VRM for Alkali Ridge ACEC in the PR

State of Utah 4 66 The Stipulation in Appendix A (Page A-5) for the Alkali Ridge 

area reiterates that an avoidance area will be established, but does not note whether this area will include consideration of indirect and cumulative as well as direct impacts to cultural resources. 

BLM has reconsidered the stipuACEC and has rewritten them tdirect and indirect impacts to cu

State of Utah 4 68 Table 2.1 (Page 2-8). The state encourages BLM to clarify the 

purposes and types of land treatments that could be authorized in the Comb Ridge CSMA, specifically whether land treatments modify the NSO stipulation as well as what VRM class would apply to this area. 

The Comb Ridge CSMA will be Proposed RMP as a recreation Cedar Mesa Special RecreatioMost of the management prescRidge CSMA will apply to the Cmanagement zone. Future activmanagement zone would be remanagement prescriptions, incmanagement objectives. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-107 

Table 5.10.d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: CUL – Cultural Resources 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Appendix A in the proposed RMNSO and VRM II, that apply to within specific areas of the Monstipulations do not apply to nondefined in the appendix. It is codisturbing activities could be alrecreation management zone. Tmade through site specific ana

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

13 1 The draft RMP shows little commitment to scientific 

investigation in the field office over 90% of which has never been surveyed. The draft RMP also contains inconsistent management standards for comparable cultural resources and lacks an alternative focused on their protection. The draft RMP proposes to designate and implement nearly 2000 miles of OHV routes without complying with Section 106 of the NHPA, 16 USC 470f, and with little recognition of its obligation to preserve and protect cultural resources pursuant to Section 110 of the NHPA, 16 USC 470h-2. 

The BLM does show commitmeand proactive Section 110 inveCultural Resources in Table 2.1would identify, preserve, and presources. Under the Cultural RPage 2-8, it states that BLM woresearch by qualified scientists Line 2 under Cultural ResourceCommon to All Alternatives will reference to proactive inventory and Section 14 of ARPA. Alternative B focused on manaadditional protection to various resources. This alternative propdesignations on certain areas omanagement prescriptions descultural resources. The BLM will comply with its Sedirect by the NHPA regulations (Clarification of Cultural ResouHighway Vehicle Designation adescribed in BLM IM-2007-030requirements, priorities and strathe effect and nature of the pro
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-108 

Table 5.10.d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: CUL – Cultural Resources 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

expected density and nature of existing inventory information. A. Class III inventory is not req(1) all continued use of an existlimitations on an existing route; travel route; (4) keep a closed aopen area open. B. Where there is a reasonable designation will shift, concentrawhere historic properties are likClass III inventory and compliaon areas where adverse effects prior to designation. C. Proposed designations of neOHV use will require Class III inEffect and compliance with SecClass III inventory of the APE a106 will also be required prior tproposed as staging areas or sOHV use. D. Class II inventory, or develocultural resources probability minventory in high potential areabe appropriate for larger planniinformation is currently unavailaThe Monticello field office is decompliance with Section 106 foplan consistent with BLM policy Utah SHPO was consulted on tand further consultations will tastrategy that is currently being Section 106. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-109 

Table 5.10.d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: CUL – Cultural Resources 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

13 14 Under each alternative, BLM would, "in coordination with San 

Juan County" identify and evaluate historic trail segments for National Register eligibility. BLM must acknowledge that additional parties, Indian Tribes and USHPO have designated roles. 

The statement that the commeResources, Management ActioPage 2-8) has been modified to USHPO, tribes, and other inter

Lynell Shalk 29 9 Cultural Resources - Issues: 

In the scoping section (Reference: 1.3.1.1 Cultural Resources, pg. 1-4 and 1-5, Vol. 1), the DRMP states that two of the "issues of concern" are: (1) "protection of sensitive cultural resources from vandalism;" and (2) "management of National Historic trails (Old Spanish National Historic Trail and Hole in the Rock Trail) in compliance with the intent of the enabling legislation so that the historic resource is protected." If these are issues to be addressed in the DRMP, then I could find no evidence that they were addressed. In fact, the exact opposite intention shows up a few pages later (Reference: 1.3.2 Issues Addressed Through Administrative or Policy Action, pg. 1-10, Vol. 1), which states that vandalism will be addressed by administrative actions and does not require a "planning decision to be implemented." So why is this listed previously as an issue to be addressed in the DRMP, if in fact, it isn't going to be? 

The reviewer is correct in statinas an issue in Chapter 1, 1.3.1Chapter 1, 1.3.2, page 1-10. Vathrough administrative or policy in Chapter 1, 1.3.1.1, page 1-5 Management of The Old SpaniTrail is addressed in Table 2.1, Trails, Management Common t

Lynell Schalk 29 31 San Juan River ACEC: Under Alternatives B, C, and D 

(Reference: pg. 2-43, Vol. 1), one of the prescriptions is that there will be "no camping in cultural sites." I did not find this prescription anywhere else in the DRMP. Shouldn't all cultural sites be closed to camping? Shouldn't a camping restriction have been listed under the Cultural spread sheet in Vol. 1 under "Management Common to all Alternative?" 

A prescription regarding campihas been added to the Cultural Management Common to All A2.8). No camping will be allowe

EOG Resources 60 13 EOG objects to the proposal on page 2-8 and 2-9 to designate 

the Comb Ridge Cultural Special Management Area (CSMA) as available for leasing subject only to NSO stipulations under all 

The BLM acknowledges EOG RComb Ridge area as available Map 29 has been changed to re
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-110 

Table 5.10.d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: CUL – Cultural Resources 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

the action alternatives. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pgs. 2-8 - 2-9, Table 2.1. First, EOG notes that although Alternative C proposes the same management as proposed under Alternative B, Map 29 (Oil and Gas Leasing – Alternative C) does not depict the Comb Ridge CSMA area as subject to NSO stipulations. The BLM must revise the management prescriptions on pages 2-8 and 2-9 to be consistent with Map 29. 

the Comb Ridge. 

CrownQuest 62 16 Additionally, the BLM should define "culturally sensitive areas" 

in the final Monticello RMP/EIS. 

This definition has been added 

Table 5.10.e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: GRA – Grazing 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

State of Utah 4 46 There is an apparent discrepancy in the number of acres 

unavailable for livestock grazing under all alternatives as indicated on pages 2-16 and 4-254. Please resolve. 

Acreages for particular areas mdifferences in shapefiles for GIS acreage figure is 128,098 acres grazing. Additional acres unavathis figure in each alternative. Amade in the FEIS. 

State of Utah 4 47 Under the No Action Alternative, BLM would make an additional 

20,361 acres unavailable for livestock grazing. Please clarify why the No Action Alternative involves a change in current management. 

The No Action Alternative impledecision pending final determinclosed grazing in several Comb Canyon south of U-95, Arch, Fidecision closed 16,599 acres (pThese acres are included in acAlternative, thus no change in c70). The statement of additiona254 is incorrect as these acres Action Alternative acres. These the FEIS. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-111 

Table 5.10.e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: GRA – Grazing 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Lynell Schalk 29 7 Grazing Acreage Inconsistency: 

There are two identical statements made regarding the number of acres "unavailable for livestock grazing for resource protection" within boundary allotments. One indicates 125,356 acres (Reference: pg. 3-41, Vol. 1). The other indicates 137,440 acres. Which is it? 

Acreages for particular areas mdifferences in shapefiles for GIS acreage figure is 128,098 acres grazing. Additional acres unavathis figure in each alternative. Ainconsistencies have been mad

Lynell Schalk 29 8 Grazing Allotments: 

Because there is no accompanying map depicting where each of the 75 grazing allotments is located, it is impossible to locate them based on the names used to describe them. 

An allotment map with associatField Office has been included Management Plan. 

Tom Ratcliff 56 2 In the final analysis, your "Livestock Grazing" section is 

incomplete and inadequate. Real issues of serious range management problems are not disclosed; a significant portion of the workload is dismissed by placement in to "custodial" management. Alternative A makes several grazing management changes, which is good, but which is not "No Action." Specific range management measures needed for range improvement are not disclosed, and in the end, AUM reductions between Alternatives are not significant, ranging from 750 to 940 out of a total program of 78,796 AUMs. (1% decrease at most extreme) The "Livestock Grazing" discussion is simply a justification for continuing business as usual. There is no significant change proposed, nor are there significant differences between Alternatives. 

Alternative A is referred to as thmeans continuation of current mitems) under the 1991 RMP. The purpose of the current RMRMP to provide management chave occurred since completion were designed to provide a ranbrought out by public scoping aPlease refer to response to com

ECOS Consulting 58 4 The DRMP's range of alternatives for livestock grazing is not 

adequate and must be expanded to include alternatives that prohibit grazing (0%), allow a small amount of grazing (15-25%), or more grazing (50%), or a lot of grazing (>90%). As proposed -- with most of the area within the Monticello Planning Area open to the widespread soil and vegetation adverse 

Alternatives for no livestock graallocation of forage to wildlife awere considered for inclusion in they were eliminated from furthconcerning these alternatives hof the PRMP/FEIS, Section 2.3
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-112 

Table 5.10.e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: GRA – Grazing 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

impacts of livestock grazing, probably over 88% or approximately 1,800,000 acres -- it appears that the FLPMA mandates of "multiple use" and "sustained yield" are in jeopardy. 

Eliminated from Analysis. It is BLM policy to monitor existutilization, and the trend of resonecessary adjustments on an aThese actions are activity-baseimplementation of an RMP to aStandards are met, as well the Regulations at 43 CFR 4130.3 conditions under which livestocconformance with the provisionStandards for Rangeland Healtrequire that "livestock grazing ulivestock carrying capacity of thIt would be inappropriate and ulevels of livestock and wildlife uchanges to livestock and wildlifare appropriate at the RMP plawould not be supportable and nthe monitoring data on a site-spdirects that monitoring and inveperiodic basis and that change management be made through CFR 4160. These implementatconformance with the Goals anRMP, and must protect and enof the BLM lands. 

Thomas Ratcliff 79 1 You provide no MFO allotments map, so the non-local 

reader/reviewer has no way to know where these "good allotments" are located! 

An allotment map with associatField Office has been included Management Plan. 

Thomas Ratcliff 79 2 Twenty-nine allotments are in your "improve" category; "may 

have serious resource conflicts (again undefined)...or resource production below its potential...can be improved, conflicts resolved through changed grazing strategies or range 

An allotment map with associatField Office has been included Management Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-113 

Table 5.10.e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: GRA – Grazing 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

improvement projects" (which I assume would be "public investments"). NO MFO allotments map---we can't know where they are since we don't live there and know local place names. 

Thomas Ratcliff 79 3 At 3.7.2.5 you discuss Ecological Status of the allotments rated 

on a PCN scale. You'll need to correct some errors that occur in Table 3.13. You show 3.6% of your allotments at PCN. 4 allotments of 73 would be 5.5%; 3 allotments would be 4.1%. 3.6% obviously comes from a different data set! 

The percentage figures are basallotment. The title to Table 3.1of Acres within the Monticello FClass." 

Thomas Ratcliff 79 4 Without a MFO allotments map, we cannot properly evaluate 

the appropriateness of the prescribed grazing season. Similarly, we cannot determine if dormant season grazing (mid-October thru early March, based on our experience in your country) is occurring in big game winter range, or in other crucial habitat where livestock/big game conflicts most likely occur. 

An allotment map with associatField Office has been included Management Plan. All grazing range is under a deferred rotati

Thomas Ratcliff 79 5 AUM reductions between Alternatives are not significant, 

ranging from 750 to 940 out of a total program of 78,796 AUMs. (1% decrease at most extreme) The "Livestock Grazing" discussion is simply business as usual. There is no significant change proposed, nor are there significant differences between Alternatives. 

An alternative considering the iwildlife and other non-consumpinclusion in the DRMP/DEIS. Hfurther analysis; a discussion cbeen included in the PRMP/FEConsidered but Eliminated from It is BLM policy to monitor existutilization, and the trend of resonecessary adjustments on an aThese actions are activity-baseimplementation of an RMP to aStandards are met, as well the Regulations at 43 CFR 4130.3 conditions under which livestocconformance with the provisionStandards for Rangeland Healtrequire that "livestock grazing ulivestock carrying capacity of thIt would be inappropriate and u
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-114 

Table 5.10.e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: GRA – Grazing 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

levels of livestock and wildlife uchanges to livestock and wildlifare appropriate at the RMP plawould not be supportable and nthe monitoring data on a site-spdirects that monitoring and inveperiodic basis and that change management be made through CFR 4160. These implementatconformance with the Goals anRMP, and must protect and enof the BLM lands. 

Owen Severance 105 2 The DEIS on page 2-17 opens Dark Canyon to grazing by not 

carrying this restriction forward in other alternatives. Why? 

This was an oversight in the DEadded to the PRMP/FEIS speccontinues to be unavailable for 

Nick Stevens 115 1 The information in the Draft EIS regarding range management 

is inadequate. Range allotments are listed however their physical location is not mapped. 

An allotment map with associatField Office has been included Management Plan. 

Linda Peterson 126 1 Under Alternative C you have eliminated grazing and limited 

livestock use to trailing in at least four or more canyons. (Moki, Harts, Lake and Indian Creek). Grazing is a traditional, historic use of these canyons. The Proposed RMP does not say why you are closing grazing in these canyons. Although the Proposed RMP does address the socio-economic impact of these closures on the livestock industry in San Juan County as a whole. It did not address the adverse economic or management impact that the closures would have on the individual grazing operators. Studies have show that proper grazing techniques can improve resources even in riparian areas. Grazing in these canyons should not be eliminated. 

The BLM does not propose the allotments or portions thereof. Hmay not be available for grazinallotments considered, as not aalternative. Subsequent revisioconsider opening these areas tThe vast majority (over 98%) ois available for livestock grazingallotments shown on page 2-16 proposing that other uses of the best use of these areas. Both FPlanning Handbook authorizes livestock grazing to place an emother purposes or values, such protection, and recreation. As i
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-115 

Table 5.10.e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: GRA – Grazing 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

the BLM lands, as shown in the intention to emphasize "multiple the planning area. As stated in the DRMP/DEIS (pto livestock grazing, grazing woallotment basis according to the Grazing Management to meet tHealth (see Appendix D), includseason of use. This will provide adjust the permitted numbers oduration of use on specific allotevaluation of monitoring and inwith appropriate rules and regu

Veronica Egan 131 5 Please provide maps with grazing allotment boundaries. It is 

impossible to determine who is the responsible permitee without this information, and rangeland conditions are generally in "functioning at risk" conditions, at best, on many allotments. 

An allotment map with associatField Office has been included Management Plan. 

Table 5.10.f. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: LAR – Lands and Realty 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

State of Utah 4 55 Section 4.3.5. – Lands and Realty. The first paragraph of 

Impacts Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives incorrectly states that acres within WSAs, the Grand Gulch Special Emphasis area, NSO areas, and areas closed to oil and gas leasing will be excluded to new ROWs. In addition, BLM should note that since such ROWs and accompanying development could degrade wilderness characteristics in WSAs, acquisition of inheld state trust lands by land exchange will be a priority of BLM. 

Narrative has been added to ththat the BLM has an obligation inheld State lands in WSAs subInterim Management Policy. Current BLM Utah State Policy Utah exchanges and such exchuse planning decision. Please r004-52. 

San Juan County 7 25 There is no mention of Ute Indian lands in Table 1.1. That error has been corrected i
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-116 

Table 5.10.f. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: LAR – Lands and Realty 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Utah State Office of Education 

31 4 The Planning Issues Identified section should include 

discussion and detailed reference to the issue of inheld school lands in special designation categories, particularly WSAs, ACECs, and areas to be managed for "wilderness characteristics," and the need to give priority to resolution of the issue. 

The BLM does provide for reaslands under all alternatives. InfoChapter 2, Lands and Realty, taccess to state land would be plands within avoidance and excas specified by the Cotter decisIn addition, the Monticello DRMplan recognizes the requiremenlands per the Cotter decision. Aanalysis under Socioeconomics PRMP/FEIS. Considering lands designation is beyond the scopeffort, as identified on pg. 1-12 Non-WSA lands that are considwilderness characteristics were effects of that action. For examDRMP/DEIS, the number of oil Alternative B is discussed. The need for the BLM to give pexchanges has been recognize

Public Lands Advocacy 

35 11 We are also concerned that the DEIS fails to contain maps 

depicting the location of all ROW exclusion and avoidance areas by alternative. Maps clearly identifying exclusion and avoidance areas by category need to be included in the FEIS. It is also necessary for BLM to fully disclose the impacts these exclusion and avoidance areas will have on existing and future leases by alternative. 

In the PRMP/FEIS, a map of exhas been included. The analysavoidance and exclusion areas is discussed in Chapter 4 of the 

IPAMS(Independent Petroleum Assc of Mountain State 

55 3 The BLM does not clearly identify which areas it intends to 

designate as ROW avoidance areas and which areas it intends to designate as ROW exclusion areas. It is not clear whether the BLM intends to designate lands closed for oil and gas leasing as ROW exclusion areas or ROW avoidance areas. IN Chapter 4, Table 4.25 page 4-65 indicates that areas closed to oil and gas leasing will be designated as ROW exclusion areas, 

BLM has made changes in the exclusion and avoidance areas 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-117 

Table 5.10.f. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: LAR – Lands and Realty 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

while in Chapter 2, page 2-16 it is indicated that areas closed to oil and gas leasing will be designated as ROW avoidance areas. The BLM must reconcile the management prescriptions in Table 2.1 with those set forth in Table 4.25 and clearly identify the ROW avoidance and ROW exclusion areas proposed in the Monticello RMP/EIS. In addition, the DRMP contains inconsistent statements regarding the number of acres that are proposed as ROW exclusion or avoidance areas between Table 4.25 and Table 4.41. 

CrownQuest 62 18 The Monticello DRMP/EIS, contains conflicting information 

about which areas the BLM intends to designate as avoidance areas and which areas it intends to designate as exclusion areas. On page 2-16, Table 2.1, the BLM identifies areas designated as NSO, unavailable for leasing, or VRM Class I as ROW avoidance areas. In Chapter 4 of the Monticello DRMP/EIS, however, the BLM identifies areas unavailable or closed for leasing as ROW exclusion areas. See Monticello DRPM/EIS, pg 4-65, Table 4.25. The BLM must clearly identify areas it intends to designate as ROW avoidance and exclusion areas, and resolve inconsistencies in the Monticello DRMP/EIS. 

The Proposed Plan/Final EIS hexclusion areas. Right-of-way (areas would generally be consiidentified in Appendix A for oil asurface-disturbing activities. Thdeveloped to protect important identified as NSO are open to odisturbing activities cannot be cland. Access to oil and gas depdrilling from outside the boundaareas are avoidance areas for granted in NSO areas unless thalternatives. Areas closed to leasing are RO

CrownQuest 62 20 Although the BLM has mapped some ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas under different headings, such as oil and gas leasing stipulations, the BLM did not provide maps that exclusively identified all ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. 

The Proposed Plan Final EIS cavoidance and exclusion areas
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-118 

Table 5.10.g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: MLO – Minerals and Energy – Locatable 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 37 Page 4-575 in Table 4.204. The table only depicts the number 

of acres of surface disturbance for oil and gas development (the following table includes geophysical exploration). Throughout the document, including this section, oil and gas has been included under the "Minerals" section that includes a number of other activities such as coal, tar sands, potash and salt, and uranium. Including acres in the tables for only oil and gas and for exploration within the "Minerals" section underestimates the total number of acres of surface disturbance. Acres of surface disturbance for other "Minerals" activities should be estimated and presented in this section. 

Changes have been made to thmineral activities. 

Table 5.10.h. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: MOG – Minerals and Energy – Oil and Gas 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

26 34 The BLM must consider a no leasing alternative. The current 

draft of the RMP fails to consider such an alternative. Federal courts have made clear that a no leasing alternative should be a vital component in ensuring that agencies have all possible approaches before them (See, e.g., Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1228 [9th Cir. 1988]. 

The BLM has inserted additionaaddress this issue. Refer to pg. Elements Eliminated from Deta

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

26 82 The BLM must consider a no leasing alternative. Please refer to response to com

EOG Resources 60 4 Page ES-7 contains Table ES6 which sets forth the numbers of 

acres that are open to oil and gas leasing with standard terms, open to leasing subject to stipulations, and closed to leasing under each of the alternatives in Monticello DRMP/EIS. Table ES6 represents that 213,288 acres will be open for leasing with 

The BLM has revised its acreagchanged management prescrip
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-119 

Table 5.10.h. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: MOG – Minerals and Energy – Oil and Gas 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

standard lease terms and figures elsewhere in the Monticello RMP. For example, on page 4-98, Table 4.41 represents that 213,290 acres will be open for leasing with standard lease terms and 974,463 acres will be closed to leasing under Alternative E. The BLM must reconcile its acreage figures in the final Monticello RMP. 

EOG Resources 60 18 Alternative E, in particular, is inconsistent with the National 

Energy Policy and Executive Order 13211, 13212, and 13302. The removal of vast areas of land from future oil and gas development and potential restrictions on both leasing and development under Alternative E would significantly restrict regional earnings, jobs, and tax revenue. According to the information presented in the Monticello DRMP/EIS, the adoption of Alternative E would reduce the number of wells that could be drilled in the Monticello RA by over 26% compared to the Alternative A, the No Action Alternative. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 4-136. Annual revenue from potential oil and gas production would also be reduced under Alternative E. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 4-344. The BLM cannot adopt an alternative that would reduce economic development, decrease domestic energy supplies, and harm the local tax base. 

The DRMP/DEIS in Chapter 4, accordance with BLM policy anEnergy Policy and Conservatiodiscussed in Chapters 2 and 3, would be allowed throughout thstandard terms and conditions, program prescriptions, as specThe BLM expects that energy rMonticello Field Office will be vproduction or even State produnot expect to see significant enexperienced in Uintah Basin or planning area over the life of th4. Therefore, BLM does not expareas noted above) socioeconothese activities to national, statThe BLM has expanded its discand local governments in ChapSee also responses to commen

CrownQuest 62 11 The BLM references a Memorandum of Understanding between 

the BLM and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) establishing joint BLM and Forest Service procedures for managing oil and gas leasing and operational activities. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 1-16. The BLM should explain in greater detail the purpose and effect of this Memorandum of Understanding 

Section 1.4.6 has been revised the purpose of the MOU in mor
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-120 

Table 5.10.h. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: MOG – Minerals and Energy – Oil and Gas 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

CrownQuest 62 70 In Section 3.8.1, the BLM identifies "shale" as a "low-energy 

mud" that occurs throughout the Monticello RA. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 3-46. The BLM asserts that "[no information is available regarding past and present exploration, development, or production within the Monticello RA." The BLM should distinguish between oil shale, from which oil can be extracted, and shale formations, which yield natural gas. Shale formations exist within the Monticello RA. With advances in drilling completion technology, production of natural gas from shale formations is feasible. Additionally, because of the development of highly productive shale formations such as Barnett shale formation in Texas, shale recently has been the subject of increased interest among oil and gas producers. 

In its preliminary review of mineconsidered "shale" as an indusand gravel or other crushed stodevelopment (or lack thereof) in was determined that the use of has been minimal and therefore commodity was not addressed (MPR). Because it was not addressed deleted the reference to shale i

Table 5.10.i. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: MSA – Minerals and Energy – Salable 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

EOG Resources 60 40 In Section 3.8.1, the BLM identifies "shale" as a "low-energy 

mud" that occurs throughout the Monticello RA. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 3-46. The BLM asserts that "[no information is available regarding past and present exploration, development, or production within the Monticello RA." The BLM should distinguish between oil shale, from which oil can be extracted, and shale formations, which yield natural gas. Shale information exist within the Monticello RA. 

In its preliminary review of mineconsidered "shale" as an indusand gravel or other crushed stodevelopment (or lack thereof) in was determined that the use of has been minimal and therefore material was not addressed in t(MPR). Because it was not addressed deleted the reference to shale i
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-121 

Table 5.10.j. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: OTH – Other 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 26 Page 4-423 (note: page and section numbers have changed 

since the last draft) in Section 4.3.15.1. In the second line, provide a reference in this section to Table 4.107 on page 4-435; check for similar places in the document for which a reference to another page will provide the reader easy access to further information. 

The reference has been added opportunities to reference othedocument. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 34 Page 4-556 (note: page numbers have changed since the last 

draft) in Section 4.3.19.1. In the first paragraph, the document references Appendix O as providing a list of BMPs for reducing impacts on wildlife resources. Instead, Appendix O discusses wilderness characteristics. 

Changes have been made to thappropriate appendix. 

State of Utah 4 5 The Draft RMP/EIS does not include a discussion on the nature 

or type of threat of "irreparable damage" or the regional significance of relevant and important values in its review. BLM misinterprets irreparable damage when reviewing and analyzing ACECs in the Draft RMP/EIS. The ACEC tool was intended by Congress to be limited to only those instances where irreparable damage would be caused without designation. Most surface disturbing actions can eventually be repaired. 

The potential ACECs brought foProposed Plan have gone throuprocess in accordance with FLPat 43 CFR 1600, Land-use Planand in accordance with BLM Mand Procedures Guidelines (45 outlines the process the interdisdetermine whether a nominated importance values. The size of only to the area(s) of geographimportance values are manageirreparable damage to these reThe potential ACECs carried fonecessitate an ACEC designatmanagement protection is necemultiple-use management) to sand importance values within thmanagement prescriptions that narrowly tailored to protect the important values. For these readecisions carried forward into t
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-122 

Table 5.10.j. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: OTH – Other 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

considered by BLM to be consiA rationale for designating or nPreferred Alternative of the DRof the PRMP. Relevant text has the PRMP/FEIS, which lists the ACEC. These threats could resarea proposed for ACEC desigThe ACEC evaluation appendix added to Chapter 2 discussing important ACEC values; howevcurrently exist does not precludconsidered in the action alternawhere the BLM has determined values, are identified as potentthe action alternatives. Threats values are likely to vary by alterevised from the draft documenthreats and impacts associated On August 27, 1980, the BLM pguidelines (45 Federal Registe"protects" – "To defend or guarimportant environmental resourACEC. This includes damage tand that which is irreparable. Wprotect means to prevent the loloss or damage to property." Thpotential for both reparable and protecting important historic, cuand wildlife resources; or other designation. This interpretation legislative history and implemeSection 2 of the guidelines clarplaces within the public lands. I
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-123 

Table 5.10.j. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: OTH – Other 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

establishing in law such basic pthat apply to all the public lands'management of national resouinclude giving special attention the purpose of ensuring that the important and fragile lands will protection' (Senate Report 94-5ACEC process is to be used to management is required to proresources that are most importamake certain specific areas speor man with characteristics that ACEC process is to be used to from natural hazards." 

Glen Canyon Group, Utah Chapter, Sierra Club 

221 7 GLOSSARY in Volume 3 should include many definitions from 

Attachment B to Appendix N, namely definitions for: Designation, Emergency limitations or closures, Mechanized travel, Motorized travel, and Non-motorized travel. Additional definitions should be added for: Road, Trail, and Route. 

The glossary has been updated terms. 

Table 5.10.k. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: PRP – Process and Procedure 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 13 The characterization and description of BLM lands and all 

Planning Area lands are used interchangeably within the between sections, causing confusion. Consistent use of one or the other would be beneficial, or otherwise provide both throughout. See page 3-42 

Consistent use of BLM lands abeen incorporated into the docu

National Park Service 

3 9 The Glen Canyon NRA Minerals Management Plan (1980) and 

the Glen Canyon NRA Grazing Management Plan (1999) 

The BLM has added the plans aware of the Management Plan
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-124 

Table 5.10.k. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: PRP – Process and Procedure 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Intermountain Region 

should be added to the list in Section 1.4. (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs) and further incorporate their contents throughout the DRMP as necessary. 

was prepared and the informatappropriate. The commenter dideficiencies. 

National Park Service Intermountain Region 

3 11 The NPS suggested the following narrative be inserted where 

appropriate: [Glen Canyon NRA was established on October 27, 1972, under Public Law (P. L.) 92-593. In establishing Glen Canyon NRA, Congress directed that, "The administration of ...grazing leases within the recreation area shall be by the BLM. The same policies followed by the BLM in issuing and administering...grazing leases on other lands under its jurisdiction shall be followed in regard to lands within the boundaries of the recreation area, subject to provisions of Section 3(a) and 4 of this Act." The Monticello FO administers livestock grazing on six grazing allotments that occur on public land and within Glen Canyon NRA. In total, the Monticello FO administers grazing on approximately 264,267 acres of the recreation area. Specific management direction for livestock grazing in Glen Canyon NRA is provided for under the Glen Canyon NRA 1999 Grazing Management Plan.] 

The BLM has inserted the narraPage 3-41, 3.7.1. [Glen Canyon October 27, 1972, under Public establishing Glen Canyon NRAadministration of ...grazing leasshall be by the BLM. The same issuing and administering...graunder its jurisdiction shall be fothe boundaries of the recreatioSection 3(a) and 4 of this Act." livestock grazing on six grazing land and within Glen Canyon Nadministers grazing on approxirecreation area.] Management Common to All, pmanagement direction for livesNRA is provided for under the GGrazing Management Plan." 

National Park Service Intermountain Region 

3 12 The 1984 Interagency Memorandum of Understanding on the 

administration of livestock grazing in Glen Canyon NRA should be added to the list of programmatic MOUs. 

The BLM has added the Memolist of programmatic MOUs, Se

Lynell Schalk 29 1 The final section of Volume 3 has a section entitled 

"References, Acronyms and Glossary, and Index." In the Reader's Guide at the beginning of Volume 1, there is no reference to an acronym index, nor is it referenced in the Table of Contents, which ends with Appendix Q. Some acronyms used in the document are not even listed in this acronym index, such as the double meaning of ORV, i.e. off-road vehicle and outstandingly remarkable values (Reference: pg. H-91, Vol. 3). 

Acronyms and Glossary is listeVolume 1. Additional acronyms they are identified. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-125 

Table 5.10.k. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: PRP – Process and Procedure 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

National Parks Conservation Association 

44 3 Maps 23-27 need to identify all national park units and their 

boundaries. Otherwise meaningful analysis of oil and gas development upon park resources is difficult to access. All alternatives appear to have standard and special stipulation leasing near or adjacent to park borders including Canyonlands NP, Glen Canyon NRA, Natural Bridges NM and Hovenweep NM. 

The map has been updated to units. 

BlueRibbin Coalition 

54 1 Regarding planning criteria in Section 1.3: 

The BLM would make all possible attempts to ensure that its management prescriptions and actions are as complementary as possible with other planning jurisdictions (both federal and nonfederal), subject to applicable law and policy. Similar management prescriptions would be considered on adjoining lands to minimize inconsistency. To the extent possible, inventories, planning, and management programs would be coordinated with other federal, state, and local agencies and tribal governments. Chapter 1, page 1-12 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft) The term "complementary" should be changed to "consistent." BlM's FLPMA mandate is for consistency, not to be "complementary." Changing the term from the well understood term of "consistent" to an undefined term of "complementary" is in poor form. The consistency requirement is extremely important to state and local governments and is considered to be on of the key "pillars" of FLMPA. 

The word has been changed to 

EOG Resources 60 23 The BLM must clarify the term "site specific NEPA." As the BLM 

is aware, all agency actions or authorizations are generally subject to the mandates of NEPA. See 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2006). Merely instructing that an action is subject to "site-specific NEPA" does not impose any obligation beyond that already required by federal law. However, NEPA requires that the BLM 

The commenter is correct in thasensitive soils may not necessaaction requiring an EIS, solely bsensitive site. The appropriate generally determined by the sizpotential impacts, and resource 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-126 

Table 5.10.k. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: PRP – Process and Procedure 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

prepare an EIS for any major federal actions that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2006). The phrase "site specific NEPA" may improperly suggest that all activities in sensitive soils are major federal actions that require preparation of an EIS. The BLM clearly did not intend to impose such an onerous and absurd result that would require the agency to expend significant time and resources before authorizing any activities in sensitive soils. The BLM must revise the phrase to clearly explain the amount of environmental analysis the BLM intended to require, if any, prior to authorizing activities in sensitive soils. 

internal and external scoping. Tto indicate that additional or site necessary to protect sensitive ssite specific planning through thAlso a definition of sensitive soglossary. It was not deemed neplanning" in that this term is geto a specific project or group of 

Table 5.10.l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: REC – Recreation 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

State of Utah 4 72 It is unclear in Chapter 3 whether ROS classifications are 

carried forward as part of the action alternatives and whether ROS classifications will change by alternative. 

The Recreational Opportunity Scarried forward in any of the achas been added to Section 3.1Management decisions will be such as SRMAs, ACECs, NatioWSAs, ISAs, ERMAs, Wild and recommendations, Non-WSA lacharacteristics, etc. 

San Juan County 7 40 Pg. 2-29 (note: page numbers have changed since the last 

draft). The first bullet concerning camping under management common to all alternatives seems to be in conflict with Alternatives A, C, and D. Please clarify. 

The second part of the first bullCommon to All Action Alternativthe riparian corridor within this designated campsites only" is imanagement prescriptions vary change has been made in the dThe camping management pre
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-127 

Table 5.10.l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: REC – Recreation 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

is: Dispersed camping would be aCorridor, except within the estazones: Bridger Jack Mesa, IndiPasture. Camping within these sites. 

San Juan County 7 57 Section 3.11.2.1 – It is unclear whether the BLM is carrying 

ROS into the new RMP. ROS is described in the current plan and on Map 35 but there is no other analysis across alternatives. However, it appears that the primitive designation is used in effect to create "defacto wilderness" and VRM I areas smaller than 5,000 acres. BLM needs to clarify use of ROS in the Draft RMP. 

The ROS has not been carried alternatives. A statement has bclarifying this. Management dedesignations such as SRMAs, Adesignations, WSAs, ISAs, ERrecommendations, Non-WSA lacharacteristics, etc. 

Blue Ribbon Coalition 

24 12 Arch Canyon does not warrant group size limits, it does not 

warrant a permit system for groups under 25 under current use levels. 

Letters from the USFWS conceMexican Spotted Owl habitat in in coordination with BLM and Umade by the ID team in evaluatCanyon. For Arch Canyon, the FEIS will group size limits for private use motorized groups of 50 vehiclePermits will be required for any groups. 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

26 85 There is a restriction in Alternative E for car camping of more 

than 10 vehicles or more that 50 people before an SRP is required. This conflicts directly with the first limitation on group size of 15 people for overnight use in ERMA. 

A change has been made in the 

Lynell Schalk 29 26 The DRMP is inconsistent in its application of the "no pets" rule. 

In an area as sensitive as the canyons of Cedar Mesa where there has been documented damage by dogs, there should be tighter controls, not the same old ones. It is my understanding that the current requirement that dogs be "under control" in Grand Gulch is not working. They either need to be excluded or 

In the proposed plan, a managadded to exclude pets and stocfield office wide. It states "Domnot allowed in cultural sites or odefined in ARPA." Under the Cproposed plan will state "If reso
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-128 

Table 5.10.l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: REC – Recreation 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

on a leash at all times. The leash requirement is generally unenforceable once the owner is out of sight of BLM personnel. There should be exclusion of dogs in Grand Gulch, an area that is already too heavily visited by humans. In other less sensitive areas, dogs should not be allowed in or on archaeological sites. 

experiences are adversely impaanimals may be limited or prohpermits." 

Broads Healthy Lands 

41 12 Section 3.11.2.3 of the DRMP references "a growing level of 

conflict between motorized and non-motorized users of the planning area (see Section 3.10.4.3 below)." However, no such section exists in the document. Please locate this missing section and include it in the Final RMP. 

A correction has been made in Section 3.11.4.3 – User Conflic

Bluff Landowners Coalition 

48 3 Domestic pets are excluded from Outlaws Canyon/Lower 

Cottonwood & Butler Wash areas adjacent to our residences/properties under Alt. B, C, and D. The DRMP makes no mention regarding non-motorized/mechanized uses in this area (Reference: pg. 2-9, Vol. 1). Cows and bikes are allowed—including within archaeological sites—based on your proposals. As mountain bikes and cows cause more impacts than domestic pets, where is the sense in this? 

The proposed plan will allow doCanyon/Lower Cottonwood and restriction that they will not be aSection 4.3.8.9.2. – Mechanize(Mountain Bikes) states the MFUnder the preferred alternativeallowed on routes designated oThe proposed plan states, "Avamay be limited if cultural resour

EOG Resources 60 20 Cedar Mesa/Grand Gulch Plateau Special Recreation 

Management Area. On page 2-25, the BLM proposes that under the action alternatives, the "Grand Gulch SRMA would be changed to the Cedar Mesa Cultural Special Recreation Management Area." Map 36, which depicts SRMAs under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, identifies the Grand Gulch SRMA and not a Cedar Mesa SRMA. Map 36 does not comport with the management action on page 2-25, which suggests that the Cedar Mesa SRMA would still exist under Alternative A. On Maps 37-40, which depict SRMAs under the action alternatives, the BLM identifies a Cedar Mesa SRMA, even though the management prescription on page 2-25 suggests that this area would become the Grand Gulch SRMA. The BLM must review 

The proposed plan now eliminaand proposed to manage them C-SRMA is now the Cedar MesComb Ridge and McLoyd Moonmanagement zones within the acreage for the Cedar Mesa SRand FEIS have been updated to of the proposed SRMA's have bthe new Cedar Mesa SRMA. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-129 

Table 5.10.l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: REC – Recreation 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

the management prescription on page 2-25 and ensure that Maps 36-40 reflect the proposed management prescription. 

CrownQuest 62 19 The BLM identifies "developed recreation sites" as avoidance 

areas for ROWs. The BLM should clearly define the term "developed recreation sites" in the Monticello RMP/EIS. 

Developed recreation sites both found on Page 2-22 under ManAction Alternatives. 

Mike Meloy 220 2 Concerning the San Juan River SRMA 4. 3. 10. 3. 10. 1 of the 

planning document on page 4-261 last paragraph it states: "The land on the south bank of the San Juan River is owned by the Navajo Nation and camping is currently not permitted." This statement is incorrect. The Navajo Nation permits camping on the river. 

A change has been made in the 

Table 5.10.m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: RIP – Riparian 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 9 According to Table 2.2, the Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

impacts to Riparian Resources include "some loss of riparian vegetation from elk grazing." This impact should also be applied to Cattle Grazing. 

The PRMP/FEIS adds: "Complminimize adverse impacts to ripchanges in grazing managemedegradation of riparian areas w

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 10 Beneficial or adverse impacts from beavers on riparian 

resources are not discussed in Table 2.2. 

The oversight has been correct

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 11 Minerals and energy resources are not mentioned as a source 

of impacts to the Riparian Resources in Table 2.2. Land disturbing activities can affect riparian areas; therefore, adding a no surface occupancy buffer around riparian areas would benefit the riparian resources. 

This oversight has been correcsection to Table 2.2 in the PRM

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 14 In Section 3.12.1, the first sentence of this section should be 

revised for clarity as the 1.2% describes the percentage of riparian acres within the BLM administered lands (of ~1.8 

The correct figure is 20,912 acrriparian and wetland resources 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-130 

Table 5.10.m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: RIP – Riparian 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

million) rather than 1.2% of riparian acres within the Monticello Planning Area. Instead, the BLM administers ~70% of riparian acres in the planning area. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 15 If possible, in Table 3.24, indicate the acres and miles (by 

drainage) that are administered by the BLM. 

The data provided are from a sand the acreage were calculate

Tom Ratcliff 56 3 I have found an interesting issue related to this and other 

resource areas of discussion in the Draft. Riparian resources are discussed in at least Fire Management 3.4, Riparian Resources 3.12, and Vegetation 3.18 sections of the document, and of course at 4.3.11. Each of those sections has different and conflicting information. For example, Fire says that riparian habitat is "less than 1% of the MPA." Vegetation is more specific at "20,699 acres"..."only 1% of the FO"; Riparian Resources, at 3.12 claims approximately 20,435 acres (1.2%). And now the kicker: At 4.3.11 riparian acres are listed at 28,994, based on a GIS database. By my calculation that is about a 42% error factor over the lower figure. 

The acreages and percent hav28,944 correct acres/1785127 tFire Management 3.4.5.9 – covRiparian Resources 3.12 – The approximately 28,944 acres (1.of riparian and wetland resourcOffice. Vegetation 3.18.1.4 – Riparian Approximately 28,944 acres of exist in the Monticello FO. 

Thomas Ratcliff 79 6 Riparian resources are discussed in at least Fire Management 

3.4, Riparian Resources 3.12 and Vegetation 3.18 sections of the document, and of course at 4.3.11. Each of those sections has different and conflicting information. For example, Fire says that riparian habitat is "less than 1% of MPA," Vegetation is more specific at "20,699 acres"..." only 1% of the FO:"; Riparian Resources, at 3.12 claims approximately 20,435 acres (1.2%). 

Please refer to response to com

Table 5.10.n. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SCO – Scope 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Grand Canyon 33 1 There is an omission of relevant information from the planning BLM - Global climate change c
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-131 

Table 5.10.n. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SCO – Scope 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Trust document in the absence of any reference to global climate 

destabilization. Climate models predict that current trends of higher temperatures and reduced precipitation will continue in the Upper Colorado River Basin leading to a decrease in quantity and quality of river water and severe consequences for human, agricultural uses, wildlife and ecosystems. The MFO has already been affected by the prolonged drought. Soil disturbing activities such as cattle grazing, energy exploration and development and recreation have increased dramatically and these uses destabilize soils. Massive dust storms from soil loss deposit dark-colored dust on mountain snowpacks that absorb heat and melt too soon. Snowmelt storage in watersheds is reduced. The implications of these and other climate effects on management decisions on public lands are not adequately addressed in the DRMP. Modeling and technical information can be accessed from USGS and NOAA. 

text in Chapters 3 and 4. Will thscientific evidence supports the change will result from the contgases in the atmosphere. While particularly in the area of exact impacts of such changes, the vevidence supports the view thagreenhouse gas emissions will information was added to ChapThe EPA has not developed restandards regarding global climprotocols and standards are avpotential effects to global warmprepared for site-specific projecwas added to Chapter 4 of the 

Table 5.10.o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SD – Special Designations 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

CrownQuest 62 83 Under all of the action alternatives, the BLM proposes to 

designate the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark as subject to NSO stipulations and as a ROW Avoidance area. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-35, Table 2.1. The BLM entirely fails to address the impacts on this proposed management action on oil and gas development. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pgs. 4-114, 4-123, 4-132, 4-140. A pipeline borders, and perhaps may cross, the Alkali Ridge National Historic Landmark. The BLM's proposed management of the historic landmark will prevent owners and operators of neighboring oil and gas leases from accessing the pipeline, 

Management prescriptions for tclarified in the PRMP/FEIS to ngranted to allow access to exismaintenance of existing facilitiefacilities. Standard exception larights would also apply. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-132 

Table 5.10.o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SD – Special Designations 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

thereby impairing development of the leases. The BLM must analyze the impacts of the proposed management. 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SOC – Socioeconomics 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

State of Utah 4 25 BLM's decisions on how to manage its lands directly affect 

Utah's ability to manage state trust lands to provide revenue for public schools and other beneficiary institutions. The state believes the Draft RMP fails to adequately address two issues, 1) the impact of BLM management decisions on state trust lands, and 2) the need for a substantially more robust program for land tenure adjustments between the BLM and the State of Utah. 

Non-BLM lands could be indireboth positively and negatively. PRMP/FEIS has been modified regarding the impacts on minerresponse to comment 120-101The BLM does provide for reaslands under all alternatives. A sChapter 2, Lands and Realty, MAction Alternatives, that states land would be provided includinavoidance and exclusion areas by the Cotter decision (Utah v. the travel management plan reprovide access to SITLA lands 

State of Utah 4 54 Section 4.1.2 – Assumptions and Methodology for Mineral 

Development. The RFD must address the fact that BLM withdrawals and special designations directly affect development of oil and gas on SITLA lands. The BLM should assume that, in addition to the loss of oil and gas wells on BLM lands, there will be an additional loss of wells on SITLA lands in proportion to the amount of SITLA land within the proposed special designation under each alternative. 

The RFD is a technical report tof oil and gas exploration, devereclamation activity. It is neithe"No Action Alternative" in the Nbaseline projection of future acproductive areas (including SITunder standard lease terms and exceptions are those areas deslaw, regulation or executive ordThe BLM acknowledges that cl
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-133 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SOC – Socioeconomics 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

to oil and gas leasing may have on SITLA's mineral revenue. Thnondiscretionary, and is beyond Non-BLM lands could be indireboth positively and negatively. PRMP/FEIS has been modified impacts in Alternative E on SITdiscretionary closures of public gas wells foregone on SITLA lafrom SITLA wells foregone havthe analysis in Chapter 4. 

State of Utah 4 56 Section 3.13 – Socioeconomics. BLM decisions to withdraw 

mineral lands from leasing (WSAs, etc.) directly affect the economic viability of state trust lands inholdings. This should be acknowledged appropriately in the discussion of socioeconomic impacts. 

The decision to manage lands the Federal Land Policy and Mato be managed as WSAs in the the 1980's. Any state trust land management is beyond the scoThose state land inholdings thaa result of the current planning analyzed in the Socioeconomic also refer to response to comm

State of Utah 4 71 The royalty payments for oil reported on page 3-132 (note: page 

numbers have changed since the last draft) exceed the sale value by more than one million dollars. Please verify and explain this anomaly. 

BLM agrees that the production page 3-132 is confusing as prebeen clarified and any erroneouin the proposed RMP. 

San Juan County 7 24 San Juan County commends the BLM for the effort that has 

been expended to better understand and portray socioeconomic impacts in this DRMP. This has been a weakness in previous plans. San Juan County encourages BLM to use studies done by Utah's universities to enhance this information such as the social survey undertaken by USU and the economic studies done by the U of U. Every NEPA action in the RMP should include a discussion on socioeconomic conditions and fully disclose all impacts. 

The BLM has reviewed the Utarural counties conducted by the received preliminary data for Sacompletion of the Draft RMPM/findings in chapter 3 of the PRMaddition, an appendix has been which summarizes the results oThe recent research undertakeBureau of Economic and Busin
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-134 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SOC – Socioeconomics 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

activities in San Juan County is unexpected death of the primareffort. The BLM has extensively Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mof the contributions of various iOn a broad land use planning lsocioeconomic impacts from vadiscussed in Chapter 4 of the Dseparate out the socioeconomispecific resource decisions spe

Utah State Office of Education 

31 6 The BLM should assume that in addition to a decline in the 

number of wells drilled on BLM lands, there will be a proportionate decrease in the number of wells drilled on school trust lands. It can be assumed that a significant number of wells may not be drilled on SITLA lands if Alternatives B or E is adopted. All bonus, rental, and royalty revenues from these wells, at SITLA's royalty rate of 12% would be captured by the RMP decision to adopt Alternative B or E. This could amount to millions of dollars lost to the schools of the state of Utah. The State Board of Education cannot be supportive of any taking of school trust assets. 

The potential SITLA revenues ladded to the FEIS. See Section EIS, impacts resulting from Altegiven that the acres open for oigreater under B than A by 0.3% differs by only 7 wells over the 

EOG Resources 60 5 On page ES-8, the BLM asserts that Alternative B has the 

"potential for short-term adverse impacts to local economics and business that depend on public land for resource extraction." Elsewhere in the Monticello DRMP/EIS, the BLM defines "short-term impacts" as impacts that "result in changes to the environment that are stabilized or mitigated rapidly." Monticello DRPM/EIS, pg 4-6. In the analysis of the impacts of the alternatives in Chapter 4 of the Monticello DRMP/EIS, the BLM provides no justification to support its assertion that the economic impacts of Alternative B will be "short term." 

The sentence on page ES-8 ha"Alternative B would have potebusinesses that depend on pubextraction." 

EOG Resources 60 38 Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-113, Table 2.2, This statement is 

completely unsubstantiated and misleading. The statement 

The statement on page 2-113 hstatement of 4-345. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-135 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SOC – Socioeconomics 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

suggests that managing lands for wilderness characteristics under Alternative E may yield positive economic impacts that outweigh the negative economic impacts that will result from closing these lands to other resource uses such as oil and gas development. The analysis set forth in Chapter 4 of the Monticello DRMP/EIS does not support the conclusion that Alternative will yield positive economic benefits. The BLM provides absolutely no evidence to support its speculation that closing non-WSA lands to development will generate revenue for the local economy or, moreover, that any positive effects would offset the revenue lost by closing the area to oil and gas development. In Chapter 4, the BLM admits that it cannot quantify any potential economic impacts from managing additional lands for wilderness characteristics. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 4-345 ("It is difficult to predict whether the potential socioeconomic gains described above will outweigh the socioeconomic losses which could result from" managing non-WSA lands for wilderness characteristics.). Without such quantification, it is impossible for the BLM to suggest that closing lands for wilderness character may create positive economic impacts that will outweigh lost revenue from other resource uses such as oil and gas development. The BLM must revise its statement on page 2-113 to clearly state that the management prescriptions in Alternative E will result in lost revenue from oil and gas development and other resource uses, and that the BLM cannot determine whether managing lands as wilderness will ultimately yield economic benefits that will outweigh this lost revenue. 

EOG Resources 60 51 The BLM understates the impacts of the ROW exclusion 

designation under Alternative E. The BLM asserts that designating 582.357 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as ROW exclusion areas as proposed under Alternative E "could potentially have a minor adverse impact on socioeconomics." See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 4-336. The BLM provides no justification for its proposition that impacts 

Impacts to ROW exclusions are the proposed plan based on the overall planning area for oil and (74 wells over the next 15 yearincreased adverse effects comalthough not expected to be mamineral occurrence in the area. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-136 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SOC – Socioeconomics 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

would be "minor." By designating large areas of the resource area as ROW exclusion areas, the BLM makes oil and gas development more difficult and more expensive. The BLM must provide some justification for its assertion that designating these areas as ROW exclusion areas would result in "minor" impacts. 

opposed to Alternative E manaexclusion than Alternative E. Fugranted ROW regardless of altePRMP/FEIS has been revised tleases and RFD potential. 

CrownQuest 62 72 In Section 3.13.4.2.2, the BLM acknowledges that San Juan 

has the highest unemployment in the state at 11% and that unemployment in consistently double or triple the state average. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 3-102. Similarly, in Section 3.13.4.2.3, the BLM acknowledges that per capita personal income in San Juan County has been consistently lower than the state average and was the lowest in the State of Utah in 2003. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 3-104. Despite these recognitions, many of the prescriptions in the Monticello DRMP/EIS would limit economic activity by restricting access to oil and gas development. The Monticello DRMP/EIS does not properly assess the effects restrictive land management decisions will have on the local economy, and the opportunities denied by severely restricting access to energy resources through a whole range of overlapping restrictions including wilderness-like designation of land, NSO, CSU, VRM, timing limitations, and others. 

It is not the BLM's role to create opportunities in any one sector DEIS is to assess the impacts ovarious affected sectors, if any. The BLM summarizes the minowith oil and gas development o4, p. 429-436. The commenter'activities have had in other partapply to the Monticello planning Foreseeable Development (RFprojects that relatively few wells employ relatively few people, aadverse social impacts. The coconfusing the MPA with the largoccurred in certain areas. The RFD; the commenter has proviis incorrect. Data show that lesCounty's economy is dependencorresponds closely to BLM's a

Table 5.10.q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SOL – Soils 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

CrownQuest 62 35 On pg. 2-49, the BLM proposes the following Management 

Common to All Alternatives: "Any proposed activities that would 

Please refer to response to comSensitive soils are determined 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-137 

Table 5.10.q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SOL – Soils 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

be located in sensitive soils (e.g., hydric, saline, gypsiferous, or highly erodible soils, Maps 41–47) would be subject to sitespecific NEPA and would incorporate BMPs and other mitigation measures to minimizing soil erosion and maintain soil stability." See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-34 Table 2.1. This Management Common to All Alternatives must clarify what is meant by "sensitive soils." The parenthetical phrase following "sensitive soils" does not adequately describe what constitutes a sensitive soil. Similarly, Maps 44–47 do not refer to the types of soils listed in the parenthetical clause in this Management Common to All Alternatives. Although Map 44 depicts areas with "highly saline," "moderately saline," and "low saline" soils. Neither Map 44 nor the Management Common to All Alternatives in Table 2.1 clearly identifies which soils are subject to special management. In the final Monticello RMP/EIS, the BLM must clearly define and map any soils that are managed under specific prescriptions. 

verification, as well as field data rangeland health assessmentsthis time the BLM does not havsoils that would meet the criteriplanning area. NRCS maps proinformation that generally must implementing activities on the gduring activity and site specific display published soil survey incharacteristics that could lead tproject site may contain sensitiand prioritize field verification earea. A definition of sensitive so

CrownQuest 62 36 Additionally, the BLM must clarify the term "site-specific NEPA." 

Merely instructing that an action is subject to "site-specific NEPA" does not impose any obligation beyond that already required by federal law. However, NEPA requires that the BLM prepare an EIS for any major federal actions that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2006). The phrase "site-specific NEPA" may improperly suggest that all activities in sensitive soils are major federal actions that require preparation of an EIS. The BLM must revise the phrase to clearly explain the amount of environmental analysis the BLM intended to require, if any prior to authorizing activities in sensitive soils. 

Please refer to response to com

CrownQuest 62 37 Finally, aside from the management action that proposed 

activities located in sensitive soils would be subject to "sitespecific NEPA and would incorporate BMPs and other mitigation measures to minimize soil erosion and maintain soil stability," the BLM does not appear to identify any other special 

The leasing categories were desuch as ACEC designations, FSpecies habitat or special timincharacteristics or limiting factorlease categories. Tables 4.67, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-138 

Table 5.10.q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SOL – Soils 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

management to protect or preserve sensitive soils. In Chapter 4 of the Monticello DRMP/EIS, however, the BLM appears to analyze the imposition of special and NSO leasing stipulations to protect sensitive soils. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pgs. 4-113 (Table 4.48), 4-122 (Table 4.52), 4-131 (Table 4.56), 4-140 Table 4.60). The BLM must identify any specific management actions to protect sensitive soils in Table 2.1. Accordingly, the BLM must revise either Table 2.1 or the discussion of impacts in Chapter 4 to clarify which management actions it proposes to protect sensitive soils. 

simply list potential acreages ocharacteristics within each of thcharacteristics or criteria were categories. However, based on "sensitive soils" that are potentdiffers. Language has been addin Section 4.3.7.4.6. Impacts of Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 1 Remove Bald Eagle from Section 2.1.1.5 and check entire 

document to remove threatened status for Bald Eagle throughout. Recommend including Bald Eagle in wildlife section and retaining Conservation Measures of Appendix Q since the species is still protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Eagle Protection Act. 

Entire document has been adju"threatened" to "special status now listed on the BLM and Utalisted in that section vs. the wildMeasures will be kept in AppenBald Eagles. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 3 The conservation measures listed in Table 2.1 appear to be 

paraphrased items from Appendix Q. To avoid confusion, either replicates Appendix Q measures into this table, or at a minimum reference Appendix Q here. 

The Conservation Measures lisStatus Species for Bald Eagle, Southwestern Willow FlycatcheColorado River fishes, and Calremoved from this table and wiQ to avoid confusion. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 4 Alternative C reduces the buffer around Gunnison Sage-grouse 

leks to 0.6 miles. FWS recommends CSU for oil and gas leasing activities within 2.0 miles of leks and that construction of permanent facilities be avoided within a 2.0 miles buffer around 

Changes have been made to reguidelines and those found in tRangewide Plan. The year-round habitat is CSU 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-139 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

leks, unless it can be shown to not affect sage-grouse. structures. Other suggested ma

implemented and came directly grouse Rangewide Conservatiocommitted to implement. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 16 Section 3.16. The third line limits additional sensitive species to 

plants; however, the second paragraph more accurately includes the numerous species of animals also identified as sensitive. 

The sentence has been changeEndangered Species Act, as wspecies listed or proposed as s

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 17 Section 3.16.2. In Utah, Mexican Spotted Owl habitat does not 

include high canopy closure, high stand density and multilayered canopies of uneven-aged stands. 

These habitat descriptions havsection. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 21 Table 4.137. The entire state of Utah is not within the 

nonessential, experimental boundary of the condor. A small portion of San Juan County is outside of the nonessential, experimental boundary. Update the RMP for accuracy. 

The Table 4.106 has been chastate of Utah is not within the nboundary of the California Cond

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 27 Section 4.3.15.1(of the DEIS). In the first paragraph, recovery 

plans for all species should be referenced here, not just the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher plan. 

Other recovery plans have bee

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 30 Section 4.3.15.3.6.1. Rocky Slopes and Canyons: The 

statement, "Direct, adverse impacts include short-term disturbance of... special status species resulting from construction and operation noise, and a long-term reduction in habitat from the installation of mineral development infrastructure" should be applied to all habitats and alternatives, not just the rocky slopes and canyons habitat. 

The statement has been added same impacts are discussed in Perennial Grassland, Pinyon-JuConifer/Mountain Shrub habitatnot worded exactly the same. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 31 Section 4.3.15.2.6.3. The decision that "No Gunnison Sagegrouse habitat would be closed or NSO to mineral entry" does 

not adequately protect this species. Need to provide additional protection of leks by limiting surface occupancy for minerals and other ground disturbing activities would help preserve sagegrouse. 

Changes have been made to thwill be protected from all surfacclosed and classified as NSO. 

U.S. Fish and 2 32 Section 4.3.15.2.12.2. (of the DEIS) Alternatives B and E would Adjustments have been made t
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-140 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Wildlife Service result in fewer adverse impacts on Gunnison Sage-grouse and 

other sagebrush special status species than the preferred alternative. We recommend these be applied to sage-grouse. 

Sage-grouse to ensure they are Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangew

State of Utah 4 10 The BLM should only employ the term "critical habitat" when 

referring to the legal habitat designations for endangered and threatened species under the ESA. 

The term critical has been reseEndangered (T &E) species. Comade in the PRMP/FEIS. For non the UDWR crucial habitat de

Grand Canyon Trust 

33 3 Under Table 2.1 – Summary Table of Alternative Gunnison 

Sage Grouse we recommend protection of lek habitat within 2 miles of active strutting grounds and year-round habitat protection within 6 miles of active strutting grounds (Alternatives "B" and "E"). This recommendation is based on USFWS assertion that a 5-mile buffer around lek sites is necessary. The USFWS based their recommendation for sage-grouse on Connelly et al. (2000) "Specifically, for non-migratory populations occupying habitats that are uniformly distributed, protect sagebrush and herbaceous understory within 2 miles of all occupied leks. For non-migratory populations, leks should be considered the center of year round activity and treated as focal points for management activities. For non-migratory populations where sagebrush is not uniformly distributed, suitable habitats should all be protected out to 3.1 miles from all occupied leks. For migratory populations of sage-grouse, breeding habitats within 11.2 miles of active leks should be protected recognizing that birds may move more than 11.2 miles from leks to nest sites." 

Changes have been made to Tgrouse. These changes reflect measures found in the GunnisoConservation Plan which was dof several agencies including thWildlife Service. 

Public Lands Advocacy 

35 8 Table 2.1, the DEIS identifies several restrictions designed to 

protect the Bald Eagle as listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Bald Eagle was removed by the USFWS from the T&E list last July. Further, it is not listed as a sensitive species by the Utah BLM State Office. In fact, the USFWS has already proposed new regulations that authorize a "take" of the Bald 

Entire document has been adju"threatened" to "special status now listed on the BLM and Utahas been listed in that section vConservation Measures have bcontinue protection for Bald Ea
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-141 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Eagle in accordance with the criteria listed in the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Therefore, the FEIS must recognize that protection of the Bald Eagle is subject only to that described in the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and remove the restrictions identified in the DEIS. 

Public Lands Advocacy 

35 9 Table 2-1 indicates that sage-grouse lek habitat will be 

protected within 0.6 miles of an active strutting ground and that new oil and gas leases will be subject to a controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation under Alternative C. Under Alternative B the protection zone would be 2 miles, while under Alternative D it would be .25 of a mile. Additionally, BLM has identified a 6-mile year-round habitat buffer in which oil and gas operators would be required to utilize Suggested Management Practices listed in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Range-wide Conservation Plan. BLM indicates that these restrictions are based upon best available scientific information, i.e., National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy: Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse (BLM 2004d), WAFWA Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), and the Gunnison Sage-grouse Range-wide Conservation Plan (2005, as revised). In reviewing the DEIS, we can find no description of the documents referenced nor any analysis or justification regarding the need for any buffer zones around strutting grounds in the MFO. Nor can we find any maps that illustrate where restrictions would be imposed, making it impossible to discern the impacts to future oil and gas development. Maps 74 through 77 fail to identify the specific of sage-grouse species depicted and they fail to outline what BLM considers "crucial year-round habitat," as discussed on page 2-53 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft). 

Changes have been made to thprotection measure more consigrouse Rangewide ConservatioChanges have also been made where the proposed stipulationspecifically mapped since they and those will be analyzed on a 

Public Lands Advocacy 

35 10 In our experience in reviewing RMP DEIS, most BLM office's 

that manage sage grouse habitat have limited the buffer to .25 mile around active leks. The proposals in Preferred Alternative 

Changes have been made to thGunnison Sage-grouse as sugggrouse Rangewide Conservatio
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-142 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

C and Alternative B are excessive and have no supporting scientific foundation. We do not support the unsubstantiated 6-mile year-round radius around Sage grouse leks because it has no scientific basis. The suggested 0.6-mile and 2-mile buffers lack empirical support. 

developed with the best availab

The Nature Conservancy 

49 2 We urge that the language in the Final RMP pertaining to the 

necessary commitment to the protection and sustaining of SSS be stronger. —Under 2.1.1.5 – Special Status Species. The DRMP states that "Land use plan decisions should be consistent with..." various mandates, plans and agreements for T and E species. A stronger and more accurate statement to put into the Final RMP is that "Land use plan decision must be consistent with..." those mandates and agreements etc. —We suggest adding a statement pertaining to allowing and participating in research of threatened and endangered and Sensitive species and their habitats. —"The protection of species and potential and/or occupied habitat for special status species would be considered and implemented prior to any authorization or action by the BLM that could alter or disturb such habitat." While it is fine to consider such SSS habitat protection, the BLM needs to give primacy to the conservation of SSS in such cases -- not necessarily a wholesale halting or precluding of other valid uses of public lands, but fine-scale design of such uses so as to be compatible with the priority of maintaining SSS habitats/occurrences. —A second point states that "No management action would be permitted on BLM lands that would jeopardize the continued existence of species that are listed, proposed for listing, or 

Chapter 2 shows the summary such as "should and would" are since the decision has not been proposed. Please refer to Table 2.1 under Alternatives: "Inventories and mconducted in order to determinanimal species locations, potendynamics, and existing and potanother sentence to this that stestablished by U.S. Fish and WWildlife Resources would be usWording is changed on Page 2action would be permitted on Bthe continued existence of speclisting, or candidates for listing Act and BLM State Director's sspecies as required by the BLM 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-143 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act." Give that BLM Manual 6840.06E and the DRMP provide sensitive species with (at least) the same level of protections candidate species, then we would clarify this statement in the Final RMP to be applicable to BLM Sensitive species as well. —A following point states that "Inventories and monitoring studies would be conducted in order to determine special status species locations, potential habitat, population dynamics, and existing and potential threats." However, the DRMP does not specify the use of the appropriate protocols for such inventories and monitoring. A statement should be added indicating that the BLM will use protocols established for individual species. —A following point states that "BLM would support and implement the guidelines and management recommendations presented in species recovery or conservation plans (as updated), or alternative management strategies developed in consultation with USFWS." A stronger and more accurate statement in the Final RMP would be "the BLM will support, follow and implement current and future special status plant and animal species Recovery Plans, Conservation Plans, Strategies, and Agreements..." 

EOG Resources 60 26 Because the Bald Eagle is no longer protected by the 

Endangered Species Act, the Act does not require the BLM to consult with the USFWS prior to authorizing activities that may affect the Bald Eagle or its habitat. The BLM accordingly must revise these management actions. In light of the Bald Eagle's changed status, the BLM must not impose the restrictive management measures identified on page 2-51 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft). 

Entire document has been adju"threatened" to "special status now listed on the BLM and Utahas been listed in that section vConservation Measures have bcontinue protection for Bald Ea

EOG Resources 60 27 Although Maps 74–77 purport to identify "sage-grouse habitat," 

these maps are unclear and unhelpful. First, the maps do not specify which species of sage-grouse they identify—Gunnison sage-grouse or greater sage-grouse. Second, the maps do not 

As discussed in Chapter 3, thegrouse within the Monticello FieBLM has revised the sage-grousage-grouse habitat, not just th
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-144 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

define what the BLM considers "sage-grouse habitat," which could include active strutting ground, "crucial year-round habitat" as defined on page 2-53 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft). The BLM must revise Maps 74-77 to clearly describe the sage-grouse habitat that is mapped. 

habitat. 

EOG Resources 60 28 Under all of the action alternatives, the BLM proposed to 

prohibit or avoid the construction of "power lines and other tall structures" within various distances of sage-grouse habitat or strutting grounds. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-53. EOG objects to this proposed management action, for several reasons. First, the BLM must clarify what "tall structures" it intends to prohibit by providing, for example, a height limit defining what it perceives as "tall." Without such clarification, this management action does not clearly identify for both land managers and users of the public lands what structures are prohibited. 

Definition of what tall structures document that says, "Prohibit cother tall structures (structures windmills or buildings) year-rou

EOG Resources 60 30 Under all of the action alternatives, the BLM would prohibit or 

avoid the construction of new fences within specified distances of active strutting grounds. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 2-53. The BLM must not prohibit all fences near active strutting grounds. Rather, the BLM should exempt fences around disposal pits associated with oil and gas operations. The Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining requires operators to fence disposal pits to protect wildlife and livestock. See Utah Admin. Code Rule 649-9-3 (2008). The BLM must revise this management action to allow fences around disposal pits or, at a minimum, to provide the BLM with discretion to waive a prohibition against fences where required to protect wildlife and livestock. 

Wording has been changed to the specified distances of activNSO for oil and gas leasing actDisposal pits associated with obe developed within these distagrounds, therefore these fence

EOG Resources 60 41 The BLM incorrectly identifies the Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus, as a threatened species in the Monticello DRMP/EIS. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 3-141. The Bald Eagle was removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by the USFWS on July 9, 2007. See 72 Fed. Reg. 37346 (July 9, 2007). Furthermore, the Bald Eagle 

Entire document has been adju"threatened" to "special status listed on the BLM and Utah Sebeen listed in that section vs. thMeasures have been kept in Ap
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-145 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

was not listed or identified as a candidate for listing on the USFWS's most recent list of candidate species. See 72 Fed. Reg. 69034 (Dec. 6, 2007). Notably, the Bald Eagle does not appear on the Utah BLM's list of special status species. See State-listed and BLM-listed Sensitive Species, http://www.ut.blm.gov/vernalrmpguide/state_blm_species.htm (last visited January 17, 2008). The BLM should correct the information in the Final EIS and remove the Bald Eagle from its discussion of threatened and endangered species. 

protection for Bald Eagles. 

EOG Resources 60 48 The area over which the CSU stipulations apply varies by 

alternative, with Alternatives B and E applying to CSU stipulation within 2 miles of active strutting ground, Alternative C applying to CSU stipulations within 0.6 miles of active strutting ground, and Alternative D applying in CSU stipulation within 0.25 miles of active strutting ground. The BLM does not identify the number of acres that will be subject to the CSU stipulations under the various alternatives. 

The acres are identified on PagAlternative. The map in the appmake this clearer. 

EOG Resources 60 49 In Section 4.3.7.4.8.6, the BLM fails to disclose the significant 

impacts of its management action to protect migratory bird habitat during nesting season on oil and gas development. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 4-95 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft). The BLM has not explained why such restrictions are necessary. These restrictions are not required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which permits disruptive activities in certain circumstances. 16 U.S.C. 703--712 (2006). The BLM must revise its proposed management action to ensure it is the least restrict necessary to protect the resource. 

Although the Executive Order 1Treaty Act does not state specishould be taken on surface distresponsibility to decide how we habitat for migratory bird and bsurface disturbing activities durprotecting migratory birds as mBy using the term "avoid," the Bby case basis to allow a surfacreasonable alternative. At that tto minimize the impacts to migrwords "or minimize" behind "avAs stated in Section 4.3.7.4.8.3impacts on mineral resource dedescribed for Bald Eagle." Pleamore detailed description of the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-146 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

CrownQuest 62 42 Despite statements elsewhere in the Monticello DRMP/EIS, the 

Bald Eagle is not a threatened or endangered species. The Bald Eagle was removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on July 9, 2007. Furthermore, the Bald Eagle was not listed or identified as a candidate for listing on the USFWS's most recent list of candidate species. Finally, the Bald Eagle does not appear on the Utah BLM's list of special status species. 

Entire document has been adju"threatened" to "special status now listed on the BLM and Utahas been listed in that section vConservation Measures have bcontinue protection for Bald Ea

CrownQuest 62 43 As part of several of the Bald Eagle management actions listed, 

the BLM proposes consultation with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Section 7 consultation is only required when an action may affect a threatened or endangered species. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a) (2006); 50 C.F.R. 402.14(2007). Because the Bald Eagle is no longer protected by the Endangered Species Act, the Act does not require the BLM to consult with the USFWS prior to authorizing activities that may affect the Bald Eagle or its habitat. The BLM accordingly must revise these management actions. 

The entire document has been from "threatened" to "special stis now listed on the BLM and Uis listed in that section as oppoConservation Measures will be protection for Bald Eagles; confor Bald Eagles. 

CrownQuest 62 46 The Monticello DRMP/EIS does not include any maps indicating 

the areas subject to restrictions identified on pages 2-53 and 2-54 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft). Without maps identifying areas subject to Gunnison sagegrouse management, CrownQuest cannot determine the extent to which the BLM's proposed management actions affect CrownQuest's operations. The final Monticello RMP/EIS should include maps depicting the areas subject to Gunnison sagegrouse management restrictions. 

Maps have been added to show management areas. 

CrownQuest 62 47 Although Maps 74–76 purport to identify "sage-grouse habitat," 

these maps are unclear and unhelpful. First, the maps do not specify which species of sage-grouse they identify—Gunnison Sage-grouse or Greater Sage-grouse. Second, the maps do not define what the BLM considers "sage-grouse habitat," which 

Maps have been added to show habitat. The Lek sites are not snumber and location of the site
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-147 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

could include active strutting ground, "crucial year-round habitat" as defined on pg. 2-53 of the Monticello DRMP/EIS, or "year-round habitat" as defined on pg. 2-53. The BLM must revise Maps 74–76 to clearly describe the sage-grouse habitat that is mapped. 

CrownQuest 62 73 The BLM incorrectly identifies the Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus, as a threatened species in the Monticello DRMP/EIS. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 3-141. The Bald Eagle was removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by the USFWS on July 9, 2007. See 72 Fed. Reg. 37346 (July 9, 2007). Furthermore, the Bald Eagle was not listed or identified as a candidate for listing on the USFWS's most recent list of candidate species. See 72 Fed. Reg. 69034 (Dec. 6, 2007). Notably, the Bald Eagle does not appear on the Utah BLM's list of special status species. See state-listed and BLM listed Sensitive Species, http//www.ut.blm.gov/vernalrmpguide/state_blm_species.htm (last visited January 17, 2008). 

Entire document has been adju"threatened" to "special status now listed on the BLM and Utahas been listed in that section vConservation Measures have bcontinue protection for Bald Ea

CrownQuest 62 84 In Section 4.3.7.4.8.6, the BLM fails to disclose the significant 

impacts of its management action to protect migratory bird habitat during nesting season on oil and gas development. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 4-95. The BLM has not explained why such restrictions are necessary. These restrictions are not required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which permits disruptive activities in certain circumstances. 16 U.S.C. 703-712 (2006). The BLM must revise its proposed management action to ensure it is the least restrict necessary to protect the resource. Furthermore, although the management action proposes to require no surface occupancy in migratory bird habitat during nesting season, the BLM fails to identify where such habitat exists. 

Although the Executive Order 1Treaty Act does not state specishould be taken on surface distresponsibility to decide how we habitat for migratory bird and bsurface disturbing activities durprotecting migratory birds as mBy using the term "avoid" the Bby case basis to allow a surfacreasonable alternative. At that tto minimize the impacts to migradded the words "or minimize" A sentence has been added to these areas will be determinedbird habitat will be determined w
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-148 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Flight Avian Conservation StratVenture Bird Habitat Conservatbird conservation plans." 

CrownQuest 62 101 On page A-19, the BLM identifies a CSU/TL that provides, 

"Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in canyon or habitat suitable for [Mexican Spotted Owl] nesting." Table 2.1 does not identify such a restriction for the Mexican Spotted Owl. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-52, Table 2.1. 

The stipulations listed in Table reference was made to Append

CrownQuest 62 102 On page A-19, the BLM identifies a CSU/TL that provides, "Any 

activity that includes water production should be managed to ensure maintenance of enhancement of riparian habitat." Additionally, on page A-19, the BLM identifies a CSU/TL that provides, "Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in canyon or habitat suitable for [Mexican Spotted Owl] nesting." Table 2.1 does not identify these restrictions for the Mexican Spotted Owl. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 2-52, Table 2.1. 

The stipulations listed in Table reference was made to Append

CrownQuest 62 103 Table 2.1 does not identify avoidance and minimization 

measures Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 10 to protect the Bald Eagle. Compare Monticello DRMP/EIS, Appx. A, pg 2-22, Table A.1 with Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 2-51, Table 2.1. 

The stipulations listed in Table reference was made to Append

CrownQuest 62 104 Avoidance and minimization measure No. 2 provides, "Lease 

activities would require monitoring throughout the duration of the project." See Monticello DRMP/EIS, Appx. A pg. A-22, Table A.1 (emphasis added). Activities may require monitoring through the duration of the project." See Monticello DRMP/EIS. Pg 2-51, Table 2.1 (emphasis added). 

The stipulations listed in Table reference was made to Append

CrownQuest 62 105 Avoidance and minimization measure No. 2 references Section 

7 consultation for the Bald Eagle. Because the Bald Eagle was removed from the endangered species list and is no longer 

Entire document has been adju"threatened" to "special status now listed on the BLM and Uta
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-149 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: SSS – Special Status Species 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

listed as threatened or endangered, see 72 Fed. Reg. 37346 (July 9, 2007); 72 Fed. Reg. 69034 (December 6, 2007). Section 7 consultation is no longer required. 

has been listed in that section vConservation Measures have bcontinue protection for Bald Ea

CrownQuest 62 106 Table 2.1 does not identify avoidance and minimization 

measures Nos. 3 and 4 to protect the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Compare Monticello DRMP/EIS, Appx. A, pg. 2-24, Table A.1 with Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-51, Table 2.1. 

The stipulations listed in Table reference was made to Append

CrownQuest 62 107 Avoidance and minimization measure No. 2 provides, "Activities 

would require monitoring throughout the duration of the project." See Monticello DRMP/EIS, Appx. A, pg. A-24, Table A.1. Table 2.1 provides, "Activities may require monitoring through the duration of the project." See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-52, Table 2.1. 

The stipulations listed in Table reference was made to Append

CrownQuest 62 108 Avoidance and minimization measure No. 6 provides, "Activities 

within .0.25 mile of occupied breeding habitat would not occur during the breeding season of May 1 to August 15." See Monticello DRMP/EIS, Appx A, pg. A-24, Table A.1. Table 2.1 provides that such activities would be restricted between May 1 and "September." See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-52, Table 2.1. 

The stipulations listed in Table reference was made to Append

CrownQuest 62 109 Table 2.1 does not identify the avoidance and minimization 

measure "Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat" to protect endangered Colorado River fishes. Compare Monticello DRMP/EIS, Appx. A, pg. 2-26, Table A.1 with Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 2-52, Table 2.1. 

The stipulations listed in Table reference was made to Append

CrownQuest 62 110 Table A.1 identifies the avoidance and minimization measure 

"Activities would require monitoring throughout the duration of the project." See Monticello DRMP/EIS, Appx. A, pg. A-26, Table A.1 (emphasis added). Table 2.1 provides, "Activities may require monitoring through the duration of the project." See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 2-52, Table 2.1 (emphasis added). 

The stipulations listed in Table reference was made to Append
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-150 

Table 5.10.s. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: TRR – OHV; Open/Closed Routes 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

State of Utah 4 1 The state requests that the listing on page 1-15 of the DEIS be 

amended to include the plans and policies indicated by Utah Code section 63-38d-401, et seq., and that the BLM carefully consider consistency with this state law. 

Page 1-15 lists pertinent state aidentified no specific plans or pomitted. The BLM is aware that there arplan decisions relevant to aspethat are discrete from, and indeHowever, the BLM is bound by requires that the development obe coordinated and consistent maximum extent possible by laFederal and non-Federal goverextent practical (FLPMA, Title Iconsequence, where state and law there will be an inconsistenreconciled. Thus, while county and federal FLPMA, are required to be as ipractical, the Federal agency por subject to County plans, planstipulations. The BLM will identFEIS/PRMP, so that the State acomplete understanding of the and local management optionsrequired Governor's consistenc

Lynell Schalk 29 19 Each of the 5 alternative travel plan maps most two "Historic 

Trails," The Hole-in-the-Rock Trail and the Spanish Trail, under the title of "OHV and Travel Plan" (Reference Maps 58–62). These trails are actually drawn onto the Travel Plan map. The reader has to assume that these two historic trails are proposed in all 5 alternatives to be open as OHV roads or trails. Is this what the agency is proposing? None of the four BLM 

It is confusing that the two histoentirety on the OHV and travel to imply that they are open to vPortions of the trails are open testablished, major roads lie atosystems. The entire historic trause. They have been deleted fr
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-151 

Table 5.10.s. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: TRR – OHV; Open/Closed Routes 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

employees I talked to at the Montezuma Creek meeting could explain why this route was depicted on the Travel Plan alternative maps, including the MFO planning coordinator and one of the outdoor recreation planners. 

in the FEIS. The references quoted from Chstate the current situation not thThe term "Hole in the Rock TraIt can refer to the entire pioneeunknown on the ground. It also that accesses the actual "Hole references can be confusing. Tlegitimate use. 

Lynell Schalk 29 20 The route of the Hole-in-the-Rock Trail is largely inaccurate as 

to its plotted location, often miles from where the trail can actually be found on the ground, as well as being plotted where it can no longer be traced. What is most unsettling about the DRMP map is that it shows the Hole-in-the-Rock Trail leading directly into the town of Bluff. There is no evidence on the ground of the trail between Butler Wash and Bluff, yet the BLM has plotted in on its DRMP map. 

Please refer to response to com

National Parks Conservation Association 

44 2 It is particularly troubling that the BLM has included designated 

ORV routes that are within the boundaries of Canyonlands National Park. This error needs to be removed. The BLM also needs to address how it will monitor routes it intends to designate that run up to the park boundaries. 

The roads in lands administerebeen removed from the OHV aThe placement of signs, kioskspublic recreation users as well be implemented after the signinaddressed nor will they be deci

Table 5.10.t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: TRV – Travel 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

National Park Service 

3 6 Since the RMP does not apply to travel management within 

NPS units, the NPS would prefer that all roads within the NPS 

Changes have been made to thsuggested by the commenter. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-152 

Table 5.10.t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: TRV – Travel 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Intermountain Region 

units be removed from the map. 

State of Utah 4 51 Table 2-1 – Summary Table of Alternatives – Lands and Realty. 

It should be noted under all alternatives that, pursuant to Utah v. Andrus, the BLM is obligated to grant reasonable access to the State of Utah and its grantees to school trust lands. In furtherance of this obligation, no existing roads providing access to trust lands should be closed without the consent of SITLA. 

The BLM does provide for reaslands under all alternatives. A sChapter 2, Lands and Realty, MAction Alternatives, that states land would be provided includinavoidance and exclusion areas by the Cotter decision (Utah v. the travel management plan reprovide access to SITLA lands 

State of Utah 4 57 Section 3.17.3 –Issues. Certain existing routes that provide the 

only physical access to trust lands sections would not be "Designated Routes," and motorized access on such routes would be terminated. The Draft RMP fails to address the impact of these closures on the economic value of the affected trust lands. 

The BLM does provide for reaslands under all alternatives. A sChapter 2, Lands and Realty, MAction Alternatives, that states land would be provided includinavoidance and exclusion areas by the Cotter decision (Utah v. the travel management plan reprovide access to SITLA lands 

State of Utah 4 79 It is unclear in Map 51 (of the DEIS) whether or not routes 

shown in brown within the closed areas are open or closed. The state recommends that all of these routes remain open and the map and its legend be modified. 

The routes within the "Closed" remain open to vehicle use. Thcounty roads or access routes The map has been modified to 

Sierra Club Utah Chapter 

17 4 Commenter states: "The relationship of roads and other 

mechanized routes to weeds, wildlife, cultural sites, wilderness, landscapes resilient to global and local climate change, and a host of other issues must be analyzed." 

Chapter 4 is an extensive analysites, wilderness (as well as a "impacts from all resources uses roads and other mechanized roA growing body of scientific evithat global climate change will up of greenhouse gases in the uncertainties remain, particularmagnitude and regional impact
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-153 

Table 5.10.t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: TRV – Travel 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

majority of scientific evidence sincreases in greenhouse gas echange. This statement has bePRMP/FEIS. The Environmental Protection Adeveloped regulatory protocol oglobal climate change. When thare available, the BLM will anawarming in the NEPA documenprojects. A statement to this eff4 of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Canyon Country Heritage Association 

18 6 Historic trails – Hole in the Rock and Old Spanish Trail are 

highlighted on all OHV and travel plan maps – assume they are open for OHV use. 

It is confusing that the two histoentirety on the OHV and travel to imply that they are open to vPortions of the trails are open testablished, major roads lie atosystems. The entire historic trause. These trails have been remmaps to eliminate this confusioThe references quoted from Chstate the current situation not thThe term "Hole in the Rock TraIt can refer to the entire pioneeunknown on the ground. It also that accesses the actual "Hole references can be confusing. Tlegitimate use. 

Utah State Office of Education 

31 7 Under the law, as laid out in Utah v. Andrus, the State of Utah 

and SITLA are entitled to reasonable access across the BLM's lands to all school trust lands, including those within WSAs. That right of access must be recognized in this document or the document will be in violations of the case law. In the Travel Management section, Under the Preferred Alternative 

The BLM does provide for reaslands under all alternatives. A sChapter 2, Lands and Realty, MAction Alternatives, that states land would be provided includinavoidance and exclusion areas 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-154 

Table 5.10.t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: TRV – Travel 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

(Alternative C), certain existing routes that provide the only physical access to school trust land sections would deemed not to be "Designated Routes," and motorized access on such lands would be terminated. Under Alternatives B and E, this problem would be magnified exponentially. The conservation alternatives show approximately 728 miles of roads marked for closure. School trust lands will be greatly affected by these road closures. 

by the Cotter decision (Utah v. the travel management plan reprovide access to SITLA lands 

Utah State Office of Education 

31 8 The draft RMP fails to address the impact of these closures on 

the economic value of the affected school trust lands in either this section or its section on socioeconomic impacts of the preferred alternative. Under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution, no road that accesses a school trust land section, within the RMP, should be closed without trustee consent. It is anticipated that SITLA would take the necessary legal action, on behalf of the beneficiary, to prevent such a closure. 

The BLM does provide for reaslands under all alternatives. A sChapter 2, Lands and Realty, MAction Alternatives, that states land would be provided includinavoidance and exclusion areas by the Cotter decision (Utah v. the travel management plan reprovide access to SITLA lands 

Utah State Office of Education 

31 9 The Draft RMP should be amended to specifically state that: (1) 

Continued motorized administrative assess on "non-designated" routes providing access to school trust lands will be permitted to the State of Utah, SITLA, and its pemitees and grantees, notwithstanding any closure to the general public; (2) The State of Utah, SITLA, and its pemitees and grantees may undertake reasonable maintenance activities to preserve and improve existing access across the BLM lands, after consultation and appropriate environmental review by the BLM; and (3) Existing routes that are the sole access to school trust lands will not be reclaimed without full BLM consultation with, written approval by SITLA, and fair market compensation to the trust after consultation with the State Board of Education and its designated representatives. 

The BLM does provide for reaslands under all alternatives. A sChapter 2, Lands and Realty, MAction Alternatives, that states land would be provided includinavoidance and exclusion areas by the Cotter decision (Utah v. the travel management plan reprovide access to SITLA lands 

ECOS Consulting 58 27 Section 4.3.17.2.13 – Impacts of Travel Decisions on 

Vegetation 

This is a mistake in the documeUnder Alternative A there are 6country travel by OHVs. The re
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-155 

Table 5.10.t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: TRV – Travel 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Here it is stated: "There are a total of 1,940,740 acres open to OHV use under this alternative, which is more than under any of the other alternatives." How can this many acres be open to OHV use if there is only about 1,800,000 acres within the Monticello Planning Area? 

either closed to OHV use or op

Veronica Egan 131 3 Remove the Hole in the Rock Trail from all maps depicting 

routes open to motorized use. The entire trail is listed on the National Historic Register, and as such must be protected from the damage inflicted by motorized use. The presence of this trail on these maps gives the false impression that it is open to motorized use. 

It is confusing that the historic tthe OHV and travel plan maps. that it is open to vehicular use itrails are open to vehicle use. Sroads lie atop portions of the olhistoric trail is not open to vehicfrom the OHV/Travel Plan map

Veronica Egan 131 4 Clarify (NPS, USFS) agency boundaries on all maps and 

determine if the routes that the BLM has specified as open are open on these agencies lands, or not, before placing them on BLM maps. 

The roads in lands administereForest Service have been remoplan maps. The BLM is dealing with routes and FS have had opportunity to designations. 

Glen Canyon Group, Utah Chapter, Sierra Club 

221 5 Regarding Table ES1 (page ES-5), OHV Categories (acres) by 

Alternative: How can the total of acres under the No Action Alternative A be over 2.2 million acres when less that 1.8 million acres is managed by the BLM? Adding footnote 3 under Summary Table A on page 2-3 would clarify the matter. 

Changes have been made to th

Glen Canyon Group, Utah Chapter, Sierra Club 

221 6 Summary Table A on page 2-3 should note that the "Miles of 

Routes Designated" are D roads only. The totals for Alternatives C and D are incorrect. 

Changes have been made to th
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-156 

Table 5.10.u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: VEG – Vegetation 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 18 Table 3.58. The title suggests cover types in all of the 

Monticello Planning Area, but they are actually only of the lands administered by the BLM. 

The title of Table 3.58 has been PA to BLM lands. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 24 Page 4-421 in Section 4.3.15.1 (note: page and section 

numbers have changed since the last draft). In the third paragraph it states "A diverse native community would have the potential to establish...." This statement assumes that natives will successfully reestablish. The document should thoroughly describe the difficulties with nonnative, invasive plant species following surface disturbances that include fire. 

This section has been revised tnative, invasive plant species fothat include fire. 

San Juan County 7 54 Pg. 2-57 (note: page numbers have changed since the last 

draft). The first goal under vegetation should include livestock as well. 

The document has been reviserelation to livestock manageme

The Nature Conservancy 

49 20 The statement that Upland areas would be managed for 

"desired future condition" is vague because no specific DFC is defined. The glossary defines desired condition as "Description of those factors, which should exist within ecosystems both to maintain their survival and to meet social and economic needs." However, desired condition depends upon personal use or requirements. For example, desired future condition for a rancher may differ vastly from desired condition for mineral exploration or wildlife. Therefore a better management prescription would be to mange according to Interpreting Indicators or Rangeland Health (technical reference 1734-6 2005) and, when appropriate, the complimentary manuals Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna; Volume I and II to determine if goals and objectives are being met. 

The definition in the Vegetation condition (DFC) has been clarifresources for desired future cospecific BLM objectives and ranhealth, thereby ensuring ecologsustainability, including the desstructural stages, and landscapand provide for native plant, fisTherefore, DFC is determined bSite Descriptions and managed and sustain and/or improve ranThe resources of concern identto livestock grazing do not requdecision. These resource valuespecific allotment basis utilizing Health and Guidelines for Graz

ECOS Consulting 58 13 In this Monticello DRMP/EIS, the BLM has not provided clear, 

objective, and measurable "Desired Future Conditions" for each vegetation community in the Monticello Planning Area. There are numerous management activities proposed in this 

The definition in the Vegetation condition (DFC) has been clarifresources for desired future cospecific BLM objectives and ran
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-157 

Table 5.10.u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: VEG – Vegetation 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Monticello DRMP/EIS that will drastically change conditions on the ground throughout the Planning Area, and do not appear to have measurable and objective habitat goals. Livestock grazing is planned to be allowed on over 90% of the Planning Area. Vegetation treatments are proposed on over 20% of the Planning Area. Forestry and woodland products activities are planned over most of the Planning Area. Mining and energy development has the potential to be widespread. OHV use and routes are proposed in over 90% of the Planning Area. All of these activities, and others, can have extensive long-term adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the ecosystem. In considering, these impacts, the BLM must precisely define Desired Future Conditions for each vegetation community in order to effectively manage the resources. 

health, thereby ensuring ecologsustainability, including the desstructural stages, and landscapand provide for native plant, fisTherefore, DFC is determined bSite Descriptions and managed and sustain and/or improve ranThe resources of concern identto livestock grazing do not requdecision. These resource valuespecific allotment basis utilizing Health and Guidelines for Graz

ECOS Consulting 58 20 Pages 3-154 through 3-160 (note: page numbers have changed 

since the last draft): Throughout this section there is no mention of "Desired Future Condition" of these plant communities, yet the BLM will be allowing activities and actively managing as if they knew what future condition they wanted. This is obviously not the case. The BLM must develop detailed "Desired Future Conditions" for each of its major vegetation communities and use these definitions as guides for future management. These definitions must include descriptions of the condition of biological soil crusts, vegetation cover, vegetation diversity, and vegetation structure. This must be done now, before 10–20 years of future planning is committed, before this DRMP/EIS is finalized. 

A definition for desired future cto the glossary: “The desired mstructural stages, and landscapas determined by management functionality and health, that enstability and sustainability to prohabitats.” Therefore, DFC is determined bSite Descriptions and managed and sustain and/or improve ranThe resources of concern identto livestock grazing do not requdecision. These resource valuespecific allotment basis utilizing Health and Guidelines for Graz

Nature Conservancy Moab Project Office 

214 4 The statement that Upland areas would be managed for 

"desired future condition" is vague because no specific DFC is defined. The glossary defines desired condition as "Description of those factors, which should exist within ecosystems both to maintain their survival and to meet social and economic needs." 

Please refer to response to com
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-158 

Table 5.10.u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: VEG – Vegetation 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

However, desired condition depends upon personal use or requirements. For example, desired future condition for a rancher may differ vastly from desired condition for mineral exploration or wildlife. 

Table 5.10.v. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: VRM – Visual Resource Management 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Lynell Schalk 29 3 Indian Creek ACEC 

Alternative B states that it is the "same as Alternative A except..." (Reference: pg. 2-40, Vol. 1). Alternative B then repeats several of the same "prescriptions" as are in Alternative A, i.e. "closed to OHV use," "managed as a VRM Class I," "available for livestock use," "unavailable for disposal of mineral materials," etc. Many of the listed "exceptions" are not exceptions at all, making it doubly difficult for the reader to determine the difference in the alternatives. 

The document has been changbetween Alternatives A and B. 

CrownQuest 62 68 On page 2-114 (note: page numbers have changed since the 

last draft), the BLM understates the significant economic impacts of the proposed VRM management restrictions under Alternatives B and E. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-114, Table 2.2. 

Table 2.2 has been changed to impacts. Analysis of these impa4.3.7.4.9 and 4.3.12.2.10 of the response to comment 62-64. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-159 

Table 5.10.w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WC – Wilderness Characteristics 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

26 55 Cheesebox Canyon Unit – The commenter states that the BLM 

did not properly create accurate boundary lines for this unit, and that it is actually adjacent to a 1999 WIA unit with WC. 

The BLM incorrectly stated that the 1999 WIA unit with WC. It isthe unit contains multiple vehicmining activity, and thus does nfor wilderness characteristic mais determined to not possess w

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

26 62 Lockhart Basin Unit, Comment A – The commenter states, 

"What happened to the BLM's assessment of the Lockhart Basin wilderness character area? It was recently found by the BLM to have reasonable probability of having wilderness character (RPD), but within the DRMP and the background files, this area seems to have slipped through its proper wilderness character identification." 

The Lockhart Basin area was foprobability of having wilderness was not reviewed during the 20finding. WSAs and the 1999 Wreviewed under the 2007 WCR not changed, however it was noforward for management of wildproposed plan. The Lockhart Binadvertently left off the maps sWilderness Character in the dracorrected in the PRMP. 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

26 73 Tin Cup Mesa Unit – The commenter states that the "BLM's 

WCR fails to account the adjoining Squaw and Papoose Canyon WSA is part of the larger Tin Cup Mesa wilderness character unit within the recent WCR." 

As part of its wilderness characmaintenance, the BLM used a ID Team review, og-wells GIS da review of BLM and San Juan including 2006 high resolution awas reviewed as a standalone (16,000 acres approximately), acontiguous to a WSA is not reledescribed in the 2007 WCR proof the administrative record in tThe BLM stands by its findings inventories and WCR process. 

Utah State Office of Education 

31 5 In the Affected Environment section, it should be stated that to 

the extent the BLM creates new areas managed for preservation, based on impacts to physical, biological, and cultural resources, such as ACECs or areas managed for 

The BLM acknowledges that thlands to oil and gas leasing maimpact on SITLA's mineral revechanged to reflect this fact. In A
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-160 

Table 5.10.w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WC – Wilderness Characteristics 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

"wilderness characteristics," such designation has a direct economic impact on the Utah school trust. For all school trust lands inheld in such areas, it will therefore become necessary to identify and make available lands, and acknowledge that each special designation will require an accompanying land exchange. Failure to provide a necessarily large pool of available economically productive lands for exchange will constitute an unconstitutional taking of the captured lands. 

acreage managed as WSA or Wnondiscretionary and beyond thChapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS himpacts in Alternative E on SITdiscretionary closures of public under any Alternative, the propas closed to mineral leasing. 

EOG Resources 60 50 On pages 4-153 through 4-155 (note: page numbers have 

changed since the last draft) the BLM must expressly provide that any special management of non-WSA lands cannot affect existing lease rights. See, e.g., National Wildlife Fed'n. et. Al., 150 IBLA 385, 403 (1999). The BLM may not modify valid existing lease rights through the revision of RMPs. 

The land use plan makes decisValid existing rights (previous leregardless of plan decisions. 

CrownQuest 62 65 On page 2-113 (note: page numbers have changed since the 

last draft), under the resource Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, the BLM explains that managing over a half million acres of public lands for wilderness characteristics under Alternative E is "likely to have positive impacts on local economy with the potential for some socioeconomic losses due to restricted activities in these areas. 

The analysis in Chapter 4 has bpotential negative impacts of Adevelopment. The BLM believeminor in the context of the RFDthe economic benefits from Alteeconomic costs is impossible to 

Table 5.10.x. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WD - Woodlands 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

San Juan County 7 56 Pg. 2-62 (note: page numbers have changed since the last 

draft) – Opportunities for woodland harvest under Alternatives A, B, C, and D are 73%, 41%, 47%, and 31%, respectively. San Juan County is concerned about the drastic reductions in lands available for woodland harvest and the impact on citizens who depend on these woodland products, especially on Cedar Mesa 

The RMP has been revised thaareas not identified as a harvesavailable localities. Areas of hisessentially continue to be availaharvest are typically limited to asites with no access to woodlan
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-161 

Table 5.10.x. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WD - Woodlands 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

and other areas where Native Americans have traditionally gathered wood. The county suggests that the BLM give this use more consideration in the fial RMP. 

Areas, and riparian communitieCedar Mesa and the Montezumrevised to allow the continuatioin the interimof designating woocompleting associated cultural remain on designated routes. 

Table 5.10.y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WL – Wildlife 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 25 Page 4-422 in Section 4.3.15.1. In the third paragraph: "The 

installation of power poles would increase raptor predation...." The "would" should be changed to "may." 

The change has been made to 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 28 Page 4-426 in Section 4.3.15.1 (of the DEIS). In the third 

paragraph it states: "In occupied priority migratory bird habitat..." The document should describe how this habitat will be delineated. 

A sentence has been added to these areas will be determinedbird habitat will be determined wFlight Avian Conservation StratVenture Bird Habitat Conservatbird conservation plans." 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 36 Page 4-575 in Table 4.204 (of the DEIS) FWS recommends the 

method be described which was used to calculate the number of acres derived in this table. 

An explanation has been added explain the methods used to caderived in this table. 

State of Utah 4 11 The state requests that the BLM use the "crucial habitat" 

designations mapped by the DWR solely as descriptive wildlife habitat designations, not as automatic exclusion zones for other multiple uses. 

The BLM has changed the docdesignations of UDWR. Use of not automatically exclude other exceptions, modifications and wapplicable for all surface disturb

State of Utah 4 89 The Monticello RMP should be consistent with the newly 

developed Utah Wildlife Action Plan (UWAP). As a cooperator in developing this plan, the BLM should acknowledge it as the 

This reference has been changComprehensive Wildlife ConseWildlife Action Plan. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-162 

Table 5.10.y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WL – Wildlife 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

guideline for sensitive species management in the State of Utah. On page 2-51, it states the "BLM would work with the UDWR to implement the Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to coordinate management decisions that would conserve native species and prevent the need for additional listings." 

San Juan County 7 13 The BLM erroneously uses the term critical habitat for wildlife 

habitat that does not apply to endangered species act. The term crucial habitat is used too loosely; UDWR uses crucial habitat as descriptive designations. They are not intended to mislabel resource concerns and result in a limitation of compatible uses. San Juan County disputes the acreage identified for crucial elk and deer winter range in San Juan County and submits information from Dr. Charles Kay in that regard. 

The critical habitat term has befinal RMP/EIS. The UDWR is the jurisdictional management within the state. Tof this agency for delineating wpopulation numbers, and recom

San Juan County 7 53 Pg. 2-54 and 2-56 (note: page numbers have changed since the 

last draft).- San Juan County is opposed to any alternative in the Monticello RMP/EIS which closes any portion of the Arch Canyon road. Reasons for the County's opposition include: 1) the Flannelmouth Sucker is not found above the State Section (T. 37 S., R. 10 E., Section 16). Therefore there is no justification to close the Arch Canyon road to protect this species above the State Section; 2) The stream is in proper functioning condition and BLM surveys have found no evidence that the Flannelmouth Sucker is being impacted by the road or its use; 3) The two primary reasons for listing the MSO, as described by the USFWS in its final rule dated August 31, 2004, are not major threats in the portion of Arch Canyon located on BLM lands; 4) In its final rule, the USFWS also described important habitat conditions for the MSO, all of which are much more prevalent on the Forest Service lands than on the BLM lands; 5) The portion of Arch Canyon on BLM land is near the fringe of the habitat for the MSO as mapped by the USFWS and would appear not to be as important for the survival of the owl; 6) The BLM is proposing to allow hikers unrestricted access in 

Comment noted. The proposed Even if the flannelmouth suckesection, it does not preclude mwatershed above the fish since upstream will directly impact fisThe endangered species act doof species simply because the as one of the primary reason folisted. Arch Canyon is included in the Mexican Spotted Owls and habdetermined that Arch Canyon is Owls. As stated in Table 2.1, the BLM to restrict the number of hikers 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-163 

Table 5.10.y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WL – Wildlife 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Arch Canyon. The county requests an explanation of the BLM's rationale for allowing hikers to hike and camp both on the road and throughout the canyon and cliffs while proposing to close the road to OHV use. 

San Juan County 7 58 Section 3.20.2.1 – It is generally agreed that in southeast Utah 

the limiting factor for mule deer is summer range, not winter range as stated by the BLM. The county suggests that the BLM correct this in the Final RMP. 

The sentence, "Winter range is factor for mule deer" will been rfollowing clarification. "In the supopulations could be limited durainfall, water availability, and sfawning success. In the winter quality of habitat or deep snow of deer on winter ranges, increareduction in population, and faw

San Juan County 7 59 Pg. 3-164 (note: page numbers have changed since the last 

draft) – The county points out that the BLM's statement that "Within the Monticello PA, there has been a loss/die-off of sagebrush habitat due to drought and insect infestations" is only partially correct. The county references Charles E. Kay's studies in Beef Basin which show that sagebrush loss/die off is due primarily to deer overgrazing. Overgrazing by deer can also stress sagebrush and make it more susceptible to drought and insects. 

The sentence has been modifiethere has been a loss/die-off of drought, insect infestations, and 

Lynell Schalk 29 16 What is the date of the statistics used for the desert bighorn 

sheep population, reference: pg. 3-166, Vol.1 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft)? 

The numbers were given by the Resources at the time the plan or 2006. Numbers need to be u

ECOS Consulting 58 23 Section 4.3.13.2.5 – Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions 

Common to the Proposed Plan and All Alternatives The BLM must be more specific as to what it means by "maintenance and improvement" of migratory bird habitat. What specific techniques does the BLM plan to use? Have they been 

In Section 4.3.13.2.5, the first sstate, "...low and high desert scfour important habitat types usegame, and migratory birds in thMaintenance and improvement 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-164 

Table 5.10.y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WL – Wildlife 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

used in the past? If so, what are the specific locations where this has occurred? The BLM must also show an analysis of the needs and effectiveness of "maintenance and improvement" projects. What about the rest of the wildlife; the predators, the large mammals, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and other wildlife groups? How about the fish? What are the plans for fish and wildlife habitat improvement? These activities will all have direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on soils and water resources, but there is no analysis here, no attempt to divulge extent, location, and duration of the impacts of these projects. This is a violation of NEPA. 

also corresponds to improvemewas evaluated in Sections 4.3.4.3.11 (Riparian Resources). Tthat could be completed are anspecific NEPA would be done awould discuss exact location an

EOG Resources 60 55 On page 4-560 (note: page numbers have changed since the 

last draft), the BLM states, "Under all alternatives adherence to the Migratory Treat Bird Act [sic] and Executive Order 13186 'Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds' would have beneficial impacts on migratory birds...." The BLM then discusses its management action that would avoid surface disturbing activities in migratory bird habitat during nesting season. Contrary to the BLM's suggestion, neither the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 nor Executive Order 13186 requires the BLM to impose this management action. See 16 U.S.C. 703-712 (2006); Exec. Order No. 13,186, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (Jan. 17, 2001). The BLM must, at a minimum, revise its statements on page 4-560 to make clear that this management action is inconsistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186. EOG urges the BLM to remove this management action from the Monticello RMP/EIS. 

Although the Executive Order 1Treaty Act does not state specishould be taken on surface distresponsibility to decide how we habitat for migratory bird and bsurface disturbing activities durprotecting migratory birds as mBy using the term "avoid" the Bby case basis to allow a surfacreasonable alternative. At that tto minimize the impacts to migradded the words "or minimize" 

CrownQuest 62 54 On page 2-59 (note: page numbers have changed since the last 

draft), as Management Common to All Alternatives, the BLM proposes to avoid surface-disturbing activities and vegetativealtering projects in identified occupied migratory bird habitat during migratory bird nesting season. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, Table 2.1. The BLM has not defined or mapped "identified occupied migratory bird habitat." Furthermore, the 

The BLM is required to protect sentence has been added to thareas will be determined. "Occuhabitat will be determined with Flight Avian Conservation StratVenture Bird Habitat Conservatbird conservation plans." 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-165 

Table 5.10.y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WL – Wildlife 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

BLM has not identified any specific species of migratory bird that it aims to protect. 

CrownQuest 62 55 On page 2-60 (note: page numbers have changed since the last 

draft), as Management Common to All Alternatives, the BLM proposes to apply compensatory measures when grounddisturbing activities occur in crucial habitats. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, Table 2.1. As BLM Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2005-069 provides, the BLM may only consider off-site mitigation after it has applied best management practices. Furthermore, off-site mitigation must be voluntary on the part of the applicant. Finally, a blanket requirement for offsite mitigation in crucial habitat is entirely inconsistent with the BLM's off-site mitigation policy, which considers off-site mitigation "appropriate when the specific conditions of a proposed project make such mitigation appropriate." See BLM Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2005-069 (Feb. 1, 2005). 

On pg. 2-86, under managemeSheep, The sentence was remomitigation would be required foforage and browse....forage losIt is stated on pg. 2-86, under HProtection that, the "BLM would Guidance (IM 2005-069) on apmeasures. 

CrownQuest 62 91 On page 4-556 (note: page numbers have changed since the 

last draft), the BLM states, "Adverse impacts of minerals decisions on wildlife resources would be reduced by the implementation of [Best Management Practices] outlined in Section 2.1 and Appendix O." This statement is problematic for two reasons. First, Appendix O relates to Identification of Wilderness Characteristics on Non-WSA Lands Managed by Monticello BLM and not Best Management Practices (BMPs). Assumedly, the BLM intended to reference Appendix M, which identifies BMPs for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah. 

A change has been made to th

CrownQuest 62 95 On page A-12 (note: page numbers have changed since the 

last draft), the BLM identifies that a timing limitation (TL) will be applied under Alternative D that prohibits surface disturbing activities or occupancy between April 15 to May 15 for lambing and from November 1 to December 15 for rutting. Table 2.1 identifies the limitation periods as between April 1 to June 15 for 

The timing limitation dates have 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-166 

Table 5.10.y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WL – Wildlife 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

lambing and October 15 to December 15 for rutting. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-61, Table 2.1; see also Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 4-134, Table 4.58. 

CrownQuest 62 96 Appendix A identifies the number of acres affected by TL 

stipulations to protect desert bighorn sheep. The numbers of acres presented in Appendix A are different than those presented in Table 2.1 for Alternatives B, D, and E. Compare Monticello DRMP/EIS, Appx. A pgs. A-11, A-12 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft), Table A.1 with Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-61, Table 2.1. 

The acreage has been correcte

CrownQuest 62 97 On page A-16 (note: page numbers have changed since the 

last draft), the BLM identifies a TL that will be applied under Alternative D that prohibits surface disturbing activities between December 15 and March 31. Table 2.1 identifies the limitation period as between December 1 and April 15. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 2-61, Table 2.1; see also Monticello DRMP/EIS Table 4.58 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft). 

Dates have been corrected. 

CrownQuest 62 98 Appendix A identifies the number of acres affected by TL 

stipulations to protect deer winter range. The numbers of acres presented in Appendix A are different than those presented in Table 2.1 for Alternatives B, D, and E. Compare Monticello DRMP/EIS, Appx. A, pgs. A-15 - A-16, Table A.1 with Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 2-61, Table 2.1. 

Acres have been corrected. 

CrownQuest 62 99 On page A-18, the BLM identifies a TL that will be applied under 

Alternative D that prohibits surface disturbing activities between December 15 and March 31. Table 2.1 identifies the limitation periods as between December 1 and April 15. See Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 2-61, Table 2.1; see also Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg 4-134, Table 4.58 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft). 

Dates have been corrected. 

CrownQuest 62 100 Appendix A identifies the number of acres affected by TL 

stipulations to protect elk winter range. The numbers of acres 

Acres have been corrected. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-167 

Table 5.10.y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WL – Wildlife 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

presented in Appendix A are different tat those presented in Table 2.1 for Alternatives B, D, and E. Compare Monticello DRMP/EIS, Appx. A, pgs. A-17 - A-18, Table A.1 with Monticello DRMP/EIS, pg. 2-61, Table 2.1 (note: page numbers have changed since the last draft). 

Mary Moran 145 2 P. 3-171 (note: page numbers have changed since the last 

draft). Where reptiles of the Monticello Project Area are briefly discussed: "Most turtles are aquatic, although a few live entirely on land." Perhaps a joke, a cut-and-paste error, or something stuck in to see how closely we are reading? I know there a couple naturalized non-native turtle species in southwest Utah (as well as native desert tortoises), but I sure didn't think San Juan County or Grand County had any turtles. 

The sentence on turtles was puremoved. 

Table 5.10.z. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WR – Water Resources 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

State of Utah 4 32 The state engineer recommends that the BLM consider the 

impact its actions may have on water rights in general and nonBLM water rights in particular. 

In Section 1.3.2, the BLM staterecognize the existence of valid would adhere to all applicable llaws). The text has been edited recognized as valid existing rig

State of Utah 4 85 Potential dam locations are shown on Map 46 (of the DEIS) . 

The state assumes that the potential to construct dams in these areas has been preserved in the RMP but it is hard to tell from the maps and text whether or not this is the case. The BLM should clarify by adding language to appropriate sections. 

Potential dam locations were inrelated to potential eligibility for designation. It was later determsites did not affect the eligibility information has been removed proposal for dam construction wby-case basis regardless of whin the RMP. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-168 

Table 5.10.aa. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WSA – Wilderness Study Areas 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

26 87 The DRMP/EIS directs readers to see below for miles of route 

per WSA but this mileage never appears anywhere in the DRMP/EIS. 

A change has been made in the 

Utah State Office of Education 

31 3 At the current time, approximately 46,541 surface acres are 

inheld in Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in the MPA. When these lands are added to the 66,515 acres included in the proposed non-WSA lands in the Alternative E, Utah's school trust will be left with approximately 113,056 surface acres within the MPA that cannot produce revenue or that will have reduced revenue potential. In this respect, the Resource Management Plan includes an unconstitutional taking of approximately 57% of the school children's lands within the MPA, and the BLM must include specific provisions in the RMP to adequately compensate the school trust, through exchanges or purchase if the Board of Trustees determines it desires to sell the property so captured. 

Non-BLM lands could be indireboth positively and negatively. PRMP/FEIS has been modified The BLM does provide for reaslands under all alternatives. InfoChapter 2, Lands and Realty, Maction alternatives, that states tland would be provided includinavoidance and exclusion areas by the Cotter decision (Utah v. the Monticello DRMP/DEIS travrecognizes the requirement to pper the Cotter decision. Also, punder Socioeconomics in ChapThe need for the BLM to give pexchanges has been recognize

Broads Healthy Lands 

41 17 The Collins Spring access road seems to end at the Grand 

Gulch ISA per the 1999 BLM Inventory, but the TMP shows this road entering the ISA. There is an additional several mile section of road shown on the Alt C map that appears to be on the boundary that does not exist on maps published in the 1999 Inventory. These routes must be removed from the preferred alternative of the final TMP. 

The Collins Springs access roais proposed to be closed to the The road outside of the ISA is pplan. 

Broads Healthy Lands 

41 22 Squaw Canyon WSA – Thankfully, the BLM is not proposing 

any new routes or ways in this WSA. However, you are proposing an extension of a route along the north boundary that does not exist on maps published in the 1999 Inventory. Please 

Two existing short sections of rproposed for closure in Alternamap. There are no proposed roThe route the commenter recom
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Con

5-169 

Table 5.10.aa. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: WSA – Wilderness Study Areas 

Commenter 

Name 

Record ID & 

Comment 

Number 

Comment Text Response t

consider eliminating all but the original well-pad access route. to remain open in the plan. 

Broads Healthy Lands 

41 24 Indian Creek WSA – Thankfully, the BLM does not attempt to 

designate new routes in this WSA. However, the BLM's maps show a new route coming to the north edge of the WSA (within Canyonlands National Park) that should not be reflected in your route designations. 

Changes have been made to thsuggested by the commenter aPark has been removed. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-170 

5.6 RECORD OF DECISION

Following publication by the EPA and BLM of a Notice of Availability of the PRMP/FEIS in the 

Federal Register, there is a 30-day protest period. In addition, a 60-day Governor's Consistency 

Review period runs concurrently with the the protest period. 

The state director will approve the PRMP/FEIS by issuing a public Record of Decision (ROD), 

which is a concise document summarizing the findings and decisions brought forth from the 

PRMP/FEIS. However, approval shall be withheld on any portion of a plan being protested until 

final action has been completed on such protest. Before such approval is given, there shall be 

public notice and opportunity for public comment on any significant change made to the 

Proposed Plan. 

Management actions specified for the Proposed Alternative in Chapter 2 of the PRMP/FEIS are 

labeled as follows: 

• Land Use Plan Decisions (P): These broad-scale decisions guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. Land use 

plan decisions fall into two categories: desired outcomes (goals; standards, including 

land health standards; and objectives) and allowable uses and actions to achieve 

outcomes. Proposed land-use plan decisions are protestable to the BLM director. 

• Implementation Decisions (I): These decisions take action to implement land-use plan 

decisions on a site-specific basis. They may be incorporated into implementation plans 

or may exist as stand-alone decisions. When issued, implementation decisions are 

generally appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals as outlined in 43 CFR Part 4. 

• Administrative and Policy Decisions (A): These decisions are based on law, regulation, 

and/or policy and do not require a land-use plan decision or implementation decision. 

They are not protestable or appealable. 

5.7 DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS 

A copy of the PRMP/FEIS has been sent to all the entities identified in the distribution list below 

(Table 5.11). The individuals, groups, organizations, and agencies included in the mailing list for 

the Monticello RMP will be notified that the PRMP/FEIS is available and a hard copy or 

compact disc of the document can be provided upon request. In an effort to reduce printing costs, 

the PRMP/FEIS is also available on the Monticello RMP website at http://www.blm.gov/ut/ 

st/en/fo/monticello/planning.html/, the Monticello FO, the public room in the BLM Utah State 

Office, and the public libraries listed on the distribution list. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-171 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Federal Agencies (Required) Local Federal Agencies

Bureau of Reclamation 

Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 

Canyonlands National Park 

Moab, UT 

 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Environmental Quality 

Arlington, VA 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Moab, UT 

Office of Environmental Compliance 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 

Manti-LaSal National Forest 

Forest Supervisor 

Price, UT 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

Washington, DC 

Manti-LaSal National Forest 

District Ranger 

Moab, UT 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Environmental Affairs Program 

Reston, VA 

BLM Moab Field Office 

Moab, UT 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8 

Denver, CO 

BLM Grand Junction Field Office 

Grand Junction, CO 

Minerals Management Service 

Environmental Division 

Herndon, VA 

BLM Price Field Office 

Price, UT 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Reston, VA 

BLM Montrose Field Office 

Montrose, CO 

National Park Service 

Washington, DC 

BLM Durango Field Office 

Durango, CO 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Reston, VA 

BLM Vernal Field Office 

Vernal, UT 

Office of Surface Mining 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resources Library 

Washington, DC 

 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-172 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Other Federal Agencies Utah BLM Resource Advisory Council

Mineral Management Service 

Denver, CO 

Mr. Carl Albrecht 

Richfield, UT 

Federal Highway Administration 

Utah Division 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Mr. Norman Carroll 

Orderville, UT 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Grand Junction Office 

Grand Junction, CO 

Mr. Michael Jenkins 

Salt Lake City, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

West Valley City, UT 

 Mr. Lowell Braxton 

Salt Lake City, UT

Bureau of Reclamation 

Provo, UT 

Mr. Ray Bloxham 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Provo Service Center 

Provo, UT 

Ms. Ashley Korenblat 

Moab, UT

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Chief, Planning Division 

Sacramento, CA 

Mr. Clair "Riley" Cutler 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health 

Washington, DC 

Mr. Jerry Spangler 

Ogden, UT 

Federal Depository Library System 

Government Printing Office 

Washington, DC 

Mr. Gordon Topham 

Monroe, UT 

US Department of the Interior 

Natural Resources Library 

Washington, DC 

Mr. Drew Sitterud 

Castle Dale, UT 

Mr. F.E. "Fee" Busby 

Logan, UT 

Mr. Tom Clawson 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Mr. Lynn Stevens 

Blanding, UT 

Mr. Manuel Morgan 

Aneth, UT 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-173 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

State Agencies Elected Officials 

Public Lands Policy Coordination Office 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Senator Orrin Hatch 

Washington, DC 

Utah State Historic Preservation Office 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Senator Bob Bennett 

Washington, DC 

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration 

Moab, UT 

Representative Jim Matheson 

Washington, DC 

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Mike Dimitrich 

State Senator 

Price, UT 

Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Brad King 

State Representative 

Price, UT 84501

Utah Department of Transportation 

Price, UT 

John Mathis 

State Representative 

Vernal, UT 

Utah State Parks 

Moab, UT 

 

County Governments City Governments

Grand County Council 

Moab, UT

City of Blanding 

Blanding, UT 

San Juan County Commission 

Monticello, UT

City of Monticello 

Monticello, UT

San Juan County Planner 

Monticello, UT 

Tribal Governments

Program Manager 

Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department 

Window Rock, AZ 

Chapter President 

Dennehotso Navajo Chapter 

Dennehotso, AZ

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office 

Hopi Tribal Council 

Kykotsmovi, AZ 

NAGPRA Coordinator 

Pueblo of Laguna 

Laguna, NM 

Chapter Vice-President 

Navajo Mountain Navajo Chapter 

Tonalea, AZ 

Chapter President 

Mexican Water Navajo Chapter 

Teecnospos, AZ 

Chapter President 

Oljato Navajo Chapter 

Monument Valley, UT 

Chapter President 

Red Mesa Navajo Chapter 

Montezuma Creek, UT 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-174 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Chapter President 

Aneth Navajo Chapter 

Montezuma Creek, UT 

Chapter President 

Teecnospos Navajo Chapter 

Teecnospos, AZ 

White Mesa Ute Council 

White Mesa, UT 

The Pueblo of Zia 

Historic Preservation Office 

Zia Pueblo, NM

Pueblo of Santa Clara 

Office of Cultural Preservation 

Espanola, NM 

Zuni Heritage and Preservation Office 

Zuni, NM 

Tribal Cultural Representative 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Towaoc, CO 

 

Public Libraries Adjoining State Agencies

Public Reading Room 

Salt Lake City Public Library 

210 East 400 South 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

Grand Junction, CO 

 

Grand County Public Library 

257 East Center 

Moab, UT 84532

 

San Juan County Public Library 

P.O. Box 66 

Monticello, UT 84535

Public Reading Room 

Marriott Library 

University of Utah 

295 S. 1500 East 

Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0860 

Library of Congress 

101 Independence Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20540 

Groups 

The Nature Conservancy 

Moab, UT 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-175 

5.8 LIST OF PREPARERS

The BLM Monticello FO PRMP/FEIS was written and produced by a team composed of 

Monticello FO interdisciplinary resource specialists and SWCA Inc., an independent, third-party 

consulting firm. In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.5(c), SWCA certified that it does not have any 

financial or other interest in the outcome of the decisions made pursuant to this RMP/EIS. Under 

the guidance and direction of the BLM, and in collaboration with the cooperating agencies, the 

team developed alternatives, collected baseline data to be used in the analysis, assessed potential 

effects of the alternatives, and prepared all the necessary elements of an RMP/EIS with 

additional participation, comments, and critique from the cooperating agencies and resource 

specialists with the BLM Utah state office. Table 5.12 lists the name, position, and planning role 

of the team members associated with preparation of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Table 5.12. List of Preparers 

Name Position Planning Role 

BLM 

Ann Marie Aubry, B.S. Hydrologist Water Resources 

Scott Berkenfield Recreation Lead Recreation, Wilderness 

Todd Berkenfield Assistant Planner Wild and Scenic Rivers, ACECs, Travel 

Plan, Planning 

Andy Boone GIS Specialist GIS, Travel Plan 

Jeff Brown Petroleum Engineering 

Technician 

Hazardous Materials 

Jed Carling, B.S. Rangeland Management 

Specialist 

Livestock Grazing 

Jim Carter, M.A. Archeologist Cultural 

Brad Colin, B.S. Recreation Specialist Recreation 

Paul Curtis, B.S. Range Management Specialist Soils and Water, Riparian 

Maxine Deeter, B.A. Lands and Realty Specialist Lands and Realty, Visual Resources 

Katie Juenger Fuels Specialist Fire 

Laura Kochanski, B.A. Archeologist Cultural, Paleontology, Native American 

Consulting 

Paul Leatherbury, B.S. GIS Mapping 

Ted McDougall, B.S. Geologist Minerals 

Brian Quigley, B.S. Recreation Specialist Recreation, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

Nick Sandberg, B.S. Assistant Field Office Manager Livestock, Soils, Riparian 

Pam Schuller, B.S. Planning NEPA Lead NEPA 

Summer Schulz, M.S. Range Management Specialist Range, Weeds, Vegetation, Woodlands 

Nancy Shearin, Ph. D. Archeologist Cultural, Paleontology, Native American 

Consulting 

Bill Stevens, M.B.A., Ph. D. Planning Specialist Socioeconomics 

Rob Sweeten, B.S. Landscape Architect Visual Resources 

Gary Torres, B.S. Planning NEPA Lead Field Office Planner, NEPA, Minerals 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-176 

Table 5.12. List of Preparers 

Name Position Planning Role 

Tammy Wallace, M.A. Wildlife Biologist Wildlife and Special Status Species 

Marie Tuxhorn Law Enforcement Officer Recreation, Cultural, Travel Planning 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

Barb Bannon, B.A. Technical Editor General 

Jean Ballagh, B.A. Technical Editor General 

Barb Bittner, B.A. Technical Editor General 

Laura Burch Vernon M.P.A. Environmental Planner Socioeconomics, Hazardous Materials 

Linda Burfitt, B.A. Technical Editor General, Formatting 

Kari Chalker, M.A. Technical Editor General 

Catherine Chatfield, B.A. GIS Specialist GIS 

Amanda Christensen, B.S. Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, Special Status Species 

Tonya Dombrowski, Ph.D. Environmental Chemist Air Quality 

Sheri Ellis, M.S. Cultural Resources Lead Fire Management, Cultural Resources, 

Lands and Realty 

Russ Gatlin, B.A. Technical Editor General 

Jason Green, B.S. Environmental Planner Recreation, Transportation 

Janet Guinn, B.S. Project Coordinator Project Coordination, Formatting 

David Harris, M.S. NEPA Specialist Recreation, Travel, Visual Resource 

Management, Woodlands 

Kristen Knippenberg, M.F.A. Resource Specialist, Technical 

Editor 

Minerals, editing 

Greg Larson, M.S. Resource Specialist Fire, Lands, Soils 

Cynthia Manseau, B.A. Technical Editor General 

Susan Martin, M.S. Ecologist Special Status Plant Species, Vegetation 

Eric McCulley, B.S. Geologist Riparian, Soils/Watershed 

Molly Mollenaar, M.A. Cultural Anthropologist Native American Consultation 

Paul C. Murphey, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, 

Paleontology 

Paleontology 

Megan Nelson, B.A. Environmental Technician Public Comments Analysis, Formatting 

Brian Nicholson, M.S. Ecologist Riparian and Soils and Watershed 

John Pecorelli, B.S. Technical Editor General 

Matt Petersen, M.S. Principal Ecologist NEPA Specialist/QA/QC 

Deb Reber, B.S. Natural Resource Planner Project Manager/ QA/QC 

Jan Reed, B.A. Ecologist Livestock Grazing 

Dave Reinhart, B.A. GIS Specialist GIS Mapping 

Mathew Seddon, Ph. D Anthropologist Cultural Resources 

Thomas Sharp, M.S. Ecologist Wildlife, Special Status Species 

Elisha Wardle, B.S. Resource Specialist Vegetation, Special Status Species 
INDEX

A 

Alkali Ridge ACEC, 1-24, 1-28, 2-20, 2-

49, 2-50, 2-76, 2-95, 2-127, 2-20, 2-49, 

2-50, 2-76, 2-95, 2-127, 3-47, 3-141, 4-

365, 4-411, 4-485, 4-496, 4-504, 4-710, 

4-762, 5-51, 5-77, 5-106, A-6, H-4, H5, N-21 

Arch Canyon, 1-21, 1-25, 2-3, 2-22, 2-34, 

2-45, 2-70, 2-75, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-

81, 2-82, 2-86, 2-137, 2-138, 2-139, 2-

138, 2-144, 2-166, 2-3, 2-22, 2-34, 2-

45, 2-70, 2-75, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81, 

2-82, 2-86, 2-137, 2-138, 2-139, 2-138, 

2-144, 2-166, 3-80, 3-94, 3-104, 3-108, 

3-136, 3-142, 3-144, 3-185, 4-39, 4-43, 

4-131, 4-190, 4-197, 4-200, 4-205, 4-

207, 4-244, 4-248, 4-253, 4-267, 4-273, 

4-281, 4-282, 4-302, 4-303, 4-387, 4-

390, 4-391, 4-392, 4-393, 4-394, 4-414, 

4-444, 4-510, 4-514, 4-515, 4-516, 4-

517, 4-518, 4-560, 4-564, 4-565, 4-569, 

4-580, 4-592, 4-593, 4-594, 4-599, 4-

656, 4-657, 4-712, 4-734, 4-737, 4-738, 

5-50, 5-63, 5-79, 5-80, 5-127, 5-162, 

ES-8, H-11, H-12, H-13, H-13, H-15, 

H-16, H-43, H-43, H-45, H-45, H-46, 

H-46, H-47, H-74, H-79, H-93, H-102, 

H-111, N-22, N-26, N-31, O-4 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC), 4-290, 4-291 

B 

Bald Eagle, 1-2, 1-27, 2-73, 2-73, 3-160, 

4-117, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-413, 4-

476, 4-522, 4-525, 4-526, 4-535, 4-536, 

4-538, 4-539, 4-540, 4-541, 4-542, 4-

543, 4-544, 4-545, 4-546, 4-547, 4-551, 

4-552, 4-553, 4-554, 4-562, 4-563, 4-

567, 4-568, 4-569, 4-570, 4-573, 4-574, 

4-575, 4-576, 4-577, 4-578, 4-655, 5-

138, 5-140, 5-141, 5-140, 5-143, 5-145, 

5-146, 5-146, 5-147, 5-148, 5-149, A14, A-15, H-40, H-41, H-43, H-45, H48, H-49, H-53, H-54, H-60, H-61, H88, H-91, M-1, M-15, Q-1, Q-2, S5, S6, 

S11 

Beef Basin CSMA, 1-22, 2-13, 2-43, 2-

149, 2-13, 2-43, 2-149, 4-41, 4-65, 4-

184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-239, 4-324, 

4-325, 4-326, 4-327, 4-457, 4-458, 4-

527, 4-528, 4-604, 4-605, 4-703, 4-706, 

4-755, 4-764 

Best Management Practices, 1-23, 2-9, 2-

20, 2-24, 2-106, 3-133, 4-82, 4-113, 4-

180, 4-474, 4-483, 5-34, 5-46, 5-58, 5-

165, A-2, D-3, I-1, I-4, M-1, M-2, N-42 

Black-footed Ferret, 4-524 

Bonytail, 1-18, 2-7, 2-73, 3-155, 3-158, 3-

185, 4-120, 4-476, 4-522, 4-525, 4-563, 

ES-7, H-87, Q-7 

Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC, 1-24, 2-20, 2-

51, 2-77, 2-95, 2-127, 3-47, 3-141, 3-

143, 4-94, 4-154, 4-180, 4-367, 4-489, 

4-644, 4-646, 4-647, 4-710, H-5, H-7 

Burrowing Owl, 3-160, 3-182, 4-119, 4-

524, H-40, H-44, N-20 

Butler Wash ACEC, 2-20, 2-52, 2-77, 3-

47, 3-141, 3-176, 4-260, 4-262, 4-367, 

4-411, 4-491, 4-710 

C 

Canyon Rims, 2-40, 2-81, 2-82, 3-144, 4-

681, A-13, H-16, H-34, N-16, N-20, Q4 

Cedar Mesa ACEC, 2-20, 2-46, 2-53, 2-

54, 2-55, 2-53, 2-62, 2-64, 2-76, 2-77, 

2-95, 2-96, 2-128, 2-129, 2-133, 3-27, 

3-47, 3-141, 3-144, 3-146, 3-176, 4-

130, 4-141, 4-150, 4-160, 4-168, 4-177, 

4-261, 4-263, 4-367, 4-368, 4-370, 4-

376, 4-379, 4-411, 4-485, 4-491, 4-494, 

4-507, 4-559, 4-560, 4-650, 4-652, 4-

683, 4-710, 4-733, 4-734, 4-753, H-10, 

H-11, H-13, H-14, H-16, H-28, H-38, 

H-44, H-45, H-46, H-102, H-111
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Index 

X-44 

Cedar Mesa ACEC, 5-77, 5-79, 5-95, 5-

97 

Colorado River, A-17, A-18 

Colorado Pikeminnow, 1-18, 2-73, 2-73, 

3-158 

Comb Ridge CSMA, 1-22, 2-120, 4-41, 4-

66, 4-134, 4-145, 4-163, 4-324, 4-325, 

4-326, 4-328, 4-390, 4-425, 4-457, 4-

526, 4-527, 4-528, 4-580, 4-604, 4-605, 

4-703, 4-704, 4-705, 5-51, 5-52, 5-52, 

5-72, 5-107, 5-106, 5-107, 5-110, 4-764 

Conservation STRATEGY, 2-73, 2-79, 2-

82, 3-159, 4-121, 4-562, 4-570, 4-577, 

4-602, 4-655, 4-694, 5-57, 5-141, 5-

148, 5-161, 5-162, 5-161, 5-164 

Cottonwood Canyon, H-71 

D 

Dark Canyon ACEC, 2-20, 2-21, 2-55, 2-

77, 2-96, 2-129, 3-47, 3-95, 3-96, 3-

141, 3-144, 3-177, 4-93, 4-260, 4-262, 

4-369, 4-370, 4-411, 4-494, 4-710, H16, H-19, H-49, H-50, H-108, H-109 

Desert Bighorn Sheep, 1-2, 2-83, 2-84, 2-

178, 3-144, 3-180, 3-181, 4-577, 4-670, 

4-687, 4-695, 4-698, 4-699, 4-700, 4-

701, 4-702, 4-714, 4-715, 4-716, 4-717, 

4-718, 4-719, 4-720, 4-722, 4-723, 4-

724, 4-725, 4-742, 4-744, 4-745, 5-163, 

5-166, ES-7, A-9, H-17, H-18, H-39, 

H-43, H-47, H-51, H-54, H-88, H-90, 

H-91, N-20 

Drought, 1-9, 2-9, 2-55, 3-3, 3-21, 3-29, 

3-35, 3-125, 3-169, 3-170, 3-172, 3-

174, 3-178, 3-180, 3-182, 3-188, 4-64, 

4-403, 5-81, 5-101, 5-131, 5-163, H-77, 

H-108, M-5 

E 

Elk, 1-2, 1-15, 2-8, 2-46, 2-85, 2-86, 2-87, 

2-87, 2-88, 2-145, 2-176, 2-175, 2-178, 

2-187, 3-17, 3-18, 3-41, 3-71, 3-73, 3-

144, 3-154, 3-163, 3-167, 3-178, 3-179, 

4-143, 4-144, 4-152, 4-153, 4-161, 4-

162, 4-169, 4-170, 4-178, 4-179, 4-271, 

4-280, 4-281, 4-397, 4-403, 4-444, 4-

578, 4-579, 4-580, 4-581, 4-589, 4-590, 

4-595, 4-597, 4-598, 4-600, 4-670, 4-

671, 4-672, 4-673, 4-687, 4-688, 4-695, 

4-699, 4-700, 4-701, 4-702, 4-703, 4-

704, 4-714, 4-715, 4-716, 4-717, 4-718, 

4-719, 4-720, 4-721, 4-723, 4-724, 4-

725, 4-732, 4-742, 4-743, 4-744, 5-64, 

5-82, 5-129, 5-162, 5-166, ES-7, A-11, 

A-12, H-17, H-18, H-89, L3, N-21, N22, N-24, N-29 

Emergency Stabilization, 2-16, 3-31, 3-

34, 3-35, 4-63, 4-74, 4-187 

Environmental Justice, 3-129, 4-419, 4-

420, 4-421, 4-449 

EPCA, 1-16, 4-111, 5-47, 5-119 

Equestrian, 1-6, 2-78, 4-226, 4-228, 4-

230, 4-232, 4-234, 4-238, 4-319, 4-325, 

4-342, 4-363, 4-367, 4-384, 4-388, 4-

584, 4-593, 4-594, 4-786, N-2, N-26, 

N-27 

F 

Fire Management Plan, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 

3-31, 3-35, 3-36, 4-65, 4-70, 4-88, 5-73 

G 

Grand County, 1-1, 1-2, 1-15, 3-12, 3-

113, 3-114, 3-123, 3-163, 3-164, 4-16, 

4-19, 4-21, 4-24, 4-26, 4-29, 5-5, 5-9, 

5-10, 5-167, 5-173, 5-174, ES-1, ES-7, 

N-14, R1, R2, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, 

R8 

Grand Gulch, 1-19, 1-20, 1-22, 1-23, 2-

15, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-25, 2-26, 2-29, 

2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-

36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-53, 2-54, 2-53, 2-71, 

2-72, 2-71, 2-72, 2-77, 2-79, 2-80, 2-

81, 2-86, 2-92, 2-102, 2-107, 2-121, 2-

120, 2-121, 2-124, 2-150, 2-157, 2-158, 

2-168, 2-187, 3-24, 3-27, 3-47, 3-81, 

3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-97, 3-98, 3-

105, 3-108, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 3-144, 

3-151, 3-152, 3-153, 3-174, 3-176, 4-

41, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-88, 4-89, 

4-92, 4-94, 4-114, 4-123, 4-130, 4-141, 

4-145, 4-150, 4-154, 4-160, 4-168, 4-

171, 4-177, 4-186, 4-190, 4-194, 4-197, 

4-201, 4-205, 4-208, 4-210, 4-212, 4-

213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-217, 4-219, 4-223, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Index 

X-45 

4-226, 4-228, 4-230, 4-232, 4-234, 4-

235, 4-237, 4-238, 4-242, 4-245, 4-248, 

4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-

258, 4-259, 4-261, 4-263, 4-267, 4-269, 

4-274, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-284, 4-

285, 4-309, 4-323, 4-324, 4-325, 4-326, 

4-328, 4-342, 4-343, 4-345, 4-346, 4-

347, 4-348, 4-349, 4-350, 4-351, 4-405, 

4-406, 4-407, 4-408, 4-410, 4-423, 4-

440, 4-456, 4-457, 4-470, 4-471, 4-491, 

4-492, 4-493, 4-494, 4-519, 4-526, 4-

527, 4-528, 4-548, 4-551, 4-552, 4-554, 

4-555, 4-580, 4-586, 4-603, 4-604, 4-

605, 4-635, 4-688, 4-703, 4-707, 4-708, 

4-710, 4-712, 4-726, 4-728, 4-751, 4-

752, 4-753, 4-755, 4-759, 4-761, 4-767, 

5-43, 5-49, 5-84, 5-115, 5-128, 5-168, 

ES-8, A-5, H-10, H-11, H-12, H-13, H14, H-15, H-16, H-30, H-43, H-45, H45, H-46, H-65, H-67, H-77, H-84, H111, I-4, N-21, N-26, O-3, O-6, S2, S17 

Gunnison Prairie Dog, 2-7, 2-7 

Gunnison Sage-grouse, 1-9, 1-19, 1-25, 2-

23, 2-24, 2-73, 2-74, 2-75, 2-74, 2-75, 

2-74, 2-79, 3-45, 3-92, 3-161, 3-182, 4-

142, 4-143, 4-151, 4-152, 4-159, 4-161, 

4-169, 4-170, 4-176, 4-179, 4-477, 4-

522, 4-524, 4-526, 4-532, 4-535, 4-536, 

4-539, 4-540, 4-541, 4-542, 4-543, 4-

545, 4-546, 4-551, 4-552, 4-554, 4-561, 

4-562, 4-564, 4-565, 4-567, 4-568, 4-

569, 4-570, 4-573, 4-574, 4-575, 4-576, 

4-577, 4-578, 4-602, 4-655, 4-656, 4-

657, 4-736, 5-139, 5-140, 5-141, 5-142, 

5-144, 5-146, 5-147, ES-7, A-9, A-10, 

A-10, B-7, H-40, H-44, H-48 

H 

Hole in the Rock Trail, 1-5, 2-30, 2-72, 3-

89, 3-96, 4-325, 5-72, 5-109, 5-151, 5-

153, 5-155, N-22 

Hovenweep ACEC, 1-5, 1-24, 2-20, 2-56, 

2-57, 2-76, 2-96, 2-129, 3-47, 3-141, 3-

145, 3-147, 4-370, 4-371, 4-411, 4-496, 

4-647, 4-710, 5-5, 5-51, 5-94, 5-106, 

A-7, A-22, H-19, H-20, H-21, H-22, H23, S13, S18, S19 

Humpback Chub, 1-3, 2-7, 2-7, 3-155, 3-

158, 3-185, 4-120, 4-476, 4-522, 4-525, 

4-563, ES-7, H-87, Q-7 

I 

Indian Creek ACEC, 1-22, 1-24, 2-20, 2-

21, 2-40, 2-58, 2-60, 2-77, 2-81, 2-96, 

2-130, 2-131, 2-177, 2-178, 3-47, 3-

141, 3-145, 3-176, 4-259, 4-262, 4-265, 

4-268, 4-371, 4-372, 4-373, 4-498, 4-

499, 4-500, 4-559, 4-560, 4-681, 4-683, 

4-710, 4-734, 5-79, 5-158, A-3, H-23, 

H-25, H-39, H-40, H-42, N-32 

K 

Kane Gulch Ranger Station, 2-12, 2-28, 

2-35, 3-91, 3-94, 4-320, 4-325, 4-348, 

5-72, E-7 

L 

Lavender Mesa ACEC, 1-24, 2-20, 2-41, 

2-59, 2-77, 2-97, 2-131, 3-47, 3-141, 3-

145, 4-93, 4-154, 4-180, 4-260, 4-263, 

4-265, 4-268, 4-374, 4-501, 4-710, A-8, 

H-25, H-27, H-28, H-40 

Lockhart Asin, 1-6, 1-9, 2-21, 2-60, 2-80, 

2-81, 2-97, 2-130, 2-177, 2-194, 3-142, 

3-143, 3-146, 3-154, 3-167, 3-174, 3-

180, 4-49, 4-71, 4-130, 4-141, 4-150, 4-

160, 4-168, 4-177, 4-262, 4-263, 4-267, 

4-373, 4-374, 4-412, 4-484, 4-499, 4-

500, 4-506, 4-559, 4-560, 4-597, 4-648, 

4-651, 4-653, 4-654, 4-677, 4-680, 4-

681, 4-682, 4-683, 4-684, 4-733, 4-734, 

5-159, H-2, H-25, H-34, H-36, H-39, 

H-62, L6, N-20, N-28 

M 

Mexican Spotted Owl, 1-9, 1-18, 1-25, 2-

7, 2-73, 2-75, 2-78, 3-92, 3-144, 3-155, 

3-156, 4-119, 4-120, 4-270, 4-414, 4-

476, 4-477, 4-522, 4-562, 4-592, 4-655, 

4-736, 5-80, 5-127, 5-138, 5-139, 5-

148, 5-162, A-12, A-13, A-14, H-11, 

H-12, H-13, H-17, H-18, H-43, H-45, 

H-45, H-46, H-47, H-49, H-49, H-59, 

H-88, H-89, H-90, H-93, H-111, M-1, 

M-15, Q-3, Q-4, Q-5 

Moon House Ruin, 2-86 

Motorcycle, N-18, N-20, N-21 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Index 

X-46 

Mountain Biking, 2-122, 2-123, 2-125, 2-

128, 2-133, 2-134, 2-138, 2-140, 2-167, 

3-20, 3-98, 3-122, 4-40, 4-319, 4-322, 

4-324, 4-325, 4-326, 4-327, 4-329, 4-

331, 4-333, 4-334, 4-337, 4-340, 4-341, 

4-343, 4-344, 4-345, 4-357, 4-361, 4-

362, 4-363, 4-364, 4-367, 4-370, 4-372, 

4-373, 4-375, 4-376, 4-377, 4-378, 4-

379, 4-380, 4-381, 4-382, 4-383, 4-384, 

4-385, 4-388, 4-389, 4-390, 4-391, 4-

392, 4-393, 4-397, 4-442, 4-584, 4-589, 

4-594, 4-597, ES-7 

Mule Deer, 1-2, 2-18, 2-178, 3-178, 3-

179, 3-181, 4-522, 4-687, 4-692, 4-695, 

4-698, 4-700, 4-701, 4-702, 4-703, 4-

704, 4-714, 4-715, 4-716, 4-717, 4-719, 

4-720, 4-721, 4-723, 4-724, 4-725, 4-

732, 4-743, 4-744, 5-81, 5-163, ES-7, 

B-7, H-43, H-47, H-50, H-59, H-88, H89, H-91, L3 

N 

Navajo Sedge, 2-7, 3-155, 3-156, 4-525, 

4-526, 4-561, A-21, H-44, H-56, H-57, 

H-57, H-58, H-92 

O 

Old Spanish Trail, 2-72, 5-109, 5-153, 

S18, S19 

P 

Petrified Wood, 2-27, 3-56, 3-85 

Planning Criteria, 1-3, 1-11, 5-15, 5-16, 

5-125, N-8 

Preferred Alternative, 1-3, 1-11, 1-13, 1-

21, 1-22, 5-1, 5-8, 5-25, 5-128, 5-140, 

5-154, 5-168, ES-3, ES-4, S16 

Prescribed Fire, 4-270, 4-271, 4-291 

Pronghorn, 1-2, 1-9, 2-8, 2-83, 2-84, 2-

175, 2-176, 2-175, 2-178, 3-179, 3-180, 

4-98, 4-100, 4-102, 4-107, 4-131, 4-

132, 4-142, 4-143, 4-152, 4-153, 4-159, 

4-161, 4-169, 4-170, 4-178, 4-179, 4-

279, 4-396, 4-397, 4-444, 4-578, 4-579, 

4-580, 4-589, 4-590, 4-597, 4-598, 4-

600, 4-670, 4-671, 4-672, 4-673, 4-687, 

4-688, 4-698, 4-699, 4-700, 4-701, 4-

702, 4-704, 4-714, 4-715, 4-716, 4-717, 

4-718, 4-719, 4-720, 4-721, 4-723, 4-

724, 4-725, 4-732, 5-82, ES-7, A-10, 

A-11, H-39, L3 

R 

Raptors, 2-41, 2-62, 2-61, 2-73, 2-74, 2-

75, 2-74, 2-82, 2-83, 3-144, 3-181, 4-

34, 4-121, 4-526, 4-561, 4-562, 4-564, 

4-565, 4-687, 4-692, 4-695, 4-704, 4-

709, 4-714, 4-715, 4-716, 4-717, 4-732, 

4-743, 5-76, 5-165, H-17, H-18, H-49, 

H-49, H-88, H-89, H-90, H-91, I-1, M1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5, M-6, M-7, M8, M-15 

Razorback Sucker, 1-3, 1-18, 2-7, 2-73, 3-

146, 3-158, 3-185, 3-186, 4-120, 4-476, 

4-522, 4-525, 4-563, Q-7 

Reasonably Foreseeable, 1-1, 2-89, 4-5, 

4-6, 4-296, 4-744, 4-772, 4-773, 4-774, 

4-775, 4-776, 4-777, 4-780, 4-781, 4-

784, 4-786, 4-787, 5-34, 5-40, 5-86, 5-

100, 5-104, ES-2, H-80, H-105, H-107, 

H-108, H-109, H-110, H-111 

Reintroductions, 3-156, 5-10 

Relinquishment, 1-19, 1-22, 2-22, 5-13, 5-

74 

Riparian, 4-290, 4-291 

S 

San Juan County, 1-1, 1-2, 1-15, 1-19, 2-

48, 2-66, 2-79, 2-48, 2-66, 2-79, 3-3, 3-

11, 3-12, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 

3-22, 3-23, 3-27, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-

41, 3-48, 3-75, 3-87, 3-89, 3-90, 3-109, 

3-110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-

115, 3-116, 3-117, 3-118, 3-119, 3-120, 

3-121, 3-122, 3-123, 3-124, 3-125, 3-

126, 3-127, 3-128, 3-129, 3-132, 3-134, 

3-135, 3-155, 3-156, 3-160, 3-161, 3-

162, 3-163, 3-164, 3-172, 3-173, 3-179, 

3-183, 4-8, 4-16, 4-19, 4-21, 4-24, 4-

26, 4-29, 4-420, 4-421, 4-422, 4-423, 4-

427, 4-429, 4-430, 4-432, 4-433, 4-434, 

4-439, 4-440, 4-449, 4-454, 4-525, 4-

602, 4-776, 4-781, 5-2, 5-4, 5-5, 5-8, 5-

9, 5-11, 5-17, 5-22, 5-25, 5-34, 5-37, 5-

38, 5-39, 5-42, 5-59, 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 

5-63, 5-64, 5-66, 5-67, 5-71, 5-72, 5-

74, 5-77, 5-79, 5-80, 5-82, 5-84, 5-85, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Index 

X-47 

5-86, 5-86, 5-87, 5-89, 5-94, 5-95, 5-

97, 5-104, 5-103, 5-105, 5-109, 5-114, 

5-116, 5-126, 5-127, 5-133, 5-134, 5-

136, 5-139, 5-156, 5-159, 5-160, 5-162, 

5-163, 5-167, 5-173, 5-174, ES-1, ES7, C-3, H-40, H-44, H-48, H-60, H-74, 

H-76, H-81, H-106, H-107, H-108, H109, H-110, H-111, N-6, N-8, N-9, N12, N-13, N-14, N-15, N-16, N-17, N19, N-23, N-24, N-27, N-28, N-29, N31, N-32, N-34, N-35, R1, R2, R3, R4, 

R5, R6, R7, R8, S9, S10, S13 

Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC, 2-20, 2-

55, 2-53, 2-62, 2-76, 2-81, 2-81, 2-82, 

2-132, 3-47, 3-141, 3-176, 4-259, 4-

376, 4-411, 4-485, 4-507, 4-711, 4-733, 

H-13, H-28, H-31 

Shay Canyon ACEC, 1-24, 2-20, 2-23, 2-

47, 2-62, 2-63, 2-62, 2-63, 2-76, 2-97, 

2-132, 3-47, 3-141, 3-145, 4-72, 4-96, 

4-260, 4-262, 4-265, 4-268, 4-376, 4-

377, 4-411, 4-412, 4-502, 4-697, 4-711, 

4-753, A-8, H-31, H-33, H-33, H-42, 

H-107 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, 1-9, 1-

18, 2-7, 2-73, 3-92, 3-144, 3-147, 3-

155, 3-157, 3-184, 3-185, 4-120, 4-270, 

4-413, 4-476, 4-522, 4-563, 4-655, 4-

692, 5-57, 5-138, 5-139, 5-149, A-16, 

A-17, H-11, H-13, H-39, H-43, H-46, 

H-56, H-59, H-88, H-89, H-91, H-93, 

H-111, Q-5, Q-6, Q-7 

State of Utah, 1-1, 1-2, 1-11, 1-15, 1-22, 

1-27, 2-6, 2-9, 2-19, 2-21, 2-40, 2-48, 

2-65, 3-6, 3-12, 3-30, 3-39, 3-40, 3-79, 

3-89, 3-115, 3-116, 3-117, 3-118, 3-

127, 3-128, 3-159, 3-173, 3-178, 4-17, 

4-19, 4-22, 4-24, 4-27, 4-29, 4-32, 4-

33, 4-82, 4-116, 4-122, 4-125, 4-129, 4-

137, 4-165, 4-433, 4-436, 4-443, 4-444, 

4-453, 4-584, 4-781, 5-2, 5-4, 5-5, 5-

10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-22, 5-25, 

5-27, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 5-39, 5-

39, 5-41, 5-47, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-57, 

5-60, 5-62, 5-63, 5-66, 5-71, 5-82, 5-

85, 5-86, 5-88, 5-98, 5-99, 5-102, 5-

103, 5-105, 5-106, 5-110, 5-115, 5-116, 

5-121, 5-126, 5-132, 5-133, 5-136, 5-

140, 5-150, 5-152, 5-153, 5-154, 5-161, 

5-167, D-2, D-5, D-7, D-8, D-9, D-10, 

D-11, D-12, D-13, D-14, D-15, D-16, 

E-2, H-29, H-40, H-41, H-44, H-45, H48, H-49, H-53, H-54, H-61, H-65, H66, H-67, H-68, H-69, H-73, H-76, H87, H-91, H-93, H-103, H-105, M-8, N31, R1, R2, S4, S5, S6, S7, S9, S13, 

S15 

U 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-12, 1-8, 

1-25, 1-27, 2-7, 2-16, 2-21, 2-73, 2-82, 

2-83, 3-150, 3-154, 3-156, 3-157, 3-

158, 3-159, 4-117, 4-120, 4-522, 4-523, 

4-530, 4-535, 4-561, 4-562, 4-563, 4-

606, 4-655, 4-695, 5-2, 5-5, 5-6, 5-22, 

5-58, 5-80, 5-118, 5-121, 5-123, 5-127, 

5-129, 5-130, 5-130, 5-138, 5-139, 5-

140, 5-141, 5-143, 5-143, 5-145, 5-146, 

5-147, 5-156, 5-161, 5-162, 5-171, 5-

172, A-14, A-15, A-17, A-18, A-20, A22, B-7, M-1, M-2, M-8, M-17, M-19, 

N-24, N-31, N-40, Q-1, Q-2, Q-3, Q-5, 

Q-6, Q-7, Q-8, S2, S5, S6, S11, S13 

UDOGM, see Utah Division of Oil, Gas, 

and Mining, 3-54 

USGS, see United States Geological 

Service, 3-54 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1-

25, 1-26, 1-28, 2-9, 2-21, 2-73, 2-82, 2-

83, 3-154, 3-156, 3-159, 3-178, 3-179, 

3-180, 3-181, 3-182, 3-183, 3-185, 4-

397, 4-598, 4-687, 4-695, 4-718, 4-719, 

4-720, 4-721, 4-722, 4-723, 4-724, 4-

725, 4-743, 4-744, 4-745, 4-777, 5-5, 5-

6, 5-31, 5-57, 5-58, 5-64, 5-86, 5-127, 

5-140, 5-142, 5-161, 5-162, 5-162, 5-

163, ES-8, M-1, M-2, M-3, M-8, N-24, 

N-31, Q-2, S9, S12, S20, S21 

V 

Valley of the Gods, 1-20, 1-22, 1-24, 2-

19, 2-20, 2-32, 2-33, 2-64, 2-80, 2-81, 

2-80, 2-98, 2-133, 2-177, 3-82, 3-97, 3-

142, 3-144, 3-146, 3-154, 3-167, 3-174, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Index 

X-48 

3-176, 4-49, 4-52, 4-59, 4-130, 4-141, 

4-150, 4-160, 4-168, 4-177, 4-186, 4-

191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-195, 4-198, 4-204, 

4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-

211, 4-215, 4-217, 4-226, 4-228, 4-230, 

4-232, 4-234, 4-237, 4-247, 4-248, 4-

250, 4-251, 4-253, 4-254, 4-261, 4-262, 

4-264, 4-265, 4-267, 4-268, 4-269, 4-

276, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-379, 

4-380, 4-412, 4-485, 4-491, 4-507, 4-

559, 4-560, 4-650, 4-652, 4-653, 4-654, 

4-677, 4-683, 4-684, 4-685, 4-710, 4-

733, 4-734, 4-779, 4-781, 5-9, 5-75, 5-

97, A-3, H-2, H-10, H-11, H-12, H-13, 

H-15, H-16, H-36, H-37, H-38, H-42, 

H-44, H-45, H-46, H-63, N-21, N-28, 

O-9 

VRM, see Visual Resource Management, 

4-269 

W 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, 1-7, 1-20, 1-24, 

2-2, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-19, 2-44, 2-64, 2-

65, 2-80, 2-81, 2-80, 2-81, 2-99, 2-109, 

2-113, 2-117, 2-133, 2-134, 2-135, 2-

136, 2-137, 2-144, 2-148, 2-149, 2-148, 

2-169, 2-183, 2-184, 2-183, 2-190, 3-

140, 3-147, 3-148, 4-44, 4-55, 4-70, 4-

92, 4-131, 4-140, 4-151, 4-159, 4-169, 

4-175, 4-259, 4-261, 4-264, 4-266, 4-

267, 4-269, 4-270, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 

4-290, 4-291, 4-299, 4-310, 4-311, 4-

312, 4-329, 4-380, 4-444, 4-475, 4-483, 

4-509, 4-510, 4-515, 4-520, 4-558, 4-

559, 4-560, 4-561, 4-572, 4-607, 4-689, 

4-693, 4-733, 4-734, 4-735, 4-753, 4-

757, 4-760, 4-762, 4-766, 4-769, 4-783, 

4-784, 4-785, 5-4, 5-8, 5-10, 5-12, 5-

15, 5-16, 5-20, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 

5-36, 5-55, 5-67, 5-79, 5-84, 5-85, 5-

84, 5-85, 5-86, 5-175, ES-3, ES-6, A-4, 

A-9, H-1, H-64, H-65, H-66, H-67, H68, H-70, H-73, H-74, H-75, H-76, H77, H-79, H-80, H-81, H-82, H-105, H106, H-107, H-108, H-109, H-110, H111, N-4, N-11, N-33, N-40, R7, S6 

Wilderness Study Areas, 1-6, 1-10, 1-12, 

1-13, 1-20, 1-21, 1-23, 1-24, 1-26, 1-

27, 2-2, 2-3, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 

2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-

25, 2-26, 2-30, 2-32, 2-35, 2-37, 2-39, 

2-40, 2-41, 2-44, 2-47, 2-51, 2-52, 2-

53, 2-55, 2-58, 2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 

2-64, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-69, 2-70, 2-

71, 2-72, 2-73, 2-74, 2-76, 2-77, 2-78, 

2-80, 2-81, 2-86, 2-87, 2-92, 2-92, 2-

94, 2-95, 2-96, 2-96, 2-97, 2-98, 2-99, 

2-103, 2-108, 2-112, 2-112, 2-114, 2-

115, 2-116, 2-116, 2-117, 2-118, 2-120, 

2-122, 2-123, 2-124, 2-125, 2-126, 2-

126, 2-128, 2-128, 2-129, 2-130, 2-131, 

2-131, 2-132, 2-133, 2-135, 2-135, 2-

138, 2-139, 2-143, 2-144, 2-147, 2-152, 

2-153, 2-154, 2-157, 2-156, 2-157, 2-

160, 2-161, 2-164, 2-165, 2-166, 2-167, 

2-168, 2-167, 2-168, 2-169, 2-170, 2-

171, 2-172, 2-173, 2-174, 2-175, 2-176, 

2-178, 2-179, 2-187, 2-188, 2-189, 2-

190, 2-190, 2-191, 2-191, 2-192, 2-194, 

3-45, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-

100, 3-140, 3-142, 3-150, 3-151, 3-152, 

3-153, 3-189, 4-2, 4-3, 4-22, 4-27, 4-

30, 4-39, 4-42, 4-44, 4-47, 4-48, 4-50, 

4-51, 4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-

58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-68, 4-69, 4-75, 4-86, 

4-91, 4-92, 4-104, 4-116, 4-117, 4-123, 

4-124, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-

133, 4-138, 4-141, 4-148, 4-150, 4-157, 

4-160, 4-163, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-

168, 4-174, 4-177, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 

4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-

190, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 

4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-205, 4-

206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-211, 

4-212, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-

217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 

4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-

228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 

4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-

239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 

4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-

252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Index 

X-49 

4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-

263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 

4-269, 4-270, 4-271, 4-272, 4-273, 4-

276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 

4-282, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-

287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-290, 4-291, 4-301, 

4-302, 4-308, 4-309, 4-310, 4-312, 4-

313, 4-315, 4-326, 4-327, 4-328, 4-329, 

4-332, 4-333, 4-342, 4-344, 4-345, 4-

353, 4-357, 4-359, 4-361, 4-363, 4-367, 

4-369, 4-372, 4-373, 4-374, 4-375, 4-

377, 4-379, 4-380, 4-384, 4-385, 4-391, 

4-396, 4-397, 4-403, 4-405, 4-410, 4-

412, 4-413, 4-421, 4-427, 4-435, 4-436, 

4-437, 4-438, 4-441, 4-442, 4-444, 4-

447, 4-448, 4-449, 4-467, 4-471, 4-472, 

4-473, 4-478, 4-483, 4-484, 4-489, 4-

490, 4-491, 4-492, 4-494, 4-495, 4-496, 

4-498, 4-499, 4-500, 4-502, 4-503, 4-

506, 4-507, 4-509, 4-518, 4-519, 4-528, 

4-537, 4-547, 4-548, 4-556, 4-557, 4-

558, 4-571, 4-575, 4-581, 4-586, 4-588, 

4-589, 4-593, 4-595, 4-596, 4-598, 4-

599, 4-602, 4-605, 4-608, 4-628, 4-631, 

4-635, 4-641, 4-642, 4-644, 4-645, 4-

654, 4-657, 4-665, 4-669, 4-674, 4-680, 

4-682, 4-683, 4-684, 4-693, 4-695, 4-

707, 4-708, 4-710, 4-726, 4-728, 4-729, 

4-737, 4-749, 4-751, 4-754, 4-758, 4-

763, 4-764, 4-765, 4-766, 4-767, 4-768, 

4-770, 4-777, 4-778, 4-784, 4-785, 5-

13, 5-37, 5-38, 5-41, 5-43, 5-47, 5-49, 

5-53, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 5-72, 5-77, 5-

79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-82, 5-83, 5-84, 5-97, 

5-98, 5-116, 5-126, 5-127, 5-133, 5-

135, 5-136, 5-159, 5-160, 5-165, 5-168, 

5-169, ES-4, ES-6, ES-7, ES-8, A-5, B10, H-7, H-14, H-15, H-23, H-31, H52, H-54, H-59, H-108, H-109, N-3, N7, N-11, N-12, N-13, N-18, N-20, N22, N-24, N-29, N-36, N-40, N-44, O1, O-3, O-4, O-6, O-8, O-9, O-10, P-1, 

P-2, S3, S6, S9, S14 

Y 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo, 1-9, 2 

-7, 3-92, 3-147, 3-155, 3-157, 3-184, 3-

185, 4-119, 4-120, 4-270, 4-413, 4-476, 

4-522, 4-525, 4-526, 4-541, 4-545, 4-

563, 4-655, 5-57, 5-138, A-16, H-56, 

H-88, H-91
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Index 

X-50 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY

ACRONYMS

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation 

APD Application for Permit to Drill (an oil or gas well) 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) 

ARPA Archeological Resource Protection Act (of 1979) 

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle 

AUM Animal unit month 

BA Biological Assessment 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCF Billion cubic feet (a measure of quantity of natural gas) 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BO Biological Opinion 

CAA Clean Air Act (of 1970) 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (of 1980) 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CFS Cubic Feet Per Second (a unit of water flow) 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

COA Conditions of Approval 

CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DFC Desired Future Condition 

DOGM (Utah) Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 

DOI (United States) Department of the Interior 

DPC Desired Plant Community 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act (of 1975) 

ERMA Extended Recreation Management Area 

ESA Endangered Species Act (of 1973) 

ESR Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act (of 1976) 

FMP Fire Management Plan 

FMZ Fire Management Zone 

FO Field Office 

FR Federal Register 

GAP Geographical Analysis Program 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act (of 2003) 

HMA Herd Management Area 

HMAP Herd Management Area Plan 

HMP Habitat Management Plan 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IMP Interim Management Policy 

ISA Instant Study Area 

KRCRA Known Recoverable Coal Resource Area 

LTA Land Tenure Agreement 

LUP Land Use Plan 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act (of 1918) 

MCF Thousand cubic feet 

MMCF Million cubic feet 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

X-24 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

MFO Monticello Field Office 

MPA Monticello Planning Area 

MZ Management Zone 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (of 1990) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969) 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOA Notice of Availability (published in the Federal Register) 

NOI Notice of Intent (published in the Federal Register) 

NPS National Park Service 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSO No Surface Occupancy (a stipulation on an oil and gas lease) 

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River System 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

ORV Off Road Vehicle (an older acronym, replaced by OHV) 

P Primitive Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition (of riparian/wetland areas) 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter) 

PM10 Particulate Matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) 

R&I Relevance and Importance 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes (Act of 1926) 

RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan 

RDCC (Utah) Resource Development and Coordinating Committee 

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

RHS Rangeland Health Standards 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

RMP Resource Management Plan (BLM land use plan under FLPMA) 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

X-25 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

ROW Right of Way 

S&G Standards & Guidelines 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SITLA (Utah) School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

SOx Sulfur Oxides 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SPM Semiprimitive Motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class 

SPNM Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SRP Special Recreation Permit 

SWREGAP Southwest Regional Geographical Analysis Program 

T&E Threatened and/or Endangered (species as per ESA of 1973) 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TPY Tons Per Year 

UAAQS Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards 

UAC Utah Administrative Code 

UDA Utah Division of Aeronautics 

UDAQ Utah Department of Air Quality 

UDEQ Utah Division of Environmental Quality 

UDOGM Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation 

UDWaR Utah Division of Water Resources 

UDWQ Utah Division of Water Quality 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

UGS Utah Geological Survey 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WAFWA Western Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

X-26 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WSR Wild and Scenic River(s) (Act of 1973) 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 

X-27 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

X-28 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

GLOSSARY

Activity Plan: Site-specific plan which precedes actual development. This is the most detailed level of 

BLM planning. 

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV): A wheeled or tracked vehicle, other than a snowmobile or work vehicle, 

designed primarily for recreational use or for the transportation of property or equipment 

exclusively on undeveloped road rights-of-way, open country or other unprepared surfaces. 

Allotment: An area of land where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments 

generally consist of BLM lands but may also include other federally managed, state owned, and 

private lands. An allotment may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock numbers and 

periods of use are specified for each allotment. 

Allotment Categorization: Grazing allotments and rangeland areas used for livestock grazing are 

assigned to an allotment category during resource management planning. Allotment 

categorization is used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel during 

plan implementation to achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland resources. 

Categorization is also used to organize allotments into similar groups for purposes of developing 

multiple use prescriptions, analyzing site-specific and cumulative impacts, and determining tradeoffs. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM): A standardized measurement of the amount of forage necessary for the 

sustenance of one cow unit or its equivalent for 1 month. Approximately 800 pounds of forage. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): Areas within the public lands where special 

management attention is required to: (1) protect and prevent irreparable damage to important 

historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or 

processes, or (2) protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

Authorized Officer: The Federal employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific decision. 

Avoidance Areas: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way leases, and easements would 

be strongly discouraged. Authorization made in avoidance areas would have to be compatible 

with the purpose for which the area was designated and not is otherwise feasible on lands outside 

the avoidance area. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. Best management practices are often 

developed in conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan decision 

unless the land use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be updated or modified 

without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory. 

Big Game: Large species of wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn 

antelope. 

Browse: To browse (verb) is to graze; also, browse (noun) is the tender shoots, twigs, and leaves and 

shrubs often used as food by livestock and wildlife. 

Candidate Species: Any species included in the Federal Register notice of review that are being 

considered for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

X-29 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Casual Use: Mining activities that only negligibly disturb federal lands and resources. Casual use 

generally includes the collecting of geochemical, rock, soil, or mineral specimens using hand 

tools, hand panning, and nonmotorized sluicing. It also generally includes use of metal detectors, 

gold spears, and other battery-operated devices for sensing the presence of minerals, and hand 

battery-operated dry washers. Casual use does not include use of mechanized earth-moving 

equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, suction dredges, motorized vehicles in areas 

designated as closed to off-road vehicles, chemicals, or explosives. It also does not include 

occupancy or operations where the cumulative effects of the activities result in more than 

negligible disturbance. 

Closed: Generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or uses; refer to specific 

definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual programs. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The official, legal tabulation or regulations directing federal 

government activities. 

Collaboration: A cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied interests, 

work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other lands. This may 

or may not involve an agency as a cooperating agency. 

Competitive Forage: Those forage species utilized by two or more animal species. 

Conditions of Approval: Conditions or provisions (requirements) under which an Application for a 

Permit to Drill or a Sundry Notice is approved. 

Conformance: That a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, if not 

specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards of the 

approved land use plan. 

Conservation Agreement: A formal signed agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 

National Marine Fisheries Service and other parties that implements specific actions, activities, or 

programs designed to eliminate or reduce threats or otherwise improve the status of a species. 

CA's can be developed at a State, regional, or national level and generally include multiple 

agencies at both the State and Federal level, as well as tribes. Depending on the types of 

commitments the BLM makes in a CA and the level of signatory authority, plan revisions or 

amendments may be required prior to signing the CA, or subsequently in order to implement the 

CA. 

Conservation Strategy: A Strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to the 

decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a 

decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and 

animals that are designated as BLM Sensitive species or that have been determined by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service to be Federal candidates under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Contiguous: Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary; lands having only a common 

corner are not contiguous. 

Cooperating Agency: Assists the lead Federal agency in developing an Environmental Analysis or 

Environmental Impact Statement. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

implementing NEPA defines a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA. Any tribe of Federal, State, or local 

government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by agreement 

with the lead agency. 

Corridor: A wide strip of land within which a proposed linear facility could be located. 

X-30 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President of the United States 

established by the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews Federal programs for 

their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the president on 

environmental matters. 

Critical Habitat. For listed species. Consists of 1) the specific areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of 

the Endangered Species Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (constituent 

elements) a) essential to the conservation of the species and b) which may require special 

management considerations or protection; and 2) specific areas outside the geographical are 

occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for 

the conservation of the species. Designated critical habitats are described in 50 CFR§ 17 and 226. 

Crucial Habitat. Habitat on which a species depends for survival because there are no alternative ranges 

or habitats available. 

Crucial Winter Habitat (Range): Parts of the habitat necessary to sustain a wildlife population at critical 

periods of its life cycle. This is often a limiting factor on the populations, such as breeding 

habitat, winter habitat, etc. 

Cryptobiotic (Cryptogammic) Soils: Biological communities that form a surface layer or crust on some 

soils. These communities consist of cyanobacteria (blue-green bacteria), micro fungi, mosses, 

lichens, and green algae and perform many important functions, including fixing nitrogen and 

carbon, maintaining soil surface stability, and preventing erosion. Cryptobiotic crusts also 

influence the nutrient levels of soils and the status and germination of plants in the desert. These 

crusts are slow to recover after severe disturbance, requiring 40 years of more to recolonize even 

small areas. 

Cultural Resources: Nonrenewable elements of the physical and human environment including 

archeological remains (evidence of prehistoric or historic human activities) and sociocultural 

values traditionally held by ethnic groups (sacred places, traditionally utilized raw materials, etc.). 

Cultural Site: Any location that includes prehistoric and/or historic evidence of human use or that has 

important sociocultural value. 

Cumulative Impact: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

Current Habitat: habitat currently occupied by a species during the development of the plan. 

Desired Condition: Description of those factors, which should exist within ecosystems both to maintain 

their survival and to meet social and economic needs. 

Desired Future Condition: The desired mix of vegetation types, structural stages, and 

landscape/riparian/watershed function, as determined by management objectives and rangeland 

functionality and health, that ensures ecological diversity, stability and sustainability to provide 

for plant, fish and wildlife habitats. 

X-31 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Development Well: A well drilled within the known or proven productive area of an oil field with 

expectation of producing oil or gas from the producing reservoir. 

Discretionary Closure: Those lands where the BLM has determined that fluid minerals leasing, even 

with the most restrictive stipulations, would not adequately protect other resources, values, or 

land uses. 

Dispersed/Extensive Recreation: Recreation activities of an unstructured type, which are not confined to 

specific locations such as recreation sites. Example of these activities may be hunting, fishing, 

off-road vehicle use, hiking, and sightseeing. 

Disturbance Area: Area of influence around a disturbance causing a change in animal behavior such as: 

leaving the area, increased stress, abandoning young, not breeding, and aberrant behavior. 

Drought: Drought is a protracted period of deficient precipitation resulting in extensive damage to crops, 

resulting in loss of yield. 

Easement: A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another's real property for access 

or other purposes. 

Endangered Species: A plant or animal species whose prospects for survival and reproduction are in 

immediate jeopardy, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior, and as is further defined by the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public document that analyzes the environmental impacts 

of a proposed federal action and provides sufficient evidence to determine the level of 

significance of the impacts. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act when an agency proposes a major federal action significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment. 

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents. 

Exception: Exemption from a stipulation of a land use authorization on a one-time basis. 

Exclusion Area: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way, leases, and easements would 

not be authorized. 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA): An area where significant recreation opportunities 

and problems are limited and explicit recreation management is not required. Minimal 

management actions related to the BLM's stewardship responsibilities are adequate in these areas. 

Fawning Habitat: an area where big game animals usually give birth during a specific time of year. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA): Public Law 94-579. October 21, 1976, 

often referred to as the BLM's "Organic Act," which provides the majority of the BLM's 

legislated authority, direction, policy, and basic management guidance. 

Federal Register: A daily publication, which reports Presidential and Federal Agency documents. 

Fire Management Plan: A strategic plan that defines a program to manage wild land and prescribed fires 

and documents the fire management program in the approved land use plan; the plan is 

supplemented by operational procedures such as preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, 

prescribed fire plans, and prevention plans. 

Floodplain: The relatively flat area or lowlands adjoining a body of standing or flowing water, which has 

been or might be covered by floodwater. 

X-32 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Fluid Minerals: Oil and gas resources. 

Focus Area: A recreation management zone that emphasizes particular types of recreation activities. 

Fossil: Mineralized or petrified form from a past geologic age, especially from previously living things. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer system capable of storing, analyzing, and 

displaying data and describing places on the earth's surface. 

Goal: A broad statement of a desired outcome. Goals are usually not quantifiable and may not have 

established time frames for achievement. 

Grandfather (to): To exempt groups or individuals from provisions of laws or regulations because of 

preexisting conditions, such as exempting mining operations existing before new mining 

regulations are implemented from provisions of those new regulations. 

Grazing System: The manipulation of livestock grazing to accomplish a desired result. 

Guidelines: Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, sometimes 

expressed as best management practices. Guidelines may be identified during the land use 

planning process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan specifies 

that they are mandatory. 

Habitat: A specific set of physical conditions that surround a species, group of species, or a large 

community. In wildlife management, the major constituents of habitat are considered to be food, 

water, cover, and living space. 

Habitat Fragmentation: The disruption (by division) of extensive habitats into smaller habitat patches. 

The effects of habitat fragmentation include loss of habitat area and the creation of smaller, more 

isolated patches of remaining habitat. 

Historic Habitat: habitat occupied by a species prior to the development of this plan. 

Impact: A modification of the existing environment caused by an action. These environmental 

consequences are the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives. Effects may be 

either direct, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, or indirect, 

which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable, or cumulative. 

Implementation Decisions: Decisions that take action to implement land use plan decisions. They are 

generally appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Implementation Plan: A site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use plan. An 

implementation plan usually selects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan 

objectives. Implementation plans are synonymous with "activity" plans. Examples of 

implementation plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat management plans, and 

allotment management plans. 

Indian Tribe: Any Indian group in the conterminous United States that the Secretary of the Interior 

recognizes as possessing tribal status. 

Instant Study Area: A natural area formally identified by BLM for accelerated wilderness review by 

notice published before October 21, 1975.

X-33 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Interdisciplinary Team: A group of individuals with different training, representing the physical 

sciences, social sciences, and environmental design arts, assembles to solve a problem or perform 

a task. The members of the team proceed to a solution with frequent interaction so that each 

discipline may provide insights to any stage of the problem and disciplines may combine to 

provide new solutions. The number and disciplines of the members preparing the plan vary with 

circumstances. A member may represent one or more disciplines or BLM program interests. 

Interim Management Policy (IMP): The policy, under which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

manages wilderness study areas (WSAs), to protect their wilderness characteristics, as required 

by Section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). This policy 

requires BLM to manage WSAs so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as 

wilderness, until Congress either designates them wilderness or releases them for management of 

other values and uses. 

Irretrievable: An environmental effect caused by an action, or series of actions, that cannot be reversed 

or undone, until or unless the cause of the effect is removed or the effect is restored or 

rehabilitated (e.g., inundating a river canyon by construction of a dam, clear cut logging a forest). 

The loss of production of renewable resources during the life of a land use plan. 

Irreversible: An environmental effect caused by an action, or series of actions, that can never be reversed 

or undone (e.g., removal of minerals from the ground, extinction of a plant or animal species, loss 

of a cultural resource). 

Lambing Habitat: An area where bighorn sheep deliver and nurse young during a specific time of year. 

Land Use Allocation: The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable development 

that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based on desired 

future conditions. 

Land Use Plan: A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an administrative 

area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of land-use-planlevel decisions developed through the planning process, regardless of the scale at which the 

decisions were developed. 

Land Use Plan Decision: Establishes desired outcomes and the actions needed to achieve them. 

Decisions are reached using the BLM planning process. When they are presented to the public as 

proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not appealable to 

Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Leasable Minerals: Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920. They include coal, phosphate, sulfur, potassium, and sodium minerals, and oil, gas, and 

geothermal. 

Lease: (1) A legal document that conveys to an operator the right to drill for or develop oil, gas, or other 

leasable mineral; (2) the tract of land, on which a lease has been obtained, where producing wells 

and production equipment are located. 

Lease Notice: Provides more detailed information concerning limitations that already exist in law, lease 

terms, regulations, and operational orders. A Lease Notice also addresses special items the lessee 

would consider when planning operations, but does not impose new or additional restrictions. 

Lease Stipulation: A modification of the terms and conditions on a standard lease form at the time of the 

lease sale. 

Lek: An assembly area where birds, especially sage grouse, carry on display and courtship behavior. 

X-34 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Limited Roads and Trails Designation: Designated areas where the use of off-road vehicles is subject to 

restrictions, such as limiting the number or types or vehicles allowed, dates and times of use 

(seasonal restrictions), and limiting all use to designated roads and trails. Under the designated 

roads and trails designation, use would be allowed only on roads and trails that are signed for use. 

Combinations of restrictions are possible, such as limiting use to certain types of vehicles during 

certain times of the year. 

Locatable Minerals: Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking mining 

claims as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of gold, 

silver, and other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale. 

Management Decision: A decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management decisions are 

made on both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions. 

Management Opportunities: A component of the analysis of the management situation; actions or 

management directions that could be taken to resolve issues or management concerns. 

Management Zone (MZ): Area of special management within a SRMA that may include additional 

stipulations. 

Mechanized Travel: Travel by use of a machine either motorized or non-motorized.

Mineral Entry: The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any minerals it may contain. 

Mineral Estate: The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations. 

Mineral Materials: Materials such as common varieties of sand, stone, building stone, gravel, and clay 

that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be acquired under the 

Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended. These are also called salable minerals. 

Mineral Reserves: Known mineral deposits that are recoverable under present conditions but are as yet 

undeveloped. 

Mineral Withdrawal: A formal order that withholds federal lands and minerals from entry under the 

Mining Law of 1872 and closes the area to mineral location (staking mining claims) and 

development. 

Minimize: To reduce the adverse impact of an operation to the lowest practical level. 

Mining Claim: A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having acquired the 

right of possession by complying with the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, and local laws and 

rules. A single mining claim may contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or 

buy. 

Mitigation Measures: Methods or procedures that reduce or lessen the impacts of an action. 

Modification: Changes in the language or provisions of a surface stipulation, either temporarily or 

permanently. 

Multiple Use: The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are 

utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American 

people; making the most judicious use of the lands for some or all of these resources or related 

services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to 

conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some lands for less than all of the 

resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long 

term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including but not 

X-35 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

limited to, recreation, range, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific 

and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources 

without permanent impairment of the productivity of the lands and the quality of the environment 

with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the 

combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or greatest unit output. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): An act that encourages productive and enjoyable 

harmony between man and his environment and promotes efforts to prevent or eliminate damage 

to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; enriches the 

understanding or the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation, and 

establishes the Council on Environmental Quality. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: A system of nationally designated rivers and their immediate 

environments that have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, 

cultural, and other similar values and are preserved in a free-flowing condition. The system 

consists of three types of river classifications: (1) recreation-rivers or sections of rivers that are 

readily accessible by road or railroad and that may have some development along their shorelines 

and may have undergone some impoundments or diversion in the past, (2) scenic-rivers or 

sections of rivers free of impoundments with shorelines or watersheds still largely undeveloped 

but accessible in places by roads, and (3) wild-rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments 

and generally inaccessible except by trails, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive 

and waters unpolluted. 

Non-mechanized Travel: Travel by foot or on an animal.

Neotropical Migratory Birds: Birds that travel to Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and 

Mexico during the fall to spend the winter and then return to the United States and Canada 

During the spring to breed. These birds include almost half of the bird species that breed in the 

United States and Canada. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO): A leasing use constraint that prohibits occupancy or disturbance on all or 

part of the lease surface to protect special values or uses. Lessees may exploit the fluid mineral 

resources under the leases restricted by this constraint through use of directional drilling from 

sites outside the area. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Undeveloped federal land that has been inventoried 

and/or reviewed by a BLM interdisciplinary team and determined to possess wilderness 

characteristics such as those listed in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. (See also 

definition of “Wilderness Characteristics”, below) These lands do not possess special 

management designations like WSAs or protective management measures such as the IMP. 

Noxious Weeds: A plant species designated by Federal of State law as generally possessing one or more 

of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of 

serious insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States. 

Objective: A description of a desired condition for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and measured 

and, where possible, have established time frames for achievement. 

Occupied Habitat: An area occupied by a species during the development of this plan. 

Open: Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific program 

definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual programs. 

X-36 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV): Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or 

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any nonamphibious 

registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being 

used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized 

officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or 

combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies. 

One-Hundred-Year Flood: A hydrologic event with a magnitude that has a recurrence interval of 100 

years. 

Open OHV Areas: Designated areas where off-road vehicles may engage in cross country travel. 

Operator: Any person who has taken formal responsibility for the operations conducted on the leased 

lands. 

Outstandingly Remarkable River Values: Values between those listed in Section 1(b) of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act are "scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or 

other similar values..." Other similar values, which may be considered, include botanical, 

hydrological, paleontological, or scientific. Professional judgment is used to determine whether 

values exist to an outstandingly remarkable degree. 

Paleontological Resources (Fossils): The physical remains of plants and animals preserved in soils and 

sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are important for understanding past 

environments, environmental change, and the evolution of life. 

Paleontology: A science dealing with the life forms of past geological periods as known from fossil 

remains. 

Plan of Development: A mandatory plan, developed by an applicant of a mining operation or 

construction project that specifies the techniques and measures to be used during construction and 

operation of all project facilities on public land. The plan is submitted for approval to the 

appropriate Federal agency before any construction begins. 

Plan of Operations: A plan for mining exploration and development that an operation must submit to 

BLM for approval when more than 5 acres a year will be disturbed or when an operator plans to 

work in an area of critical environmental concern or a wilderness area. A plan of Operations must 

document in detail all actions that the operator plans to take from exploration through 

reclamation. 

Planning Area: A geographical area, including all land ownerships, for which BLM land use and 

resource management plans are developed and maintained for the BLM-administered lands 

within that geographical area. 

Planning Criteria: The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and interdisciplinary 

teams for their use in forming judgments about decision making, analysis, and data collection 

during planning. Planning criteria streamline and simplify the resource management planning 

actions. 

Potential Wild and Scenic River: A flowing body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or tributary 

thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, rills, and small lakes. 

Prescribed Fire: The introduction of fire to an area under regulated conditions for specific management 

purposes. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Non-motorized, non-mechanized and undeveloped types of 

recreational activities. 

X-37 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Production Well: A well drilled in a known field that produces oil or gas. 

Project Area: The area of land upon which an operator conducts mining operations, including the area 

needed for building or maintaining of roads, transmission lines, pipelines, or other means of 

access. 

Project Plan: Detailed survey and design plan. 

Public Land: Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of 

the Interior through the BLM, except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf, and land held 

for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

Quarry: An open or surface working, usually for the extraction of stone, slate, limestone, etc. 

Range Development: A structure, excavation, treatment or development to rehabilitate, protect, or 

improve lands to advance range betterment. 

Rangeland: Land used for grazing by livestock and big game animals on which vegetation is dominated 

by grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs. 

Raptor: Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks such as hawks, owls, vultures, and 

eagles. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD): The prediction of the type and amount of oil, 

gas and other mineral activity that would occur in a given area. The prediction is based on 

geologic factors, past history of drilling, projected demand for oil and gas, and industry interest. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision that was 

preceded by the preparing of an environmental impact statement. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A recreation management tool used to identify existing outdoor 

recreational opportunities and management potential, based on a combination of three criteria: 

recreational activity, setting and experience. Although used in the development of the 1991 San 

Juan RMP, it is not used in the current Monticello RMP. 

Recreational River: A wild and scenic river classification that identifies those rivers or sections of rivers 

that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their 

shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Relict: A remnant or fragment of the vegetation of an area that remains from a former period when the 

vegetation was more widely distributed. 

Resource: The natural, biological, and cultural components of the environment, including air, soil, water, 

vegetation, wildlife, minerals, historic and prehistoric (cultural) sites and features, and fossils. 

Land use plans set goals and objectives for desired outcomes for management of the various 

resources in a planning area. 

Resource Use: Human uses of resources for the social and economic benefit of society, including mining, 

energy production, livestock production (grazing), recreation (motorized, non-motorized), forest 

production (timber, fire wood, fence posts), utility corridors (power lines, pipelines, roads), and 

communication sites. Land use plans identify allowable uses of the public lands and set goals and 

objectives for desired outcomes for resource uses. 

Resource Management Plan (RMP): A land use plan as prescribed by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act which establishes, for a given area of land, land-use allocations, coordination 

guidelines for multiple-use, objectives and actions to be achieved. 

X-38 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Right-of-Way (ROW): A ROW grant is an authorization to use a specific piece of public land for a 

specific project, such as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and renewable energy and 

communication sites. The grant authorizes rights and privileges for a specific use of the land for a 

specific period of time. 

Riparian Area: A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. 

Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the influence of 

permanent surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas include lands along, adjacent to, or 

contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and 

the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are ephemeral streams or 

washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil. 

Riparian-Functioning at Risk (FAR): Riparian-wetland areas are considered to be in functioning 

condition, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to 

degradation. 

Riparian-Non-Functioning (NF): Riparian-wetland areas that are clearly not providing adequate 

vegetation, landform, or large wood debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, 

and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc. 

Riparian-Properly Functioning Condition (PFC): Riparian/wetland areas are in PFC when adequate 

vegetation, landform, or woody debris is present to: dissipate high-energy water flow, filter 

sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve floodwater retention and 

groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks; develop diverse fluvial 

geomorphology (pool and channel complexes) to provide habitat for wildlife and support greater 

biodiversity 

Rock Art: Petroglyphs or pictographs. 

Route: Linear line for motorized travel.

Rutting Habitat: An area where big game species engage in breeding activities during specific times of 

the year. 

Salable Minerals: Common variety minerals on the public lands, such as sand and gravel, which are used 

mainly for construction and are disposed of by sales or special permits to local governments. Also 

referred to as mineral materials. 

Scenic Byways: Highway routes, which have roadsides or corridors of special aesthetic, cultural, or 

historic value. An essential part of the highway is its scenic corridor. The corridor may contain 

outstanding scenic vistas, unusual geologic features, or other natural elements. 

Scoping: The process of identifying the range of issues, management concerns, preliminary alternatives, 

and other components of an environmental impact statement or land-use planning document. It 

involves both internal and public viewpoints. 

Section 7 Consultation: The requirement of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that all federal 

agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service 

if a proposed action might affect a federally listed species or its critical habitat. 

Section 106 Compliance: The requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that 

any project funded, licensed, permitted, or assisted by the Federal Government by reviewed for 

impacts to significant historic properties and that the State Historic Preservation Officer and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be allowed to comment on a project. 

Sediment Yield: The amount of sediment produced in a watershed, expressed in tons, acre feet, or cubic 

yards, of sediment per unit of drainage are per year. 

X-39 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Sensitive Soils: Sensitive soils" are those identified as having characteristics that make them extremely 

susceptible to impacts or they may be more difficult to restore or reclaim after disturbance -- 

characteristics such as high wind or water erosion hazard (steep slopes), moderate to high salinity, 

low nutrient levels, low water holding capacity (droughty), or high water table (wetland/riparian 

soils). Information used to identify sensitive soils includes NRCS published soil surveys, 

ecological site descriptions, local monitoring records and research studies. 

Sensitive Species: All species that are under status review, have small or declining populations, live in 

unique habitats, or need special management. Sensitive species include threatened, endangered, 

and proposed species as classified by the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

Significant: An effect that is analyzed in the context of the proposed action to determine the degree or 

magnitude of importance of the effect, wither beneficial or adverse. The degree of significance 

can be related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant 

impacts. 

Slope: The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal. 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA): Areas, which require explicit recreation management 

to achieve recreation objectives and provide specific recreation opportunities. 

Special Status Species: Includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under the 

Endangered Species Act; State-listed species; and BLM State Director-designated sensitive 

species (see BLM Manual 6840-Special Status Species Policy). 

Stipulations: Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. Some stipulations are standard 

on all Federal leases. Other stipulations may be applied to the lease at the discretion of the surface 

management agency to protect valuable surface resources and uses. 

Strategic Plan: A plan that establishes the overall direction for the BLM. This plan is guided by the 

requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act or 1993, covers a 5-year period, 

and is updated every 3 years. It is consistent with FLPMA and other laws affecting the public 

lands. 

Surface Disturbance: activities that normally result in more than negligible disturbance to public lands 

and that accelerate the natural erosive process. These activities normally involve use and/or 

occupancy of the surface, cause disturbance to soils and vegetation, and are usually caused by 

motorized or mechanical actions. Surface disturbance may result from activities using earthmoving and drilling equipment; geophysical exploration; off road vehicle travel; vegetation 

treatments; the use of pyrotechnics and explosives; and construction of facilities like powerlines, 

pipelines, oil and gas wells, recreation sites, livestock facilities, wildlife waters, or new roads. 

Surface disturbance is not normally caused by casual use. Activities that are not typically surface 

disturbing include, but are not limited to, proper livestock grazing, cross-country hiking, 

minimum impact filming and vehicle travel on designated routes. 

Sustainability: The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, biological 

diversity, and productivity over time. 

Threatened Species: Any plant or animal species defined under the Endangered Species Act as likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range; listings are published in the Federal Register. 

X-40 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Timing Limitation Stipulation: A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits surface use during 

specified time periods to protect identified resource values. The constraint does not apply to the 

operation and maintenance of production facilities unless analysis demonstrates that such 

constraints are needed and that less stringent, project-specific constraints would be insufficient. 

Undertaking: A project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect 

jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; 

those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or 

approval; and those subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or 

approval by a Federal agency. 

User Day: Any calendar day, or portion thereof, for each individual accompanied or serviced by an 

operator or permittee on the public lands of related waters; synonymous with passenger day or 

participant day. 

Utility Corridor: A parcel of land that has been identified by law, Secretarial order, through a land use 

plan or by other management decision as being the preferred location for existing and future 

right-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate one type of right-of-way or one or more rightsof-way which are similar, identical or compatible. 

Valid Existing Rights: Valid existing rights are legal rights to use the land that were in existence prior to 

implementation of the decisions in the RMP. The most significant types of valid existing rights 

are oil and gas leases, potash and salt leases, mining claims, and right-of-way authorizations. 

Examples of how BLM views valid existing rights including oil and gas leasing stipulations 

specified for specific areas in this new RMP would not apply to existing leases. These existing 

leases would be subject to the specific lease stipulations that were applied under the previous land 

use plan. Mining claims that exist on the effective day of a withdrawal may still be valid if they 

can meet the test of discovery of a valuable mineral required under the Mining Laws. An existing 

right-of-way would only be subject to the specific terms and conditions that were applied when it 

was authorized even if it is located within a right-of-way exclusion or avoidance area specified 

under the RMP. 

Vegetation Manipulation: Alteration of vegetation by using fire, plowing, or other means. 

Vegetation Type: A plant community with distinguishable characteristics described by the dominant 

vegetation present. 

Visual Resources: The visible physical features of a landscape (topography, water, vegetation, animals, 

structures, and other features) that constitute the scenery of an area. 

Waiver: Permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies anywhere 

within the leasehold. See also Exception and Modification. 

Water Quality: The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to its 

suitability for a particular use. 

Watershed: All lands, which are enclosed by a continuous hydrologic drainage, divide and lay upslope 

from a specified point on a stream.

Way: A vehicle route within a wilderness study area that was in existence and identified during the 

FLPMA Section 603-mandated wilderness inventory. The Interim Management Policy for Lands 

under Wilderness Review (H-8550-1) defines a way as "a trace maintained solely by the passage 

of vehicles which has not been improved and/or maintained by mechanical means to ensure 

relatively regular and continuous use." The term is also used during wilderness inventory to 

identify routes that are not roads. The term developed from the definition of the term "roadless" 

provided in the Wilderness Inventory Handbook (September 27, 1978), as follows: "roadless: 

X-41 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

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." 

Wild, Scenic or Recreational River: The three classes of what is traditionally referred to as a "Wild and 

Scenic River." Designated river segments are classified as wild, scenic and/or recreational, but 

the segments cannot overlap. 

Wild, and Scenic River Study: Rivers identified in Section 5 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for 

study as potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The rivers shall be 

studied under the provisions of Section 4 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Wilderness Study Area: A roadless area or island of undeveloped federal land that has been inventoried 

and found to possess wilderness characteristics described under Title VI, Section 603 of FLPMA 

and Section 2C of the Wilderness Act of 1964. These characteristics are: (1) generally appears to 

have been affected mainly by the forces of nature, with human imprints substantially 

unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is large enough 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 historic value. 

Wilderness: A congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation that is protected 

and managed to preserve its natural conditions as described in Section 2A of the Wilderness Act 

of 1964. 

Wilderness Characteristics: Key characteristics of wilderness listed in section 2 (c) of the Wilderness 

Act of 1964 and used by BLM in conducting wilderness inventories. These characteristics are 

features of the land associated with the concept of wilderness that specifically deal with 

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. These 

characteristics may be considered in land use planning when BLM determines that those 

characteristics are reasonably present, of sufficient value (condition, uniqueness, relevance, 

importance), and need (trend, risk), and are practical to manage (from IM-2003-275, Change 1, 

Considerations of Wilderness Characteristics in LUP, Attachment 1). 

Wildfire: Any unwanted wild land fire. 

Wildland Fire: Any nonstructural fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wild land. 

Winter Range. The portion of the winter range to which a wildlife species is confined during periods of 

heaviest snow cover. 

Withdrawal: An action that restricts the use of public lands by removing them from the operation of 

some or all of the public land or mining laws. 

Woodland: A forest community occupied primarily by noncommercial species such as juniper, mountain 

mahogany, or quaking aspen groves; all western juniper forestlands are classified as woodlands, 

since juniper is classified as a noncommercial species. 

X-42 
REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 1999. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for 

Hydrogen Sulfide. Section 6 Potential for Human Exposure, 6.3.2 Transformation and Degradation. 

Available for download at: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp114.html or NTIS Publication # 

PB/99/166696. 

Air Resources Laboratory (ARL). 2006. HYSPLIT (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated 

Trajectory) Model Overview and User's Guide. HYSPLIT Trajectory Model produced by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Air Resources Laboratory, August. 

Available for download at: http://www.llnl.gov/es_and_h/esh-manual/volume2.html. . 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2005. RS 2477 Project. [Accessed January 2005]. 

Available at http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/trails/rs2477/. 

Anyon, Roger. 1995. Letter to the Editor. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 13(5). 

Armour, C.L., D. A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream 

ecosystems. Fisheries 16 (1): 7-11. 

Atwood, G., and H. H. Doelling. 1982s. History of Paradox Salt Deformation. Utah Geological and 

Mineral Survey Survey Notes, Volume 16, No. 2. Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Baker, A.A., Duncan, D.C., and Hunt, C.B, 1952. Manganese deposits of southeastern Utah: U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 979-B, p.63-157. 

Baron, 2006: Baron, J.S. 2006. Hindcasting nitrogen deposition to determine an ecological critical load. 

Ecological Applications 16(2): 433-4. 

Behnke, R.J., and R. F. Raleigh. 1979. Grazing and the riparian zone: Impact and management 

perspectives. General Technical Report WO-12. Washington, DC: US Forest Service. 

Belsky, A. J. and D. M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in 

Upland Forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology, Vol. 11 No. 3. 

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of Livestock Influences on Stream and Riparian 

Ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 54, pp. 419-

431. 

Blahna D. and D. Reiter. 2001. Utah Rivers Study. Published in the International Journal of Wilderness 

Volume 7, Number 1. 

Bowker, J.M.; Harvard, J.E., III; Bergstrom, John C.; Cordell, H. Ken; English, Donald B.K.; Loomis, 

John B. 2005. “The Net Economic Value of Wilderness”, The Multiple Values of Wilderness: 161-

181. (USFS, Southern Research Station, 2005). 

Bowker, Matthew A., Jayne Belnap, and Mark E. Miller. 2006. Spatial Modeling of Biological Soil 

Crusts to Support Rangeland Assessment and Monitoring, Rangeland Ecol Manage 59:519–529 | 

September. 

Brew, John O. (editor). 1946. Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah. Volume 1. Papers of the 

Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnography. 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Brew. 1979. Hopi Prehistory and History to 1850. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 514-523. 

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D. C. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1981a. Planning for Recreation Resources. BLM Manual 8320. 

Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 1981b. Habitat Management Guides for the American Pronghorn Antelope. Technical Note, U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management. Denver Service Center. 77 pp. 

BLM. 1984. Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional Final EIS. Bureau of Land Management, 

Richfield Field Office. 

BLM. 1985. Management Situation Analysis for the San Juan Resource Management Plan, 4111-4142. 

Bureau of Land Management, Moab District, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1986a. San Juan Resource Management Plan, Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. San Juan Resource Area, Moab District, Bureau of Land 

Management, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 1986b. Visual Resource Contrast Rating, BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1. 

BLM 1987. San Juan Resource Management Plan. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. San Juan Resource Area, Moab District, Bureau of Land 

Management, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 1990. Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Bureau of Land 

Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 1991 Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen 

Western States and associated Records of Decision. BLM Wyoming State Office, Casper, Wyoming. 

(BLM-WY-ES-91-036-4320) 

BLM. 1991a. Resource Management Plan Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary for the 

San Juan Resource Area, Moab District, Utah. March. 

BLM. 1991b. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (Utah) Vegetation 

Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. 

BLM. 1991c. Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report, Volume IIB, Summary Analysis of Study Area 

Recommendations, USDOI, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

October. 

BLM. 1993a. Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and 

Management. BLM Manual 8351. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. December 22. 

BLM. 1993b. Bighorn Sheep Rangeland Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field 

Office, Moab, Utah.C 

BLM. 1993c. Grand Gulch Plateau Cultural and Recreation Area Management Plan. Monticello BLM 

Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 1993d. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. BLM, Proper Functioning Condition 

Work Group, TR 1737-9. 51 pp. 

BLM. 1995. Manual Handbook H-8550-1, Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. 

X-2 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

BLM 1996. Utah BLM Statewide Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. 

BLM 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management on BLM Lands in 

Utah. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington. D.C. May 20. 

BLM 1998a (revised), Paleontology Resources Management Manual and Handbook H-8270-1, 38 p. 

BLM. 1998b. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for 

Lotic Areas. BLM, USDA-FS, and USDA-NRCS, TR 1737-15. 126 pp. 

BLM. 1999a. Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Handbook. BLM Manual Handbook H-1742-1. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/handbook/h1742-1.pdf -3.7M. Accessed 8/9/06. 

BLM. 1999b. Utah Wilderness Inventory. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake 

City, Utah. 

BLM. 2000. BLM Prescribed Fire Manual H-9214, July 12. Available at: 

www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/rx/rxfireguide.pdf 

BLM. 2001a. Soil Suitability Extension (v 1.0). A BLM soils analysis tool for use with STATSGO and 

SSURGO data. National Science and Technology Center. 

BLM. 2001b. TR 1730-2: Biological soil crusts: ecology and management. National Science and 

Technology Center, Denver, CO. 

BLM. 2001c. Special Status Species Management – Manual 6840. Rel. 6-121. 

BLM. 2002a. National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. November 

BLM. 2002b. Commercial River Permit Stipulations, BLM Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 2002c. Instruction Memorandum Environmental Justice - No. 2002-164. May 2002 

BLM. 2002d. Draft BLM Sensitive Plant Species List. Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

BLM. 2003a. EMS Transmission 04/04/2003. Instruction Memorandum No.2003-137. Integration of the 

EPCA Inventory Results into Land Use Planning and Energy Use Authorizations. April 3. 

BLM 2003b. as amended Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services Work Plan. May . 

BLM 2003c. Instruction Memorandum 2004-007: Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan Guidance for 

Wildland Fire Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington D.C. October 7. 

BLM. 2003d. Preliminary Eligibility Determination of Wild and Scenic Rivers, Monticello Field Office, 

Monticello, Utah August. 

BLM. 2003e. GIS coverage data. For VRM classes and acreages. Monticello Field Office, Monticello, 

Utah. 

BLM. 2003f. Woodland Sales for FY 2000–2003. Monticello, Utah: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Field Office. Woodlands 

BLM. 2003g. Resource Development Group Uinta Basin Natural Gas Project, Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. July. 

BLM. 2004a. GIS data. Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah 

X-3 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

BLM 2004b. Scoping Report. Bureau of Land Management, Moab and Monticello Field Offices, Utah. 

June. 

BLM. 2004c. Monticello Field Office Final Eligibility Report, Wild and Scenic River Eligible WSR 

Segments, Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 2004d. National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C. November. 

BLM. 2004e. Monticello Field Office. San Juan County, Utah Social and Economic Baseline Study. 

April. 

BLM. 2004g. Pinyon-Juniper Treatment Inventory, Monticello Field Office. Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 2005. Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record Environmental Assessment. UT-090-

00-47 Indian Creek Corridor Plan and EA, BLM Monticello Field Office. 

BLM. 2005a. Land Use Planning Handbook. BLM Handbook H-1601-1. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 2005b. Monticello FO. Mineral Potential Report for the Monticello Planning Area. Monticello, 

Utah. July 2005 

BLM. 2005c. Analysis of Management Situation (AMS) for the Monticello Planning Area. Bureau of 

Land Management, Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. January

BLM. 2005d. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas. Bureau of Land 

Management, Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 2005e. ACEC Evaluations. Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Field Office, Monticello, 

Utah. July. 

BLM. 2005f. Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the 

Western United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, 

D.C. June. 

BLM. 2005g. Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management. UT-USO-04-01; BLM 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. September 

BLM. 2005h. Land and Mineral Records – LR2000 System Data [online database]. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. [Accessed January 15, 2005]. http://www.blm.gov/ lr2000/. 

BLM. 2005i. Anasazi Heritage Center website. http://www.co.blm.gov/ahc/anasazi.htm#Who. Accessed 

12/14/05. ch 3 cultural 

BLM. 2005j. Analysis of Management Situation (AMS) for the Moab Planning Area. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2005k. Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment. Bureau of Land 

Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 2005l. Suggested Management Practices in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation 

Plan. Prepared by Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. minerals 

BLM, 2005m. Indian Creek Corridor Plan and and Environment Assessment UT- 090-00-47, BLM 

Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. October. 

X-4 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

BLM. 2005n. Proposed Dillon Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impacts Statement. 

Dillon Field Office. Dillon, Montana. April 2005. 

BLM. 2006a. Fire, Fuels, and Related Vegetation Management Direction Plan Amendment and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Upper Snake River District, Idaho Falls, Idaho. July 2006. 

BLM. 2006b. Bureau of Land Management News: BLM and Forest Service Announce 2006 Federal 

Gazing Fee. [Accessed August 10, 2006]. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2006/pr060202_grazing.htm. 

BLM. 2006c. Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah. Vernal 

Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 

BLM. 2006d. GIS data from BLM Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM. 2007. Final Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement and associated Record of Decision. USDI, BLM (FES 07-21) 

BLM. 2007. Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Draft Supplemental Integrated Activity 

Plan/Envionmental Impact Statement. USDOI BLM, August 2007. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/npra_general/ne_npra/ne_npr-a_supplement.html. 

BLM 2007a. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Evaluations, BLM Monticello Field 

Office, Monticello, Utah. 

BLM 2007b Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Report 

BLM. 2007c. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Soil, Water, and Air Inventory & Research 

Available at http://www.ut.blm.gov/monument/soils-hydrology-soil-water-air-research_soil.php 

BLM. 2007d. GIS coverage data. For VRM classes and acreages. Monticello Field Office, Monticello, 

Utah 

Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service (BLM and FS). 2005. Oil and Gas Surface 

Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development "Gold Book." 4th ed. Prepared by 

the Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 

Butler, B. S., G. F. Loughlin, V. C. Heikes, and others. 1920. The Ore Deposits of Utah. U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 111. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Butler, W. C. 1996. Northern Arizona Province (024). In 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil 

and Gas Resources—Results, Methodology, and Supporting Data, ed. D. L. Gautier, G. L. Dolton, K. 

I. Takahashi and K. L. Vranes. U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Washington, D.C. 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2002. El Dorado County Air Pollution Control Act 

(APCD). California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guide. First Edition – February 2002. 

Available for download at: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ or www.co.eldorado.ca.us/emd/pdf/ExecSum_RF6.pdf 

Chaneton, E. J., and R. S. Lavado. 1996. Soil nutrients and salinity after long-term grazing exclusions in a 

Flooding Pampa grassland. Journal of Rangeland Management 49(2):182-187.

X-5 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Chatman, M. L. 1987. Mineral Resources of the Black Ridge Canyons (CO-070-113), Black Ridge 

Canyons West (CO-070-113A/UT-060-1166/117), and Westwater Canyon (UT-060-118) Wilderness 

Study Areas, Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah. U.S. Bureau of Mines Open-File 

Report MLA 44-87. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. 

Chenoweth, W. L. 1981. The Uranium and Vanadium Deposits of the Uravan Mineral Belt and Adjacent 

Areas, Colorado and Utah. New Mexico Geological Society Thirty-second Field Conference. 

Chenoweth, W. L. 1990. A history of uranium production in Utah. In Energy and Mineral Resources of 

Utah: Salt Lake City, ed. M. L. Allison, 113-124. Utah Geological Association Publication 18. Utah 

Geological Association, Salt Lake City. 

Chenoweth, W. L. 1993. The geology and production history of the uranium deposits in the White 

Canyon mining district, San Juan County, Utah. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 

93-3. Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Chenoweth, W. L. 1996. The Uranium Industry in the Paradox Basin. In Geology and Resources of the 

Paradox Basin – 1966 Special Symposium: Utah Geological Association and Four Corners 

Geological Society Guidebook 25, ed. A. C. Huffman, Jr., W. R. Lund, and L. H. Godwin, 95-108. 

Utah Geological Association and Four Corners Geological Society. 

Clark, W. D., and J. R. Karr. 1979. Effects of highways on red-winged blackbird and horned lark 

populations. Wilson Bulletin 91: 143-145. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28 (4): 967-985. 

Connelly, John W., Steven T. Knick, Michael A. Schroeder, and San J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation 

Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Cordell, L. S. 1997. Prehistory of the Southwest. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego. 

Courlander, Harold. 1971. The Fourth World of the Hopi. Crown Publishers, New York. 

Crawford, J.A., R.A.Olson, N.E.West, J.C. Mosley, M.A. Schroeder, T.D.Whitson, R.F. Miller, 

M.A.Gregg, and C.S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and Management of Sage-grouse and Sage-grouse 

Habitat. Journal and Range Management 57: 1-19.

Dames and Moore. 1978. Inventory and market analysis of the potash resources of the Paradox Basin. Job 

No. 08699-011. Prepared by Dames and Moore, Salt Lake City. Prepared for Bureau of Land 

Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

Davis, William. 1989. The Lime Ridge Clovis Site. Utah Archaeology Volume 2(Number 1):66-76. 

Department of Energy (DOE). 2003. Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. 

Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

Desert Bighorn Council. 1990. Guidelines for management of domestic sheep in the vicinity of desert 

bighorn habitat. Prepared by Desert Bighorn Council Technical Staff. Desert Bighorn Council 

Transactions. 34: 33-35. 

D.K.Shifflet & Associates. 2006. 2005 Utah Overnight Leisure Visitor Profile. Prepared for the Utah 

Department of Tourism. September. 

X-6 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Dillehay, Tom D. (editor). 1997. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile: The 

Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Volume 2. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 

Dobbs, R. C., P. R. Martin, and T. E. Martin. 1998. Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus). In The Birds 

of North America, No. 368 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Dobson A.T. 1973, Changes in the structure of riparian community as the result of grazing. Proc. New 

Zealand Ecol. Soc. 20: 58-64. 

Drilling, N., R. Titman, and F. McKinney. 2002. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 658 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Dixon, H. 1935. Ecological studies in the high plateaus of Utah. Botanical Gazette, 97: 272-320. 

Edwards, T. C., Jr., C. G. Homer, S. D. Bassett, A. Falconer, R. D. Ramsey, and D. W. Wight. 1995. Utah 

Gap Analysis: An environmental information system. Final project report 95-1, Utah Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife 

Ellis, Florence Hawley. 1956. Anthropological Evidence Supporting the Land Claim of the Pueblos of 

Zia, Santa Ana, and Jemez. In Expert Testimony Before the Indian Claims Commission: the Written 

Reports, edited by Norman A. Ross. Clearwater Publishing Company, New York. 

Ellis. 1967. Where did the Pueblo People Come From? El Palacio 74(3):35-43. 

Ellis. 1974. Anthropology of Laguna Pueblo Land Claims. In Pueblo Indians III, pp. 7-120, Garland 

American Indian Ethnohistory Series. Garland Publishing, New York. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government 

[internet database]. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. [Accessed February 2, 

2007]. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/. 

Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H) 2006. Environment, Safety and Health Manual. Volume II, 

Health and Safety – Controls and Hazards. Document 12.3, Evaluation and Control of Facility 

Airborne Effluents. Approval date: July 13, 2000. Editorial Revision: January 10, 2005. Produced by 

the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550. Operated by the University of 

California for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. Available for 

download at: http://www.llnl.gov/es_and_h/esh-manual/volume2.html August 2006. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Visibility in Mandatory Federal Class I Areas (1994-

1998)- A Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina. 

EPA. 2003a. AIRData Homepage, Nonattainment Area Map. Website. Located at 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/nonat.html. (last updated April 11, 2003). 

EPA. 2003b. AIRData Homepage, Monitoring Values Report. Website. Located at 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html (last updated July 2 2003). 

EPA. 2003c. Visibility Homepage. Visibility in our Nation's Parks and Wilderness Areas. Website. 

Located at http://www.epa.gov/oar/visibility/monitor.html. (last updated February 19, 2003). 

EPA. 2003d. STORET Legacy Data Center (http://www.epa.gov/storpubl/legacy/gateway.htm). 

EPA 2003e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

December. Available for download at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/index.html 

X-7 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Executive Order 12898. 1994. President Clinton. Federal Register Vol. 59. No. 32 February 16. Page 

7629. 

Ferguson, T. J. 1997. Hopi Reconnaissance of the Carlota Copper Project: Ethnohistoric Overview and 

Cultural Concerns. On file at SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City. 

Ferguson, T. J., and E. Richard Hart. 1985. A Zuni Atlas. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Ferguson, T. J., Kurt Dongoske, Leigh Jenkins, Mike Yeatts, and Eric Polingyouma. 1993. Working 

Together: The Roles of Archaeology and Ethnohistory in Hopi Cultural Preservation. CRM 16 

(Special Issue): 27-37. 

Fitzgerald, J.P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of 

Natural History and University Press of Colorado, Niwot. 

Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. 

Conservation Biology 8(3): 629-644. 

Forman, R. T. T. and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics 29: 207-231. 

Ford, Richard I., Albert H. Schroeder, and Stewart L. Peckham. 1972. Three Perspectives on Puebloan 

Prehistory. In New Perspectives on the Pueblos, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 19-39. University of 

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Foreyt W. J. and D. A. Jessup. 1982. Fatal pneumonia of bighorn sheep following association with 

domestic sheep. Journal of Wildlife Disease. Apr; 18(2):163–168. 

Fox, 1989: Fox, D.G., Bartuska, A.M., Byrne, J.G., Cowling, E., Fisher, R., Likens, G.E., 

Lindberg, S.E., Linthurst, R.A., Messer, J., and Nichols, D.S. 1989. A Screening Procedure to 

Evaluate Air Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. Forest Service General Technical 

Report RM-168 

Frid, A., and L. M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. 

Conservation Ecology 6(1): 11. 

Galindo-Bect, M. S., and Glenn, E. P. 1999. Panaeid shrimp landing in the upper Gulf of California in 

relation to Colorado River freshwater discharge. Fishery Bulletin 98(1): 222-225. 

Gautier, D. L., G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes. 1996. 1995 National Assessment of the 

United States Oil and Gas Resources – Results, Methodology, and Supporting Data. U.S. Geological 

Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, release 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Geib, Phil 

R. 1996 Glen Canyon Revisited. 

Gilpin, Dennis. 2001. Social Transformations and Community Organization in the Southwest San Juan 

Basin, New Mexico: Archaeological Investigations along Navajo Route 9, Twin Lakes to Standing 

Rock. Ms on file, SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Gautier, D. L., G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes. 1996. 1995 National Assessment of the 

United States Oil and Gas Resources – Results, Methodology, and Supporting Data. U.S. Geological 

Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, release 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Gelbard J. L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. 

Conservation Biology 17 (no.2 ): 420-432. 

X-8 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Gloyn, R. W. 2004. Uranium Potential in Utah. Unpublished report. Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake 

City. 

Gloyn, R. W., C. D. Morgan, D. E. Tabet, R. E. Blackett, B. T. Tripp, and M. Lowe. 1995. Mineral, 

Energy, and Ground Water Resources of San Juan County, Utah. Geological Survey Special Study 

86. Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 2007. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands. 

Datasets and Images. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, Analysis Graphs and Plots. New York, 

New York. Available at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.Irg.gif 

Grandison, K. W. 2004. Monitoring the effectiveness of bat compatible gates in the Silver Reef, East Reef 

and Tushar Mountain mining districts in southwestern Utah [online publication]. Bureau of Land 

Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. [Last Accessed June 20, 2007]. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/aml/pdfs/ BLM2004SummaryReportUtahBat.pdf. 

Grayson, Donald K. 1993. The Desert's Past: A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington. 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee (GSRSC). 2005. Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Rangewide Conservation Plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. April. 

Hackman, R. J. and D. G. Wyant 1973. Geology, structure and uranium deposits of the Escalante 

Quadrangle, Colorado and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Map, I-744, scale 1:250,000. 

Hahn, Gregory, and Jon P. Thorson. 2002. Geology of the Lisbon Valley Sandstone-hosted Disseminated 

Copper Deposits, San Juan County, Utah. Unpublished manuscript. 

Hart, C. M., M. R. Gonzalez, E. P. Simpson, and S. H. Hurlbert. 1998. Salinity and fish effects on Salton 

Sea microecosystems: Zooplankton and nekton. Hydrobiologia 381: 129-152. 

Hart, E. Richard. 1993. The Fence Lake Mine Project: Archaeology as Traditional Cultural Property. 

CRM 16:38-41. 

Haynes, D. D., J. D. Vogel and D. G. Wyant. 1972. Geology, structure and uranium deposits of the Cortez 

quadrangle, Colorado and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Map, I-629, scale 1:250,000. 

Hintze, L. F. 1975. Geological Highway Map of Utah. Brigham Young University Geological Studies 

Special Publication 3. 

Hintze, L. F.; G. C. Willis; D. Y. M. Laes; D. A. Sprinke and K. D. Brown 2000. Digital Geologic Map of 

Utah. Digital version UGS Map 179DM, Utah Geological Survey in cooperation with US geological 

Survey. CD Rom format. 

Hite, R. J. 1960. Stratigraphy of the saline facies of the Paradox Member of the Hermosa Formation of 

southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado. In Geology of the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt, Four 

Corners Geological Society Guidebook, Third Field Conference, 86-89. 

Holmes, Barbara E. 1989. American Indian Use of El Malpais. Office of Contract Archaeology, 

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Holzworth, G. C. 1972. Mixing Heights, wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout 

the Contiguous United States. Office of Air Programs AP-10, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. 1995. Definition and Application of the TCP Concept of the Hopi 

Tribe. Ms. On file at Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, Kykotsmovi, Arizona. 

X-9 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Horr, David Agee (editor). 1974. Commission Findings on the Pueblo Indians, Pueblo of Laguna et al., 

Pueblo de Acoma, The Navajo Tribe of Indians v. The United States of America. Pueblo Indians V. 

Garland Publishing, New York and London. 

Huffman, A. Curtis, Jr. 1996a. Paradox Basin Province (021). In 1995 National Assessment of United 

States Oil and Gas Resources—Results, Methodology, and Supporting Data, ed. D. L. Gautier, G. L. 

Dolton, K. I. Takahashi and K. L. Vranes. U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Huffman, A. Curtis, Jr. 1996b. Paradox Basin Province (021). In 1996 Digital Map Data, Text, and 

Graphical Images in Support of the 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas 

Resources, compiled by W. R. Beeman, R. C. Obuch, and J. D. Brewton. U.S. Geological Survey 

Digital Data Series DDS-35. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Interior Board of Land Appeals. 2007. Interior Board of Land Appeals Index Website 

http://www.ibiadecisions.com/Ibla/iblaindexes/IblaVols/140ibla.html. Last accessed 22 June 2007. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: the Physical Basis 

(Summary for Policymakers). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England, and New York, 

New York. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf 

Jennings, Jesse D. 1989. Prehistory of North America. Third Edition. ed. Mayfield Publishing., Mountain 

View. 

Jessup. D. A. 1985. Diseases of domestic livestock which threaten bighorn sheep populations. Desert 

Bighorn Council Transactions. 29:29-30. 

Johnson, H. S., and William Thordarson. 1959. The Elk Ridge-White Canyon Channel System, San Juan 

County, Utah: Its Effects on Uranium Distribution. Economic Geology 54:119-129. 

Johnson, M. G. 1973. Placer Gold Deposits of Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1357. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Kauffman, J.D., W.C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Effects of cattle grazing on riparian plant 

communities. Journal of Rangeland Management 36: 683-685. 

Kelly, I. T., and C. S. Fowler. 1986. Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 

368-397. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington D.C. 

Kondolf, G. M., R. Kattelmann, M. Embury, and D. Erman.1997. Status of Riparian Habitat. In 

Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Vol. II of Status of the Sierra Nevada: 

The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, edited by D. Erman, 1017. U.S. Geological Survey Digital 

Data Series DDS-43. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Kufeld, R. C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Range Management 26:106-113. 

Kitchen, S. 2004. Kitchen, eds. IN: Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. 

General Technical Report INT-GTR-313, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 

Ogden, Utah. 

Lanner, Ron. 1984 Trees of The Great Basin -- A Natural History University of Nevada Press. 

Laverty, L. and Williams, J. 2000. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted 

Ecosystems, A Cohesive Strategy. U.S. Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

X-10 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Lentsch, L., and Y. Converse. 1997. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat 

Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the State of Utah. Publication Number 97-20. Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

Leonard, S., G. Kinch, V. Elsbernd, M. Borman, and S. Swanson. 1997. Riparian area management. 

USDI Bur. Land Manage.Tech. Ref. 1737-14. Denver, Colo. 

Lewis, C.E., and T.J. Harshbarger. 1976. Shrub and Herbaceous Vegetation after 20 years of prescribed 

burning in the South Carolina Coastal Plain. Journal of Range Management29: 13-18. 

Lowry Jr., J. H., R. D. Ramsey, K. Boykin, D. Bradford, P. Comer, S. Falzarano, W. Kepner, J. Kirby, L. 

Langs, J. Prior-Magee, G. Manis, L. O'Brien, T. Sajwaj, K. A. Thomas, W. Rieth, S. Schrader, D. 

Schrupp, K. Schulz, B. Thompson, C. Velasquez, C. Wallace, E. Waller and B. Wolk. 2005. 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project: Final Report on Land Cover Mapping Methods. RS/GIS 

Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan. 

MacMahon, J. A. 1988. Warm deserts. In North American Terrestrial Vegetation (M. G. Barbour and W. 

D. Billings, 3400. Eds.), Cambridge, New York, pp. 232-264. 

Martinsen, W., D. Paul, J. McCreary, F. Howe, T. Aldrich, J. Parrish, R. Berger, R. Player, S. Hedges, T. 

Wallace, J. Tuhy, D. Fagan. 2005. Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture. 73 pp. 

Maryboy, Nancy and David Begay. 2000. The Navajos. In A History of Utah's American Indians. Utah 

Division of Indian Affairs and the Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

McCollum, F. T., and M. L. Galyean. 1985. Cattle grazing blue grama rangeland. II. Seasonal forage 

intake and digesta kinetics. J. Range Manage. 38:543546. 

McPherson, Robert. 1995. A History of San Juan County; In the Palm of Time. Utah State Historical 

Society, Salt Lake City, UT. 

McPherson, Robert S. and Mary Jane Yazzie. 2000. The White Mesa Utes. In A History of Utah's 

American Indians. Utah Division of Indian Affairs and the Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake 

City, Utah. 

McDougall, T. 2000a. Mineral Potential Report for the Nokai Dome Wilderness Inventory Area. Bureau 

of Land Management, Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

McDougall, T. 2000b. Mineral Potential Report for the Fort Knocker Canyon Wilderness Inventory Area. 

Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Field Office, Monticello, Utah. 

McFaul, E. J. 2000. U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Databases - MRDS and MAS/MILS. U.S. 

Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-52. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

McVickar, J. L. (editor). 2001. An Archaeological Survey of Natural Bridges National Monument, 

Southeastern Utah. Intermountain Cultural Resources Management. Copies available from 

Professional Paper No. 64. 

Menke, J., C. Davis, and P. Beesley. 1997. Rangeland Assessment. In Assessments and Scientific Basis 

for Management Options. Vol. II of Status of the Sierra Nevada: The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project, edited by D. Erman, 1017. U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-43. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Merritt, J., N.D. Belliston, and S.A. Dewey. 2000. Noxious Weed Field Guide for Utah. Cache County 

Weed Department, Logan, UT. 

X-11 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Merrell, H. W. 1979. Mineral Resource Inventory of the Paradox Salt Basin, Utah and Colorado. Utah 

Geological and Mineral Survey Report of Investigation No. 143. Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake 

City. 

Miller, R.F. and R.J. Tausch. 2001. The role of fire in juniper and pinyon woodlands: a descriptive 

analysis. Tall Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous Publication No. 11:15-30. 

Molenaar, Molly R. 2003a. Utah Department of Transportation Highway 6 Improvement Project: Native 

American Consultation and the Identification of Traditional Cultural Properties. In progress for 

SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Salt Lake City. 

Molenaar. 2003b. Stone Cabin 3D Seismic Survey Project: Native American Consultation and the 

Identification of Traditional Cultural Places. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Price 

Field Office, Utah and Bill Barrett Corporation. In Progress for Bill Barrett Corporation, Denver, 

Colorado. 

Molenaar 2003c. Native American Ethnographic Survey: Price and Vernal Resource Management Plans. 

In Progress for SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Salt Lake City. 

Molenaar, Molly, Charles Easton, Louise Senior, Clint Lindsay, and Jim Christensen.2005. Ethnographic 

Overviews and Assessment for the Moab and Monticello Field Offices BLM. DRAFT. SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City. 

Monsen, S. B. 2004. Controlling plant competition. Pgs. 57-64. In Restoring Western Ranges and 

Wildlands. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. 

Morrison, S. J., and W. T. Parry. 1986. Formation of carbonate-sulfate veins associated with copper ore 

deposits from saline basin brines, Lisbon Valley, Utah: Fluid inclusion and isotopic evidence. 

Economic Geology 81:1853-1866. 

Morrow, L.A. and P.W. Stahlman. 1984. The history and distribution of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) 

in North America. Weed Science 32, Supplement 1: 2-6. 

Mosley, Jeffrey C., Cook, Philip S., Griffis, Amber J., and Jay O'Laughlin. 1997. Guidelines for 

Managing Cattle Grazing in Riparian Areas to Protect Water Quality: Review of Research and Best 

Management Practices Policy. University of Utah College of Natural Resources Policy Analysis 

Group Report Number #15. December. Available at http://www.uidaho.edu/cfwr/pag/pag15es.html 

National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: Highlights of 

National Academies Reports. Division of Earth and Life Studies. National Academy of Sciences. 

Washington, D.C. Available at: http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004. Climate date for Utah. Website. Located at 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/city.html.

National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG). 2001. National Energy Policy: Reliable, 

Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future. Report of the National Energy 

Policy Development Group to the President of the United States. May. Available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf 

National Park Service (NPS). 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on 

BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States and associated Records of Decision. BLM Wyoming State 

Office, Casper Wyoming. 1991. (BLM-WY-ES-91-036-4320) 

X-12 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

National Park Service (NPS). 2002. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Bulletin 

15 (Internet version). National Park Service. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands 

in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and associated Record of 

Decision. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 2007. (FES 07-21) 

National Park Service. Glenn Canyon National Recreation Area. 1999. Grazing Management Plan. 

National Weather Service (NWS). 2006. National Weather Service: Support During Hazardous Materials 

Emergencies. Prepared under NWS Directive 10-518 to allow better dispersion and transport 

prediction of hazardous emissions releases. Available for download at: 

http://meted.ucar.edu/dispersion/disp_ops/txt/menu.htm. August 2006. 

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.6. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 

24, 2006). 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1993. Soil Survey of San Juan County, Utah, Central 

Part. 

Nelson, S. M., and S. A. Flickinger. 1992. Salinity tolerance of colorado squawfish. Hydrobiologia 246: 

162-168. 

Newton, Virginia. 1999. An Overview of Native American Land Use in East Central Utah, Grand, Emery, 

Carbon, Sanpete, and Utah Counties: The Aspen Products Pipeline Project. On file, SWCA 

Environmental Consultants Report No. 99-24, Salt Lake City. 

Nielson, A.S., J.C. Janetski, and J.D. White (editors). 1985. Final Recapture Wash Archaeological 

Project, 1981-1983, San Juan County, Utah. Prepared for the San Juan County Water Conservancy 

District. 

Northern Arizona University (NAU) and SWCA Environmental Consultants. 1996. Final Report: 

Animas-La Plata Ethnographic Study, Volume I, A Traditional Cultural Properties Survey. 

Submitted to United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region. 

Olff, H., and M. E. Ritchie. 1998. Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity. TREE 13(7):261-

265. 

Oliver, G. V. 2000. Bats of Utah, A Literature Review. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Publication 

Number 00-14. 140 pp. 

Osborn, Alan J. and Ralf J. Hartley. 1988. Adverse Effects of Domestic Livestock Grazing on the 

Archaeological Resources of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. National Park Service, Midwest 

Archaeological Center, Transactions and Proceedings Series 10. 

Pachak, Joe, Winston Hurst, and Roger Stack. 1992. Ute and Navajo Rock Art in San Juan County: 

Petroglyphs Sketched by Joe Pachak, Winston Hurst, and Roger Stack. Blue Mountain Shadows: The 

Magazine of San Juan County History 11:63-69. 

Panteah, Loren, and Zuni Cultural Resources Advisory Team. 1997. Zuni Traditional Cultural Properties 

Reconnaissance Assessment for the Proposed Carlota Copper Mine Project, Tonto National Forest. 

On file, SWCA Inc., Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City. 

X-13 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. 1989. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties. National Register 38. Washington: National Park Service, Interagency Resources 

Division, Department of the Interior. (Undated publication issued in 1989). 

Parrish, J. R., S. P. Howe, R. E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy 

Version 2.0. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1594 west North 

Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, UDWR Publication Number 02-27. i-xiv + 302 pp. 

Patterson, Charles G. 1989. Mineral Resources of the Indian Creek, Bridger Jack Mesa, and Butler Wash 

Wilderness Study Areas, San Juan County, Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1754. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Perlman, Susan E. 1998. Traditional Cultural Properties Survey of the Mid-America Pipeline Company's 

Proposed Rocky Mountain Expansion Project, Northwestern New Mexico, Western Colorado, and 

Eastern Utah. Cultural Resource Report 98-163. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., 

Albuquerque. 

Pettit, Jan. 1990. Utes: The Mountain People. Johnson Books, Boulder. 

Piemeisel, R. L. 1951. Causes affecting change and rate of change in a vegetation of annuals in Idaho. 

Ecology 32: 53-72. 

Pierson, Lloyd M. 1980. Cultural Resource Summary of the East Central Portion of Moab District. 

Cultural Resource Series. No. 10. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office., Salt Lake City. 

Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid 

fishes and their habitats, edited by W. R. Meehan, 389-423. Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD: 

American Fisheries Society. 

Popolizio, C. A., H. Goetz, and P. L. Chapman. 1994. Short-term response of riparian vegetation to four 

grazing treatments. Journal of Rangeland Management 47: 48-53. 

Pueblo of Zuni. 1995. Statement of Cultural Affiliation with Prehistoric and Historic Cultures. July 11. 

Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico. 

Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland, 1: 

Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warblers breeding close to a highway. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 31: 85-94. 

Reijnen, R. and R. Foppen. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. 4. 

Influence of population size on the reduction of density close to a highway. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 32: 481-491. 

Reiter, D. and Blahna, D. 1998a. Utah River Study Results Report: Recreational Use, Value, and 

Experience of Boaters on Rivers managed by the BLM in Utah. Utah State University, Institute for 

Outdoor Recreation and the Bureau of Land Management. 

Reiter and Blahna 1998b. Off-Highway Vehicle Four-Wheel Survey. Institute for Outdoor Recreation and 

Tourism, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. September. 

Ritzma, H. R. 1979. Oil-impregnated rock deposits of Utah. Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey 

Map 47, 2 p. Scale 1:1,000,000. 

Ritzma, H. R., and H. H. Doelling. 1969. Mineral Resources, San Juan County, Utah and Adjacent Areas, 

Part I: Petroleum, Potash, Groundwater, and Miscellaneous Minerals. Utah Geological and 

Mineralogical Survey Special Studies 24. Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, Salt Lake City. 

X-14 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Romin, L. A., and J. A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and 

Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City. 

Rotenberry, J. T., M. A. Patten, and K. L. Preston. 1999. Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri). In The 

Birds of North America, No. 390 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Ruppe, Reynold J., Jr. 1990. The Acoma Culture Province: an Archaeological Concept. Garland 

Publishing, Inc., New York. 

Ruppe, Reynold J., Jr. and Alfred E. Dittert. 1952. The Archaeology of Cebolleta Mesa and Acoma 

Pueblo. El Palacio 59:191-217. 

Saab, V. A., C. E. Bock, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects in western North 

America. In Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds: A Synthesis and Review of 

Critical Issues, edited by T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, 311-353. London: Oxford University Press. 

Sando, Joe S. 1982. Nee Hemish: a History of Jemez Pueblo. University of New Mexico Press, 

Albuquerque. 

San Juan County. 1996. San Juan County Community Development Department. San Juan County Master 

Plan. 

San Juan County. 2002a. Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan. October.

San Juan County. 2002b. San Juan County Community Development Department. Business and Personal 

Relocation Information. 

Sarr, D., R. A. Knapp, J. Owens, T. Balser, and T. Dudley. 1996. Ecosystem recovery from livestock 

grazing in the southern Sierra Nevada. Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, 

Montana. 

Sawyer, H., R. Neilson, and L. McDonald. 2006a. Sublette Mule Deer Study (Phase II): Long-term 

Monitoring Plan to Assess Potential Impacts of Energy Development on Mule Deer in the Pinedale 

Anticline Project Area, 2006 Annual Report. Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

Sawyer, H., R. M. Neilson, F. Lindzey, and L. L. McDonald. 2006b. Winter habitat selection of mule deer 

before and during development of a natural gas field. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:396-403. 

Schroeder, Albert H. 1985. Hopi Traditions and Rio Grande Pueblo Migrations. In Prehistory and History 

of the Southwest, edited by Nancy L. Fox, Archaeological Society of New Mexico, pp. 105-112. 

Ancient City Press, Inc., Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Schroedl, Alan R. and N.J. Coulam. 1994. Cowboy Cave Revisted. Utah Archaeology Volume 7 (Isssue 

1):1-34. 

Seidel, J. W. 1977. Elk calving behavior in west central Colorado. Pp. 38-40 in Proc. Western States Elk 

Workshop, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 

Shackleton, D.M., C.C. Shank, and B.M. Wikeem. 1999. Rocky Mountain and California bighorn. Pages 

78-138 in Mountain sheep of North America. Valdez, R. and P.R. Krausman. 1999. The University of 

Arizona Press Tuscon, Arizona. 

Sheley, R., J. Petroff, M. Borman. 1999. Introduction to Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland 

Weeds, Corvallis, OR. 

X-15 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Simms, Steven R. 1988. Conceptualizing the Paleoindian and Archaic in the Great Basin. In Early Human 

Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by J. A. Willig, C. 

M. Aikens and J. L. Fagan, pp. 41-48. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Nevada State Museum, Carson 

City. 

Singer, F. J., L. C. Zeigenfuss, and L. Spicer. 2001. Role of patch size, disease, and movement in rapid 

extinction in bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 15(5):1347–1354. 

Sogge, M.K., R.M. Marshall, S.J. Sferra, and T.J. Tibbitts. 1997. A Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

natural history summary and survey protocol. Tech. Rep. NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-97/12, U.S. 

Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, Colorado Plateau Field Station, Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff. 

Sonoran Institute. 2003. Population, Employment, Earnings and Personal Income Trends: San Juan 

County, Utah. April. 

Sonoran Institute. 2005. SocioEconomic Profile: San Juan County Utah. Economic Profile System 

Community, December. 

Spangler, Jerry. 1995. Paradigms & Perspectives: a Class I Overview of Cultural Resources in the Uintah 

Basin and Tavaputs Plateau. Uintah Research: Salt Lake City. 

Sparrow, A.D., M.H. Friedel, and D. Tongway. 2003. Degradation and recovery processes in arid grazing 

lands of central Australia Part 3: implications at landscape scale. Journal of Arid Environments 55 

(2): 349-358. 

Spence, J.R. Unpub. Spring-supported vegetation along the Colorado River, Colorado Plateau: Floristics, 

vegetation structure and environment. 

Sprinkel, D. A. 1999. Digital Geologic Resources Atlas of Utah. Bulletin 129DF. Utah Geological 

Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York, New York. 

Stevens, R. 2004. Management of restored and revegetated sites. Pgs. 193-198. In Restoring Western 

Ranges and Wildlands. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. 

Stevens, R and Monsen S.B. 2004. Mechanical plant control, Pgs. 65-88. In Restoring Western Ranges 

and Wildlands. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2004. Ethnographic Overview and Assessment for Moab and 

Monticello Field Offices BLM. 

Swarthout, E. C. H., and R. J. Steidl. 2003. Experimental effects of hiking on breeding Mexican spotted 

owls. Conservation Biology 17(1): 307-315. 

Swedlund, Alan and Duane Anderson. 1999. Gordan Creek Woman Meets Kennewick Man: New 

Interpretations and Protocols Regarding the Peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity (64):569-

576. 

Tipps, Betsy L., William A. Lucius, Kenneth W. Russell, Alan R. Schroedl and Craig S. Smith. 1988. The 

Tar Sands Project: An Inventory and Predictive Model for Central and Southern Utah. BLM Cultural 

Resource Series No. 22. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

X-16 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Trimble, S. W., and A. C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent: A critical review. 

Geomorphology 13: 233-253. 

Trinity Consultants (Trinity). 2003. Draft Air Quality Assessment Report – Moab and Monticello Field 

Office Planning Areas. 

Trinity Consultants (Trinity), and Nicholls, Craig (BLM). 2006. Air Quality Assessment Report - Vernal 

and Glenwood Springs Resource Management Plans. 

Trites, A.F., Jr., and Chew, R.T., 3rd, 1955, Geology of the Happy Jack mine, White Canyon area, San 

Juan County, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1009-H, p. 235-248. 

U.S. Census Bureau. (USCB) 2000. The United States Census 2000. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Webpage: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html Accessed: 

January 30, 2006. 

USCB. 2007a. Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties of New Mexico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 

2006 (CO-EST2006-01-35). Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Released March 22, 2007. 

[Accessed September 6, 2007] Available at: http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2006-

01.html. 

USCB. 2007b. Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties of Utah: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 

(CO-EST2006-01-49). Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Released March 22, 2007. 

[Accessed September 6, 2007] Available at: http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2006-

01.html. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic 

Accounts.http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/definitions/nextpage.cfm?key=Per%20capita%20personal

%20income Accessed: December 21, 2005 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. National Agricultural Statistical Service. Census 

of Agriculture. 

USDA, White House Council on Environmental Quality, and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 

2002. Fact Sheet S-0504.02. Administrative Actions to Implement the President's Healthy Forests 

Initiative, December 11. 

U. S. Department of Interior (USDI), 1985 Bureau of Land Management Manual 3031, Energy and 

Mineral Resource Assessment. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 2000. Minerals Management Service. Mineral Revenue 

Management. Website: http://www.mrm.mms.gov/ Accessed: January 31, 2006 

USDI. 2003. EMS Transmission 07/21/2003. Instruction Memorandum No.2003-221. Categorical 

Exclusions for Hazardous Fuels Treatments and Post-Fire Rehabilitation Projects. July 16. 

USDI. 2005. Payment In Lieu of Taxes: County Payments and Acres. Website: 

http://www.nbc.gov/pilt/search.cfm#search. Accessed: January 26, 2006. 

USDI, USDA, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National 

Association of State Foresters. 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy. January. 

X-17 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

U.S. Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy. 2003. The Paradox/San Juan, Uinta/Piceance, 

Greater Green River, and Powder River Basins and the Montana Thrust Belt. In Scientific Inventory 

of Onshore Federal Lands' Oil and Gas Resources and Reserves and the Extent and Nature of 

Restrictions or Impediments to Their Development. U.S. Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and 

Energy, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 1987. Environmental Assessment for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, 

Lakewood, Colorado 

USFWS. 1988. Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 

USFWS. 1990a. Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Colorado River Fishes Recovery Team, 

Denver. Prepared for Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 1990b. Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 43 

pp. 

USFS. 1992. Recommended Old-Growth Definitions and Descriptions and Old-Growth Allocation 

Procedure. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. September. 

USFS. 1993. Characteristics of Old-growth Forests in the Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. April. 

USFWS. 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vol.I. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 172 pp. 

USFWS. 1996. California condor recovery plan: Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 

1, Portland, Oregon. 

USFWS. 1998. Razorback sucker recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, 

Colorado. 

USFWS. 1999. Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Colorado River Fishes Recovery 

Team, Denver. Prepared for Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 2002a. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals, Amendment and Supplement to the Bonytail 

Chub Recovery Plan, Final Revision 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 2002b. Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the 

Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), 

Denver, Colorado. 

USFWS. 2002c. Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Plan (Amendment and 

Supplement for Recovery Goals), Final Revision 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, 

Salt Lake City. 

USFWS. 2002d. Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen fexanus) Recovery Plan, Amendment and Supplement for 

Recovery Goals, Final Revision 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 2002e. Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii 

extimus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque. 

U.S. Forest Service (FS). 1986. Record of Decision and Summary, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Land and Resource Management Plan, Manti-LaSal National Forest. Pp.42. 

X-18 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

USFS. 1993 Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region. April 

USFS 2005. US Forest Service Position Paper: Off Highway Vehicles. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/unmanaged-recreation-position-paper.pdf. Last 

accessed Oct 1, 2007. 

USFS. 2007. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results for Moab Field Office. Prepared for the Bureau of 

Land Management Region 16 by the U.S. Forest Service Visitor Use Monitoring Program. Published 

September 2006. 50 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. National Gap Analysis Program. 2004. Provisional Digital Land 

Cover Map for the Southwestern United States. Version 1.0. RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural 

Resources, Utah State University. 

USGS. 2006. Surface Water data for the Nation. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw. Accessed February 6, 

2006. 

USGS. 2007. Biological Soil Crusts. USGS Canyonlands Research Station, Southwest Biological Science 

Center, Moab Utah. Available at http://www.soilcrust.org/ 

Utah Administrative Code (UAC). 2006. Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R307-204 Smoke 

Management and Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R307-205 Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust. 

Aug 01. Available for download from the State of Utah, Division of Administrative Rules Homepage 

under: Title R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality at: 

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r307/r307.htm 

Utah Department of Community and Culture, Division of Housing and Community Development. 2005. 

Legislative Report of the Permanent Community Impact Fund. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2000a. Southeast Colorado Watershed Management 

Water Quality Assessment Report. 

UDEQ. 2000b. Utah Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan. Prepared by the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality in cooperation with the Utah Nonpoint Source Task Force. October. Available 

at: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/NPS_Mgmt_Plan_2001.pdf 

UDEQ. 2002. Utah's 2002 303(d) List of Waters. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake 

City. 

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2004. Economic Impact Analysis of the Drilling and 

Completion of a Natural Gas Well in the Uintah Basin. Utah Department of Natural Resources: Utah 

Energy Office. August 2004. 

Utah Department of Workforce Services (Workforce Services). 2005. San Juan County Demographic and 

Economic Profile. August. 

Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining (UDOGM). 2004. December 2003 Production Book [online 

publication]. Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining. [Accessed January 2004]. Available at 

http://ogm.utah.gov/oilgas/PUBLICATIONS/Reports/2003_prd/book1203.htm. 

UDOGM. 2006. Book Report: Utah Oil and Gas Production by County. Website: 

http://www.ogm.utah.gov/oilgas/default.HTM. Accessed: January 22. 

Utah Division of Travel Development. 2004. 2004 State and County Economic &Travel Indicator 

Profiles. 

X-19 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Utah Division of Water Resources (UDWRe). 2000. Utah State Water Plan, Southeast Colorado River 

Basin. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2000. Utah upland game annual report – 1999. 

Publication 00-27. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

UDWR. 2002. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Upland Game Information. Located at http:// 

www.wildlife.utah.gov/uplandgame. Accessed 9/30/02. 

UDWR. 2002a. Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse. Publication 02-20. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. June. 

UDWR. 2005. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Publication Number 05-19. Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. September. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and BLM. 2003. Sagebrush die-off acre data. 

Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey (UGMS). 1966. Gold Placers in Utah – A Compilation. Utah 

Geological and Mineralogical Survey Circular 47. Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, Salt 

Lake City. 

Utah Geological Survey (UGS). 2003. Utah's Gold Placers [online database]. Utah Geological Survey. 

[Accessed November 2003]. Available at http://geology.utah.gov/online_html/pi/ pi-50/pi50plac.htm. 

Utah State Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB). 2002. Race and Ethnicity in Utah: Third 

in a Series of Census 2000 Analyses. April. Available at: http://governor.utah.gov/dea/Minorities.pdf 

Varien, M.B., W. Lipe, M. Adler, I. Thompson, and B. Bradley. 1996. Southwestern Colorado and 

Southeastern Utah Settlement Patterns: AD 1100-1300. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World AD 1150-

1350., edited by M. Adler. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Vallentine, J.F. 1961. Important Utah Range Grasses. Utah State Univ., Ext. Circ. 281. 

Walcek C.J. 2002. Medium-Range Plume Dispersion Calculated Directly from Surface-Derived Shear 

and Turbulence Estimates. Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, 

Albany, New York, 12203, U. S. A. 

Weir, G.W., and Puffet. W.P. 1981. Incomplete manuscript on stratigraphy and structural geology and 

uranium-vanadium and copper deposits of the Lisbon Valley area, Utah – Colorado: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 81-0039, 279 p. 

Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Federal Interagency 

Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). Washington, DC. 

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). 2004. Fugitive Dust Handbook. Prepared by Countess 

Environmental, Westlake Village, CA. WGA Contract No. 30204-83. November 15. 191 pages. 

Available for download at: http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/WRAP/INDEX.html 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), Desert Research Institute. 2004. Temperature and 

precipitation for meteorological stations in Eastern Utah. Website. Located at 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/index.html 

Whisenant S.G. 2004. Vegetative manipulation with prescribed burning, Pgs. 101-120. In Restoring 

Western Ranges and Wildlands. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. 

X-20 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

Witkind, I.J. 1964, Geology of the Abajo Mountains area, San Juan County, Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 453, 110 p. 

Williams, P.L., and Hackman, R.J., 1971, Geology of the Salina Quadrangle, Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-591-A, 1 sheet (scale 1:250,000). 

Wilson, W. L., and A. L. Livingston. 1980. Stratigraphy and coal resources of the Dakota Sandstone in 

the Sage Plain, southwest Colorado and southeast Utah. In Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium of 

the Geology of Rocky Mountain Coal, ed. L. M. Carter, 69-72. Colorado Geological Survey 

Resources Series 10. Colorado Geological Survey, Denver. 

Woodbury, Richard B. 1979. Zuni Prehistory and History to 1850. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, 

pp. 467-473. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. 

C. 

Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1982. Elk Ridge. In Geologic Characterization Report for the Paradox 

Basin Study Region Utah Study Areas, vols. II and III. Prepared for Battelle Memorial Institute, 

ONWI-290. Prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 

Young J.A. and R.A. Evans. 1973. Downy brome- intruder in the plant succession of big sagebrush 

communities in the Great Basin. Journal of Range Management 26(6): 410- 415. 

Young, J. A., P. C. Martinelli, R. E. Eckert, Jr., and R. A. Evans. 1999. Halogeton. Miscellaneous 

Publication 1553. Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, D. 

Zeveloff, S., and F. Collett. 1988. Mammals of the Intermountain West. University of Utah Press, Salt 

Lake City, Utah. Pp. 288-290. 

Zwickel, F. C. 2005. Blue Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus). The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North American 

Online database: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Blue_Grouse/. 

X-21 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS References 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

X-22